Antique Parchment Paper Roll by Old Candle Light

An open letter to feminists

Dear feminists,

It has recently come to my attention that many of you are missing the point of the MHRM. I won’t pretend to know what it’s like anesthetized to the world around you by a single-minded fixation, but it’s getting to the point where someone needs to sit down with you, calm you down, and explain the current situation. I know, that sounded terribly oppressive, and I know how much you hate mansplaining, but if you’re going to pretend you fight for men’s rights you may need to listen to men once in a blue moon.

And yes, I’m aware that your domesticated pet-feminist male sycophants agree with you, but thankfully they don’t speak for all men, even if it is comforting and convenient for you to believe otherwise.

Let me first say that I honestly see the validity of feminism, I really do. Many of you have gone insane, but somewhere buried in the ravenous culture-destroying sandstorm of your discontent lies the simple validity of your movement. Feminism is merely an expression of post-industrial female humanity that seeks to free itself from male authority. I get that. My grandmother was a feminist and a wonderful lady. What many contemporary feminists don’t seem to appreciate is that there is a flip side to this coin. With authority comes obligation, and the validity of the MHRM is that it seeks to free post-industrial male humanity from obligation to women.

Both of these post-industrial egalitarian goals, freeing women from male authority and freeing men from female obligation, could easily have coexisted under the same roof. Instead, for the past 50 years feminism has insisted on making the discussion one entirely about male authority. Those people intelligent enough to see this are now mostly pissed off about it, and attempting to convince us that misandry doesn’t exist or that women are de facto oppressed will no longer work. Many men and women see an unfair and ever-expanding unhealthy male obligation to women in our culture.

Unfortunately for everyone, you insist on understanding and processing everything in terms of male authority. You see our movement in terms of male authority, and you thus miss the point entirely. This movement is about male obligation. We support your equality, we simply want to be freed from our obligations to you, which is why we often ask some of you to please grow up. Many of you apparently believe the MHRM is somehow trying to reassert male authority. This could not be further from the truth. In fact, judging from the rapid growth of MGTOW philosophy, it’s probably more accurate to say that many men in our culture are fed up and want out altogether.

Whether men are even in a position of authority anymore is debatable, but ignoring that, let’s agree to define pre-feminist Western culture as “patriarchy.” I don’t think anyone can deny that the last century of feminist activism has worked only to free women from male authority, and has even fought to keep men bound to their obligations to women. Female patriarchal roles have been discarded, while male patriarchal roles have been entrenched. In other words, feminists have selectively supported one half of the patriarchy while attacking the other, even while claiming universal opposition to the patriarchy.

Thus, patriarchy doesn’t hurt men, the current scenario of double standards that have been put into place by 50 years of unopposed feminist activism hurts men. Stated more generally, feminism hurts men. Most men in the manosphere have done this math and come to this conclusion. So trying to convince us that “patriarchy hurts men” just won’t cut it anymore.

And even if this were the patriarchy hurting men as you claim, why should this notion stop men from attempting to free ourselves from it? Why should such a notion compel men to be feminists instead of fighting on our own behalf? At best, the whole discussion on patriarchy is a semantic one, which doesn’t change our condition or our efforts. At worst, the word patriarchy is a weapon; a distortion meant to validate your ideology and deny the legitimacy of men’s views. This, by the way, is starting to piss men off.

And indeed pissing men off has become feminism’s bread and butter. The expansion of anti male legislation is as common as it is unbelievable. I sometimes believe feminism has become the dominant force driving the expansion of misogyny in Western culture. This alone is enough to validate opposition to it. But more than this, your fight to free yourself from any semblance of male authority, real or imagined, is now infringing on our human rights as men. And when we attempt to discuss how our human rights are being violated, you even attempt to silence us by rolling over other fundamental human rights. This is why many of us laugh so heartily when you claim to fight for men’s rights.

For fun, however, let’s grant your thesis that you truly have men’s interests at heart. Let’s rewind a week and consider what happened at Donglegate, the recent spectacular debacle that redefined our state of millennial gender dysfunction, and in particular, let’s examine how effective feminism’s activism was on behalf of men. If feminism had men’s issues at heart, it should have been apparent. Well here’s what I observed:

1) You see men wanting to be half the picture as oppressive behavior.

