According to her, while young women may possess considerable charms, men's desire for them always vastly outstrips supply. The reverse is simply not the case: men are both less attractive to women, and markedly less desired by them, especially as those women grow older. What Hakim terms "the male sex-deficit" underlies both the ubiquity of female sexual imagery – as pornography, as marketing adjunct – and the persistent unwillingness of society at large to "valorise" women's good looks. It is, quite simply, not in the interests of all those priapic patriarchs to allow women to actualise their erotic capital, for to do so would seismically alter the balance of power between the sexes.Ah, but feminism is precisely about valorizing women's good looks. The balance of power between the sexes is already seismically altered because women now have (or soon will have) equality in every way and then all their sexual power on top of that. To make things worse, Norwegian men are even criminalized for purchasing sex while women can legally sell.
That the religiously dogmatic and the merely male chauvinist should have both demonised – and, paradoxically, diminished – the impact of female sexuality from time out of mind, is, following Hakim, only to be expected. In Anglo Saxon societies, such as our own, the net result is, she avers, that we have less sex overall than they do in steamier, less puritanical climes, while our sexual relations are mediated by a tiresome push-me, pull-you interaction: men wanting sex, women refusing it. According to Hakim, Christian monogamy is, quite simply, a "political strategy" devised by the patriarchy in order to ensure that even the least attractive/wealthy/powerful men gain at least one sexual partner.Indeed, to ensure that most men get a partner is exactly why I believe we should return to Christian monogamy. Whether there is more sex overall in "steamier, less puritanical climes" is beside the point, because it isn't evenly distributed. When women get more freedom to choose, they reject more men, and these men will tend to act as a destabilizing force against civilization, as I know from personal experience.
I may not agree with Hakim's conclusion, which apparently is a call for further female empowerment through prostitution, but it looks like this book is a good resource for debunking the feminist lie that there are no essential sex differences in sexual motivation, as it is said to be "complete with rather leaden prose, extensive annotation, reams of statistical evidence, appendices and tedious repetitions" all pointing to the fact that sexuality is a resource that belongs to women.
Hakim's view is that the myth of "equality of desire" is endorsed by feminists, and that this leads to what she terms the "medicalisation of low desire", whereby therapists and counsellors try to convince women that their lack of sex-drive is a function of psychopathology rather than hormones. She anticipates being criticised by feminists as an "essentialist", who defines men and women by biological characteristic, but rejoins – I think fairly – that the feminist position is equally so.Yes, the feminist denial of sex differences also harms women in some ways. But these are just minor inconveniences compared to the huge benefit women reap from denying human nature. Because only by denying female erotic capital can feminists credibly sustain the illusion that women have been oppressed and thus justify all their coercive "equality."
Empowerment through prostitution sounds like a good idea in theory (if the possibility of catching some STD wasn't large). I wonder how many would do it.
Also, women might be getting lots of benifits due to denying their erotic capital from your point of view, but the way many women see it (not just me), it's not much of a benifit, since it can lead women into becoming sluts and reaping the consequences, while others are looked upon as fridig freaks for waiting out. Not to mention civilization threatening to collapse :). Not good at all.
You may not see much benefit to your female erotic capital, Emma, but we would need a much bigger sample of women in order to conclude that you are representative. Since I see most women around me at least tacitly supporting feminism, I have to assume it suits them just fine.
BTW, in case anybody still doubts that Emma is a real person, pictures of us together can be viewed here.
get a life! Get yourself some real interests and enjoy your life before it`s over! It`s nothing more than tragic that you use all your time on this theme. There`s more to life looser...
LOL and you should do something with your hair! No wonder noone wants you :-D
Eivind: I`ve heard that your parents and siblings (and childhood-friends) are disgusted by you and want nothing to do with you. Do you have a comment on that?
I`ve heard that too. And I`ve also heard that he is so sick because his parents raped him when he was young. Makes sense... Poor guy...
Let`s hope someone helps him before it`s too late...
Hi. Interesting interpretation of Hakim. In some other places on your blog you comment that the ban against the purchase of sex is one example of the way statefeminists curb you "natural rights" as a man. You also link to the naked anthropologist. In those paragraphs it looks like you support women who decide to sell sex as they supply a good that you are willing to pay for. Here you write that you oppose prostitution as a legitimate way for women to capitalize on their erotic capital and that you wish to install Christian monogamy instead. Can you elaborate what you actually mean because I am confused. Secondly, you present yourself as a educated man, yet from my perspective your understanding of social relations such as between the women come out as uninformed and based on presumptions, anecdotes, personal experiences and a form of romanticization of a mast masculine glory. Can you tell me what ideal time and space you would prefer to live in, that would suit your "natural" needs as you see them better than the time and place you live in right now. Please explain to me what needs you see as "natural" and which ones you see as socialized and informed by the time and age you live in. The reason I ask is that some places it seems that all you need is for your sexual fantasies or desires to be fulfilled,(and you oppose the ban against prostitution) while other places you write as if what you are searching for is a committed partner (hence you rejection of prostitution). I am trying to make sense of what you are writing, and would appreciate if you elaborated on this theme: what is it, from your perspective, that men "need" and "want"? What do you imagine women "need" and "want"? Please specify more than you have done so far, and please use your own words.
Hi Synnøve. First to clear up the apparent contradiction of advocating Christian monogamy and legal prostitution at the same time: These are not mutually exclusive. Monogamy as the norm and prostitution to some degree have coexisted before and still do in many countries. The male sex drive being what it is, prostitution will always exist no matter what you do. I oppose criminalizing prostitution for fundamental libertarian reasons, but I also wouldn’t encourage women to monetize their sexuality to the degree that Hakim seems to be suggesting (I have ordered the book and will read it, so it’s still possible that I get the wrong idea of her views). I am not against women capitalizing their sexuality. However, they can’t on top of that use the state to coerce equality as if erotic capital does not exist or is equal. I think in a non-feminist society, where women have no special entitlements and the cops don’t help them drive up the price of sex by criminalizing various aspects of normal male sexuality, monogamy will be more popular, and the remaining prostitution will not be a problem.
So where I stand on prostitution is that it should be tolerated but not encouraged. Monogamy would ensure at least one woman for most men, so prostitution is not then a great necessity, but it would nonetheless exist. Now in a feminist state such as Norway, where we have de facto polygyny, getting a woman at all is much harder than it used to be for a lot of men. So prostitution may be the only way beside rape that we may be able to have sex. For many years of my life, that has been the case. Then purchasing sex was also criminalized in 2008, which left me with literally no way to have sex without being a criminal. This was the straw that broke the camel’s back and led to my planning a far worse crime, until I was lucky enough to get a girlfriend.
Sorry for removing my posts. I had technical issues and posted the same questions several times. It is interesting to read that the ban has been so pervasive in your life. Thank you for explaining your thoughts further on this. What crime did you actually plan? I do not understand all of your arguments, and especially I do not understand what you mean when you say that the male sex drive is what it is. What is it? And what makes you think it is the same for all, and what do you assume the female drive is like? I find it paradoxical that you call your self a libertarian, yet still you seem to reject an expansion on the liberties of women, when it comes in conflict with your interests as male. I am not sure what exactly those interests are, so please explain as this is not self evident to all, even though you might think it is. I for one am not a man, and neither do I think I know all about what it is to be a woman, as we come in different shapes and follow different paths in life. As I read you now it seems as if the diagnosis of a faulty society is based on your former trouble finding a sexual partner outside a commercial context, prostitution (and pornography?). What I really have problems understanding is that your problem finding a partner leads you to conclude that your true problem is feminism (and state feminism with its welfare arrangements). I still wonder if this is only about the prostitution ban, or if you blame feminists for all the trouble you have had with women?
I know these questions were removed, but I will answer them anyway before I get around to the other questions.
Do you not know that there are many ways of being a feminist and that the movement is fragmented?
Yes, I know feminists don’t agree on everything. What they seem to have in common is hatred for men and advocacy for special entitlements for women. While most feminists deny human nature and espouse social constructionism, I know there are even a small number of essentialist feminists, who acknowledge female natural sexual superiority but nonetheless want more special privileges for women. In any case, the relevant feminism I have addressed as a social problem is the strain directly responsible for recent legislation against men. Feminism’s greatest triumph is probably rape law reform, and MRAs need to fight it with proportionate zeal, along with the other new sex laws against men. The crown jewel of feminist legislation is the ban on purchasing sex while selling is still legal, but this is merely the last straw. The feminist police state was not built in a day. I remember as a young boy I heard it was now made illegal to rent housing to prostitutes, which was probably the defining moment where the seed of incipient antifeminist rage was planted in me. (The next step was to criminalize men who paid women under 18 for sex, and my hatred grew.) Since then, umpteen legal reforms against men and a constant barrage of hateful feminist propaganda have made me the MRA I am today. I am personally non-violent, but that could easily have turned out otherwise.
