“When you see something like that going on, you, and by you I mean we have an obligation to speak out against it more often.”
Jay Smooth, responding to public push-back against feminist condemnation of video gaming
What are a man’s true obligations? Thousands have posed this question throughout history. Unsurprisingly million of answers have been offered. All people have obligations, right? Employees have job obligations to their employers. Students have obligations to instructors and to themselves. So, what is wrong with questioning and defining a man’s obligation?
To those who recognize men as human, answer is simple. However, this may be challenging to individuals stuck in the dogma that men are privileged oppressors, unfairly and automatically advantaged by virtue of a Y chromosome.
For those who believe in a secret “privileged corner” tucked away in the patriarchy’s back pocket; this long answer is for you.
To place obligations a group of people, based on their sex, race, or any other biologically defined traits is morally repugnant. It is the antithesis of any consistent claim of an egalitarian society.
Sadly, this is frequently demonstrated, and from individuals calling themselves “enlightened” or claiming “equality” between the sexes.
One example is the so-called anti violence rhetoric of “Men can stop rape”.
PSAs from a self-defined collection of of “good men”. Self loathing individuals announcing it is the duty of all men to intervene any time they see a woman threatened or inconvenienced.
Consider the applied attempts to shame men who do not “step up” to police nasty comments online. Think of the attempts to shame men who don’t immediately chastise other males when they overhear use of the words bitch or slut.
To these “good men” and feminists, a man doesn’t immediately put himself between a woman and any unkind opinion or rude behavior, or physical threat, then that man is no real man. He is no good man.
Forget that he may value his own safety and peace of mind over that of a complete stranger. Forget that a man may not want to involve himself in a confrontation between people he has never met. Forget he is a human being without any real obligation to a stranger just because that stranger is female.
When all of that is forgotten, you will have no problem seeing things from a feminist perspective.
Then, there is something inherently wrong with men who aren’t willing to put themselves in harm’s way to defend women. Now obviously, men who call out internet trolls aren’t putting themselves in any physical danger. However, peace of mind counts for a lot as well. Why should anyone be obligated to don the white armour to defend complete strangers online, or anywhere else?
Those who claim it is a man’s obligation to intervene when a woman feels harassed are ignoring the irony of their own arguments. If women deserve the respect of adults – which I contend they do, then why should we treat them as if they are uniquely incapable of defending their own arguments or opinions? Jay Smooth, the hip-hop DJ who recently made an ass of himself, demanding men step up to defend women online provides a perfect example. Among many other men that support feminism, he feels that harassment of women is rampant online, and that men everywhere are failing at their obligation to defend these women.
Don’t believe me? Take a look at his latest video. Paul Elam linked to it a short time ago in another article. But Paul didn’t bother to point out the sexism Mr. Smooth was displaying towards every woman on the planet. Quite aside from the anti-male sexism so often discussed within the MRM the frequent readers here at AVFM already know all about Mr Smooth’s condescension to women as well as his asinine admonitions to men, to step up.
The quote at the top of this article is from Smooth’s video, stated without apparent irony; men are obligated to defend women.
This line of thinking isn’t new. It’s been around since long before the Men’s rights movement or feminism ever existed. That line of thinking is called chivalry. Some may even find it ironic that a chivalrous ideal forms the foundation of feminist ideology.
Of course, there are several schools of thought and divisions of feminism. The idea that men must defend women is a part of the moderate, sex positive, third wave school of feminism.
However, radical feminism’s naked hatred, and occasionally admitted belief that all men should die so women can inherit a matriarchal paradise also depends heavily on chivalry. For radical feminism, this is the belief that men should quietly and passively cooperate with the totalitarian nightmares and genocidal dreams of radical feminists. Some popular science reporting suggests artificial sperm may soon be commercial viable, but I digress.
Moderate feminists, female and male, generally agree that when a guy is slinging the word bitch around his buddy should place a firm hand on his shoulder and say something like “hey man, that’s not cool.
If you’re wondering what should happen if the rude gentleman’s buddy isn’t there, no problem. Feminists have an answer for that too. The burden is simply passed on to the nearest random male. If said random guy happens to get told to eff off, or an altercation ensues? Good for that random guy for sticking up for that woman he’s never met and will probably never see again. Don’t worry about the potential physical harm he might carry, that doesn’t matter as long as that rude male a-hole got told that his attitude is unacceptable, right Jay?
You see, to ideologues like Jay Smooth, Michael Kimmel, Hugo Swyzer, and others; the well-being of men takes a backseat to the well-being of women.