Men valuing themselves and wanting to avoid being cut out of the picture is seen as men rising up to oppress women “again.” Men speaking out about a man’s career being thrown in the trash can wasn’t merely men being angry about being cut out of their rightful half of the picture, it was a reflection of a misogynist culture trying to keep women out of tech. In other words, you see nothing but men attempting to assert their “authority” over women.

You fail to see men that are angry about being obligated to the increasingly fragile and volatile feelings of pampered, childish feminists. And I know how irate it makes you to see me use the word “half.” How dare I say half when women are only a tiny fraction of those in the tech industry? The distribution of population by sex in the tech industry isn’t as important as men and women in any industry being valued equally. Right now you are using an assumption that the population should be 50:50 as a pretext to devalue men.

2) You treat males as disposable.

A man’s livelihood was disposed of for using the word “dongle.” Well, no, that’s not entirely accurate. A man’s livelihood was disposed of for offending the delicate sensibilities of an adult-shaped Disney princess. The exclamation mark on this mystifying orgasm of male disposability was Doug Barry’s recent article over at Jezebel arguing that the Adria Richards firing will be “hard to defend” in court before saying the following:

 

Maybe those two hapless conference-goers didn’t deserve to lose their jobs at PlayHaven and have their lives interrupted, but, then again, maybe women in the tech community deserve to attend a professional fucking conference full of professional fucking people without feeling like outsiders who have just accidentally interrupted a Halo circle jerk tournament in someone’s windowless basement.

 

I guess the firing of these men is defensible then since we’re pursuing a “higher” calling.

3) You make no boundary separating healthy female behavior from dysfunctional female behavior.

You view both equally as empowerment. If a female is behaving in a healthy way, sure it’s empowering, and reflects a strong, independent, adult woman. Fine, I get that, and I agree. I see my own girlfriend as such a woman and she has my love and respect for it. But if a female is totally disrespectful and is behaving in a socially toxic manner, for some reason this is viewed equally as her right to feel empowered.

No one in the mainstream called Richards’ behavior what it was — socially toxic. In keeping with the “empowered female” archetype, the consensus instead shifted the focus to the actions of the men being immature, juvenile, infantile, puerile, and any other word to portray their behavior in as irritating a light as possible. The distortions on their behavior were calculated to implicitly validate her actions and shield her from condemnation. This obligates these men to her “empowerment.” Men must behave in a very specific manner so that a woman can feel welcome and empowered. No expectation exists for her to be a grown up. Supporting her empowerment is considered so important that nobody should ever condemn her dysfunction.

Kate Harding’s tweet on the matter provides a good example of this lack of boundary. She summed the whole affair up as what happens “when women in tech speak out.” Her summation doesn’t allow room to consider whether Richards was speaking out in a healthy and functional manner or whether she was acting inappropriately out of hatred and spite to publicly shame someone. In Harding’s mind, this was simply female empowerment being quelled by male authority. Harding simply can’t see men being angry about a continued relationship of unhealthy obligation. As a result, her evaluation misattributes the resultant outcry as sexist, and mistakenly blames men for the problem.

4) You make no boundary separating healthy male behavior from dysfunctional male behavior.

Generally speaking, you don’t make this boundary because you tend to see male behavior as inherently authoritative and oppressive either way. Jessica Valenti’s tweet on the Donglegate matter provides a good example of this. “This is a joke, right? A woman is being fired for reporting harassment?” Here Valenti is equating an innocuous comment about a “dongle,” one not even directed at Richards, with real harassment. Again, no expectation is made for women to be remotely adult about it, it’s merely a form of harassment just like any other that victimizes women. As a result, the man immediately becomes judged a harasser, and his behavior is criminalized. His humanity and rights are denied and ignored in this process. He becomes obligated not to a reasonable and objective definition of harassment but to a woman’s feelings.

5) You accuse men of being privileged no matter the circumstances.

When you accuse men of being uniformly privileged based on your narrow view of male authority, it delegitimizes any and all discussion of male obligation. You give yourself permission to ignore and marginalize the male perspective, and subsequently to ignore men’s issues altogether. Lindy West provides a good example in her analysis of Donglegate over at Jezebel. From her article, “Woman in Tech Tweets About Sexist Dudes in Tech. Dude Gets Fired. Internet Meltdown Ensues,”

 

Men, if you don’t get that, it’s because you don’t have to get it. You are not qualified to be dismissive of a lifetime of microaggressions until you have personally experienced a lifetime of microaggressions. So if you don’t get it, be thankful.

