"Society"  wrote in message
news:10vuq6kq0jekr5c{at}corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Philip Lewis"  reported in message
> news:368mg6F4v760uU1{at}individual.net...
>>
>> http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/gonz/index.htm
>> Rebuttal comments by the 'Gonzman'.
>>
>> Hugo Schwyzer defines Male Privilege!
>> Hugo Schwyzer: Male privilege, and my inbox is getting full [
>> http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2005/01/when_i_first_st.html ]
>>
>> Trouble is, Hugoboy uses a long discredited list to do so.
>> *sigh* I'd really hoped for better.
>
> Oh, as if feminists would ever change their beliefs
> in light of facts?!!
>
> Sheesh.
>
> I see that as I'm posting this, Gonzman has 49 replies
> to his blog article that you've reproduced here, Phil.
> Most of the replies are from "NYMOM" who fills the
> same role there (badger, piss, bark, moan) that
> PARG aspires to fill in the soc.men news group.

Yes I noted that, interesting 'coincidence' - but perhaps not given the
nature of a 'hive mind'! ;-o)


>
>> Okay, one more time:
>>
>> 1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing
>> against female applicants, are probably skewed in my
>> favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds
>> are skewed.
>
> "Probably", huh?  IOW, Hugoboy is GUESSING.
> I notice that Hugoboy offers up no facts to support
> his claims.
>
>> 2. I can be confident that my co-workers won't think
>> I got my job because of my sex - even though that
>> might be true.
>
> "Might", eh?  More idle speculation from Hugoboy.
> Sheesh.  If Hugoboy had bothered to mention even
> one example of preferential hiring policies in place
> that favor men over women at the two-bit junior
> college he sits at then he might have a case.  He doesn't.
> Thus, a prudent person may rationally judge Hugoboy
> to be indulging in the common behavior among feminist
> true believers of inventing 'facts' to fit his ideology.

It is almost as if 'Hugoboy' is reproducing a template of knee jerk feminist
viewpoints with the knowledge that radfems will agree without giving the
issues and statements any thought whatsoever and that anti-feminists will of
course challenge the statements if only on the basis of their sweeping
evidentless assumptions. Methinks the guy is merely an attention seeking
provocateur!


>
>> 3. If I am never promoted, it's not because of my sex.
>>
>> Uhhhhhh....  No.
>>
>> I wasn't aware that there were any "Diversity Initiatives"
>> or "Affirmative Action Quotas" for men - but there are
>> indeed those for women. Doesn't even wash.
>
> Agreed, Gonzman.  See my response to #2 above.
>
>> 4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this
>> won't be seen as a black mark against my entire
>> sex's capabilities.
>>
>> Wanna bet? When Bobby Riggs lost his tennis match
>> years ago, it was hailed as a great victory for women;
>> when Anniki Sorenson lost miserably a couple of
>> years ago in a Men's round of golf, it was still "You go
>> Girl!"
>
> Excellent rebuttal, Gonzman.

He's good isn't he! :-o)


