Monday, August 26, 2013

Those Pesky Weasels

Now what do I mean by weasels? Well, I mean Feminists of course! When have I not been around to beat the snot out of this broken ideology? Oh yeah, during my blue pill days when I’d happily jump under a bus, but we’re getting off topic already.

So in debating Feminists I’ve found one really irritating thing about them (actually there are many irritating things about them but this one stands out); the amount of ducking, dodging, and weaseling out of charges and their general refusal to admit any wrongdoing or negative effects that Feminism has caused. I have a theory as to where this comes about, and it comes from both the automatic in-group bias that women have, and the core “ethics” (if one can call them that) that Feminism is built out of.

First let’s go over the automatic in-group bias. In a study done by the State University of New Jersey four experiments were done questioning whether or not women and men have automatic in-group biases. In the four experiments it was shown that women have a remarkably higher in-group bias and not only that, but in experiments with men and women present men favored WOMEN more than other men. Purdue University also did a similar experiment with similar results, and a quick Google search will pop up many more studies having similar results.
Now, why is this important? Because of the gendered language implicit in Feminism itself. I’ve gone over this before briefly that many people conflate the ideology of “Feminism” with “Female” or “Feminine” which I suspect was intentional in the very naming of the ideology itself. Making your ideology implicitly gendered towards femininity will help trigger the automatic in-group bias of women, and help reel in the men to do their protector roles for whenever Feminism comes under fire.

It’s interesting how they named the big bad social force that oppresses all after men (patriarchy) and the good, virtuous movement to free everyone after women (Feminism).

Now to address the “ethics” of Feminism, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Feminism finds that partiality is more valuable than universality. That right there helps prove the point that Feminism is an inherently hypocritical ideology. If you’re not to apply a concept universally you’re bound to fall right into hypocrisy.

For an example, if you peruse Jezebel or any other Feminist website you’ll notice that they constantly make reference that men’s behavior rarely (if ever) has any form of subtext. There’s always some hidden meaning behind something a man does, and it’s generally devious. Generally what will happen is Jezebel, and associates would attack the man, not on his actions but on his implied motives as they imagine them. So now let’s flip this on its head and talk about this in the idea of “hidden motives” being applied to women.

There’s never any shortage of the idea that “a woman should be able to dress how she wants and be treated with respect” amongst Feminist circles. Feminists claim that a woman dressing provocatively or what-have-you is only expressing her “freed sexual nature” and not trying to garner the attention of males. If a woman wears a fishnet top and a pair of shorts that require two haircuts to pull off, she’s wearing it because she wants to. No deeper meaning, no subtext, no nothing.
To a Feminist, a man perceiving a woman as a slut, or calling her one will lead to her getting raped, but a woman dressing herself like one has nothing to do with it. It’s always the fault of the man, and the woman had no choice in the matter and no agency. You just gotta love it when Feminism treats women as directionless children and ironically becomes incredibly misogynistic by denying women agency.

(Writers note: I’m not implying what does, and does not lead to a rape there’s evidence in both directions, I’m just pointing out Feminist logical hypocrisy.)

Feminists love to pivot the conversation so it fits their narrative even when it comes across as blatantly hypocritical. To them, men always have subtext or some deeper devious undertone, but women? Nope. Everything is to be taken at face value with no deeper readings required.

We also have the common held concept in Feminism that one of a specific class cannot see their own privilege and cannot understand how said privilege may impact the other side. This is commonly known as the “check your privilege” argument/deflection. Feminists will consistently assert that “women don’t have privilege because patriarchy,” and yet they don’t see the hypocrisy of saying to a man he cannot see his own privilege. When was the last time we stopped to ask if women had any privilege, or did we just assume they didn’t have any because they didn’t see any?

Feminists consistently Fem-splain (or Woman-splain) how men feel, or how they should feel in a situation and yet they cry like harpies when a man goes to them and tries to explain to them how he actually feels by dismissing it under the phrase “man-splaining.”

Is the common phrase amongst Feminists that “Misandry isn’t real,” or that Misandry is really “secondary Misogyny” not ridiculously hypocritical? Or perhaps their idea that men voicing concern or demanding that the pressing issues of men be addressed just another way to oppress women not a massive sense of projection? If Feminism applied this same logic to themselves universally instead of partially (i.e. non-hypocritical) then they would understand that men feel blamed for all of society’s ills thanks to patriarchy theory, and they’d understand that the gendering of the names of “Patriarchy” and “Feminism” would lead to people seeing men as dangerous oppressive brutes and women as infallible patrons of good.

