stupid

A short guide for feminists

How to not appear as stupid as you do. A guide for feminists.

I must preface this guide with a bit of history: I did not begin to self-identify as a men’s rights activist with the intention of attacking our culture’s populist gender ideology. In fact, my writing as an M(H)RA evolved out the maintenance of a now dead political blog I began in 2006 to vent my spleen over the apparent insanity of the public political establishment in North America. What mainstream politicians were saying and doing was then, and remains now, so sharply inconsistent that I began looking for alternative motivations for the apparent insanity. In fact, although I was not any kind of feminist, I regarded feminism as simply an ideology I wasn’t interested in.

However, after I began writing about human rights issues impacting men, I met feminism’s activist face. It was enlightening. In fact, it became obvious to me that before the real work towards human rights for men can really be accomplished, the gender ideologues in direct opposition to human rights would have to be addressed.

Professor Janice Fiamengo, who presented a public lecture on modern feminism at the University of Toronto in March 2013, opened her discussion with the following description:

“Academic feminism, as it is practiced and disseminated in our universities, is overwhelmingly intellectually empty, incoherent, and dishonest.”

I’d call Fiamengo’s comment a good start, but not sufficient. Modern feminism is intellectually empty, incoherent, dishonest, violent, hateful and morally bankrupt. It is a sick, authoritarian cult of hatred and violence, and of sanctified victimhood.

In fact, in almost every instance of men or men’s advocates addressing human rights concerns impacting men and boys, the activist proponents of feminism have shown up to silence and disrupt any such male human rights advocacy. But in effect, rather than effectively silencing views other than their own, activist feminists have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be violent, sadistic, amoral, supremacist, and bigoted totalitarian thugs.

Activist gender ideologues have done such a thorough job of monstering themselves that I am now writing this to prevent further self-harm on their part – or such is my hope.

What follows is a list of often repeated behaviours and expressed positions by gender ideologues, along with commentary and suggested alternative tactics. The goal for feminists following the provided advice in this article will be to appear less stupid, less amoral, less sadistic, less petty, and importantly, to appear more adult than they do at present.

NUMBER ONE

Travelling in a large group, wearing masks, carrying weapons, vandalizing private property, and attempting to physically intimidate anyone not in your gang – does this sound familiar to anyone?

It should, as it’s a standard trope used in crime action drama films in the 1960’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s – the bad guys wear masks, commit vandalism, and harass and threaten anyone not in the gang. It’s how a lazy script writer establishes a group as enemies, criminals and general villains.

Oh yeah, it’s also what academic and activist feminists have demonstrated as their preferred response to anyone speaking publicly on gender issues from a non-feminist perspective. In Vancouver the weapons were box cutters, in Toronto they were bludgeons. And an armed angry mob, screaming through megaphones and physically threatening anyone who tried to speak? Yes, that was the tactic on display, and even the mainstream media got it on video, then broadcast it with the commentary: ”shameful”.

Are feminists trying to model themselves on the criminals of popular cinema? Or are they just too stupid to help themselves?

Western culture has a long-standing and important framework for the evaluation of ideas: public discourse and debate. When faced with a nonconforming viewpoint, isn’t it time for feminists to pick up the mantle and actually field an argument more substantive that thought-stopping clichés or threats and empty accusations? Or maybe they think intelligent debate is just too patriarchal for their tastes?

NUMBER TWO

Rather than continuing to maintain a public image of themselves as sadistic and arguably sociopathic, the laughing and jeering at the rate of male suicide is probably something feminists may want to alter in their public behaviour.

Or, laughing and jeering in the face of the rate of male workplace death, or anti-male bias in the family courts, or homelessness, or male infant sexual mutilation, or education – or any of the other major issues addressed by the men’s human rights movement.

You see, feminists, what I’m about to explain to you (“man-splain”, if you prefer) is something everybody except you already knows. The behaviours of yours I’ve just catalogued in the previous paragraph are those of amoral sociopaths. That you, feminists, have an established pattern of such behavior in public says that you either ARE amoral sociopaths, or that you wish to project that public image. You’ve certainly convinced me, along with at least a major fraction of the men’s rights movement. In fact, if feminists do manage to convince the public that their public behavior – that a violent, amoral sociopathy represents your ideology’s character – then that will be the end of you. Well, unless through sheer brutal force, feminism can colonize the minds and thoughts of every culture and sub-culture on the planet: remake the non-violent into the violent; the loving into the hateful; the will to freedom into your authoritarian impulse.