What do you mean when you write that feminism is harming women and that police officers are feminists?
I haven’t had too much to say about feminism harming women, because as far as I can tell they greatly benefit from it. The exception is the backlash that we are only beginning to see. When men get radicalized by a feminist society and turn violent, this is a clear example of feminism harming women indirectly. I also think feminism harms true rape victims because after all the legal reforms to institutionalize false rape accusations, hardly anybody takes rape seriously anymore. Thanks to feminism, when a man is accused of rape these days, it is understood that it is more likely a false accusation (as with DSK) or a legally valid but ludicrous crime (as with Assange) than anything else.
I never said police officers are necessarily feminists. Their personal views are irrelevant. I said they are feminist ENFORCERS (doing their job voluntarily), which is why I hate their guts and believe men are morally entitled to respond to police violence in kind.
Can you tell me what ideal time and space you would prefer to live in, that would suit your "natural" needs as you see them better than the time and place you live in right now.
The 1950s is the best time I can think of, before second-wave feminism. First-wave feminism might have been justified. Second-wave was the corruption of laws pertaining to marriage and the beginning of the criminalization of male sexuality, as well as abortion rights which I am against. Also the beginning of affirmative action. Third-wave feminism, starting in the 1980s is postmodernist denial of human nature and establishment of the totalitarian feminist police state.
Please explain to me what needs you see as "natural" and which ones you see as socialized and informed by the time and age you live in.
I can’t give a complete answer to that, but I can definitely prove that the sexual needs of women and men, which lead to a mating market where men have no intrinsic value and women have all the power, are perfectly natural and not subject to significant socialization. When socialization into traditional gender roles is diminished, our instincts are accentuated and you get more picky women and more promiscuous men –- except it is a zero-sum game, so only women and alpha males can have their way; overall there are more male losers than before.
The reason I ask is that some places it seems that all you need is for your sexual fantasies or desires to be fulfilled,(and you oppose the ban against prostitution) while other places you write as if what you are searching for is a committed partner (hence you rejection of prostitution).
I see having a committed partner as ideal. When I haven’t been able to have a relationship or even a one-night stand in years, then prostitutes have been better than nothing, and of course being made into a criminal for this is a personal attack. I see feminist sex law reform as a hostile, violent attack on me personally and shall be prepared to fight it accordingly if blue feminist-empowered thugs ever come for me. This is the attitude I wish more men would assume.
I am trying to make sense of what you are writing, and would appreciate if you elaborated on this theme: what is it, from your perspective, that men "need" and "want"? What do you imagine women "need" and "want"?
In my personal experience, life overwhelmingly consists of men wanting sex and women wanting to avoid it. Or more precisely, women trying to maximize the cost of sex while men seek the opposite. The state is now solidly on women’s side, with just about any piece of legislation or social policy designed to drive up the cost and risks of sex for men. This isn’t always conscious and is usually denied, but it is the effect of all feminist laws.
We also want love, and sometimes men’s and women’s interests overlap, most obviously when they raise children together. This is also made more difficult by feminism.
I do not understand all of your arguments, and especially I do not understand what you mean when you say that the male sex drive is what it is. What is it?
The male sex drive is such that we basically want to fuck every woman we see. At least all women of reproductive age. Women’s reaction to the raw male sex drive ranges from disgust to fear, depending on how protected they are. However, men are still more or less capable of monogamy, which is desirable for the good of society mainly because otherwise you get a number of disaffected males capable and motivated for violence.
And what makes you think it is the same for all, and what do you assume the female drive is like?
I never said it was exactly the same for all. What matters is the vast difference on average ensures that women have all the power in the sexual market. The female sex drive is weaker and, more importantly, far less egalitarian and also hypergamous. Within relationships the difference is less pronounced or not noticeable at all, but whenever a man is single and trying to get a new partner, the profound imbalance of sexual power becomes manifest. Involuntary celibacy is a uniquely male problem that can last for years, now also enforced by cops.
I find it paradoxical that you call your self a libertarian, yet still you seem to reject an expansion on the liberties of women, when it comes in conflict with your interests as male.
Clearly you either don’t understand libertarianism, or you misrepresent what feminist “liberties” are all about. Feminist expansions of liberties for women (such as affirmative action to effect equality of outcome or increasingly draconian laws against male sexuality) involve the imposition of force on others. Libertarian liberty is exactly the opposite -- the non-aggression principle. Of course, this applies to men and women equally. I have never opposed women’s freedom to do anything they want as long as it does not infringe on the liberty of others, and I never supported aggression against women except as self-defense or a measured response to feminist aggression.
Obviously, the expansion of “liberty” for women to have men jailed for buying sex so that women in general can get more out of their erotic capital, or the “liberty” to force companies to appoint them to certain positions over more qualified men has nothing to do with libertarianism. If you don’t understand this, then you need to read up on elementary political philosophy.
I am not sure what exactly those interests are, so please explain as this is not self evident to all, even though you might think it is.
Men want to get the most bang for our buck, while women want to get the most buck for their bang. Feminism is a sexual trade union devoted to driving up the cost of sex. The world is a vale where men try to get sex, women try to avoid it and the state is squarely on women’s side. It’s all about access to women’s bodies, with feminists and MRAs on opposing sides politically. All of MRA can be divided into two parts: how to get laid and what happens when we do. I have naturally been mostly involved with the former so far, though fathers’ rights and divorce law are also important issues for MRAs, as well as false rape accusations.
I still wonder if this is only about the prostitution ban, or if you blame feminists for all the trouble you have had with women?
I only blame feminism for making it more difficult and criminal to get sex than it should be. Obviously whether you get women is a result of a combination of your own effort and qualities and the political obstacles. My own situation is not all that relevant, as it is possible to criticize society and be an activist without reference to one’s personal life.
You call your self a libertarian, yet seems conservative in your views on sexual morals (e.g wont support empowerment through prostitution), and do not support increased liberties of women, in general it seems, if it comes in conflict with your own (sexual) interests. Like christian conservatives, you blame women's liberation for a society in decline. For me the paradox is that women's increased social, political and economical opportunities would, at least in theory, coincide with your desire of a more liberal sexuality - or was it monogamy? - I am still confused. My biggest question is this: Why is feminism and legal changes that regulate sex your biggest problem with the society you live in, when you seem to know so little about it? Most of all: why do you want to reinstall womens dependency on a male partner? How will that make monogamy more popular? And by the way, your claim that monogamy is declining in popularity is simply false, esp in Norway. Compare with any other state, or historic period, and you will see that you need to reconsider your claim. I suspect you, like many others, romanticize an imagined past, that simply never existed.
And, is not prostitution just another form of economic dependency, or did you imagine that the women who sold you sexual services did it for other reasons? Why would you label the increasingly criminalisation of prostitution as exclusively feminist? There are other interests involved in regulating prostitution than the empowerment of women, even if parts of the womens movement would like to portray it as a feminist victory. Besides, there are plenty of states that prohibit prostitution without them qualifying for the label feminist policies. The Norwegian laws are not the worst. Honestly I have difficulties seeing the link between your personal trouble and your identified social problem. As I see it feminism is not your biggest problem.
Are you willing to consider other parts of your social context that would help you understand why you have had difficulties finding a partner, and why women would reject your advances, other than feminism? What if, as Emma hints at above. Women reject direct sexual advances because they fear the whore stigma, just as an asexual man, or a man with no sexual partner, fear the stigma of the homosexual. What if your problems with finding a sexual partner is more complex than feminism? What if you, compared to say, a man of your age in Egypt, find yourself in an extremely privileged position?
Honestly I have difficulties seeing the link between your personal trouble and your identified social problem. As I see it feminism is not your biggest problem. So, for the sake of this discussion, lets say you accept my claim, where would you direct your anger and frustration? You seem to have a lot of it.
And where have you learned that all feminists hate men? What do you base this assumption on? That is almost like saying that everyone who support FRP hates women.
"There are other interests involved in regulating prostitution than the empowerment of women,"
Yes, I agree, prostitution should be regulated, and banning it seems like a step away from that. I haven't heard much positive news about that new law (the one that forbids buying sex), just news about prostitutes having a harder life since it's been passed... I don't think prostitution can ever be completely eradicated, so regulation is the best thing you can do for people who are involved in it. Creating laws that hurt people involved (prostitutes, men who can't get sex any other way) is not the solution, regulation is (I suggest making it legal, prostitutes should have guards and get good protection against diseases, and they should be able to get help to quit and get a new education if they want to choose that).