 

This is the accusation of privilege. Notice how it is designed to immediately silence and delegitimize any form of protest or any conflicting male perspective on the matter. Notice how her belief in male privilege has apparently prevented her from considering any “microaggressions” men might deal with. Notice how if we don’t accept her frame and her rules we’re fortunate for our ignorance. The men who lost their jobs might not feel privileged, but never mind them, they’re ignorant. Lindy, you only piss men off when you ignore their views and shut down discussion with this type of adolescent behavior.

Thus if I were to grade your recent activism on behalf of men at Donglegate, I’d be forced to give you a D-. You should probably put in a better effort if you’re going to claim to support men’s issues. And there’s a good reason for you to do so. Our culture is stuck in a destructive cycle of self-validating viewpoints. You continue making demands which show a callous disregard for the interests and well being of men, because you see women as de facto oppressed.

You then fail to acknowledge and legitimize any resulting anger, because you don’t have the cognitive tools to acknowledge and legitimize any views that deviate from your own. And when public outcries like the one over Donglegate turn into public outrage, you often write it off as misogyny, and double down on your views.

This cycle of destruction needs to stop. We don’t need to be enemies, but you need to acknowledge male obligation to women and society as exactly one half of “patriarchal” oppression and start working harder to free men from it. If you continue to refuse, we will continue fighting your ideology, and events like Donglegate will be the Friday night lights of FTSU.

You’ve undoubtedly seen an explosion of what can at times fairly be called misogyny all over the internet. Can you honestly afford to keep writing it off and attempting to shame it out of existence? Can you honestly afford to keep throwing it all in one basket with the MHRM? Can you honestly keep attributing this outcry to a male proclivity for misogyny? Please consider those questions carefully.

About Gordon Wadsworth

Gordon Wadsworth is a Canadian scientist who was also one of Western society's many butlers before swallowing the red pill. He has since traded in his service tray for a refusal to bow or comply, and now endeavors to FTSU.

View All Posts
  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

    Are you an MHRA? Can you write apps for iPhone and Android? Are you willing to do that for AVFM on a special project? Please contact us.

    A Voice for Men seeks a volunteer with solid app writing experience to help us develop an app that will be linked to the AVFM brand. If you have the qualifications and are serious about following through, we would love to hear from you. Your efforts could be of great assistance to this website and to our cause. Please contact Paul Elam at paul@avoiceformen.com for more details...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! Add to and improve the AVfM Reference Wiki. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please create an account and then follow instructions here

  • strix (David King)

    Welcome, Tashas.

    If you haven’t already read it, it’s worth checking out another recent contact we had with a teen-age feminist:

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/lies-your-teachers-told-you-open-letter-to-a-young-woman/

    What so many men AND women fail to realise or acknowledge is that a feminist is simply someone who believes in equality for women.

    If that were true, most of us would be feminists, too because, as you pointed out later in your comment, men get a bad deal and are disadvantaged in many respects just like women are. It just happens that those axes of disadvantage are different between the genders.

    Fact is, though, feminism as an ideology is about a great deal more than just equality. Some want equality of outcome, which is an unachievable utopia. Some, perhaps not many, but enough, want female supremacy (and it’s doubtless true that there are some MRAs who likewise want male supremacy). Then there are the Marxist-feminists, the eco-feminists, the anarcho-feminists, the list goes on.

    A few threads run common to most feminists, however: the patriarchy postulate (not theory, because that would imply that it had been established as true), male privilege (while ignoring female privilege), and so-called “rape culture”.

    Do you buy into the standard feminist lines on these subjects or not? If so, why?

    I hope you stick around and give some careful thought to some of the stuff you see on this site. You won’t agree with all of it (I certainly don’t), but it’ll give you an alternative point of view that you won’t get from your teachers. It doesn’t matter to me whether you agree with any of it, but you’ll have my respect (for whatever that’s worth) if you have thoroughly tested what you have been told (including by us), thought it through for yourself, and formed your own, reasoned opinion.

    I think you’ll find that a lot of what you have been told is ranges from simply false to gross distortion of truth.

    • tashas

      Truth is that the word ‘feminism’ has been warped and is misconstrued. Feminism is the radical idea that women are people and deserve social, political and economic rights – just as men have, just as men deserve too. This is the correct definition which is too often ignored, and I don’t understand why this isn’t true? The fact that I came across a quote from Pat Robertson (whoever he may be) saying ‘Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians’ further exacerbates my point. I know not all people think this, but considering that even an individual or a minority do both saddens, angers and irritates me beyond belief.

