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
  • 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.

  • Nova

    There are talking points that the MRAs touch on that really do co-incide with my interests.

    The disposability thing, the suicide gap, the systemic numbing and dehumanizing and weaponization of men.

    I am not a big fan of the burden of masculinity, but I think the anti-feminists pull a really funny irony move where they become victimized into a victim mentality by the victims with their victim mentality… and end up churning out violence and paranoia by making women the new judenproblem.

    If it weren’t a magnet for potential future mass shooters, ‘friend zoned’ passive aggressive entitled kids, misogynists, and otherwise violent people, I would really love to put energy into a group that would actually work towards improving the collective well being of men.

    Mostly its our sense of entitlement and the aggression that’s killing us; we are killing us. I mean suicide, and homicide, these are problems mostly aimed AT males, BY males.

    No amount of making women a target will change the things we do to ourselves.

    • driversuz

      Women aren’t the target. The targets are feminism and gynocentrism.

      • Nova

        Still the wrong target!

        If men are hurting themselves most of all, nothing we do to feminism will stop what we do to ourselves.

        • driversuz

          I would submit, based on your OP, that you think the “right” target is Toxic Masculinity.

          Which doesn’t exist.

          “magnet for potential future mass shooters…” “our sense of entitlement and the aggression…”

          The group you want is feminism, since you clearly embrace its contempt for males. Rest assured though, feminism has no plans to address men’s issues in any concrete way.

          You can stop trolling now.

          • Nova

            IF by trolling you mean being intellectually honest, I know in some dialects that term does denote “disagrees with my ideology.”

            And yes, I do disagree with anti-feminism.

            That being said, I’m not kidding you that I see room outside of feminism for men to work on mens issues.

            Hey, my dad was a vet, can we end the draft please?

            IFF all of mens issues were caused by women and feminism that would be one thing, but even if you follow Warren Ferrel and the rather valid issues he brings up, he even notes that a lot of them don’t necessarily co-incide with the rise of feminism; that many of these issues were pre-existing in society.

            I don’t think ‘femininity’ or ‘masculinity’ are real things. There are biological males and females, but implications for behavior beyond that are dubious at best and more often than not demonstrably unfounded.

            I do appreciate the feminists who counter-act the narrative that men are by nature foul and are incapable of behaving ethically.

            There are many different ideologies under that umbrella, but I do agree with the radical feminist proposition that if they want to, men know perfectly well how to abstain from being violent rapists.

            You can call that misandry if you like, but that sounds like a much KINDER take on men than does all the biological essentialism that goes along with what I refer to as ‘the man box,’ that the gender traditionalists attempt to send people to reparative therapy to conform to.

          • driversuz

            ” but I do agree with the radical feminist proposition that if they want to, men know perfectly well how to abstain from being violent rapists.”

            Of course they can, because they have no desire nor inborn inclination to become violent rapists. In fact, women also know how to abstain from being violent rapists. Violent rapists comprise a tiny percentage of the populations of both men and women, so the vast majority of the population doesn’t “abstain” from becoming violent rapists any more than it “abstains” from cannibalism, or from waking up and habitually killing the first person they see every day. There is nothing remotely “intellectually honest” about the idea that men or women need to “know how to abstain” from brutality.

          • Nova

            ” Violent rapists comprise a tiny percentage of the populations of both men and women, so the vast majority of the population doesn’t “abstain” from becoming violent rapists any more than it “abstains” from cannibalism, or from waking up and habitually killing the first person they see every day”

            I don’t mean to imply that all rape is done in a way that utilizes physical force. Realistically most of it happens when people are drugged or drunk and have blacked out. And that’s when you survey the perps, not the victims. This is by the admission of the men surveyed.

            According to Lasik and Miller, you’d be correct that it is a small percentage of men who are rapists, and OF those people there’s an even smaller group that is responsible for a vast majority of sexual assault. Mostly towards intoxicated acquaintances.

            If pointing out the gendered asymmetry of sexual assault didn’t get lumped into the category of ‘misandry’ then it would be relatively simple to have the vast majority of reasonable and conscientious men step aside and pull the blanket of cover that allows that small group of predators to operate.

            Its the myths about the nature of man and him being inherently brutal that provides the best justifications/excuses… “Boys will be boys.”

            I think that hurts men. Some feminists think that hurts men. I hope some masculists also find “Boys will be boys” to be disempowering as well.