I'm not yet convinced this law was created to make normal women even more powerful, I think it might have been a well-meant idea. I just don't get why they don't fix their mistake after so many years. This kind of gives rise to the suspicion that they are letting it go on for other reasons, so I can see why Eivind would think it's a feminist victory.
Also, I have to add that even if he had no problems with women in his life, he would still be right to disagree with any unfair laws Norway might have, simply because they are unfair. It's unusual to get angry over laws that don't affect you just based on their unfairness, but some people do that. It's not all about his life and problems.
Obviously Eivind can point at unjusts in the world without them being about himselv, that is what we call solidarity. However, most of the issues he seems to care about comes of as very self centered, and he seems to be very limited regarding who he can identify with or speak out in solidarity with. As he comes out right now, his anger seems very much about his own personal experiences with women, and not on a valid analysis of the social relationships that surrounds him. Maybe he was joking and never expected his blog post to get as much attention as they have when he wrote them. Yet his whole blog reaps of misogynist attitudes, and as a woman and a feminist, I do feel I have the right to tell him that I feel personally offended. I will tolerate it, but I will also remind him that I exist and that his words can be harmful. He is making claims about about categories that I identify with, yet I do not recognize the way he portray them. He claims that all feminists hate men and that women are inherently different them men as if we never have the same interests, or as if women and men do not have the capacity to have each others interests at heart or mind. He portrays gender relations as a zero sum game where one groups interests marginalizes the other. This is not the world that I live in, and I will resist his reduction.
I do not think of Eivind as violently dangerous, and I believe he has the capacity to question his own rage, where it comes from, and what he wants to do with it. Fury and rage is part of being human. The question is what you do with it. As I see it, Eivind really needs to question if the MRA blogs that he has been reading really has helped him figure out the world, and if his constructed opposites (the feminists) really are as square and evil as he seems to believe. I can not do this work for him, neither can he embrace this challenge on his own. Neither do I think he will be motivated by anonymous blog posts that harass him. But there is no question in my mind that Eivind really needs to do some serious thinking about the way he engages in and with the world. He steps over a line when he threatens with violence.
When it comes to the way the Norwegian society deals with prostitution, that is a longer discussion I will not go into that here. Let me just say that here, like elsewhere, Eivind reduce it to a outcome of feminist interests, and miss the larger picture. It is nice to read that Emma at least cares about other outcomes of the law, besides whether or not Eivind has access to sex when he wants and how he wants.
Usually when prostitution is banned, this applies to prostitutes as well, not just johns. And it is framed as an issue of morality where both parties are responsible. As far as I know, Sweden and Norway are the only countries where only the purchase of sex has been criminalized, and prostitution is legally framed as men abusing women regardless of the circumstances, who are always innocent victims. How can such a flagrantly misandristic law not be an outcome of feminist interests? These legislators are so arrogant they don’t even pretend it’s about anything but punishing men for the benefit of women. You must really be used to dealing with idiots if you think you can sweep the feminist motivation of this law under the rug, Synnøve.
And no, my blog was never a joke. I meant bloody murder and was a just a few months away from being a violent activist. A man living in involuntary celibacy has nothing to lose and is eventually reduced to pure hatred. Celibacy mixed with ideology is what terrorists are made of.
I have cited all kinds of evidence besides my personal experience for my view of gender relations, now including Hakim’s book. If you claim I am wrong, then you also need to rebut all these sources.
He claims that all feminists hate men and that women are inherently different them men as if we never have the same interests...
No, men and women have the same or overlapping interests under limited circumstances, as when in love or raising mutual offspring. But we generally do have widely divergent optimal reproductive strategies, and that’s a biological fact that’s hardly controversial outside of extremist feminist circles of the social constructionist persuasion. As for hating men, it’s possible that some women who call themselves feminists don’t hate all men. But the laws they advocate against men are hateful, so that’s scarcely a useful distinction.
I have cited all kinds of evidence besides my personal experience for my view of gender relations, now including Hakim’s book.
These sources are only "evidence" if you take them as such, Berge.
Hakim's book has actually been widely criticized as simplistic and based on shoddy research.
See e.g. The Guardian's article and interview with Hakim here
The previous link leads to the interview. The review is here
I also can't help noticing that whenever anyone on this blog(such as Synnoeve just now) attempts to dispute your claims in a calm and rational manner (as opposed to insulting you and calling your sanity into question) you eventually resort to insulting them , e.g.
"You must really be used to dealing with idiots", "you're a stupid mangina" (!!), "you're not the smartest rat in the pack", etc. etc.
Throughout the years these people have taken the time to read your blog and formulate well-thought out replies and objections in spite of your incredibly aggressive tone (discussing violent activism, rape, killing "pigs", etc.).
At least allow them the curtesy of a proper reply? Not everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or naive.
When prostitution is banned it ALWAYS applies to those who sell sex. When prostitution is tolerated and regulated this too ALWAYS applies to those who sell sex. Overall I would advise you to compare the laws that you complain about regarding men`s reproductive rights and access to sex with the regimes installed to regulate female sexuality throughout history. I never intended to sweep any feminists under the rug. I am just saying, that you are missing the larger picture. You have already concluded what the law is about (just like you know what everything is about), all I am saying is that your analysis is too narrow - the world is a bit more complicated. You seem to only look for the answers that will feed your hatred and support your idea that you are a victim in a society controlled by man-hating feminists. I think I will take your insulting tone as a opportunity to leave you, because you are repeating yourself and it is tiring. Thank you for answering some of my questions in a more polite manner earlier though. Take care.
Huh? Are you denying that Norwegian law criminalizes only those who buy sex, and not the whores?
That was a facetious interview with Catherine Hakim. Mostly it consists of attempts to trap her into superficial offhand contradictions. The only substantial argument against the reality of the male sex deficit is the tired old notion that women are merely culturally suppressed from wanting sex as much as men. And Hakim's evidence is said to be dated. Well, I have cited brand new studies myself showing how women remain as picky as ever even on anonymous surveys after being brought up in the most equal culture on earth. At some point, the excuse that women are merely avoiding slut-shaming is no longer tenable and resorting to that old canard in the face of all this evidence is a sign of intellectual dishonesty.
That other review (by Elizabeth Day) is even more facile and vacuous. No counterevidence is presented; the entire argument against Hakim is based on disgust and feminist orthodoxy. Now Hakim does admittedly come across as a fruitcake in her interviews. Heavily biased interviews written by feminists eager to make her look bad, but nonetheless she appears to be not too bright, and neither does she present original research of her own. But that’s OK, because like she says, she defers to people who do know what they are talking about. The evolutionary psychologists studying sex differences know that the male sex deficit exists. They would also take issue with the claim that "in the absence of distorting social constraints, there appear to be no sex differences in sexual interest among younger people, up to around the age of 30." Just look at the study by Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair et al. that I just linked to. The sample was all younger than 30, and the differences in sexual motivation were profound. I think it may be true that women under 30 are about equally interested in sex within relationships, but the problem for men is finding a relationship in the first place. Due to female hypergamy and the fact that older men are also competing for all the nubile young women, the male sex deficit is noticed by men of all ages. Just not when we have the good fortune to be in a relationship with a woman under 30, which I am at the moment. :)
What about for women over 40? Have you considered that women over 40 have zero erotic capital? I am a 42 yr old man, and a woman over 40 I will never date. So perhaps you should qualify your statements. Young women have the most erotic capital of all. But when they hit the wall they go SPLAT. Perhaps there is equality in that. Men overtake women as they age. Older women are depressing. Older men are hawt.
What about for women over 40? Have you considered that women over 40 have zero erotic capital? I am a 42 yr old man, and a woman over 40 I will never date.
Your loss. The best sex I've ever had has been with women in their 40s - absolutely no contest.
Well, I do have to admit, older women are rather feisty in the sack. It's just that there bodies tend to be disheveled.