On the other hand, when faced with the suffering and death of others, mockery is how an individual or a group demonstrates that those being laughed at are not human. That they do not merit the basic compassion of other human beings. This is both a signal to observers that the target group can be brutalized with impunity, and as a reassurance that brutality done to the members of that group by those engaging in the mockery of suffering is acceptable, and not – as would otherwise be the case, monstrous or depraved.

And feminists, you are losing control of the narrative, and the vicious, sadistic and amoral character of your movement is increasingly and glaringly obvious. You might just want to check yourselves in a mirror, dummies.

NUMBER THREE

Unless I’m greatly mistaken, and indeed, feminists want to cement their reputation as sexist bigots, then one item of feminist rhetoric really should be reconsidered, or entirely abandoned. This is use of the word “mansplain” to silence and derail anyone else’s expressed opinion.

Opinions, arguments or explanations depend for their validity on being from the right people, right? That is to say, an explanation becomes invalid and void if it is expressed by a member of the wrong demographic: men, for example. Thus, the shorthand for dismissing an opinion or argument, based on the sexual identity of the speaker: mansplain.

If gender ideologues are ever in need of a better, more convincing demonstration of their own sexist bigotry, they will have to work hard to find it. Or, assuming you, the reader, are one such feminist – have I got it all wrong? Does mansplaining have some other reading, besides “your opinion is invalid because of your sex”? Go on, explain to me, and to everybody else, how I got this one wrong.

Oh, silly me, I already covered this earlier. Maybe gender ideologues think intelligent, reasoned dialogue and debate is just too “patriarchal”.

NUMBER FOUR

One practice I’d recommend gender ideologues discontinue is that of minimizing, excusing or making light of harm done to male infants in routine ritual genital mutilation.

Hundreds of male infants die every year in the United States from the trauma, blood loss and resulting medical complications following routine, ritual genital mutilation. Apologists for the sexual mutilation of infants have no problem correctly identifying the sexual mutilation of female infants as MUTILATION, but when the victims are male – the much more acceptable, sanitized and politically correct term CIRCUMCISION is used to disguise the mutilation of a newborn infant.

Compounding this monstrosity, the harvested fibroblasts from these mutilated children are used, among other places to produce better, more effective wrinkle cream for post-menopausal members of the leisure caste.

In a feminist culture, mutilating our own infants is only objectionable when those infants are girls, apparently.

But to those feminists still excusing and minimizing this savage brutalization of newborns, for those who can see clearly past the thought-smogging influence of ideology: “circumcision apologists” look exactly like child-mutilating monsters.

NUMBER FIVE

In order to alter the now well-established public perception of gender ideologues that they are depraved, willful and hateful bigots, they might want to discontinue their use the word “rape” to refer exclusively to the female victims of that crime.

“men can stop rape”, “teach men to not rape”, and “rape culture” are just a few iterations of the boringly predictable repetition of “rape” as an item of gender ideological rhetoric. However, glaring in almost all such pronouncements is an assumption that rape is a crime in which one sex are perpetrators and the other sex are victims. This is the narrative, and it’s false. Does the “rape” of feminist rhetoric include the sexual abuse of children by their female caretakers and teachers? Does it include the institutional and systematic support of rape in prison? When feminists talk about “rape culture”, are they ever referring to boys being victims? Of course not, because “rape” in the reality of gender ideologues is only vaguely connected to actual criminal victimization. It is mainly a story element in our culture’s feminist driven threat narrative. The victims are female, the perpetrators are male, and the dictionary is used to define men and boys victimized by that crime as winners on a game show. In other words, unless a victim is a member of the correct sexual caste, they are defined out of existence.

If it isn’t obvious by this point, the use of terms like “contemptibly corrupt”, “vile” and “vicious” will probably throw no additional light on the character of feminist ideology.

NUMBER SIX

To appear less like amoral sociopaths, feminists might also reconsider the continued use of rhetoric in apparent opposition to violence, but with a limiting clause, restricting concern to the least-impacted demographic.

“Stop violence against women” is the most prevalent example of this, and it’s a phrase with a few different interpretations. One recent poster campaign in Canada included this phrase, along with the further limit that in particular, men should attend to the imperative. Men who, just as a matter of reality, constitute the majority of the victims of violence in society. But the call isn’t to stop violence against them, or even, to just generally stop violence within society. Nope, only violence against women is of concern. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius: The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another[1].