          • driversuz

            “have the vast majority of reasonable and conscientious men step aside and pull the blanket of cover that allows that small group of predators to operate.”

            What a load of bullshit. Men don’t cover for rapists. Men beat the shit out of, imprison, and lynch rapists, often at the behest of women, with evidence or without it.

            You keep trying to sneak in references to the absolutely false assumption that man and masculinity are to blame. Forget it. There is not “Patriarchy.” There is no “toxic Masculinity.” If you’re going to promote the lie that either exists, you’ll have to do it elsewhere.

          • Nova

            “What a load of bullshit. Men don’t cover for rapists. Men beat the shit
            out of, imprison, and lynch rapists, often at the behest of women, with
            evidence or without it.”

            And I’m supposed to take this what, by your word?

            Could you outline your method of epistemology on ascertaining such data?

          • Lucian Vâlsan

            Strike 1: This is a friendly warning that you may need to re-read our Comment Policy, in particular the bits about misandry and misogyny, derailing and trolling. [Ref: 3062]

            Additional remarks:

            Please stop.

          • realraven2000

            “And I’m supposed to take this what, by your word?” ARE. YOU. SERIOUS?

            Of course your argument ONLY works via “guilt by association”. Take an example – if a PERSON covers for a rapist, because the rapist is their friend you wouldn’t automatically say “bicyclists cover for rapists” because (s)he happened to be a bike rider?

            In general terms, it is quite obvious that practically all MEN would viciously condemn and counter-act rape. And so would WOMEN (although they might not intervene physically) if you say something hateful like “Men cover for rapists” (and thus assume it is a male problem) you have automatically generated a “guilt by association” standard, and you might as well talk about jews or n1ggers; the mind set is exactly the same.

            Of course you can find examples of bad men, what makes you think YOU are better than them?

          • Nova

            “In general terms, it is quite obvious that practically all MEN would viciously condemn and counter-act rape.”

            Its not entirely clear that ALL men would even understand that rape is rape.

            That’s generally why they feel at liberty to talk about their rapes on surveys.

            If you describe the action without envoking that particular word, people will say, “Oh yeah, I did that… not rape, but I did THAT.”

            Do you think close friends never want to give their buddies the benefit of a doubt?

          • realraven2000

            “Its not entirely clear that ALL men would even understand that rape is rape.”

            Understand that a statement such as “rape is rape” does not explain anything, at best it is an obfuscation tactic.

            “I did that… not rape, but I did THAT”

            I have a feeling you are shifting the goal posts here – would you care to give an example for such a form of “rape”? Also, ask yourself whether you would define the same as “rape” if genders were reversed. Disclosure: I had intercourse with my wife after having imbibed alcoholic beverages – are you classifying her as rapist?

          • driversuz

            Yes he is indeed shifting the goal posts, and it’s becoming boring rather quickly but perhaps he enjoys the exercise.

          • driversuz

            “Its not entirely clear that ALL men would even understand that rape is rape.”

            Nobody does. The modern feminist definition of rape is so intentionally ambiguous,”rape” is now anything any woman wants it to be. It’s completely subjective.

            Moron.

          • Nova

            What is “THE modern definition”

            You’ll have to be specific here, because I am aware of competing definitions of consent and I’m curious what consent means coming from your perspective.

            If the feminists have failed to define it properly, as you say, what is your alternative definition of consent. Also, could you explain why its superior?

          • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

            This site is not part of a masculist movement, just to set the record straight. Answering ideology with ideology is a poor idea.

            For instance, it is your ideology that gives us the moronic idea that the majority of men enable rape, when every bit of law, custom and historical social repugnance for that crime says otherwise. I am about to turn 58, an age which has given me sufficient living experience in traditional and postmodern culture, and I have served in the military. I have never once heard “boys will be boys,” invoked about rape.

            Indeed I have never been in any social circle in my life where such invocation would not be regarded with distain and contempt.

            Thus I have never been “disempowered” with such an idiotic idea.

            On the other hand, I do see the assumption that men, generally speaking, hold such a cavalier idea of rape to be quite disempowering to them.

            Finally, fuck what feminists think about anything. All they do is diminsh serious discussion about rape and every other social ill with illogical postmodern drivel. And they could care less what really hurts men.

          • Nova

            “Finally, fuck what feminists think about anything. All they do is
            diminsh serious discussion about rape and every other social ill with
            illogical postmodern drivel. And they could care less what really hurts
            men.”