I suggest we spice up this conversation and add age, nationality, class, body type, skills, knowledge and gender. Who is on top and at the bottom of Berges suggested "power chain" that seems to be able to legitimize murder and rape. If we all live in Berges world, but are too stupid or naive to get that the only thing you have to grasp in order to understand politics, is men's sexdrive, and older feminists hatred of men, why is it that I like a lot of young women feel powerless? And what would explain the fact that I, a young woman, are involuntarily without a partner and have been for many years? Are you able to understand that sometimes I am not sure wether I am supposed to laugh or cry after some (norwegian) have tried to convince me to sleep with them?( Just like I am not sure wether I am supposed to cry or laugh when reading some of your posts.)I know it is rude to laugh, so I try to avoid it, because i do not want to hurt someone's feelings
and I want to give them credit for being brave/ having the nerve. As the years have passed I have grown tired of this crap and I do not want to be polite anymore. What do you
suggest I do? Should I join ottar? Do you think they would accept blondes? Or should I too start a hate blog were I write that I am sexually frustrated and that I feel the urge to do something radical, start a revolution or something, kill and rape someone. Can I demand that people should understand that, and if they do not I will label them as stupid or beneath me?
Would that be ok Berge, if I label you and all men as stupid and naive for not understanding my world and making bad policies that do not benefit me. What would you suggest I do?
For young women, the sexual power that Eivind says we have might be hard to see and hard to use, if we are bad at using it or have moral restrictions against using it. But I believe it is there. It's the thing that gave me some free drinks and dinners when I was a teen, and also stopped one man from being violent against me and my family. The fact that men are trying to convince you to have sex with them is telling me that you have something they want very much and not the other way around. That's the source of that sexual power Eivind speaks of. But like you, I always never felt I had much of it (until I looked back on my life a bit), and I also can't use it for purely selfish reasons because it's against my morals (back then I didn't have them, because seeing men give me food and drinks was facinating and new). And I never learned how to use it properly anyway, so I don't get much out of it.
Another thing... Minor, but made me pay attention. You can't write a blog about being sexually frustrated, because you say men are trying to convince you to sleep with them. Sounds like a problem easily solved.
I was not clear enough, but whatever, I only used this to illustrate a general point. I want eivind to answer this. Acknowledge my claim that I want something that is not available to me - I am frustrated, what should I do?
"I always never felt I had much of it" ugh, a terrible sentence, I meant "I never felt I had much of it", sorry
Before Eivind answers (if he does), I want to ask: why is getting a relationship hard for you? I know it can be hard, but without a reason, we might jump to conclusions.
Synnøve, you are not “involuntarily without a partner.” You say yourself that you are disgusted by the surfeit of male attention you are getting. The suitors just aren’t good enough for you. This is in no way the equivalent of male involuntary celibacy. I couldn’t just lower my standards to get sex, which you clearly can. And if you think getting a relationship is hard, imagine how much harder it is for men. It is much more difficult to get a relationship than to get sex, even for men. After all, someone has to find you acceptable as a sex partner before they will consider having a relationship with you, and that’s not the case for a lot of involuntarily celibate men.
I only used this to illustrate a general point. I want eivind to answer this. Acknowledge my claim that I want something that is not available to me - I am frustrated, what should I do?
Not all wants are created equal, of course. I have said nothing to imply that it is all right to “do something radical, start a revolution or something, kill and rape someone” just because you want something. As a general rule, it depends on whether you have legitimate grievances against someone holding you back from getting what you want. Feminists actively use violence to prevent men from getting sex. It is reasonable to ban real rape, but beyond that, any aggression against peaceful male sexuality is never justified. The criminalization of buying and even bartering sex is a crystal clear example of such misandrist oppression using the force of monopoly violence. Of course attacking these oppressors in any way possible is morally right.
What about my point? We both agree that young (good looking) women have erotic capital. But what about older women and older men. I am a 42 yr old man, and I am beginning to think I have more erotic capital than women my age. I am average looking, tall, and in good shape. When I view women my age, I see women with an excess of body fat, lines under their eyes, sagging breasts and sometimes even a double chin. I did not refute your point that young women have extraordinary power, but I would like your thoughts as to how this power is negotiated between older men and women. I believe you will see in your lifetime that you will overtake women your age, because as a man your body will stay thin and muscular, like mine, and your education and experience will be more valuable. Even today, most women do not identify success with their careers. I am Canadian, and I see all my sister's friends on Facebook demonstrating that their real trophies are their boyfriends and families. A man's trophy is his career accomplishments. A woman's trophy is her domestic accomplishments - her husband and children. Simply put, over the age of 40, most women cannot claim to be a sex goddess. What are your thoughts?
Women start out in life with a bounty just for showing up, while maleness confers nothing valuable. Female sexuality is a prized possession while male sexuality is merely a liability. My having to pay to lose my virginity illustrates how young male sexuality is a negative value as well as a criminal liability. A man would have to be the ruler of the world to have anything comparable to the erotic capital of the average young woman. Granted, female erotic capital is a rapidly depreciating asset, but you have to compare it to starting out in life as utterly worthless. And if by the time you are in your 40s you feel you have comparable worth to women the same age, which I agree can happen, then that is only because you have worked hard to acquire material resources and to keep yourself in shape. Once again, men get nothing just for showing up and a poor, unemployed 42-year-old man is just as worthless as a 20-year-old.
And if older women feel the successful men their own age don’t want them because they prefer nubile women and finally have a chance to get one, older women can always turn to younger men. Young men can’t afford to be picky and are so horny anyway that they don’t notice the ravages of aging. I was happy to sleep with women as old as 54 when I was in my 20s, but even aged cougars were all but impossible to get. And if the sexes were anything alike in sexual motivation as social-constructionist feminists imagine, older women should be thrilled by the opportunity to get young men anyway. In fact they aren’t so excited about younger men, but they may be willing to settle and always have the option. So no matter how you slice it, female erotic capital is a tremendous resource which continues to pay rich dividends throughout a woman’s life, and men have nothing comparable. Even worse, our freedom to work our way up and become attractive to some women is now actively curtailed by feminist equality.
How about trying to think with the other head for five minutes - for a change?
You have earlier in this string written things like “A man living in involuntary celibacy has nothing to lose and is eventually reduced to pure hatred. Celibacy mixed with ideology is what terrorists are made of.” and it seems obvious that your rage is first and foremost directed against the police, eg you write “I said they are feminist ENFORCERS (doing their job voluntarily), which is why I hate their guts and believe men are morally entitled to respond to police violence in kind.” Why do you hate the police? Have you experienced police violence? What do you put in that term, violence?
I find it difficult to understand that you on one hand is such a law abiding citizen that you actually care if buying sex is legal or not, yet one the other hand you claim that this law is so pervasive (even if it is nothing more than a fine) that it legitimates far more serious crimes as you call it. Above you write “…attacking these oppressors in any way possible is morally right.” I am not sure what you mean with “any way possible”, but what you have written earlier seems to suggest that you have been contemplating about quite serious crimes.
You have to explain this further to me, because I find it difficult to understand, and once again I have to ask if this is really about the law, or if you are only using it as an example. Yoy wrote that the ban “was the straw that broke the camel’s back and led to my planning a far worse crime, until I was lucky enough to get a girlfriend.” If this law is so central in understanding you, your hatered and your (former luckily, as you have a girlfriend now) rage, and if you disagree so strongly with the ban against buying sex, why did you not participate in the public debate when it was going on?
You portray you self as someone who is victimised by the Norwegian government and betrayed by your fellow male citizens, yet it is obvious that you are a resourceful young man with higher education, and are by no means marginalised or oppressed. I do not argue against you that the law was not designed to benefit you, as it was designed to address problems with a larger and more complex scope than your personal well being. I also acknowledge your frustration and probably emotionally painful experiences with women. However, as much as I understand your suffering and pain, we live in a democracy, and you have the freedom like everyone else to partake in public debates and influence political decisions by sharing your personal experience and perspective. Few men stood up in this debate, probably because they are afraid of the stigma attached to prostitution. Obviously you are not afraid of this stigma – so where were you in the public debate when this particular law was discussed? Why did you not speak up?
As you come of now, you seem to want to portray yourself as marginalized, silenced or left without other means to exert political influence than threatening with violence? I might have been able to understand you better if we lived under other circumstances, but this is Norway! Which one of us has to adjust our vision, because we are both part of it.
You portray you self as someone who is victimised by the Norwegian government and betrayed by your fellow male citizens, yet it is obvious that you are a resourceful young man with higher education, and are by no means marginalised or oppressed.
He also seems to think that the Norwegian welfare state owes him something, and has previously suggested that women who were not willing to provide men with regular sex in the form of enforced prostitution (yes, really) should pay 100% tax.
This is from a man who is a full-time graduate student of Latin and who pays no tax. In fact, the welfare state supports him so that he doesn't have to pay tuition fees and so that he can get a good education. Where did this sense of entitlement come from?
Why do you hate the police? Have you experienced police violence? What do you put in that term, violence?
I hate the police because they are feminism personified. In practice, they serve as a special-interest group for feminism, as long as feminists make the laws. By police violence I mean their mandate to enforce these laws (and no, I haven’t yet experienced this personally). The definition of the police is legal monopoly violence, so I am merely being blunt and accurate when I describe their work as such.