Again, if the character of this ideology is not already obvious, explicit description likely won’t help.

NUMBER SEVEN

Avoid the continued practice and reliance on censorship. It is the signature move of fascists. Now, just as a reminder, the items in this list are provided as examples, for feminists, of what not to continue doing, in order to appear less stupid, less amoral, less violent, and less vile than they do at present.

NUMBER EIGHT

We’re almost done here. Just one more thing for feminists to do a bit less of, in order to not look like amoral cretins: excuse violence done against boys and men, or excuse violence done by girls and women.

Now, before addressing the commonplace ideation of violence in feminist rhetoric, I’ll note that this list contained 17 items before being edited for brevity and simplicity. And, although 17 was too many for a single article, I could easily have listed 40 or 50 common practices of feminists to avoid in order to appear less stupid. But such a list would be too long to wade through for most readers. Certainly, even the 8 items remaining in this list are taxing. Not necessarily to readers, but to me as I compiled the list. Stupidity, hatred, violence and publicly accepted sociopathy tire me.

But returning to violence. The problem with excusing violence done to boys and men, in the same public ethic where violence targeting women is condemned, is that the character of violence in a culture doesn’t change based on whose bodies and minds are brutalized. Which demographic takes a beating certainly matters in very direct terms to the members of that brutalized demographic, but everyone else is also submerged in a culture of violence. If we are to pretend violence against only one group is forbidden, then we are all excusing and indeed, promoting the continuation of violence against everyone.

End violence against women? Jesus fuck, how fucking stupid do we all pretend we are here? And feminists, if you really want to pretend to be anything except a violent cult of hatred and brutality, this item should be on the top of your list of immediate problems to fix within your own sick cult.

Of course, these are just a few examples – provided here, I hope, as a guide for gender ideologues and feminists. By following the advice provided in this short discussion, feminists can work towards appearing less stupid, less amoral, and less sadistic, and presenting as not so violent and sociopathic as they are now perceived. After all, we don’t want anyone to get the wrong impression, do we?

And, of course, I thank you all for your kind attention.

[1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Expressio+unius+est+exclusio+alterius

  • http://j4mb.wordpress.com mikebuchanan1957

    John, a priceless article. Simply priceless. And an inspired photo selection (which made me LOL).

    Mike Buchanan

    JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
    (and the women who love them)

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com

  • http://gravatar.com/scatmaster scatmaster

    Or are they just too stupid to help themselves?

    I am assuming that question is rhetorical.

  • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

    “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius” – The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.

    Feminists/females, as demonstrated by their actions, do not govern for people. Feminists govern expressly for females. Not so for males who have always governed for people, in fact to the protection, provision and privilege of females. Females display a marked in-group bias where males do not. That is to say, females display self-preferential, tribal, solipsistic, thuggish behavior with respect to treatment of the respective sexes. This is an inherent character flaw presenting an inherent conflict of interest with female governance. The inherently, empirically bigoted are unfit to lead; this not as determined by emotional bias but by objective and obvious necessity.

    “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius” – The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.

    Modern female governance channels Jim Crow

    • OldGeezer

      There’s certainly no lack of selfishness and self-interest amongst males either. Usually, however, there is some balancing sense of justice and fair play … a rational brain quality that some studies attribute to the much-maligned testosterone.

      Men, or at least their leadership elders, once seemed to be aware almost instinctively about female unsuitability for positions in which that male sense was most critically important. And that awareness might be said to account for certain “patriarchal” aspects having some factual validity.

      We haven’t entirely forgotten the self-centered character of the female personna. Today’s societal leadership, however, have made its verbal expression politically incorrect along with any other acknowledgement that distinguishes in any way between male and female behaviour.

      For most women the first person plural pronoun is an entirely foreign language concept. Just listen to them speak. It’s all “I”, “me”, “my” and “mine”. The only time you’ll ever hear them talk about our kids, or our home, or our anything else is when they’re demanding some partner contribution in their own interest. It MY body, MY choice, as if the product of sexual union included no male contribution whatever. In fact, it has now become legistated as in “women and THEIR children”.

      • Kukla

        “There’s certainly no lack of selfishness and self-interest amongst males either.”