With this partiality over universality it just shows that Feminists are not willing to hold themselves to the same standards they hold to society and that they want to have their cake and eat it as well. That’s not how the world works though. You can’t have some items be up for constant scrutiny and others be completely immune from scrutiny.

Even if you point all this out to a Feminist they’ll still duck and dodge around this trying to come up with more and more contrived reasons why women are oppressed, or something is somehow misogynistic. It really is quite astounding the mental gymnastics required to debate on a pro-Feminism front. As someone on reddit once said, debating Feminism is like sword fighting a fart.

If you are not willing to apply the same rules to yourself as you are to others then you’re not for equality. You’re for preferential treatment. I honestly can’t tell if Feminism is more sexist, hypocritical, or just both.

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Men and Dealing with Pain

(Please note that this is all just speculation based on my own observations and findings on the subject.)

“You can’t cry? You should see a therapist.”

That’s something I’m told a lot when I mention that I haven’t been able to cry in over 3 years. For some reason the cultural zeitgeist states that healing comes from crying, or talking about our issues to either friends or a therapist which women seem to find very helpful, but men usually don’t.
This begs a question if men don’t heal from talking about their issues, then what do they heal from? Speaking from experience and from my research, men heal by doing.

While it’s a little embarrassing to say, this didn’t dawn upon me until I really thought about it. When I was in pain generally I’d default to my clammed up state, but I’d also pour myself into a project as a way of dealing with that issue. It gave me alone time to work through my issues logically first, then I could comb over them with the emotional aspect and find exactly what triggered the outburst.

Now why is this? Why do men generally prefer to heal via action rather than interaction? My best guess comes from the idea of “Fight or Flight.” For the uninitiated, Fight or Flight is a physiological reaction in that responds to a perceived attack, or event that threatens the subject’s survival. Fight or Flight also occurs during moments of high stress or emotional strain, but not so much for women. For women the Fight or Flight response is replaced by “Tend and Befriend” as coined by Dr. Shelly Taylor, of the UCLA. When under emotional duress women will tend to move towards social interaction while men maintain their Fight or Flight instincts and tend towards actions.

This is not to say men don’t heal via talking or emoting, it’s just to say men generally prefer to engage in action. I cannot recall the exact show, but on AVfM (A Voice for Men) Radio, Dean Esmay was hosting a show about healing and a man came on and shared his story. Again I apologize for not recalling the exact show, but the story is burned in my mind.

The man had just lost his wife due to illness and he was understandably going through some serious mental duress. He had hopped between therapists but nothing seemed to be working until one day he came across a therapist who instead of sitting him down to talk brought him to a mens group he set up.
What the therapist did was he had a bunch of supplies and a bunch of men who were under his care and he told them to build a shed. The men agreed and the therapist noted that their mental health began to improve each time they all met and did something. What happened was after the therapist left and the men got to work during their idle talking they eventually began to open up to each other, share stories, and work through their issues much like women do, but the men were using the filter of building a shed as pretext to begin talking about their issues.

Another example for men healing via doing but not talking would be Eric Clapton. Clapton’s son was killed in an accident when he was four years old which left Clapton in a “waking nightmare.” During that time Clapton was fairly reclusive and would commonly seclude himself and play his guitar for hours on end. Though playing his guitar Clapton was able to work through his pain and actually write three songs (Tears in Heaven, My Father’s Eyes, and The Circus Left Town) about his pain. Eric Clapton worked through his pain by honoring his son through song.

The point I’m trying to make is that while you may not see it, while a man might not cry, or talk much when he’s in pain there’s a good chance he’s working through his issues just not in a way you may think is best. This isn’t a be all end all, since everyone isn’t the same, just something you might want to think about the next time you suggest therapy to a man who went through a loss. He may already be dealing with the issue and just needs a bit of space to process through the pain.

Monday, May 13, 2013

On Radical and Ideological Feminism

While I do recognize the good Feminism has done my current stance on Feminism is one of condemnation. I’ve never accepted that in the modern world that we live in Feminism has been all that necessary since we already value female life and wellbeing so highly. While this paper will be very much condemning of Feminism again, I do recognize the good it has done; I just feel that the movement has been hijacked by the Radical Feminist narrative. I don’t have a problem with “Coffee Shop Feminists” who use the name Feminism more by name and don’t buy into the toxic dogma. With that in mind, when I mention “Feminists” in this paper I am talking primarily about Radical Feminists.