            Again, I think you are oversimplifying a diverse field of investigation. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and I think feminists touch on things that ring true more often than not.

            Also, can you dis post-modernism without sounding post modern? That sounds very post-post-modern.

          • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

            Hitler said a few things that make sense, too. That does not mean he should not be dismissed for much better sources of wisdom.

            I will leave you to figure out why you think I sound postmodern.

          • Nova

            Its gender studies man… its that kinda thing where when someone gets called a hipster they get offended and say “I’m not a hipster” and because they’re in denial of being a hipster they are showing symptoms of hipsterness.

            I think referencing post-modern as a part of a disagreement in a conversation about gender is the ultimate, ironic post-modern move.

            I’m personally into post-irony, myself, so I’m trying to steer a little bit more “normcore” these days.

          • realraven2000

            advice: do not use the word victims as synonym for accusers. likewise, accused are not perps.

            just by stating that a “sufficiently expressed consent echange” by YOUR standards was not imagined during or after doesn’t mean that the sex was violent or a “sexual aggression”. “sex is not rape” and “rape is not sex” they are not the same thing. If you redefine rape then rape becomes not rape.

          • Nova

            In the Lasik study, there ARE no accusers.

            It was a survey of men. In this case the victimization is implied through the men’s own admission.

          • fidelbogen

            If you disagree with “anti-feminism”, do you mean to say that you are a feminist?

          • Nova

            Either/or eh?

            There are ideas that ring deeply true that I encountered in the feminist blogosphere (and, incidentally, coincide with data,) I don’t know if I feel the need to call myself a feminist at this point in time but its deeply influenced my thinking so if it helps you pigeonhole me you can call me a feminist ally. It would still do you good to go issue for issue with me though.

            I’m not working off a script from tumblr, having been assimilated into the borg, so there is no entourage of social warrior sock puppets to follow this communication if that’s what you are worried about.

            There is enough to sicken me about identity politics, but it just so happens that in my every day life a lot of the causes that I work on happen to co-incide with other issues that my feminist friends are working on.

            I’m mostly interested in the mechanism of shame, and how it causes people to internalize self destructive standards of behavior, and how that contributes to hierarchy maintenance in a highly competitive society.

          • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

            So, no chance for a simple, direct answer to a simple direct question.

            Once again, do you identify as a feminist?

          • Nova

            No. But you can call me an ally. I do not identify as a feminist, nor do I necessarily accept every last argument ever made under the whole banner, as that is too broad.

            I support certain ideas that come out of feminism and not others, after evaluating them on a case by case basis.

    • Nightwing1029

      Man, you must be a special kind of stupid, aren’t you?
      Where shall I start with making you look like a total moron?
      “I am not a big fan of the burden of masculinity”
      Most of the burden of masculinity is placed upon men by women. Any guy who has ever dated knows that. Women get us to compete among ourselves, for a chance at their ever so gracious approval of what they feel is masculine. But one step out of line, and you end up on the garbage heap. (By the way, this will come into play when I knock another of your obviously feminist ideals around with the brick of logic)
      “If it weren’t a magnet for potential future mass shooters, ‘friend zoned’ passive aggressive entitled kids, misogynists, and otherwise violent people,”
      Really? Name a few. Elliot Roger doesn’t count, even though he was called an MRA by most main stream media and feminist sources. Neither does Thomas Ball, as he wasn’t violent. Anders Brevik? Nope. He was just someone who attended a single pickup artist course.
      You’re really starting to look very much like someone who doesn’t have a clue.
      “Mostly its our sense of entitlement and the aggression that’s killing us; we are killing us.”
      Hmmm…
      Yeah, no. That’s more feminist bullshit. You’re pulling out “toxic masculinity,” which is pure feminist crap.
      Aggression is useful in numerous ways. As is our dominant personalities. These are some of the things that make a woman get soaking wet panties (the only thing that gets them to want to fuck us). But that goes back to something I said above about the argument coming into play later, as will this next one.
      “I mean suicide, and homicide, these are problems mostly aimed AT males, BY males.”
      And yet, what are the reasons we commit suicide? Mostly depression after divorces, loss of hope of ever seeing our children, etc. And these things are caused by feminists and their corrupting of family courts. (Also, I have seen men driven into poverty due to family courts)
      Homicide? I am sure the stats on multiple party homicides tend to be vastly a man and a woman killing her husband. Quite often because she said he was cruel to her. Other such types of offenses… For nothing more than offending her delicate sensibilities.
      Man, you’re a stupid one, trying to bring this feminist crap in here.
      “No amount of making women a target will change the things we do to ourselves.”
      Except that women aren’t the target. The ideology of feminism is. FYI, feminism does not equal women. (Rookie mistake, dude)
      I am sure I could go through the rest of your bullshit, and pull a few other things to smack out of the park, but I think I will let you run off and lick your wounds.
      When you’re ready to figure out what is really going on in the world, feel free to come back.
      We will still welcome you.
      But until you open your mind, fuck off.