        No, but women are certainly champions of self-interest. Whereas men tend to also champion female self-interest but at least with a little balance.

        “And that awareness might be said to account for certain “patriarchal” aspects having some factual validity.”

        You’re still buying in to the feminist definition of patriarchy. Patriarchy is simply a system where a FATHER rules and passes ruling along to his sons. It’s a bloodline. We’ve never had a patriarchy (in the real sense).

        • OldGeezer

          “You’re still buying in to the feminist definition of patriarchy.”

          No, not really, Kukla, which is why I put the word “patriarchal” in quotes. I recognise the validity of your definition, but I also realise that the term has come to be used as a kind of short-form reference to all past history and sociological development in which male and female roles were somewhat more clearly and distinct differentiated. I’m simply suggesting that certain aspects of that differentiation may have been based quite validly on a better recognition than currently exists of the female characteristics of which you speak.

          And if you thought I was disagreeing with your assessment of female selfishness, I most certainly was not. Realistically, however, self-interest, per se, cannot be ascribed to the female alone. My contention is that, while certainly not absent from male motivation, it is much better balanced in men by their understanding of the longer-term benefits of fairness. In other words, I contend that the result can be attributed to greater male rationality.

          I suppose it really doesn’t matter very much. We certainly agree that women haven’t shown themselves to be well suited to positions where their own interests might conflict with any hoped for fair outcome.

  • Kimski

    Excellent piece, JtO.

    However..

    Will they listen?
    -Presumably not, since the suggestions are made by a man, and therefore by definition a product of the Patriarchy, besides being mansplaining for the mentally and emotionally impaired.

    Will any of the suggestions even be considered?
    Not very likely, since we’re dealing with people so engulfed by their own alleged victimhood, that any violent, sociopathic, hateful, and bigoted behavior is seen as a perfectly rational response to this self-chosen victimhood.

    Will their inability to look beyond their own emotional response, and recognize the validity of the suggestions, eventually lead to their demise?
    Very much so.

    Why?
    Because, when everything is weighed up against their continued behavioral patterns, in light of how much they have succeeded in outing themselves publicly during the past year or two, the conclusion can only be that these people are indeed desperately stupid beyond repair.

    I’ve recently come to the conclusion that female empowerment, obtained through whining, is based on the exact same thing as the sound of nails screeching on a blackboard:

    People will do ANYTHING to avoid hearing it.

    • http://j4mb.wordpress.com mikebuchanan1957

      Kimski, you make some very sound points. Feminism’s key strategy remains ‘winning through whining’, which is nothing more than shaming men to hand over power to women on a plate. A tiny minority of men – mainly politicians, but also business leaders, and many others – are doing so, to their eternal shame. They’re happily pushing 99% of men under a bus to gain approval from men-hating women who applaud their effort.

    • ali

      True dat

  • theoutside

    Excellent piece — articulate, ironic.

  • Jay

    I think JTO you expressed it best about these feminist bigots when you wrote an article earlier this year where you described them as people “with minds deranged by an ideology similar in almost every respect to a fundamentalist religious cult.”

  • Keano Reeves

    Once, a guy told me – “You know how women are treated. Just look at the shelters!!” I wentt with her to look at the shelters. The conditions were pretty grim. “This is our tragedy,” he said.

    I pointed out to him that on the way to the shelter, we saw several men, homeless. Some were war veterans. He just dismissed them as ‘vagabonds’.

    Remember, this is a GUY doing it. He was OK that men are on the road!! It’s at that time I understood the insidious nature of feminism – how it uses mothers to abandon their sons to the next-gen sisters.

    At that point I realized that it is not posible to win this battle by politics alone (sorry AVfm). This battle has to be won by removing from our minds the natural instinct of helping women.

    That is why I feel that the answer is technological. Create artificial wombs, create better-than-real sexbots and sex VR. That will completely demolish the fem-Drum.

    Ofcourse, we will be accused of “raping women by our indifference!”

    My 2 cents.

    • Omti

      I wonder if that really is the solution. Humanity ending up as a monogendered species… I mean who wants women when robots can do everything men want of them only better. Who wants to risk ruin and estrangement from his kids when he can breed them in artificial wombs?

      I can only hope that easily reversible sex-changes will be available before the women-replacement technology is ready. Only seeing things from the other side can save our society, but considering how things are going that isn’t happening with the majority of people/women.