However if you are a ‘Coffee Shop Feminist’ and you believe in a good chunk of the Ideological Feminist dogma, then please at least hear me out and perhaps I can shed some light on a few subjects for you. Furthermore, please do not conflate that condemning an ideology is not the same as condemning women. Women are people, feminism is an ideology.

Gender rights are Human rights, and should be treated as such; equally at all times.

Feminism and the Disposable Male

The concept of male disposability has been around for thousands of years. When it comes to who eats last, seats on a lifeboat, who to save from a burning building, etc.  That’s all fine and dandy back in the time when we were still a hunter-gatherer society and life was brutal. We needed men to put themselves in harm’s because if some major disaster hit a settlement wiping out most of the women it’s pretty safe to say that it’s the end of that particular group of people. How highly a society valued the wellbeing and care of women determined how well off it was.
I will concede however that the level of protection we put on women did limit them greatly in agency with their own lives, what they could do, and their mobility. The strange thing with this though is a culture that puts too much emphasis on repressing women are often the most backward and (for lack of a better word) technologically advanced. Societies that allow women agency with their own lives while still making moves to keep them safe and healthy however are generally very successful.

Yet despite the level of esteem society holds for women Radical Feminists claim that women are given second billing every time for the betterment of man.
When it comes down it we are talking seats in a lifeboat; who lives, who dies. Society holds women and their power to reproduce in such a high regard that men are the ones given the second billing. For a woman to be important to society she simply must exist, however for a man to be important to a society he must prove himself as an asset to society. As a society have reduced men from human beings, to human doings. To be brutally honest, we relegate men their status by their usefulness to either society, or to women. The number one thing a man can do to prove his usefulness is to put the needs of women and children before his needs.
This now brings me to Radical Feminism. Exactly what has Radical Feminism done to dismantle this and truly make women equal? Feminism constantly reinforces that women have always been second class citizens (even after their many victories) and that we need to put the needs of women in the forefront. Feminism has done nothing to demolish this standard; instead it has exploited this natural act and turned the dial up to 11.

The human race has been able to dominate this planet because we place so much more value on the emotional and physical wellbeing of women in our society at the expense of men. While this is acceptable to a point, it is not acceptable when we turn the dial too far in women’s favor.

You see, we don’t need this social dynamic anymore. There are over 7 billion of us on this planet. What is the worst that would happen if we said that men are no more disposable than women, and women are no more valuable than men? I feel that we are damaging our societal system by tripping over ourselves in order to cater to every last whim of women, and we’re in danger of falling over.
In closing I’ll quote from Karen Straughan, also known as Girl Writes What on YouTube.

“The only difference I see between the traditional role and the new one for men with respect to disposability is that maleness, manhood: it used to be celebrated, it used to be admired, and it used to be rewarded, because it was really necessary, and because the personal cost of it to individual men was so incredibly high.

But now? Now, we still expect men to put women first, and we still expect society to put women first, and we still expect men to not complain about coming in dead last every damn time. But men don’t even get our admiration anymore. All they get in return is to hear about what assholes they are. Is there any wonder why they’re starting to get pissed off?”

The Patriarchy and the Myth of Male Power

I refuse to believe that there is a single human being living in the first world who hasn't heard of the dreaded Patriarchy. Yes, that one evil thing that has been holding down women and promoting men to the top… Except when a boat is sinking or, someone needs to be saved from a fire.

According to Wikipedia ‘Patriarchy’ is “… a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization and the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination.”

Now, being intellectually honest I must admit that we did live in a society that placed men above women, but that came with a tradeoff. Men were expected to do the heavy work, go to war, and even die for their ‘power’ while women would either be tending a shop, or raising the children at home. Even today we expect more work out of men, we demand they sign up for the draft (or else you cannot vote), and we expect that with zero complaints.

To the outside viewer you can see where the idea of ‘Patriarchy’ came from. Women had no observable power, so thusly they were oppressed, but here’s the issue. The idea of the ‘Patriarchy’ only accounts for observations of formal power (political office, CEO, etc.) but it doesn’t leave room for observations on informal power.