As to why I was planning to murder policemen and concerned about being made a petty criminal for buying sex at the same time, this is really no contradiction. For one thing, I was radicalized by a series of feminist laws culminating in this one and prepared to make a statement as an activist; but more to the point, if you understand sexual politics, you will discern that the problem with this law is not primarily the punishment itself in the unlikely event that you are caught. The purpose behind the law -- and the problem for men -- is to drive up the price of sex. This has been successful, as I know from personally discussing prices with street hookers in Bergen. After the ban, the price of sex was approximately doubled, which put sex even further beyond my means. Of course, I don’t give a damn about breaking the law, but the impact on men is much more extensive than the actual (admittedly rather limited) enforcement. You seem incredulous that men are able to see the larger context here, but believe it or not, some of us are.
So where was I in the public debate when the law was being passed? I was actively speaking out against it then too. For example, here is a newspaper article by Hilde Sandvik quoting me:
Publisert: 06.jan. 2009 (06:00)
I ROMJULA SKREIV eg ein kommentar om sexkjøpsforbudet som blei innført ved årsskiftet. Tematikken offer og overgripar blei ikkje uventa diskutert på bt.no. Det var då denne meldinga kom inn: «Denne loven skal jeg bryte med forakt, eller kanskje jeg skal bli voldtektsmann, da jeg mest sannsynleg uansett må være kriminell for å ha sex, og det offisielle mannshatet nå har gått så langt at jeg har mistet all respekt for kvinner»....
I was also active in the comment section there, but all the old comments apparently disappeared when they switched to Disqus.
This is from a man who is a full-time graduate student of Latin and who pays no tax.
Wrong, I am a part-time student and I get no financial aid anymore. I work as a translator and at other odd jobs to finance my studies and I do pay taxes.
I'd pay to be able to be present at this debate. Academics, journalists and "student and blogger" Eivind Berge debating "Gender in the Age of Terror".
Writing on the commentary field in BT can hardly count as participating in the public debate...
I do not know the circumstances around your inquiries, but other sources indicate that the prices on the sex-marked would be dropping, as some claim there are more women and less clients.
I agree that the law aims to make it more difficult to purchase sex, however I also believe you are wrong when you claim that the law in it self serves to push up the prices. In fact women in prostitution have been complaining about dropping prices as long as I can remember…
Besides, the prices for sex on the commercial market is as negotiable as on the non commercial market – maybe the woman had a bad day or simply did not want to have sex with you. The prices are not fixed and it is not like sex-workers in Norway have a trade-union or that women in general organize like opec. Feminism is absolutely not like a trade union as you have claimed earlier in this string!!! That is a ridiculous claim, and if the prostitution law is your basis for making that claim, you should drop it, because it simply has no basis outside your own head.
Besides, last thing I heard, in the newspapers, the local police in Bergen have only given out 2 fines this entire year. I would hardly call that pervasive, especially if you compare with how many women report that they have had interaction with the police on the street, have been evicted from hotel rooms and apartments, evicted from the country, rejected at the boarder, had their privacy invaded, taken into custody or even charged for various reasons... You seem to know as little about prostitution as you know about feminism.
I do not expect you to either. It is complicated, and I do not deny this. Yet if this is the centre of your rage, you should know your shit, because you are making it too easy to dismiss your rage as ungrounded jiberish from a crazy man, and as I have said I do not think your perspective as a man who wants to buy sex is irrelevant in a discussion about prostitution policy.
However you do not seem to be willing to participate in a public dialog on the same premises as everyone else – you threaten with violence, even in BT(!) Why? Can you not express your experiences and emotions in any other way? Violence is never ever legitimate (unless you are a cop, as you just said)- and that is what I have an issue with, not your wants or emotions per se. You seem to be able to express yourself with words better than many people I know, so why do you find it so difficult when it comes to your own personal perspective on this issue, as something that can exist on its own right, without threats of violence, or messing it up in badly understood academic research.
What I am saying is basically this: the law is here, and I hardly think it will go away in our lifetime, so accept it and deal with it, and do not let it turn you into a lump of hatred, ruin your life or commit acts of violence that no one, absolutely no one with a sane mind, will be able to understand. Yes, life is imperfect and the world is sometimes ugly, frustratingly unjust, emotionally draining and complicated, and for some also incredible violent, but you are not the one who is worst off. Step out of your own ass, please!
"I'd pay to be able to be present at this debate. Academics, journalists and "student and blogger" Eivind Berge debating "Gender in the Age of Terror"."
Yeah, me too, just for laughs. A normal person without meaningful credentials can't possibly possess knowledge and reasoning power or any ideas of value, academics and journalists have monopoly on that.
you made some interesting points and I can't adress them myself, but I'm intrigued about what you said about prices dropping. Where did you get that information? I want to read it, if you have a source/link.
Your last paragraph is basically an encouragement to deal with life as it is, which is an admirable attitude, but it doesn't mean everything is as it should be, and it doesn't mean you should never complain about anything. Yes, Eivind is not in the worst position a man can possibly be in, there are guys who have it a lot worse, but that doesn't mean issues in society shouldn't be adressed. And some people react more sharply to injustice than others. Would you tell the same to pre-feminism women who complained about not having the right to vote, or get an abortion? "At least you have everything you need, your husband gives you food and clothes. And the laws the way they are, are not going anywhere, so deal with it".
But despite this, I do agree with you that you should live as happily as possible, even if your life genuinely sucks (as in, you're enslaved, or raped, or have a terrible chronic disease). The world isn't fair, and there might even be people who are directly responsible for your misery, but you should still try to constructively improve your life with your actions. Which Eivind did do, since all the angry writings here got him a girlfriend.
This is Norway we are talking about here Emma, so I disagree with you. If it was true Eivind would not be invited to speak and I would not be here reading his blog.
What exactly do you mean? Norway, like any country, has its problems. It's not wrong to adress them.
I can give you an example, if you want. Norway gives a lot of welfare (which looks good for it on the surface), but can leave you without a job if you're over 40 and a foreigner. I know this because I know people who have encountered this problem. Good, serious, able people end up on welfare when they would rather work; they lose their qualifications (from lack of work), and sometimes turn invalid. After they are this degraded and made useless, people tell them how happy they should be that Norway is giving them free money.
Don't get me wrong, I myself had a good life here in Norway and obviously don't hate it, but someone very close to me had a shit life here, and they aren't the only one. Norway is no paradise. But it's good at making itself look like one.
Feminism is absolutely not like a trade union as you have claimed earlier in this string!!!
Yes, it is. Feminist corruption of justice is all about making sex more risky and costly for men in order to empower women, and this particular law is merely icing on the cake. The law against buying sex was never the center of my rage. As I said, it is more like the last straw. There are far worse feminist legal reforms that genuinely destroy the lives of innocent men, most notably the redefinition of rape. I did not contemplate violence in earnest until many years into odious feminist legislation, and I tried to merely express myself in words. For decades, in fact, I was appalled and increasingly angered by all the laws passed against men, but I did not seriously see violence as the rational way to fight them until about 2010. Feminism has entered the stage of what Devlin has called a reign of terror against men. How do you fight a reign of terror enforced by monopoly violence? By sitting peacefully and arguing rationally? I don’t think that will get you very far.
Writing on the commentary field in BT can hardly count as participating in the public debate...
Whatever. Even my comments there and in other newspapers were frequently censored (in Dagbladet pretty much everything I said was deleted), and I would certainly not have been allowed in what counts as a public debate to you. Before Utøya, angry anti-feminist men were not invited to public debates. What has changed is you no longer feel safe smugly ignoring us, because we have proven that we are serious. Angry conservative men are not merely ranting and raving anymore; at least some of us mean business.
What I am saying is basically this: the law is here, and I hardly think it will go away in our lifetime, so accept it and deal with it…
Here you pretty much said yourself that violent activism is called for. Sadly this is probably the only way forward for men. I don’t think the law will go away by democratic means either. At least we agree on this. It is far more difficult to strike down a law than to pass one, it is too beneficial for women to keep it, and women now have the power to maintain the status quo indefinitely, being the majority of the electorate. So not until things get really nasty will they consider softening up the stranglehold on men. I believe there are angry marginalized men out there who will take it upon themselves to make life as unpleasant for others as it is for celibate men. We have already seen one example of vigorous activism.
A normal person without meaningful credentials can't possibly possess knowledge and reasoning power or any ideas of value, academics and journalists have monopoly on that.