      More and more guys seem to realize that they’re being used, but on the feminine side nothing is done to stop this. Maybe total strike will really be the only way to end man’s existence as utility for women. I hope it doesn’t have to come this way, but right now I fear it probably will.

  • Luke

    I attended a meeting “stop violence on women” between local feminists and local judges. Feminists lied and manipulated data. This is not the problem: they are feminists, not human beings. The problem is that judges believed feminists. Even when feminists said that men are genetically violent. How can judges be so idiot?

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      It’s not that Judges are so stupid as to believe feminists – it’s they’re smart (and evil) enough – to know who is buttering their sammiches.

    • Tiernan

      Judges are also human, and the unconscious biological consideration for females has already been mentioned elsewhere. My father, a retired judge in a western state, related a story to me once. At a judges conference (continuing education), a presenter passed out a fact pattern with an abuser and abusee. When asked if the abuser should get jail time, half the judges raised their hand. As a group, the judges were confused. The presenter had switched the gender for half of the case study passed out. So, a group of co-ed judges, presented with the same fact pattern except for gender, gave time to the male and let the female off. And these are the people tasked with passing judgment in our culture. Sadly, that is the bias we are dealing with in our judicial branch.

  • hannah

    Just one point, you asked if a feminist could tell you the actual meaning of mansplaining. I can, it is when a man explains something to a woman that she did not ask him to explain, in a deliberately patronising way.It is also used to describe a situation where a man explains something to a woman that she knows significantly more about than he does (for example, if they work in the same field and the the woman is more senior).

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      Just another point, if you asked almost any person here they would tell you the meaning of “femsplaining,” which is when a woman explains something to a man that he did not ask her to explain or, worse, she tells him what his experiences and feelings are or should be rather than listening to his own lived experiences and treating him like a human being.

      So, in other words, take your patronizing femsplaining bullshit and stick it where the sun don’t shine, we’ve already heard this description of “mansplaining,” thank you very much. Odds are most people around here know far more about feminism than you do. If you bother to stick around and use your ears more than your mouth maybe you’ll learn something.

    • Kimski

      If that’s your definition of mansplaining, then there’s really only one version of it, namely femsplaining.

      I have witnessed far more women than men giving me completely different replies to my questions than what was intended with asking, and it has been more the rule than the exception that those replies have indicated what she THOUGHT I was thinking, rather than what I asked about.

      Based on the nature of those replies, the majority of women I’ve come across doing this have had insanely degrading and humiliating ideas about what usually goes on in a man’s mind.

      I’d choose being patronized over being a disgusting, filthy pig any day. Luckily I’m old enough to write it off as another example of the kind of projection that makes up the very fabric of feminist ideology. The only alternative is to come to terms with the fact that women might not always be so ‘pure and good’, as they would like to present themselves.

      Oh, wait, I did that too, by the way..

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      Even though I’m a woman, and yo did not ask for an explanation, I’m going to mansplain’ a little sumptin to ya, kiddo –

      Just because a woman is “more senior” than a man does not = the fact she knows more than he does.

      Just because anybody is “more senior” to anybody does not = they know more than anybody else and don’t never need no ‘splainin ’bout nuthin’.

      Believe it or not, hannah, this goes for men as well as women.

      ’cause we’re ALL “equal”, ya know.

      • hannah

        Being more senior doesn’t mean that a person knows more about everything,but they generally know more about their specific field. It doesn’t stop them being equal,it just means they probably don’t need someone with far less experience to tell them how to do it.

    • crydiego

      Hannah
      Please stick around and say what you feel. It can be tough here but this place thrives on free opinion. As George Orwell said, “Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

  • hannah

    Apparently the writer hadn’t heard it yet, since he asked for a definition.

  • ali

    Apparently you don’t know the writer. That’s why you feel the need to femsplain the definition. Everybody here knows what it means but just like the word misogyny it is used at any chance possible to silence anybody pointing to the truth and that is the point. Was this last sentence mansplainin?

  • hannah

    Oh,I get it, he was just pretending he didn’t understand.That makes more sense. I don’t know anyone who uses ‘mansplaining’ to describe a man expressing his opinion,or talking about his experiences.