>
>> 5. The odds of my encountering sexual harassment
>> on the job are so low as to be negligible.
>>
>> As a man, if I do encounter sexual harassment and
>> complain about, I'll have my sexuality questioned.
>> As a woman I can make a claim and be guaranteed to be taken seriously,
>> and
>> even if PROVEN to be false
>> and not only will I not be punished, odds are not
>> insignificant that he will still have his career ruined
>> anyway.
>
> Righto, Gonzman.  Hugoboy can only be deliberately
> putting his paws over his eyes on this one.  If the junior
> college campus at which he teaches is typical of
> California JCs, the sexual harassment of the men by
> the young women students who are Dressed for Success
> sexually goes on nonstop.  Like most feminist ideologues
> tho', Hugoboy can't conceive of any sex harassment
> scenario that doesn't end in "blame the man".  Sheesh.
>
>> 6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the
>> measurement is at all subjective, chances are people
>> will think I did a better job.
>>
>> And the proof would be, like in where?
>
> Yup, Gonzman.  Once again Hugoboy pulls another
> feminist Big Lie outta his ass.
>
>> If a woman does even a half assed job, any questions
>> about her performance may be met with tears and
>> suggestions of "sexism!" and the subject will be dropped.
>
> "If the measurement is at all subjective" and she's pretty,
> well, "chances are" Hugo the Boy ain't gonna be the one
> people are thinking better of.
>
>
>> 7. If I'm a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison,
>> my odds of being raped are so low as to be negligible.
>>
>> But I can be falsely accused of rape, and will have to
>> prove my innocence.
>
> Yeah, and on top of that, Hugoboy is relying on the
> commonly sexist definition of "rape!" as penetration
> only.  Were feminists like Hugoboy truly interested
> in 'equality' as they claim, they'd have added
> engulfment to the list.  Worse, if Hugoboy is the
> typical feminist bigot, he doesn't take rape of men
> by women at all seriously but rather grins and
> supposes that the man should "just lie back and
> enjoy it".
>
>   In one 1988 study, college students were presented with
>   several hypothetical vignettes describing the violent
>   gang-rape of a hitchhiker, conducted at gunpoint.
>   The scenarios were worded identically, but in some
>   cases, the victim was female and the attackers were
>   make; in others, the genders were reversed.  When
>   the victim was male, he was considered far more likely
>   to have encouraged or initiated the episode and to have
>   enjoyed it...
>
>   Kate Fillion, _Lip Service : the truth about women's
>   darker side in love, sex, and friendship_,
>
> Forcible rape of men by women is not "negligible",
> as Kate Fillion also revealed in her book _Lip Service_.
>
>> 8. I am not taught to fear walking alone after dark
>> in average public spaces.
>>
>> Taught is the operative word, and that teaching of fear
>> to women would be by...
>> ...other women. Kind of disingenuous to blame men, eh?
>
> Heh heh.  Another good point, Gonzman.
>
> "After dark in average public spaces" the person most
> often criminally attacked is a MAN -- a fact Hugoboy
> would discover after the most casual perusal of crime
> statistics.
>
>> 9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity
>> will not be called into question.
>>
>> No, my virility will be.
>
> Yet another good one, Gonzman.  Hugoboy does
> have trouble with the meanings of words -- a behavior
> that is very much in line with the feminist whining
> about "linear thinking" and "logic".  Sheesh!
>
> And oh yes, I've had women play that game on me
> on more than one occasion.
>
>> And If I don't wish children, I can still be trapped
>> into it by a "Whoops!" episode. My only recourse
>> (at this time) is a fight and tears when I put on a
>> condom, an intrusive operation I must get my
>> spouse's consent for, or a celibate life - for which,
>> if married, I will be a sonofabitch.
>
> Uh huh.  And about that condom: There's a lot of
> man-bashing and man-blaming by women who
> bawl that their man doesn't like to use a condom
> blah, blah, blah.  But when *I* -- the man -- insist
> on using one, well whaddya know, all the usual
> stuff about "it doesn't feel as good" that MEN are
> said to use as an excuse, comes popping out of the
> WOMAN'S mouth.
>
>> 10. If I have children but do not provide primary care
>> for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.
>>
>> But If I do provide primary care for them it will be,
>> and i will be a "loser" in the eyes of women, probably
>> including my partner. And if she divorces me over it,
>> chances are she will be labeled the "primary caregiver"
by virtue of her
>> gender and granted custody.
>
> Still another excellent rebuttal of the Hugoboy's
> women-have-it-worse blather, Gonzman.
>
> Oh, and let's not forget who sets the social standards
> of acceptable "masculinity" and "femininity": women.
>
> Poor Hugoboy.  The more he tries to paint over the
> reality that women have most of the options and power
> in his culture, the more he calls attention to the reality
> he wants to cover up.
>
>> 11. If I have children and provide primary care
>> for them, I'll be praised for extraordinary parenting
>> if I'm even marginally competent.
>>
>> But it will be praise in the most condescending of terms,
>
> If "praise" is what one can call it when the man is told,
> "You're babysitting.  How nice!"  Sheesh.
>
>> and I will have verything I do criticized and second
>> guessed no matter how accomplished I am at it.
>>
>> 12. If I have children and pursue a career, no one will
>> think I'm selfish for not staying at home.
>>
>> But if I have children and don't pursue a career, I'll be
>> a shiftless skunk and loser who won't support his family.
>> Well, that will happen whether I  have children or not.
>
> You're spot on again, Gonzman.  Also, Hugoboy's
> latest attempt at reality distortion is based on the
> nonsense that leeching off of someone else so that
> one may stay by home and family all day is somehow
> NOT "selfish".  I don't see millions of women insisting
> that their men "sacrifice" by staying home while the
> women do wage-work among unloving strangers.
>
>   ... If women's work is so much drudgery, men are wondering,
>   why are women clinging to it so tenaciously? Why are female
>   physicians and lawyers working only part-time so they can
>   be with their kids? Why do we hear of women working
>   flex-time when they could be pulling down full-time
>   paychecks? Why did women work so hard for Family Leave?
>   Why are women fighting men so strenuously for custody
>   in divorce cases? Is it because...? No, it couldn't be!
>   But, maybe, yes, maybe it is. Maybe it's because what
>   they've been playing down all these years is really
>   something quite wonderful indeed!
>
>   "Male-Bashing: Why Now?" by Jack Kammer
>
>   If raising kids is so menial and degrading,
>   why do women fight us so bitterly in divorce
>   for the opportunity to do it?
>
>   from _If Men Have All the Power How Come Women
>   Make the Rules_ by Jack Kammer,
>   www.rulymob.com - publishers. (1999) page 92.
>
>> 13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my
>> children, or who I hire to take care of them, will
>> probably not be scrutinized by the press.
>>
>> Uh, huh. And no man ever gets quizzed about his
>> "illegal nannies?"
>
> Maybe Hugoboy is such a new arrival to California
> that he hadn't heard of Michael Huffington and how
> Diane Feinstein whupped him in 1994 using claims of
> "nannygate" to bash him.
>
>> Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.....
>
> Yeah, on second thought, there's plenty of evidence
> that Hugoboy is simply conveniently "forgetting" facts
> that don't conform to his feminist ideology.  After all,
> Hugoboy ought to be able to remember this more
> recent case:
>
>   Former New York City police commissioner
>   Bernard B. Kerik withdrew as President Bush's
>   nominee for secretary of homeland security [...]
>
>   Kerik, 49, elaborated in a written statement,
>   saying that in filling out forms required for Senate
>   confirmation he "uncovered information that now
>   leads me to question the immigration status of a
>   person who had been in my employ as a house-
>   keeper and nanny."
>
>   Homeland Security Nominee Kerik Pulls Out
>   Ex-Police Official Says He Failed to Pay Taxes
>   for Nanny Who May Have Been Illegal Immigrant
>   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56247-2004Dec10.html
>
> Once again Hugoboy has struck out.  Is there no lie
> that a feminist _won't_ tell?