A woman by the name of Susan Carol Rogers wrote a fairly long (29 pages) article entitled Female Forms of Power and the Myth of Male Dominance: A model of Female/Male Interaction in Peasant Society.
She writes, “… Although peasant males monopolize positions of authority and are shown public difference by women, thus superficially appearing to be dominant, they wield relatively little real power” (728)
The women in the peasant societies controlled a major portion of the resources and made most of the decisions on how the resources would be used. Formal power means nothing without resources. Neither group considered the other to be innately superior to the other as they saw each other in a sense as a cog in a bigger machine. Both are mutually dependent on each other.
For example in Greek societies the women controlled the money because they were the ones who essentially ran the commerce. Making the bread, butter, cloth, and tending the shops. The man on the other hand was to either be tending the field, establishing a rapport with the leaders of government,  creating and policing forms of government and defending it if need be.
Despite me being an ardent Atheist a passage from the Bible (Proverbs 31: 10-31) illustrates this point beautifully.

“Who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies.
The heart of her husband safely trusts in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
She seeks wool, and flax, and works willingly with her hands.
She is like the merchants’ ships; she brings her food from afar.
She rises also while it is yet night, and gives meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.
She considers a field, and buys it: with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
She girds her loins with strength, and strengthens her arms.
She perceives that her merchandise is good: her candle goes not out by night.
She lays her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.
She stretches out her hand to the poor; yea, she reaches forth her hands to the needy.
She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.
She makes herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.
Her husband is known in the gates, when he sits among the elders of the land.
She makes fine linen, and sells it; and delivers girdles unto the merchant.
Strength and honor are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.
She opens her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.
She looks well to the ways of her household, and eats not the bread of idleness.
Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her.
Many daughters have done virtuously, but you excel beyond them all.
Favor is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that fears the Lord, she shall be praised.
Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates”

Take into account what the husband of the virtuous woman is doing. He praises her and is grateful that her hard work helps him improve his reputation as he sits with the elders.

What usually comes out of Feminists now is “Look at the woman doing all that hard work, while the man sits on his ass doing jack shit! How dare he abuse her and exploit her work like that!”

This line of thinking ignores a few lines of reality. First off the family is clearly very well off, and not everyone is. Life is like that. What matters is that they are trying to improve their status, and that if they work together they have a better shot at becoming affluent.

Secondly, the man isn’t just sitting on his ass doing nothing. He’s creating the political and social rapport that they need to advance even further up the ladder. When he advances higher she comes with him.

And for those people who aren’t well off, who usually does all the backbreaking work? Tending fields, paving roads, building houses, etcetera? Generally it’s the poor men doing their best to get a foot on that ladder and pull their whole family up with them.

The ‘Patriarchy’ as told by Feminists however would not have us believe that, but they would argue that the men are exploiting the women while controlling all the formal power to limit the lives of all the women. And what is their solution? Remove the men from formal power while maintaining and relinquishing none of the informal power women traditionally hold. While they pointed at the glass ceiling to show all the men up top and cried ‘injustice,’ Feminists failed to look down in the cellar to see the mostly men there too.

Abortion laws, reproductive rights, divorce, child custody, and alimony laws exist to continue to enshrine the informal power that women hold while they fight for more and more women to be in formal power structures.

In repeating this myth so many times it seems we have forgotten it is just that. A myth.  While it’s a myth with a very commendable purpose that has allowed us to get more women into formal power structures (which is a good thing) it however has been reducing men (poor men in particular) to nothing more than social tools. This myth helps devalue men and masculinity to the point where they are mocked in the media, their concerns are scoffed at, and they’re called assholes for daring to call bullshit on this broken system.

Feminists continue to point out that men continue to dominate in many fields of formal power as evidence that the ‘Patriarchy’ is still alive today despite woman tend not to gun for formal positions of power.  Their ‘solution’ to fix the problem by placing more and more women into formal places of power while sacrificing no informal power is like placing more and more weight on one side of a table. Eventually it’s going to fall over and all of society will come crumbling down with it.

The idea that women never had power isn’t true. Women have always had power just like men have always had power. But while men have had formal observable power they haven’t had any real tangible power. Women were the ones who held the real power of resources and (most importantly) reproduction.

That right there is the Achilles Heel of the central tenant of Feminism. While women generally did not hold formal power they held massive amounts of informal power which is in my opinion far more powerful. The ‘Patriarchy’ doesn’t exist, and it’s not a problem. Let’s all just set aside this myth and focus on how to live symbiotically again.