    • ali

      Oh thank you, we were all misled before you clarified the meaning. Did it ever occur to you that you are the only one who doesn’t have a clue what they are talking about?
      Although you are probably too silly to get it I deal with you this one time because I’m in the mood.
      hannah
      Oh,I get it, he was just pretending he didn’t understand.That makes more sense.
      He perfectly understands that. You don’t. Here’s some mansplainin for you:
      Fem: Men only do better at science because they have been working on it for the past 40000 years, we are just catching up and will take over.
      Man: So 16 year old boys that do better than girls at math olympiad in the same education system are better because they have been at it for 40000 years?
      At this point the feminist accuses him of mansplaining. What does it have to do with their special fields and being senior for fuck’s sake?

      • hannah

        Your example is not mansplaining, it is disagreeing. And my point about specific fields was that if a woman has extensive knowledge of a specific subject and a man with significantly less knowledge of the same subject began explaining it to her, on the premise that her gender means that she automatically knows less than him, despite evidence to the contrary (her education/experience in that field) then that would fit the actual definition of mansplaining. I was using it as an example.

  • crydiego

    mansplaining from the urban dictionary:
    Originally, this term was used to describe boorish men who felt the need to “correct” what a woman said, even on topics that the man didn’t know anything about.

    However, the term quickly degenerated into a get-out-of-jail-free card used by angry women when a man dares to point out even the most blatant error.

  • http://hyperskeptical.wordpress.com robertcrayle

    @Dean

    “If you bother to stick around and use your ears more than your mouth maybe you’ll learn something.”

    Wouldn’t this actually be “use the monitor and not the keyboard”?

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      Heh. All right you’ve at least got a sense of humor. It’s a start. ;-)

      But I don’t think the author was confused. “Mansplaining” is in most of our experiences a word for “shut the fuck up.” It’s been flung at me like that, and it’s almost always a sexist way of shutting down discussion, and deeply insulting.

      I’ve actually seen the phenomenon of men explaining things that didn’t need explaining. I’ve seen women doing it too. My subjective subjective perspective is that women are more prone to do it than men, and to get more angry when I get impatient with it and take it as a personal insult when I say “I already understand that.” But both sexes can do it.

  • http://hyperskeptical.wordpress.com robertcrayle

    @Hannah

    “Oh,I get it, he was just pretending he didn’t understand.”
    John has a singular sense of caustic sarcasm. It can at times be hard to know when he’s serious and when he’s setting a trap for the kind of person he combats.

  • crydiego

    People don’t use the term much anymore because it carries a lot of over-used baggage. “Arrogance” and “privilege” would be better terms for how feminist feel about a man expressing his opinion, or talking about his experiences.

  • crydiego

    That’s just my opinion and my experience.

  • hannah

    Not all feminists feel that way, most of us really do believe in equality. I personally have no issue with listening to a person talking about their own opinions and experience, as long as they show others the same respect.

    • Bombay

      People who associate with a hate movement need to wake up and understand that feminists are against human rights.

      • hannah

        Again, not the majority. In any movement there are a few people who use it for their own purposes, including justifying their hatred of a different group, and they often taint the reputation of everyone else in the movement at the same time. It doesn’t mean they speak for everyone. Some MRAs use the movement to justify their hate, it doesn’t mean they all are. Both feminism and the MRM are,at their core, about equality.

        • Bombay

          Feminist actions speak volumes. Where are they when their is a campaign to mutilate men in Africa – helping. Where are they when public education is failing our young men – being active participants to make that happen. Where are they when men live 8 years less than woman – lobbying to make that gap even bigger. Buy a clue and donate to AVFM.

          Who would align themselves with feminists – those who believe in those policies.

          • http://j4mb.wordpress.com mikebuchanan1957

            Bombay, I couldn’t agree more. Equity feminists, those who believe in gender equality – in the sense of equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome – have had no discernible influence in developed countries for 30+ years. By continuing to use the term ‘feminist’ they give legitimacy to hate-driven gender feminists – my apology for the tautology – who have long successfully assaulted almost every pillar of civilised society. I’m increasingly tired of the distinctions between different strands of feminism for this reason. We need to make self-indentifying as a ‘feminist’ what is should be – something to be utterly ashamed of. To my mind the word’s just as loaded with hate-driven meaning as ‘racist’.

    • Kimski

      Not all feminist are like that. = Not all nazis are like that.

      If you support the system, the victims of your ideology don’t give a rat’s ass about how you choose to define yourself.