Spare me the sarcasm. Of course a "normal person" can possess reasoning power and valuable ideas.
Berge, however, is going to be annihilated. His arguments simply do not hold up to scrutiny. He seems to have spend far, far too much time reading Men's Rights Activist manifestos and Pick Up Artist blogs and has lost all sense of perspective (if he ever had any).
"Of course a "normal person" can possess reasoning power and valuable ideas."
Alright, at least you agree with that. It's just that when you said "academics, journalists and "student and blogger" Eivind Berge", it looked like you were saying you have to be an academic to have any valuable ideas. Sorry about the sarcasm.
"Berge, however, is going to be annihilated. His arguments simply do not hold up to scrutiny. He seems to have spend far, far too much time reading Men's Rights Activist manifestos and Pick Up Artist blogs and has lost all sense of perspective (if he ever had any)."
Of course, if by annihilated you mean "shouted down". I have a feeling everyone's dislike of him would do much more for that than any holes his arguments might have (even if they have those). I hope people on the debate are calmer than that, but judging from how people react to Eivind's ideas online, I'm not too optimistic. There is even another guy who had similar views, minus all the anger, and he was still called a pedophile/rapist and other things, so at this point I'm not even sure if writing in a neutral, calm manner would have helped Eivind avoid the hate.
On a debate, you bring your views, you bring your evidence, and if your arguments don't hold up under scrutiny, you simply agree you've been proven wrong. Yet a debate is short, and it took me months to understand Eivind's ideas without thinking he's nuts. He might get annihilated, but he might also make people think. And that's the whole point of it.
It takes time to understand the ideas behind a new religion and sects swell, but it doesn't make it true or relevant for everyone. Eivind can believe what he wants to believe. At the same time he should be aware of that the reason people are angry is not because he is thought provoking and creative, as his ideas are more like a cold blast from the past. Some people walk backwards into the future and there is no law against that. If he is going there with the intent to commit violence against another human being however, there are several laws against that and as a fellow citizen I feel an obligation to remind him of why, in case he has forgotten or removed himself too far from the world we both (physically at least) live in.
Before I started reading his blog I was open to consider his perspective - however I have come to the conclusion that I am wasting my time - his perspective does not add anything, and moreover it is not his - it is not new and it is not original - and that is what annihilated means.
I never claimed to be original or creative. "Walking backwards into the future" is not an insult to conservatives. My point is simply that I (and other MRAs) refuse to accept unfair feminist reforms which hurt men. And furthermore that there likely will be unpleasant consequences if women are unwilling to reconsider feminism. In the end, it all comes down to violence (not by me). Feminists have the upper hand at the moment because they control the legislature, police and legal system, but as we have seen, men are also capable of fighting back. You may still feel smug today, but men are capable of wreaking havoc and hopefully you will be sorry one day.
Of course, if by annihilated you mean "shouted down".
I don't. In fact, I sincerely hope that the other participants will remain as calm and rational as possible, no matter how shocked they are. What I mean by "annihilated" is that his ideas will most likely be carefully deconstructed and his arguments efficiently countered.
Yet a debate is short, and it took me months to understand Eivind's ideas without thinking he's nuts.
Just out of interest, why did you think Eivind was nuts to start with and what made you change your mind about his view of the world? Are there things you still don't agree with? (E.g. his ideas about rape as affirmative action?)
Also, do you defend Eivind on this blog out of a sense of duty because you care about him, or because you support his ideas as passionately as he does?
You may still feel smug today, but men are capable of wreaking havoc and hopefully you will be sorry one day.
I hope your your sake that you'll be able to refrain from threatening people at the debate!
unfair feminist reforms which hurt men.
Would it come as a surprise to you to learn that many feminists are concerned about men's rights as well? I'm sure you've heard this before, though you may have been quick to dismiss it.
Progressive feminists (as opposed to radical feminists, some of whom are as extreme in your views as you are, and who I certainly don't agree with) are not "man haters", but seek to destroy gender stereotypes and change social policies that harm men as well as women?
For instance, any feminists advocate better opportunities for fathers, including increased paternity leave.
Feminism does not exist in a vacuum. People (whether male, female, or transgender) who identify as "feminist" often concern themselves with wider social issues: Class issues, racism, domestic violence.
As a radical conservative, you may of course dismiss these views as "socialist", but you cannot say that they are "all" about gender or about harming men.
Feminism in this sense is about attempting to level the playing field, not giving one gender "unfair" advantages.
Discussing "feminists" and "men" in terms of being polar opposites who are at odds and who cannot work towards the same goals is not just harmful, it's simply not true.
everyone's dislike of him would do much more for that than any holes his arguments might have (even if they have those)
Emma, I realized I forgot to address this. I think I should stress that "everyone" doesn't "dislike" Eivind on sight. I for one, have never met him, and I imagine most people commenting here have no idea who he is or what he is like in person.
If "everyone" dislikes Eivind it's precisely because they dislike his ideas and arguments. This is not a case of Eivind being the bearer of the "ugly truths" that people do not want to acknowledge. It is because his ideas convey a shocking degree of misanthropy, misogyny, aggression, and lack of empathy.
I'm sorry that I am unable to express myself in a more objective manner on this, and I realize it must be to have people verbally attack your boyfriend. However, I suspect that Eivind himself is fully aware of the ways in which he puts himself "out there" and that he to certain extent relishes the attention he gets through this blog.
"I don't. In fact, I sincerely hope that the other participants will remain as calm and rational as possible, no matter how shocked they are. What I mean by "annihilated" is that his ideas will most likely be carefully deconstructed and his arguments efficiently countered."
That is what I'm hoping too (that they use arguments and not something else). But if they are anything like the people online (not you personally, but many in other threads), it might get bad.
"Just out of interest, why did you think Eivind was nuts to start with and what made you change your mind about his view of the world? Are there things you still don't agree with? (E.g. his ideas about rape as affirmative action?)"
I thought he was nuts for the same reasons everyone else thinks he's nuts, probably. When you read him, these is that stage of "I can't believe what I'm reading, he's nuts". I'm just a memeber of the general public, and I see how other normal people react to him. I mean, come on, affirmative action can't be that bad, and does he really think rape is appropriate? WTF? But then later I read his stuff more carefully and put my feelings of disbelief on the shelf, and saw logic behind his arguments. They might not be perfect or even lead to correct conclusions, but there IS logic behind them.
I think his "Rape is Equality" argument might actually be true. It does NOT justify rape, and it doesn't even lead to the conclusion that rape should become legal, but it leads to conclusion that we have too much AA and it makes things unfair. Also, another idea I can't help but agree with, is that trying to become "normal" (when he was still single) would not get him anyone, but killing someone and going to jail would get him love letters (like Breivik is now getting). A lot of people were telling him how his views are gonna make sure he stays single forever. Well, it's just not true. Not according to everything I've seen.
His ideas about how all these law reforms are to maximize the cost of sex are still questionable (I'm open to evidence), and that thing where men can't be violated by women. Oh, and that "rape is about power" is a feminist lie. I think it has other sources (plus I think rape can be about both, or one of them, depending on the rapist). We also have some psychiatry disagreements.
"Also, do you defend Eivind on this blog out of a sense of duty because you care about him, or because you support his ideas as passionately as he does?"
Well, to begin with, I was just doing it out of duty and because there were signs that things could get really bad (when he wrote that Breivik post). I wasn't planning on commenting on his blog at all. But now that I got sort of dragged into this, I might as well comment for fun and learn new things by talking to people. So now I'm doing it for those reasons, not duty or belief in his ideas.
"If "everyone" dislikes Eivind it's precisely because they dislike his ideas and arguments. This is not a case of Eivind being the bearer of the "ugly truths" that people do not want to acknowledge. It is because his ideas convey a shocking degree of misanthropy, misogyny, aggression, and lack of empathy."
Actually, I'm aware of this. I even told him that the way he expressed himself makes people angry, not that he's right. And as someone who, like you, read his blog and experienced a stage of disbelief, I get where this comes from - the feeling that his views are misogynist and sociopathic. So I don't blame people for reacting the way they do, but it doesn't mean he has nothing of value to say. That he does. But as someone who went from thinking he's nuts to thinking he's actually right about something, I can tell you there is BIG stumbling block between these two states.
Also, I think him "whining" about not getting laid also adds to the dislike people have. It's like this issue can't be addressed without being publically called names and humiliated. What if todays situation really does create more male losers? Maybe it doesn't, but why can't we look at it anyway, just to make sure?
"Before I started reading his blog I was open to consider his perspective - however I have come to the conclusion that I am wasting my time - his perspective does not add anything, and moreover it is not his - it is not new and it is not original - and that is what annihilated means."