Maybe he's a masochist? ;-o)

>
>> 14. Chances are my elected representatives are mostly
>> people of my own sex.  The more prestigious and
>> powerful the elected position, the more likely this is to be true.
>>
>> And even though the electorate is 52% women, it will
>> somehow be my fault they vote for men.
>
> Maybe Hugoboy wishes us to declare that the
> masculine Force has great power over weak minds
> and that Hugoboy considers women to have those
> weak minds, eh Gonzman?  ("Feminist" is a label
> that serves as a near-perfect disguise for the most
> committed misogynists.  Like Hugoboy.)
>
> And so what if the frontmen for a system that serves
> women's, not men's, class interests are (a relative handful
> of) men?  How does that benefit the millions of OTHER
> men?  Answer: It doesn't.
>
>   It may be true that powerful men take care
>   of their buddies, but powerful men are far more
>   likely to devote their power to help and protect
>   women they don't know than men they don't
>   know, and most men are complete strangers
>   to the men in power.
>
>   Jack Kammer, _If Men Have All the Power
>   How Come Women Make the Rules_,
>   www.rulymob.com - publishers; (1999) page 15.
>
> --
>   Would the Senate be more balanced on gender issues
>   than it is now if it had fifty typical women senators and
>   fifty of the most pro-male senators you can name?
>
>   Jack Kammer, _If Men Have All the Power
>   How Come Women Make the Rules_,
>   www.rulymob.com - publishers; (1999) page 18.
>
>> 15. I can be somewhat sure that if I ask to see "the
>> person in charge," I will face a person of my own sex.
>> The higher-up in the organization the person is, the
>> surer I can be.
>
> So what?  This "person in charge" will be serving
> women's interests, not yours, Hugoboy.  Sheesh.
> Even a cartoonist can "get it" where Hugoboy with
> his clown college Ph.D. can't:
>
>   I have about as much in common with the CEO
>   of a Fortune 500 company as I have with my cat.
>   It's not logical to say that I, as a man,
>   run the world based on the fact that total strangers
>   with similar chromosomes have excellent jobs.
>   Yet that is exactly what many people believe.
>
>   Scott Adams, _The Dilbert Future_
>
> Yup, Hugoboy is doing no more than another feminist
> riff on the Frontman Fallacy.
>
>   Trick:  The preponderance of male legislators
>           (male columnists, etc.) demonstrates
>           male power.
>
>   False and sexist. This is known as "The Frontman Fallacy":
>   looking at what _sex_ influential people are instead of
>   looking at _what they actually do_. Most legislators,
>   male and female, show favoritism to women's interests.
>   Female circumcision is committed almost entirely by women,
>   yet no-one says female circumcision demonstrates female
>   power.
>
>   From the post "FAQ: Feminist myths and tricks
>   frequently used to disrupt discussion".
>   by Steve Reynolds, stever{at}cygnus.ieu.comtra.org
>
>   The entire FAQ can be found at:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=stever.FADC.0079{at}cygnus.ieu.comtra.org
>
>> And even though he [the "person in charge"] probably
>> risked it all, or sacrificed his personal life to achieve

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100