      • Nova

        “Most of the burden of masculinity is placed upon men by women. Any guy
        who has ever dated knows that. Women get us to compete among ourselves,
        for a chance at their ever so gracious approval of what they feel is
        masculine. But one step out of line, and you end up on the garbage
        heap. (By the way, this will come into play when I knock another of
        your obviously feminist ideals around with the brick of logic)”

        It was not a woman who beat my dad mercilessly, nor was it women who sent him a letter to go to Vietnam and go kill other men. Nor was it women who trained him how to dissociate from acts of extreme violence, leaving him with a mental illness he’s suffered from into old age.

        No where, was it a womans decision for him to have to do any of those things, and if i think about what ‘being a man’ means to me that is the most immediate and direct root I have towards understanding the behavioral patterns and expectations that come to me, from society.

        Also, I know there are mean girls out there, but it seems like guys would need to agree amongst one another to compete; that is, a woman couldn’t FORCE them to. It seems to me that women kinda go with what tickles them; which in many cases ISN’T highly competitive behavior.

        ” I am sure the stats on multiple party homicides tend to be vastly a man and a woman killing her husband.”

        I do evidence; got a link?

        “And yet, what are the reasons we commit suicide?”

        Because we’ve developed a pattern of emotional interaction that is shame based, since shame is a kind of cultural technology geared towards maintaining hierarchical social orders.

        • driversuz

          “Evidence?”
          Such as a your personal observations about your father?

          • Nova

            “Such as a your personal observations about your father?”

            In regards to the claim that masculinity is imposed on men by women, I can think of at least a few other examples of where people modeled their masculinity from men.

            What kind of evidence would satisfy?

            As far as the claim that I am asking evidence for ” I am sure the stats on multiple party homicides tend to be vastly a man and a woman killing her husband.”

            If there is a study on that, I would like to be aware of it. I’m calling him out on his certainty, because I am wagering that there is no empirical data as much as there is a gut feeling.

          • driversuz

            Are you expecting anyone to take seriously your standards of “evidence?”
            That was one of the most lame dodges I’ve seen in years on internet forums.

          • Nova

            I’m expecting you to move the goal post on evidence.

            So if I insist that you define the standard for evidence that you would consider and accept, I can avoid the trap of you upping the ante and saying “not good enough.”

            Are you looking for a peer reviewed journal with a high impact?

            I don’t really know what the methodology of fact finding for this group is, what the epistemology, so if you specify how much more you need than the existence of the military industrial complex to understand that masculinity can be transmitted through males.

        • Nightwing1029

          Oh, welcome to your worst nightmare, dude.
          You have gotten my FULL attention.
          (This will not end well for you)

          “Because we’ve developed a pattern of emotional interaction that is shame based, since shame is a kind of cultural technology geared towards maintaining hierarchical social orders.”
          When did this happen? (Hint: it was back with religions)
          And while we can’t blame feminism for it’s creation, we can blame feminists for ratcheting up the shame that men feel up beyond 11. (However, we can also thank them for doing so, and men becoming less controlled through shame)
          Even then, this was developed by society (half of which was women), and enforced by society (again, half of which was women). Because it is, and always has been, women that controlled what was and was not acceptable in society. This is evident in numerous old adages such as “The hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world,” “If mamma isn’t happy, then no one is,” and a few others (that I can’t remember off the top of my head).
          See, the pattern that no one actually looks at is that women are the puppet masters of society, and men are the enforcers. To hold only one side to blame for society is hiding from reality. (Keep all this in mind, it will come up later, in the quiz)

          “Suicide is aggression turned inwards, and shame is what fuels rage.”
          Except that it isn’t. People commit suicide due a great number of reasons. But, by far, it tends towards depression. (That isn’t anger or aggression, though a shaky argument might be made that it comes from fear)

          “You can ad Sodini to the list.”
          Except that Sodini is just like Elliot Roger. He is someone that feminists (such as Valenti) have tried their best to link to the MRM. There isn’t even a shaky link between the MRM and these individuals. You can’t even call the evidence presented as circumstantial. It’s all false allegations of involvement.