      There may be a number of different types of feminists and certain people who preach feminism when in fact they want supremacy but at the end of the day equality is all that feminism stands for. I understand that while there are some ‘feminists’ who believe they deserve to have more rights, I wish people would also understand that the simple ideology of feminism does not include those people. I wouldn’t be a feminist if feminism stood for supremacy.

      I do believe that we live in a patriarchal society; if this wasn’t the case then the word feminism wouldn’t hold such negative connotations. If this wasn’t true then women wouldn’t be (generally) subordinate to men. If we didn’t live in a patriarchal society then Miley Cyrus wouldn’t have got so much grief at the VMA’S for her performance while Robin Thicke – a grown man with a wife and a child wouldn’t have got off with absolutely any criticism or questioning about his behaviour. Hell, he wouldn’t have a song called Blurred Lines where he assumes there to be a grey area between consent and rape. No, there is no grey area. If our society wasn’t patriarchal then perhaps the vast majority of society and the media would have questioned his values and his behaviour, and how he claimed ‘objectifying women is fun’ but no, most people couldn’t care less.

      Women aren’t equal to men, because it’s not okay for Miley Cyrus to take control of her own body but it is okay for Chris Brown to hospitalise a woman through domestic abuse and still maintain a successful singing career.

      Regarding Male Privilege I think it’s fairly obvious in some aspects male’s do have privileges women don’t have, but at the same time it isn’t right for me to argue that women have privileges that men don’t have. We do. We all have privileges that others don’t have. I’m not saying it’s right, but we all do.

      And I wouldn’t say I ‘buy into’ rape culture, because by using that phrase I think that suggests I’m being manipulated into believing in something that isn’t true or doesn’t exist. Rape culture does exist and to suggest it doesn’t is yet another contributing factor to why we need feminism. 1 in 4 women are raped and only 0.35% of their rapists are prosecuted. I can’t say I’m completely positive that this is a reliable statistic but it sure as hell wouldn’t surprise me if it was considering that ‘cat-calling’ is considered flattery rather than street-harassment, considering many believe that it is okay to have sex without someone’s consent as long as she initially said it was okay, or as long as he paid for dinner, or as long as they’re married etc.
      I’m pretty the fact that Robin Thicke’s song was the number 1 song of 2013 proves that rape culture exists. Plenty of my friends love that song; plenty see that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it. Let’s face it, that’s a complete and utter joke. Just because there’s a catchy tune behind it means it’s okay to insinuate rape? I don’t think so.

      To be honest my school has never talked about feminism, they’ve never even discussed sexism or racism or homophobia. My school and so many others teach trigonometry and Pythagoras’ theory rather than teaching us values and morals, so I can’t say anything I believe in has been influenced by what my teachers have told me. They haven’t told me anything. I’ve learned everything for myself, and I’m glad I have formed my own opinion rather than allowed it to be influenced and warped by others :-).

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ David King

        Apologies for the delay in replying; as you can see, we’ve been busy!

        Truth is that the word ‘feminism’ has been warped and is misconstrued.

        You’re right: there is a huge difference between what feminism is and what it ought to be. Like I said in my first reply to you, and also here[1], many we’d probably be (indeed, some of us were) feminists if ought were is.

        The sad fact is that feminism is none of those things (see my reply to Ann (linked below) for examples), and AVfM fights feminism because of what feminists actually do.

        [1] http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/leaving-the-sisterhood-a-recovering-feminist-speaks/#comment-1279023738

        This is the correct definition which is too often ignored, and I don’t understand why this isn’t true?

        There are probably as many answers to that as there are people who misunderstand. Broadly speaking, though, it seems that there are two common situations:

        • the misled: those that buy feminist ideas of patriarchy and privilege, and who therefore genuinely believe that feminism has the right answers to what is very real suffering. These people are acting quite rationally given their understanding of the world.

        The problem is that they see the advantages of being male without seeing the disadvantages (and sometimes they wrongly extrapolate how good the top 1% of men have it to all other men) and, conversely, see their own disadvantages without recognising their own privilege.

        The more fundamental problem, though, is that male privilege and patriarchy are concepts that do have an element of truth to them, even if taken as a whole they don’t relate well to reality. Privilege can blind, but that works both ways: feminists are blind to their own privilege.