Domestic Violence and the Violence Against Women Act

As we discussed in the sections of the ‘Patriarchy’ and the Disposable Male, Feminism has helped ingrain in our psyche that men and masculinity are the problem, and that women are inherently good. This level of toxic ‘identity politics’ thinking has helped create a terrible myth in the realm of domestic violence that men are the primary aggressors of domestic violence and women are the primary victims. This way of thinking has deafened us to hearing only half the story.

According to the CDCs National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Surveys latest report on domestic violence (pg 38 Table 4.1) in 2010 there were an estimated 4,714,000 female victims of domestic violence in the 12 months leading up to the survey. Hold on a second though. That same report in the next table (4.2) lists the male victims of domestic violence at 5,365,000 in the previous 12 months. When totaled together you get 10,079,000 victims of domestic violence. When you take out 5.3 million male victims of domestic violence you find that men make up 53% of the estimated number of domestic violence victims, and keep in mind that it is commonly accepted that men are less likely to report domestic violence, so that percentage could possibly be even higher. So according to the CDCs own NIPSVS it is men, not women, who are the majority of domestic violence victims. So why do we omit data like this?! Hell, even the Executive Summary of that very study omits this data.

The Letter to Professionals? Nothing. 
Fact sheets? Nothing.

The fact sheet even goes as far to say that women are disproportionally affected by this. Sexual violence I will agree that yes, women are disproportionally affected, but domestic violence? I’m sorry, but the data points the other way.  Dr. Murray A. Straus of the University of New Hampshire’s Family Research Laboratory has even stated that national surveys as early as 1984 have reported that male victims make up to or almost half of all domestic violence victims, and yet we still continue to marginalize or outright ignore the male victims of domestic violence.

So what of these battered men and boys? Can they find domestic violence services? The answer is a resounding “NO.” According to both the 2010 NISVS Survey, and the 2011 Association of Children and Families Report to Congress women make up 99.32% of shelter client, and men only make up 0.68%. Here’s the kicker: according to a 2011 study of Douglas, Hines about 80% of the males were told that the shelter only helps women, 15% reported they were made fun of, 63% were referred to a batterer’s program with the implication that the one seeking help was the batterer, and 95% those surveyed felt that the services were biased against men.

It’s time we start telling the whole truth when it comes to domestic violence. By spreading these half-truths our congressmen/women remain ignorant to the whole problem in domestic violence, and in their zeal to protect women they continue to victimize men and pass politically charged legislation like the Violence Against Women Act that does nothing to protect all victims of domestic violence.

I am staunchly against domestic violence. Who isn’t except for sociopathic megalomaniacs? But I stand against the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) because it does not protect all victims of domestic violence and contains dangerous wording that frames all men as perpetrators, and (as the title implies) all women are victims. Phyllis Schlafly wrote in a article: “For 30 years, the feminists have been pretending that their goal is to abolish all sex discrimination, eliminating all gender differences no matter how reasonable. When it comes to domestic violence, however, feminist dogma preaches that there is an innate gender difference: Men are naturally batterers, and women are naturally victims (i.e., gender profiling).”

This is also to say nothing of false allegations of domestic violence be it physical or verbal. Because the VAWA has lowered the definition of ‘violence’ so low and applied subjective criteria, it allows for vindictive women to use claims of domestic violence through the VAWA as a tool for divorce or to get a leg up in a relationship. Remember: Relationships are symbiotic partnerships, not a constant vie for power.

One thing that has changed in the VAWA for the better has been the removal of the mandatory arrest to a pro-arrest, although that’s like dodging a bullet only to step on a rake. Mandatory arrest looked great on paper but research frequently showed that mandatory arrest increased the risk of subsequent victimization, and actually increased the intensity of domestic violence. A Harvard University study actually found that mandatory arrest increased the rate of intimate partner homicides by 57%. In addition, the mandatory arrest clause violates the Fourth Amendment “probable-cause.” It removed discretionary power from law enforcement, and has been disproportionally harmful in African-American communities. Yet while mandatory arrest has been removed it should be noted that the following states still have mandatory arrest policies for domestic violence.

·         Allegations of Assault: AK, AZ, CO, CT, DC, IA, KS, LA, ME, MS, NV, NJ, NY, OH, OR, RI, SC, SD, UT, VA, and WA.