While none of these opportunists and scolds have written those exact words, the intention is clear. But obligation on one demographic towards another, with no reciprocal expectation is simply stupid. This is ultimately a belief in the worthlessness of the lives and safety of men, relative to women.
Alert observers already know that our society increasingly encourages women to put themselves into dangerous situations, which means; absent of a culture of female personal accountability, socially expected protection becomes increasingly hazardous and onerous.
Also, while it may be a male obligation to defend women, female on male violence is ignored or laughed at. It is made light of and given numerous psychological and medical excuses that the richest couldn’t hope to bribe a clinician or a jury into accepting. Female on male rape is not rape at all, according to the CDC. Our society views a drink or open palm thrown in the face of a man who uttered something a woman didn’t like as a justifiable response.
Because, you know, sometimes men deserve to be hit. With a free-pass for violence given to women by society, it is unsurprising that women initiate the majority of it in heterosexual relationships.
Is it a surprise that in to a bar or club it is common to see some guy getting a drink thrown in his face or slapped by a woman because he said something she disliked?
What would happen to a man who showed a woman the same treatment? According to people like Mr. Smooth, it is the obligation of every other man in that bar to step in and defend that weak powerless woman from that “privileged” male.
And that man must be punished to the full extent of the law because men are stronger then women on average. thus, male violence is more important, and severe than female violence, right? Yes, and criminal penalties for offences involving fire-arms graduate upwards based on the calibre of the gun. shooting a person with a .22 is a misdemeanour, shooting somebody with a .38 is carries 5 years, a .45 calibre shooting is 7 to 10 years and shooting somebody with a 12-gauge shotgun is 10 to 15 years. Right? Right?
It is sad when individuals like Smooth pretend internet trolls (only male ones, obviously) must hate women. Obviously no one of either sex would say something obnoxious just because they are an a-hole.
Well, through that logic of women-must-always-be-defended-no-matter-what, claims on the obligation of men to defend women must be based on the belief that men are subhuman. Individuals like J. Smooth, M. Kimmel, and D. Futile aren’t misguided, they aren’t old school working men who protect their ladies. Nope, they just think all men are subhuman.
Getting back to moderate feminism and chivalry, I think now you can see where I am going with the comparison. Moderate feminism is the mainstream and socially accepted form of the ideology and with no surprise is in fact nothing more than chivalry repackaged for a new generation.
No longer should men be obligated to defend women because women are weak little flowers that should be protected. Now men should be obligated to defend women because all men are unfairly advantaged over all women. Men are privileged you know? So they should call out other men who insult or threaten the oppressed class.
I myself have never heard of a civilization in which the oppressors were obligated to beat the shit out of each other in defense of the oppressed but we are twelve years into the new millennium so I suppose anything is possible.
Men are privileged, so we should speak out against any comments against women, says Jay Smooth. However, in his very next sentence he says those who want to speak out against the idea that men are making the internet a hostile environment for women should shut up.
“its really not okay for you to jump into somebody’s [public] discussion of this harassment and derail it with a bunch of comments about “well sure harassment is bad, but men are discriminated against too, feminists are always making something out of nothing, and bu-bu-bu-bu-bu” Nooo! Man! Now is not the time for that. If you need to have that debate there are plenty of other times for it, if you need to show off your debating skills and try to make fetch happen with the misandry thing, there’s plenty of other times for that.”
The place where the argument against men is being put forth is not the place to speak out against that argument. Also, the trolls, both male and female (but only the male ones count, right Smooth?) are the undeniable proof that the argument being put forth against men is true.
But in all seriousness, the intellectual dishonesty displayed in this video is horrendous. Internet trolls are detached from their humanity because they type nasty comments. But a guy who says men are obligated to put themselves in harm’s way for people they don’t know, because those people happen to have a vagina ? And this guy is an advocate of “equality” ?
Regardless of a man’s political or philosophical views, men should not worry about some feminist painting all men as assholes, or that trolls make the internet or the gaming community a hostile environment for women, we must all jump in and defend the girl-gamer, right?
That “misandry” stuff isn’t important anyway. Word on the street is it doesn’t even exist. That’s definitely the impression I got from Jay Smooth. Men like our white-knight DJ who support feminism are all about equality. But men should not focus their own energy on advocating for their own rights. Demanding equal rights and treatment under the law and pointing out how feminism makes light of male issues is nowhere near the level of importance of stopping nasty blog comments towards the likes of Anita Sarkeesian. I believe it because Jay Smooth said so.