        • tribalism: non-rational grounds for adopting feminist doctrine, including in-group preference, community and identity rather than ethical concerns over the way people are treated.

        Based on what many such (self-described) feminists say, they aren’t at all interested in equality at all. Attempts to reason with these people are usually dismissed using all sorts of bad logic, bad statistics and/or appeals to emotion because the basis for their views isn’t grounded in logic and data in the first place. Occasionally, some will openly admit that they don’t care about the circumstances of men and justify their actions in terms of retaliation for historic oppression or whatever.

        Derisory expressions like “whatabout teh menz?” and “punching up[ward]” are rationalisations for why they don’t have to care about male oppression and/or why their own actions and speech are okay. Then there are those who try to redefine the terminology to “prove” that they are not doing anything wrong. Example: if “sexism = discrimination + power” then women can’t possibly be sexist because (according to them) they lack power, and practically any speech or act is justified.

        There are, as you say, a few who are genuine female supremacists, but I suspect that most simply lack the integrity to apply to men the principles they apply to themselves (and visa versa).

        For the record, I’ve seen no reason to t think you’re this type of feminist.

        The fact that I came across a quote from Pat Robertson (whoever he may
        be) saying ‘Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill
        their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become
        lesbians’

        Oh dear! Find out who Pat Robertson is and what he does, then reconsider that quote:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson_controversies

        He’s a fundamentalist Christian and quite crazy with it. That bit about witchcraft? I don’t doubt he actually means that literally. He’s the sort of guy who thinks that gays are paedophiles, that HIV is a punishment from God for homosexuality and that Katrina and Sandy is likewise punishment for allowing gay marriage.

        The man is completely vile and every bit as much a foe of the MHRM as he is of feminism.

        I wish people would also understand that the simple ideology of feminism
        does not include those people.

        On the one hand, I do actually sympathise because of the way feminsts tend to lump our crazies (eg the Peter Nolans of the world) in with the rest of us MHRAs. On the other, it’s something of a moot point because labels don’t matter anything like as much as actions. We say we are anti-feminists because enough self-identified feminists do and say hateful things towards men and men’s issues.

        I do believe that we live in a patriarchal society; if this wasn’t the case then the word feminism wouldn’t hold such negative connotations. […]

        There are other possible explanations for those things other than a patriarchy. For example, on the Cyrus/Thicke thing, I agree that’s a double standard; the alternative explanation is that some people are simply arseholes. Note that the condemnation for Cyrus came from both men and women, and Thicke likewise got a pass from both men and women.

        If you’re going to say that women are generally subordinate to men, then you’re going to have to justify that empirically in a way that accounts for both advantage and disadvantage in both men and women. That is going to be extremely difficult to do, because many of the variables you’ll want to include don’t lend themselves easily to quantitative analysis.

        The problem with the patriarchy hypothesis is that it has no clear definition and no rigorous way to test it. It’s also self-contradictory: if the patriarchy is a system of social power designed to benefit men at the explicit expense of women, then you can’t also claim that ‘patriarchy hurts men, too’.

        This is actually a timely subject, because we published a relevant article just within the last day or so:

        http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/the-worlds-fastest-patriarchy-disproof-2/

        Now, I don’t think that this article is a comprehensive evaluation of all the areas of social power, but I do think it demonstrates that if patriarchy is real, then it isn’t doing a very good job in the areas touched on in that article.

        Others can write more eloquently on the subject of why the patriarchy is an idea of dubious merit; hopefully they’ll chime in here.

        it is okay for Chris Brown to hospitalise a woman through domestic abuse and still maintain a successful singing career.

        I don’t think anybody thinks that this is okay. People getting away with criminal acts isn’t proof of anything other than that justice is imperfect. You might as well point to the female perpetrators of DV who are never even investigate by the police and claim that people are “okay” with that.

        It’s certainly not proof of a patriarchy or, if it were, what does the case of Nicole Ryan prove? Ryan was convicted of trying to procure the murder of her husband, but the Canadian supreme court ordered that she was not to be retried or punished:

        http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-violence/extreme-duress-princess/

        On the other hand, the abundance of women’s refuges compared with the paucity of men’s refuges just might indicate that if there is any systemic prejudice against an entire gender, then it runs against men rather than women:

        http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/what-happened-to-the-earl-silverman-center/

        it’s fairly obvious in some aspects male’s do have privileges women don’t have, but at the same time it isn’t right for me to argue that women have privileges that men don’t
        have. We do. We all have privileges that others don’t have.