·         Allegations of Violation of a Restraining Order: Allegations of violation of a restraining order: AK, CA, CO, DE, GA, HI, IA, KS, KY, ME, MD, MA, MN, MS, MO, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT,VA, WA, WV, WI

Note that those are ‘Allegations of’ and not ‘convictions.’ An arrest should not be made until probable cause is established. Not before.

This is also to say nothing of gay relationships among women. Because of the gendered language in the VAWA it actually makes it harder for lesbian women to get help from Domestic Violence since the batterer would be a woman.

While I believe that the VAWA was made with the best of intentions, it’s politically charged and vaguely worded which makes it a dangerous bill. Not only should there not be a VAWA bill that only protects one demographic, we should instead have a Domestic Violence bill. Rewriting the VAWA to both remove the vague wording to protect men and boys as well from female batterers will be what helps us solve the domestic violence problem. You can’t fix the engine of a car by only addressing half the problems.

I am strongly against domestic violence. I will never raise my hand against another human being unless they are actively trying to hurt me.  Even then I will give them 3 hits before I will retaliate. Domestic Violence isn’t a gendered issue; it’s a people issue. There are bad men, and bad women. We need to treat DV as a sickness that affects both sexes, and not as one that’s just pre-built into men when they’re born. Such is misandric thinking, and I will have none of it.

For more on Domestic Violence I suggest you look up Erin Pizzey, and for your convenience I’ll link you to an excellent interview of her.

NAFALT! (Not All Feminists Are Like That)

NAFALT is probably the number one response I get back when I criticize Ideological Feminism. They claim that I use too large a brush when I claim that Feminism is a hateful movement, and that (of course) not all feminists are like that.
Well, to those of you who would give me the NAFALT, I offer you a challenge. Prove it. Prove to me that the women who use the name of Feminism to spread hate and misandry do not represent your group because until I actually see you disassociate yourselves and oust the bigots from your movement I will continue to paint you with that large brush.

It concerns me that Feminism hasn’t taken the time to self-police itself and throw out its own bigots. Why have people like Jessica Valenti, Judith Grossman, Amanda Marcotte, and all the bigots stewing in the cesspools of Jezebel been allowed to represent Feminism for so long? Sure every single group out there has its extremists, but many will self-police themselves or at least openly object to the active bigotry or hatred spewing from those extremists.

One example is Christianity and the Westboro Baptist Church. Everyone knows they’re hateful bigots with nothing intelligent or productive to say. Christians realized that those hateful people were poisoning the cause and ideals that they held so dear. Together Christians along with anyone they could get with them rallied and ousted the bigots from their group. Sure the WBC may claim that they’re Christians, but because of the organized efforts of the moderate and intelligent Christians people know that the WBC does not represent them, and that they are not allowed in their circles.

Another example actually comes from the Mens Rights Movement. An often complaint leveled at the MRM is that they’re a bunch of angry misogynists. Despite the obvious ad hominem in that statement I will concede that, yes, the MRM does have misogynists in its ‘ranks.’ What makes the MRM different though is that they make a concerted effort to cast out bigots from their ranks, and make sure that they are not welcome in the mainstream. If you want a concrete example, Chris Key is a true misogynist, homophone, and outright bigot. He has had a history of spewing hate and even literally apologizing for rape.  He is utterly despised by MRMs and was formally ousted on [i]A Voice for Men[/i] one of the leading sites attributed to the MRM.

(Side Note: At this time my feelings towards the MRM and AVfM are shifting into those that I have for Ideological Feminism. Extremism in the MRM will be dealt with in the following paper)

Openly admitting that you have hateful bigots in your ranks won’t devalue your worth. If anything it shows that you have a sense of intellectual honesty about your movement, and a moral integrity to remove those who would spread hate. Until you throw out your bigots and loudly proclaim that they are not welcome in Feminism, you will be continually painted with the large brush that groups you with those hateful people.

Take out the trash so the flowers don’t smell like shit.
For even more examples of the amount of hate that is spewed by those radicals that haven’t been ousted yet, please refer to this video NAFALT!!!!1!!1! by Girl Writes What.

If Feminists Want to Help

So this concluding part is in a way an open letter to Coffee Shop Feminists who may be reading this and haven’t written me off as a misogynistic dick by now (thank you for staying the course if you’re here). I do believe that some of you Feminists out there genuinely do want equality like the MRA’s and Egalitarians out there, but your movement, thought processes, public image, and rhetoric need an overhaul if we’re to take you seriously, or even consider you an ally in this cause. So here are a few things you can do to clean up your image and actually be taken seriously when you call for equality.