      • hannah

        Not really the same thing. The only people who deserve to be compared to nazis, are nazis. Most feminists do not want to kill all men, nor do they consider them to be lesser. There are no victims of real feminism, there are victims of hate and violence. The justification that those responsible give is irrelevant.

      • hannah

        Not really the same thing. Very few people deserve to be compared to nazis, they were a fairly extreme example of discrimination. People who harm others are in the wrong regardless of their beliefs, and there are very few beliefs that advocate discrimination; most of them are exploited by unscrupulous people with their own prejudices.

        • http://j4mb.wordpress.com mikebuchanan1957

          Hannah, I’ve been following your exchanges with interest. I lead a recently-registered British political party, and we’ve yet to have even one feminist give feedback on our public consultation document, despite having invited many to do so. The document is downloadable through this link:

          http://j4mb.wordpress.com/our-public-consultation-exercise-2/

          I invite you to provide that feedback, and email it me at mb1957@hotmail.co.uk. We would of course, waive the £20 fee in your case. Thank you.

          Mike Buchanan

          JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
          (and the women who love them)

          http://j4mb.org.uk

    • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

      Greetings Miss Montana,

      Are you aware that due to the seething bigotry built into our legal system by your feminist pals, males are 5-10 times more likely to commit suicide than females? Are your familiar with the fact that male life expectancy approaches 10 years shorter than females, and yet Obamacare makes explicit provisions for female health care 136 times and mentions males only twice. And that in kind, males absorb 95% of workplace deaths and injuries while female affirmative action into only the safe high status jobs is only accelerating- EXPLICITLY absent is affirmative actioning of females into the dangerous low status jobs, FRONTLINE. Do you realize that the state is constantly confiscating and re-appropriating the fruits of lifetimes worth of male labor to females simply for her pointing a finger and making heinous false accusations of the Salem variety? I wonder, what are your ‘feelings’ about these things? And more importantly, in light of these life and death circumstances, should we be particularly concerned with your anecdotal ‘feelings’ on the topics and your feeble claims as to what a couple of your feminist acquaintances may anecdotally claim to feel? Or do you think it would be more prudent for men to place a higher value on what the feminist power structure, its leaders, its icons, its powerbrokers, its financial might and social clout are actually DOING with respect to males and policy? What do you think hannah? Your ‘feelings’, or the latter- the overwhelming actions of feminist power? Which should receive priority? Hm?

      NAFALT.. and what?

      Snap out of it, you are not actually the center of the world.

  • crydiego

    I believe that the people on this site are really interested in equality and I also believe that you are an honest person. Speaking only for myself, -welcome.

    • hannah

      Thank you. A lot of this site does seem to be about equality, I often read about the same issues here as I do on feminist sites from different perspectives, which I think gives a more balanced view. Most of the time, both sides have some good points.

      • http://j4mb.wordpress.com mikebuchanan1957

        Hannah, I invite you to accept the following challenge:

        http://j4mb.wordpress.com/a-challenge-to-all-feminists-everywhere/

        Thank you.

        Mike Buchanan

        JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
        (and the women who love them)

        http://j4mb.org.uk

        • hannah

          Ok, I read the document and emailed you,I just now realised you wrote the original document. I would be happy to give you some feedback.

          • http://j4mb.wordpress.com mikebuchanan1957

            Thanks Hannah, much appreciated. I look forward to reading your response. Still no email through, though – mb1957@hotmail.co.uk.

        • hannah

          I have read the document and emailed the address listed. What kind of feedback are you looking for?

          • http://j4mb.wordpress.com mikebuchanan1957

            Thanks Hannah. Haven’t seen an email yet, but the feedback we’re looking for is simple. If feminists are genuinely interested in gender equality, what is a feminist’s perspectives on the many discriminations and disadvantages faced by men and boys, which we outline in the document, along with our associated proposals?

  • hannah

    I read the document and sent an email to the adress listed. I didn’t realise at first that you wrote the document. I would be happy to provide feedback.

  • hannah

    Sorry about the repeated post, it didn’t seem to to be posting. I read through it and I agree with some of the points, such as discrimination in schools and the health service, there should certainly be equality in resources for medical treatment. I think that ending financial support for parents with new babies would cause a lot of problems, ditto ruling that a man only has to pay child support if he had previously signed a document to that effect; would the same apply for women? The equal division of childcare and mandatory prenup is a good idea, that would make divorce less open to exploitation. I’m not sure how the age of retirement would work, as individual health has a strong affect on life expectancy, but it could work very well if executed properly.