        We agree on that much, at least. Relative advantage (“privilege”, if you will) will always exist for as long as populations are not uniform in terms of personality, background, preferences and opportunities amongst many, many more factors besides.

        If the concept were applied even-handedly, then it’d be less of a problem but, instead, feminists often use the notion of privilege to justify policies that advantage women over men without giving due consideration to the ways that women already have advantage over men.

        Rape culture does exist and to suggest it doesn’t is yet another contributing factor to why we need feminism.

        Two recent articles (both written by women, as it happens):

        http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/our-so-called-rape-culture/
        http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/rape-culture-fanatics-dont-know-what-a-culture-is/

        I will agree with you that something approaching the feminist idea of
        rape culture exists in pockets of the population. It’s even relatively easy to identify some of those pockets, however it is wrong to generalise from those specific examples to the whole of western culture. How can you possibly know what the vast majority of men, who are never asked and who never comment on the matter, think of lyrics like Thicke’s?

        In the same way, it is equally wrong (though some MRAs and MGTOWs do this anyway), to generalise about all women based purely on the evil behaviour of a few women. If Robyn Thicke’s lyrics are evidence for a rape culture amongst men, why (to pick an example already mentioned) is Nicole Ryan not evidence for a murder culture amongst women?

        1 in 4 women are raped and only 0.35% of their rapists are prosecuted. I
        can’t say I’m completely positive that this is a reliable statistic

        And you’d be quite right to be cautious about those data. Do you know where the 1-in-4 figure comes from? Mary P. Koss and a study originally commissioned by Ms. magazine, and then later published by the CDC. If I recall, some three quarters of the alleged victims she interviewed themselves disagreed that they’d been raped.

        So much has been written about this and, I can’t recall what the single best article is, but if you do some research, I think you’ll find that it is not at all reliable. Try this one for starters:

        http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/so-many-lies/

        Note that Koss specifically regards men as being ineligible for being considered victims of rape:

        http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/male-disposability-and-mary-p-koss/

        Regarding the prosecution rape, one of the best sources I’ve seen for that is the 2010 Stern Review:

        http://reference.avoiceformen.com/wiki/Rape_statistics_(primary)#The_Stern_Review

        According to her (and, ultimately, the CPS), 19% of complaints are actually taken to court, of which some 60% result in a conviction of rape or related charge. That figure of 19% could be more or less depending on what you’re counting, but it is certainly a great deal larger than the 0.35% figure you quoted.

        it sure as hell wouldn’t surprise me if it was considering that ‘cat-calling’ is considered flattery rather than street-harassment

        Not nearly good enough. You’re making a positive claim about the incidence of rape and the rate of prosecutions — both based on extremely dubious data — in order to justify the belief that rape culture is real and pervasive.

        Cat-calling is arsehollery, and it’s unpleasant, but it’s not illegal and it’s definitely not proof of rape culture. Be careful what you ask for: if being an arsehole ever becomes grounds for criminal or civil sanctions, women might just end up getting hurt by that, too:

        http://au.avoiceformen.com/allnews/man-successfully-uses-battered-spouse-syndrome-as-defence-in-murder-trial/

        considering many believe that it is okay to have sex without someone’s
        consent as long as she initially said it was okay, or as long as he paid
        for dinner, or as long as they’re married etc.

        Who is “many” and what are your sources for that claim? I don’t know anybody who thinks that. Certainly, none of my colleagues do. I expect you can find some arsehole somewhere who does but, again, that’s no proof of a pervasive rape culture.

        I’ve learned everything for myself, and I’m glad I have formed my own
        opinion rather than allowed it to be influenced and warped by others

        I’m glad you’ve taken it upon yourself to research the issue and form your own opinion but, I’m sorry to say, if you’re prepared to accept some of the data you’ve cited as true without verifying them then I think you have allowed your views to be influenced and warped by others.

        You promote views espoused by others which are apparently unsupported by any evidence and which are misandrist in their outlook. Misandry is as bad as misogyny. Both are deeply harmful to both men and women, but few — least of all, feminists — are willing to speak out against it.

  • Turbo

    @ Tashes

    If you are looking for your comment and the other replies to it, you need to select “Older Comments” just at the bottom of these comments. It can be easy to miss.