1.)    Stop “Womansplaining”

We’ve all heard of the deflection of “mansplaining,” right? If you haven’t it’s when you accuse a man of explaining something using an anecdote from their own experiences to invalidate your experience. Now I will admit it is a form of deflection that men sometimes use and you have every right to complain when they do, do it, but we can’t have these double standards ladies.

I have seen many times a man would share an experience of being physically abused by a woman, lied to, or otherwise and he’d be quickly told to either shut up or he’d be accused of lying because what he went through apparently is nothing compared to what women have been going through for centuries. Because the ‘Patriarchy,’ right?

The narrative generally thrown back at the man is one of “Women have been oppressed,” or “Men shouldn’t complain because they’re so privileged.” Oh really now? How do you know what it’s like to be a man? How do you know about our struggles any better than we do? You can’t claim to have a deeper understanding of the struggles men face any more than a man can claim he knows your struggles more than you. Until you spend a decent amount of time as a man, stop trying to invalidate what we say just because you’re a woman.

2.)    Stop telling Lies and Half Truths

“Truth never damages a cause that is just.”
― Mahatma Gandhi

So tell me exactly WHY you continue to either blatantly lie, or tell only half truths. Why do you feel the need to twist reality to fit your narrative when you’ve already won what you’ve fought for? Wouldn’t gaining victory be enough for you?

Let’s start with your insistence that 1 and 4 (or 3 depending who you talk to) women will be raped in their lives. Aside from the fact that I’ll do an entire paper on “Rape Culture” let’s look at that statistic. According to both the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, rape has not only gone down, but it is nowhere near the level of 1 and 3 women. The most recent statistic we have for reported forcible rape in the USA is 2009 and it states that the USA has a rate of 29 reported rapes per 100,000 people. But that’s just the US Justice Department; the CDCs own NISVS states that in 2010 in a 12 month period they estimate the number of successful forced penetration (all forms be it a penis or someone’s fingers) at 1,270,000 (pg.18 Table 2.1). Now the population of the United States of America in 2010 was estimated at 308,745,538. Divide those two together and you get .004, also known as .4%. Now I might be crazy but you seem like you’re 24.6% off on that 1 and 4 ratio.

“Wait!” I hear them cry, “Most rapes are never reported!” Okay. Well, it’s estimated that 75% to 95% of all rapes are not reported, but I’m feeling really generous, and I’ll actually double your rape number and crunch the data again for you. Guess what? You only jump up .4% still putting you 24.2% off your 1 and 4 ratio.

For the sake of even more argument let’s look at Botswana who in 2010 had the highest reported rape per 100,000. The rate was 92.9 and we’ll estimate double that isn’t reported which brings us to 185.8, divided by 100,000 and we get a rape percentage of 1.8. Hmm… You’re still off by 23.2%

Claiming that 1 and 4 women will be raped in their lives is just the same as claiming that 1 in 4 men are rapists, and it normalizes the concept of rape for those actually very few people broken enough to engage in that demented power play.

The next lie I’d like to briefly touch on is the ‘Pay Gap’ which is another subject I will cover in its own paper. Feminists like to bring out the statistic that women on average earn 67 cents per dollar that a man makes, but that is a half-truth. When that data is assembled it’s assembled across all fields of work for everyone working full time. While I would count that as comparing apples to oranges, it’s more like comparing apples to oranges to watermelons. The census doesn’t account for comparing doctors to doctors, and firemen to firewomen, and when such data is compiled, the wage gap that actually exists is women earn 97 cents per dollar that a man earns. Plus this doesn’t take into account that for younger women in urbanized areas that they generally earn more than their male counterparts. The gap really only takes effect after she’s taken time off for family or child-rearing which makes sense.

If you were a business and a woman and a man started the same day, did the same work at the same speed every day, both making a raise every year. Now if the woman left for 9 months to a year, it is understandable that the man who was still working would get the raise and the woman wouldn’t. Do you see where I’m going with this? The wage gap doesn’t exist because of employer misogyny, but because of lifestyle choices made by women.

3.)    Throw Out The Bigots In Your Movement

I’m pretty sure I explained this in the NAFALT section. Throw out the trash before you become indistinguishable from it.

4.)    Stop Pushing for Sexist Laws

I mentioned the VAWA above, and in later papers I’ll be going into more laws (especially in Family Courts) that have been weaponized into mallets to beat men with.