Why did you come to that conclusion? Because you have a lot of evidence against his worldview, and lots for your own worldview? I'm sorry if it's a personal question, but I want to know how other people form and dismiss worldviews. Also, I realize you might hate him and dislike me, but stick around, it's at least entertaining here.
Also, I think him "whining" about not getting laid also adds to the dislike people have.
It certainly doesn't help him, as I think many people conclude that if not getting laid is your main (or only) problem in life, then you are a truly overprivileged individual with little or no awareness of your own privilege.
Personally, I would resist referring to someone who is unable to get laid as a "loser" and I sympathize with people who are lonely and feel unloved. (Admittedly, Eivind is no longer in this category, and I certainly do not feel sorry for him!)
It's not the fact that Eivind "whines" about not getting laid that bothers me, it's the fact that he appears to have built an entire (incredibly toxic and black-and-white) world view around the fact that he (and other men like him) can't get laid.
To me, this shows a lack of perspective, lack of empathy, and lack of knowledge about how society works.
By all means, complain about being single and not being able to get laid. I have complained about those things myself many times (albeit not on a public blog).
But should these complaints form the basis of an ideology that glorifies and admires (if not outright promotes) violent activism and terrorism, and a reductive, social Darwinist view of women and men? I don't think so. Eivind Berge might disagree, though.
His ideas about how all these law reforms are to maximize the cost of sex are still questionable (I'm open to evidence), and that thing where men can't be violated by women. Oh, and that "rape is about power" is a feminist lie. I think it has other sources (plus I think rape can be about both, or one of them, depending on the rapist). We also have some psychiatry disagreements.
Are the two of you able to discuss these things together properly?
I have previously noted that Eivind often resorts to insults and irrelevant criticism (e.g. making fun of someone's spelling, calling them stupid/a politically correct mangina/naive, etc.) when he disagrees with them on this blog. I assume that he discusses things with you more respectfully?
Your opinion of Eivind has changed radically, and it seems that you have shifted in favour of many of his ideas.
Is the opposite true? That is to say, do you feel that Eivind listens to or is swayed by your arguments? Have any of his opinions on these matters changed after talking to you?
I ask because I know that when someone very strongly believes something, it is almost impossible to make them change their mind.
"Evidence" always depends on the person interpreting it, and on the conceptual framework that person employs!
Oh, "loser" is a word he used, so I didn't mean it in an offensive way. I should say an involuntary celibate person then.
"It certainly doesn't help him, as I think many people conclude that if not getting laid is your main (or only) problem in life, then you are a truly overprivileged individual with little or no awareness of your own privilege."
That's exactly what I'm talking about. This is viewed as a non-problem, yet in another thread a commenter was saying he wanted to commit suicide because of it.
"Are the two of you able to discuss these things together properly?"
Sure. It can get a little tense though. I think I argue alright, but often don't have enough evidence. This isn't my area of expertise, you know. So if I managed to convince him he's wrong about major themes, it would be strange, as I'm mostly apolitical and don't have any strong convictions. But I think he learned some things from me, which have less to do with feminism/MRA themes and more on how other people think and react, and how to act in an argument.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. This is viewed as a non-problem, yet in another thread a commenter was saying he wanted to commit suicide because of it.
I don't think it's viewed as a non-problem exactly, but I think people resist the idea that it justifies the kind of action (and the views on women, rape, sexual abuse, and prostitution) Eivind promotes.
I also think it is wrong to blame feminism here -- if anything, feminism may have indirectly helped Eivind in finding a partner!
I agree that there is a problem though, and I agree with freedom of speech, so I think the debate is a good thing.
I am actually in favour of legalizing prostitution myself, but not for the reasons Eivind would be.
If prostitution is inevitable, prostitutes (whether male and female, adults or children) should be protected from exploitative pimps, abusive clients, and from the criminal world in general.
Vulnerable adults and children should be protected from the horrifying crime of trafficking at all costs. Legalizing and monitoring prostitution and allowing sex workers to join a union and provide them with the same rights as any other worker might help in this respect.
Sure. It can get a little tense though. I think I argue alright, but often don't have enough evidence. This isn't my area of expertise, you know.
Don't put yourself down too much. To my mind, Eivind knows a great deal about MRA and PUA, but very, very little about feminism, for example.
Furthermore, he may present a lot of evidence in the form of articles and books, but he is not himself a scientist, and I am not easily convinced by people who rely on this form of argumentation.
After all, arguments largely based evidence in the form of scientific articles can be countered by scientific articles and studies showing the opposite.
An example would be Janet Shibley-Hyde's Gender Similarity Hypothesis.
The point is that in science, everything is a hypothesis or a theory. Nothing can be proven beyond doubt by evidence.
Researchers have shown that a lot of the studies on women and men are biased from the onset because rely on already biased research questions. Furthermore, studies counteracting popular gender stereotypes may not receive the same kind of press, simply because they are not as exciting. People generally want to be told what they already "know" to be true about gender.
But I think he learned some things from me, which have less to do with feminism/MRA themes and more on how other people think and react, and how to act in an argument.
That is useful knowledge indeed. Self-awareness and empathy are paramount to human interaction.
"But should these complaints form the basis of an ideology that glorifies and admires (if not outright promotes) violent activism and terrorism, and a reductive, social Darwinist view of women and men? I don't think so. Eivind Berge might disagree, though."
Just thought about that... I don't think him not getting laid in the past is the BASIS of his worldview. I think there is more behind it, like scientific studies and observations of the world. As for his view on women and men, I'm still unsure about that one. Of course we are all individual, but we're still humans and actually quite similar, so generalizations are not useless, that I can say. Also, I'm pretty sure there are gender differences. What do you think?
Re: my comments on prostitution -- I see that these were unclear and potentially misleading.
I meant, of course, that selling and buying sex should both be legalized and monitored, and I'm not in favour of legalizing child prostitution!
Instead, I meant that removing sex work from the criminal world might reduce the risk of trafficking and child prostitution, and limit the number of men travelling to impoverished countries such as Thailand, where underage prostitution is rife.
Also, I'm pretty sure there are gender differences. What do you think?
Yes, I think there are gender differences too. Or perhaps I should say I think there are both obvious (biological) sex differences and (social) gender differences. These include small differences in the brain.
However, I think that there are far more similarities than there are differences and that these differences, therefore, do not justify sweeping generalisations about "femininity" and "masculinity" or about women's and men's proper "roles" in society.
For instance, I do not believe that women are "naturally" more caring than men. I believe that both women and men, as human beings, are capable of being caring.
However, I do believe that society encourages women to be more caring and "punishes" them for being less caring/more aggressive. (C.f. Women being told they are "unnatural" or unfeminine if they have no desire to have children -- which, I'm sure you'll agree, is simply not true).
Similarly, boys and men are "encouraged" to be more aggressive, assertive, and so on. It's the "my-virtue-is-your-vice" principle, and in my opinion it's harmful to both men and women. Not to mention confusing to people who are genderqueer or transgender!
".. I think people resist the idea that it justifies the kind of action (and the views on women, rape, sexual abuse, and prostitution) Eivind promotes"
I see that, I'm not particularly keen on that violence idea myself.
"Furthermore, he may present a lot of evidence in the form of articles and books, but he is not himself a scientist, and I am not easily convinced by people who rely on this form of argumentation."
But even a scientist doesn't always conduct all the experiments himself, if he wants to prove his hypothesis. Often he conducts some of them, and refers to others done by other scientists before him. It's not invalid to refere to other people's work, as long as you're using good reliable sources. And unless the field is too complex for you to evaluate (like if it's an article on Density Functional Theory, and you know nothing about it), you can also look at the articles you're using as proof, and see if the methods they use were good, and if their conclusions are warranted. If you can think like a scientist, you can probably see the flaws in scientific studies too, which might help against the situation where you have 2 articles concluding the opposite things.
"People generally want to be told what they already "know" to be true about gender."
Not sure. Eivind sent me a message a few days ago, saying he found a study that might be disproving his views. So I can vouch for him and say he doesn't just ignore evidence. Too bad that study didn't actually disprove anything, when we looked at it closer.
Also, this might apply to people who want genders to be similar also. In fact, it seems to be quite a popular idea... So now I have no reason to be less skeptical of those studies than the studies that say genders are different. But looking at the actual studies would help me resolve this.
I actually agree with you on prostitution, and had the same views before I met Eivind. He just offered a new reason to regulate and make it legal.
Janet Shibley-Hyde's Gender Similarity Hypothesis - is that some kind of study? Got any others that show how the genders are similar?