    • http://j4mb.wordpress.com mikebuchanan1957

      Thanks Hannah, but I don’t understand what you mean by ‘it doesn’t seem to be posting’. As per our document, if you email me, I’ll send you the ‘Word’ version of the document, to comment on.

  • hannah

    is the email address listed with the document right?

  • http://gravatar.com/johntate1 MGTOW-man

    They will never accept your challenge for the same reasons they will never submit to an open debate with us. They know their pity-mongering and exaggerations will have no weight when all the other side has to do is prove their examples are hollow. Their entire thing is built on lies, pretending, wishing, exaggerations, and other manipulations.

    • hannah

      I am giving him feedback. I am also fine with an open debate. I don’t see what campaigning for equality has to do with pity mongering, or how it is manipulative. And feminism is not built on lies, do you think women were treated equally when it started and they just pretended they weren’t?

      • http://j4mb.wordpress.com mikebuchanan1957

        Hi Hannah. I may be wrong in this, but I think MGTOW-man was commenting on the original piece by JtO, not our own exchange. I’m looking forward to your feedback to our public consultation document which will be the first from a feminist, anywhere in the world.

        • hannah

          I know, I was just pointing out that at least on feminist does want to debate, and that it’s incorrect to say that feminism is based on lies and exaggerations. I’m working on my feedback for your document at the moment, and I’m surprised that no other feminists responded. I think there is a lot there worth discussing.

  • AltoidMuncher

    Fantastic read that nicely summarizes patterns of behavior adopted by feminists that remind everyone of precisely what they advocate.

    My question after reading this is simply, have feminists become what they beheld? For some time feminist authors have failed to succinctly articulate what it means to be “female” beyond defining in profile what is not-male. However, are not each of these patterns of behavior JTO identified not consistent with what feminists have been calling “male” or “masculine” for decades?

    Violence? -> patriarchy (unless it’s feminists in masks at a rally)
    Lack of empathy? -> patriarchy (unless it’s feminists having a chuckle about male suicide)
    Using language to opress? -> patriarchy (unless it’s feminists demanding a mansplation)

    There are similar examples for each and every one of the points JTO raises. Thus, it makes me wonder…..have feminists finally become what they beheld?

  • Yoyo

    Sorry JTO, mansplain is defined as a man who “explains”to a woman an item where that the woman is already better informed. The classic example is the man who mansplained to an author what her book meant and why it was important. This is pretty easy stuff to google guys even if you don’t follow the news.

    • http://www.genderratic.com Typhonblue (Asha James)

      The problem comes in when 1. the assumption is that men are the only ones who are capable of being insufferable know-it-alls and 2. the woman in question thinks she’s better informed on a subject than the man is when she isn’t.

      For example, Bob says to Sally, “I disagree with the concept of male privilege because I am disadvantaged relative to you in the following factual(ie based on statistical evidence) ways which I will now list.”

      And Sally says to Bob, “You are mansplaining! You do not have authority over your lived experience! You can’t see your own privilege!”

      Mansplaining is most often used as a way to shut up men on subjects they have _complete authority over_.

  • Yoyo

    Typhoon blue, I understand what you are saying but this is not what mansplaining is understood to mean. Anyone can be an elitist tool and think that other people have no basis or credibility for commenting. A mansplaining incident recently occured when the Texas republicans told a demonstrating women how an intravaginal probe feels. That is the core of mansplaining. An equivalent would be me preaching to men about how they should feel about the damage associated with prostate surgery.

    • http://www.genderratic.com Typhonblue (Asha James)

      Why do you need to title it “mansplaining”?

  • Yoyo

    Sorry if this repeats typhoon blue, my response seemed to disappear . Ps am I the only one who hates this typeface?

    Anyway the accepted use of mansplaining is where a man refuses to listen and instead imposes his version of events on a woman who knows more about the issue at hand. The recent example is Texan repub
    Icons teeming women how transvaginal ultrasounds feel. The reverse would be me telling men how they should feel about the damage often caused by prostate surgery.

    • crydiego

      I don’t know if I agree with you on you example of mansplaining but that is neither here nor there. The problem with the term “mansplaining” is simply that the definition is not clear cut. It is like the word, petty, in that one person may view it differently from another. The example you gave doesn’t need a new term to discredit the speaker, just logic.