5.)     Stop Defending Bad Women

When it comes to this I think of the women on the talk show “The Talk” laughing at a man who had his penis chopped off because he wanted a divorce. I think of Adria Richards publicly shaming two men, getting one fired from his job for making a joke about dongles. I think of the bigots on Jezebel constantly spewing hate and misandry.

When these women tarnish the Feminism you hold so dear, then you need to stand together and loudly proclaim that they do not represent your Feminism, and their hateful bigotry is not accepted in your circles.

6.)    Stop Demonizing Male Sexuality

Listen ladies, men have this uncontrollable desire to look at the female form (speaking purely from a heterosexual viewpoint) it’s how we’ve gotten to where we are. Men need to be proactive and in a way aggressive (not physically or in a rapey way) about our sexuality. We can’t change this; it’s built into our DNA. Yet despite this we are constantly demonized for expressing our sexuality, or even demonized for repressing it. To some it’s called “trying to curb rape culture.” To the sensible it’s called “Policing the thoughts of others.”

I’m going to link you to an article right here that a Feminist wrote that has a list of ways you can tell if a man is a “rape supporter.” Give it a read, and come back to here.

Men are damned if we compliment a woman on her body if we find it appealing, or if she’s interested in you, we’re damned if we don’t. The thinking that men only view women as objects make it sound like you consider us to be half evolved cavemen. Let me tell you something ladies, men don’t just judge a woman based solely on her looks. We’re not shallow assholes who think of all the ways we can just objectify women. Please stop trying to pretend you know how the male mind works. You know how well our minds work just about as much as we know how yours do.

7.)    Do Not Teach Your Dogma To Children

We all know that children are impressionable and will try and emulate what they’re taught as best they can. If you teach little boys that they’re natural aggressors, what are you telling them? If you teach little girls that they’re oppressed and in need of handouts, what are you telling them?

Tell your kids the truth. Tell your daughters that as a woman she will have struggles to overcome, but spewing hate, or acting like the world owes you something isn’t the way to go about it. Tell your sons that as a male they too will have problems they must face, and asking for help or being kind isn’t a sign of weakness.

Raise your kids with a love for humanity, and a desire to help everyone in need regardless of what ‘group’ they belong to.

8.)    Stop Calling Anti-Feminists Misogynists

Have you ever been called that? Let me tell you that it stings when you get called that, it really does. Deep down in you something churns the wrong way when you're accused of being a misogynist. We don’t hate women, hell even one of the most prominent anti-feminists out there are women. What we hate is the system and ideology that has destroyed the lives of men and those they love. We believe and can show that the very system that Feminism has brought up hurts you women too. We want a brighter future for all of us; a future where everyone is treated as they deserve, on their merits, and is not judged by irrational hate triggers based on sex, religion, orientation, or whatever. The only reason why MRA’s and their associates are thought to be misogynists is because you keep on calling us that, and your cohorts continually take what we say, or what we do out of context.

Anti-feminists don’t exist to shift the discussion solely onto the rights of Men and Boys or to devalue the issues of Women and Girls. No, they just want the other side of the coin into account as well after 30 years of Feministic rule.

Yes, this paper was very scathing and vitriolic towards Feminism, but I believe that Feminism hasn’t had the best interests of either men or women in its heart for a very long time. Hillary Clinton once said that “When you hit a woman you hit all of society.” And while that’s true it’s only half true. It goes both ways. When you strike a man or a woman, you strike all of society. When you repress a man or a woman, you repress all of society. The genders weren’t made to lord over each other or constantly battle each other over power. No, we’re here to live symbiotically with each other. Only by setting down our swords and coming to the table will we ever truly achieve equality.
We are all human beings on this planet, and gender rights are human rights. We’re all in this together, and damage faced by one, affects the whole.


Feminism and the Disposable Male

The Patriarchy and the Myth of Male Power

Domestic Violence

Men seeking DV Help

Violence Against Women Act (Please note I don’t agree with everything in here, especially her need to call out Democrats, as that is a symptom of toxic Identity Politics)


NAFALT (collection of comments from the thankfully now defunct

If Feminists Want to Help

Lies and Half Truths
The ‘Pay Gap’
I will admit that this book is a bit old, and some data is obsolete, yet he still covers the core reasons why men tend to earn more.

Stop Defending Bad Women

Stop Calling Anti-Feminists Misogynistic