I agree with you on those things (that they think women are more caring for some reason, and that men are not supposed to cry or else they are wimps), but I also wonder if it goes deeper than that. I think guys are in general more daring and don't have the desire to cry as much as girls (experiences of people who switched genders tell me so), without encouragement. I also believe men want sex more than women and are less discriminate about it. I say this because it's right there, in front of me, hard to ignore it. I don't have solid evidence for this, but my experiences and my observations of people tell me it's more likely to be true than not.
I don't want people to get shoved into gender roles they don't naturally fit in. Because I don't fit in them, too. But I think it's important to realize that some differences might not be purely social or due to "encouragement". If this is true, then you shouldn't deny it, at least, because it might lead to bad social consequences.
I read an article in a university newspaper, saying how men drop out much more than women, yet there are still more male professors. They explained it this way: "When women get the same power as men (like when they get university degrees), men simply move power to another area where women don't dominate". I think it was some gender studies professor who said that. And they also explained how since men have no power relative to women in school, they drop out and join a gang or something, where they do have the power. This makes me wonder.. Why on earth would men do this? Because they are encouraged to be "over" women by society, or because they can't get laid unless they are powerful compared to them?... What do you think of this hypergamy thing, btw?
Hey, I actually looked at that Gender Similarities Hypothesis article, and it was interesting. Yet even that study admitted there are sexual differences:
"The gender similarities hypothesis stands in stark contrast
to the differences model, which holds that men and women,
and boys and girls, are vastly different psychologically.
The gender similarities hypothesis states, instead, that
males and females are alike on most—but not all—psychological
variables. Extensive evidence from meta-analyses
of research on gender differences supports the gender
similarities hypothesis. A few notable exceptions are some
motor behaviors (e.g., throwing distance) and some aspects
of sexuality, which show large gender differences."
I hope this is the right article -
Eivind's arguments come from sexual differences, not any others.
It really doesn't look like Janet Shibley Hyde is such a great debunker of gender differences in sexuality even by her own account. This is the conclusion in an earlier study of hers.
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). "Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis." Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51.
In an era in which gender differences in sexuality are highlighted
and male-female conflicts over these issues are exacerbated
by events such as the Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas
hearings on sexual harassment, psychologists should recognize
these gender differences as an important topic of inquiry. The
results of this meta-analysis are useful in sorting out the larger
differences from the smaller ones. The gender difference in
attitudes toward casual sex is large and was predicted well by all
of the theories reviewed in this article. Future research could
profitably examine the consequences of this large gender difference;
it may help to explain, for example, why thesame behavior
is interpreted as harassment by a woman and reasonable or
even flattering behavior by a man."
"What if todays situation really does create more male losers? Maybe it doesn't, but why can't we look at it anyway, just to make sure?"
Hopefully, more and more people will start to think like Emma. Even if we agree with Eivind's conclusions or not, this is a discussion we need to have sooner or later.
The perhaps biggest difference between the society today and the society fifty years ago is that fifty years ago, almost every man had a family. Now, more and more men ends up childless and alone, and at the same time, more and more men have kids with several women. The paradox is that the more independent women get, the more important is money as a factor in the mating market:
I don't know how the sex is shared between alphas and other men, but I do know that if a large group of men ends up having nothing, falling out of society and with a feeling that the authorities doesn't represent them, it is a recipy for disaster.
It's not only about rape and terror, but also about riots, violent demonstrations etc.
My hope for the fourthcoming debate, is that these issues will be discussed and that there are many people who share some of Eivind's views, but not necessarily his conclusions.
About the last part of the last sentece, what I ment was that I hope we stop denying that there are many people out there who don't support radical feminism.
Dear Emma, I do not hate Eivind or dislike you, why would I? I am sorry if I wrote in a way that left you with that impression. I guess I lost my patience and temper despite my efforts to stay calm and open-minded in a form that is relatively new for me - I am not the type to comment on blogs, or actually bother to read any. I still think my use of language is regrettable, so please accept my apology if it led you to believe that I hold any personal grudge against you outside this discussion.
It's alright Synnøve, I only assumed that because some people attacked me (yes me, not just Eivind) on another thread and I sort of expect people to immediately dislike me just by association with Eivind. But I'm glad it's better than I expect.
Sex deficit only occurs in the absence of adequate prostitution, globalization and warfare. Enough of one of those, and there is no deficit as regards sex.
The deficit is reproductive, and it is a boon.
Quite frankly, very few men should reproduce, environmental concerns notwithstanding, and it is precisely by allowing a deficit that evolutionary selection is exerted in the absence of attirition by war, famine or pestillence. And those three have deleterious effects on a society as a whole, which unmated men will not have if their drives are sated in a non-reproductive manner.
Right now, selection pressure is against feminism, as men who want different values in women go find them abroad, as they have always done. Then they reproduce. And rear a new generation. And pass on their values and preferences.
Yet, this way, we all lose.
Lowering the population at a steady pace, while increasing its quality, will raise our quality of life for both genders. The only problem is the geriatric peak, which is really trivial to solve if one is willing to think outside the box.
Solutions for a sustainable future are never politically correct, and rarely less so than today.
But you fail to grasp that the point of not buying the party line is that you can see more clearly when you're not weighed down by conventional thinking. And you're weighed down by a lot of thinking that is disappointingly conventional.
You show some promise, and I hope this nudge will make you try to challenge yourself. Because it is blatantly obvious you aren't going anywhere new or interesting without such a nudge. That's why I even bother: I hate to see out of the box potential go to waste this way.
Bor ikke langt unna om du er lysten på litt input på dette en dag det ikke regner. Kommentarfelt er ikke stedet for dype tanker, derav det svært korte tilsvaret.
Interesting perspective. I think there is truth in what she writes, but that the true power of female capital evaporated with the invention of civilization…often leaving women with a sense of dissatisfaction with their mates. Long ago in our biological and social evolution, I’d bet that human males would fight their way to alpha-status, that most females would use their sexual capital to mate with him, and that the male “losers” would linger around the margins of the tribe looking for stray mating opportunities (maybe even rape).
This system WOULD have a destabilizing effect on civilization, so naturally, it had to be abandoned for a one woman/one man system. Our tribal urges had to be overcome in order that systems of argriculture and township would work. The alphas became the leaders, the hierarchy class, and women had to use their sexual capital to get the best man available… most likely those with the most status/resources. They wanted men for their wallets, not their looks.
This HAD to be how the Patriarchy was born. Men had to be resource-rich to get laid. They had to keep women dependent on them to keep getting laid. When their woman got pregnant, they had to leverage resources to keep the mother and child fed. Men had a strong impetus to compete with one another, and to keep women out of the business of resource-gathering. Gradually, men controlled the economic capital of civilization.
These days, egalitarianism, like civilization, is yet another philosophy that we apply over our evolutionary and historical patterns of behavior. Of course men are more attracted to women’s appearance than women are to male appearance! Datable men aren’t sex symbols, they’re success symbols! Women like to date rich powerful men, while men like to date someone physically attractive. In many ways, both sexes are suppressing biological mating urges for the sake of maintaining our social fabric.
Whatever the flaws and contradictions may be, however, Feminism is a good thing. Women still have the urge to hold out for the best man available (might not be their husband), and men still have the urge to sleep with every woman they can get. It makes for a lot of sexless marriages, cheating, and eventually, single parent households led by a mother that needs to keep the kids fed and the bills paid. Men will probably never support a system that takes away their ability to attract females (through economic prowess), but it’s a lofty ideal to allow women the option of earning a decent income. This gives her the ability to care for the “costly” product of sex (all too often the exclusive responsibility of women)… children.
@ Shaun R
Well, its importance was probably reduced, but the power of female sexual capital certainly didn't evaporate with the invention of civilization. Women were still able to increase their standard of living by mating up, and there is always prostitution and the rest of the thriving sex industry. Today strippers get money thrown at them just for men to look at them, and there is even a market for selling women's dirty underwear to men. If I were female, exploiting my erotic capital would be a no-brainer, though I might avoid actual sex. Even without putting out, women can and do use their erotic capital to get ahead in myriad ways unavailable to men.
Feminism may be a good thing for women, but if it makes a lot of men unhappy, women will suffer as well, eventually. However unsatisfactory monogamy may be for men, it sure beats celibacy. Feminism of the Scandinavian model not only takes away men's ability to attract females through economic prowess; it also criminalizes rich and poor men alike for buying or trading anything for sex. This gives rise to extreme hostility and violent men's rights activism which is sure to be unpleasant to women and perhaps ultimately threaten civilization itself, given advanced technology with great destructive power.
Post a Comment