          I am going to pause here, and point out that the above just shows how uneducated you are on all this. You are making yourself look real stupid in front of everyone. And believe me, we are all laughing at you.

          “It was not a woman who beat my dad mercilessly, nor was it women who sent him a letter to go to Vietnam and go kill other men. Nor was it women who trained him how to dissociate from acts of extreme violence, leaving him with a mental illness he’s suffered from into old age.”

          I am going to take this all together, instead of tearing it all apart, piece by piece.
          While it was not a woman that did the acts, you have shown that you can not see that a woman’s displeasure was most likely behind it.
          This goes back to the point I have made several times: Women are the puppet masters of society and men are their enforcers. (Read up on the White Feather Campaign, and you might understand a bit more)

          You only look at the surface of things. This leads to not understanding reality. (A flaw that seems to be running through all your arguments)

          And while I might give you a point in that men have the ability to not follow what society says they have to, the consequences were always far too severe for most men. Often the consequences were (at best) poverty and social isolation, and at worst, death. And all because it displeased women.

          So run along, little boy.
          Come back when you understand how little you know and understand.

          • Nova

            “I am going to pause here, and point out that the above just shows how
            uneducated you are on all this. You are making yourself look real
            stupid in front of everyone. And believe me, we are all laughing at you”

            QED about shame as a mechanism involved in maintaining hierarchical social dynamics.

            I couldn’t ask for a more perfect demonstration of a theory I’ve been researching for some time now.

            I personally think this very thing, that identity politics internalizes, is the big weakness of the left. Even if you are trying to take down patriarchy, shame based strategies to start conversations is more than anything going to encourage backlash.

          • Nightwing1029

            “Even if you are trying to take down patriarchy,”
            And there it is.
            See, everyone here knows that Patriarchy is just a bunch of bullshit.
            You have just shown yourself to be an even bigger idiot than anyone thought.
            Last clue I have for you: Patriarchy doesn’t exist. (Never really did, but that’s not something feminists want people to know, because it invalidates the entire ideology)
            But I do have some advice: Craft your theory to suit the facts. Stop searching for facts to support your theory. You’ll come away with more accurate ideas.
            Now, would somebody please get this asshole out of here.

          • Nova

            If patriarchy didn’t exist, then why would female politicians speaking about birth control issues be excluded from talking in legal proceedings that are dominated by males, intended to make decisions about the law as it applies to female bodies?

          • Lucian Vâlsan

            Strike 2: This is a friendly warning that you may need to re-read our Comment Policy, in particular the bits about derailing. [Ref: 3134]

          • Nightwing1029

            You seem to not get it.
            The mods have warned you twice for derailing.
            Stop now, before someone whips out the ban hammer on you. (Just a piece of advice, before I tackle your ill-informed assertion)
            “If patriarchy didn’t exist, then why would female politicians speaking about birth control issues be excluded from talking in legal proceedings that are dominated by males, intended to make decisions about the law as it applies to female bodies?”
            Why are there so few female senators? Is it because of the patriarchy? No. The real reason there aren’t enough females in legislation is the fact that women don’t want to be there. It’s not systematic oppression. Not gender bias against women (though I could argue it is gender bias against women from women, due to women knowing how bad other women are). And it’s definitely not due to the mythical and mystical “Patriarchy.”
            See, we actually understand that women (and men) make choices that affect the course of their lives. Some of these choices are good. Some of these choices are bad. All have an effect on the course of a person’s life. And all are necessary to learn the lessons that life throws at us.
            If a woman wanted to be included in the making of policy, they would be on the floor, and doing the job.
            But here’s the part no one (at the very least, not feminists) ever seems to think about: Women’s lobby groups still spend time and money on getting these things on the books. These policies are in place due to the efforts of women (and men) that took the time to fight for this. At the same time, you are talking about policies that affect not just women, but also men and businesses. These legislators are trying their best to make the laws fair and balanced for everyone. (Whoa! Novel concept, dude!)
            Even then, consider there are over a dozen different forms of birth control for women. Men have three. One is an invasive procedure that isn’t always guaranteed to be reversible. Another is a plastic tube that isn’t always reliable (and easy to sabotage). And the last is called abstinence. (Just try telling women to abstain from sex, and see what happens. Yet men are told that this is a totally acceptable option for them)
            Yet this is all “patriarchy.”
            A system set up for the express benefit of all men, at the expense of all women.
            And the reason people call “patriarchy” a myth is that if the system were set up for the benefit of men at the expense of women, women would not have over 4 times as many options for birth control that men do (among other things).
            And yet, women still expect men (and by extension, the businesses they create) to give to women everything they ask for, without the obligation to earn it that is expected of men.
            This is why I call your assertion ill-informed. This is why I mocked and derided you for so many posts.
            Because even a brief examination of things shows how idiotic the very foundation of feminist theory (patriarchy) is.
            Now, run along muppet. I have better things to do than to deal with you.
            Or, in the words of Clifford Franklin (from the Replacements):
            “My brothers, would someone please, please, get this asshole out of here.”

          • Nova

            Banhammer if you will, I’ve already done what I can do.

            Seeds only grow so well as the soil and water allows, but they’ve been planted.

            If you took a long enough glance at the arguments made to run them through your arbitrary relevance filters (in a letter addressed to feminists and presumably their allies) then you can vanish me away to the cornfields and the cognitive dissonance will be left reverberating in your court.

            Good luck trying to establish a sense of personal power by demonizing a group that is disadvantaged relative to yourselfs gents, and if all does not go well and you are so put upon by being male, there’s always transsexualism, and transsexual porn until then.

          • driversuz

            ” …a group that is disadvantaged relative to yourselfs…”

            And there it is. The lie you tell because you Listened and Believed.
            Bye now.

          • driversuz

            You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (derailing and trolling). [Ref: 3237]

            Additional remarks:

            Feminist dogma

          • Nightwing1029

            I know they banned you.
            I still hope you can see what I have to say.
            You are an idiot. Period.
            You claim that you have planted the seeds. However, almost all the people here have enough knowledge to know that what you have to say is in the realm of lunacy. And this is proven by the fact that you think you have planted seeds.
            Seeds of what?
            Everyone here that has engaged you, has ripped your arguments apart with plain logic.
            The only cognitive dissonance is on your end.
            So…
            Good luck, and fuck you.

    • fidelbogen

      Are you a feminist?

      Please answer yes or no.

    • realraven2000

      what the fuck are you using the word “judenproblem” for? I am German and was triggered by that.

      Seriously, no real MRA is attacking women as “subhumans”. Very much the opposite of SOCj types who do this to men all the freaking time.

      • Nova

        I’m using it because its how I refer to a whole class of ideological strategies that involve scape goating an already marginalized group.

        The analogy to “its gynocentrism, not women” is “Its Zionists, not jews.”

        Men’s biggest problem is coping with their own aggression in the modern world that requires us to be less reactive and more socially responsive. Mis-identifying the root of our discomfort does us no favors.

        Its work men need to do for themselves.

        • realraven2000

          “Men’s biggest problem is coping with their own aggression in the modern
          world that requires us to be less reactive and more socially responsive.” – No

          “Judenproblem” – “its how I refer to a whole class of ideological strategies” that just makes you the propagandist; it is an odious, manipulative tactic. Men are not planning Pogroms against women, if you believe that you are delusional. Looking at real world cases of injustice and the general trend is a necessary action and has nothing to do with “scape goating an already marginalized group”.

          Unless you would call false accusers and manipulators a “marginalized group” I do not see how this would be correct. Women as a whole are not marginalized, they are actually very central to mainstream discussion. It is the ideologists who shame based on gender and race who are the problem.

        • driversuz

          “The analogy to “its gynocentrism, not women” is “Its Zionists, not jews.”

          Patently incorrect. Which word do you not comprehend? – “gynocentrism,” “women,” “Zionists,” “jews,” or “analogy.” ??

  • Paula Pragmatic

    Feminism hurts men AND women.

  • Amanda Welch

    I have to say, that as a woman, I love how this made sense. My husband has been heavily… Well honestly, I’m not sure how to word this, as he is more than interested in your point of view. A lot of what feminists have said or posted has pissed him off, and has left me utterly confused as I hardly ever understand how they have come to their conclusions. It’s usually so twisted that I end up feeling lost. So, thank you. It’s nice to read something that makes some straight forward sense.