There is a recently published book by a group of feminists in the UK, entitled The Lightbulb Moment. It is a collection of accounts by women about the precise moment they “saw the light” and became feminists. Religious, Road To Damascus style imagery aside, this book’s title resonates with me. I have experienced quite a few “lightbulb moments” myself with regards to feminism, especially in the last two years. But my realizations and illuminations have been of a quite different nature to those described in the book. For I am writing this after having been raised, educated and – yes – indoctrinated in feminist dogma for over 40 years, but my “journey” has involved leaving the sisterhood. And the sisterhood, that lovely, touchy-feely, all-girls-together, “feminine” club has punished me severely for my decision.
In 2010 I began writing a blog, using the pseudonym Quiet Riot Girl. I have been a participant in a few online communities over the years, and I have always enjoyed the way they give us the opportunity to play with our identities, develop personas and explore ideas and practices we may not have done under our “real names.” But when I created Quiet Riot Girl, I had no idea just how life-changing my explorations would be. I was still a feminist when I started blogging (and tweeting) in 2010. As a critical feminist, I was aware how divided and sometimes incoherent feminists are on important issues such as sex, economics and bodily autonomy. But I was a “sister” nonetheless. If you take a look at my first QRG Blog you will see how clearly I identified as a feminist back then. But only a year later I had completely split from feminism and was writing as an “anti-feminist,” for example in my controversial essay, Against Feminisms.
So what changed? And why? My rejection of feminism (and its rejection of me) is not just about choosing to use different labels to identify myself and my politics these days. This has been a dramatic sea-change on my part, which means I see the world completely differently now. There have been quite a few twists and turns in my personal ‘revolution’. Here are some of the key ones.
1) Rape Culture And Other Feminist Myths
The feminist blogosphere is full of articles and discussions describing what feminists call “rape culture.” According to them, women are not able to walk down the street or enjoy a drink in a bar without the fear of being hit on, harassed, and raped by men, those dirty dogs. When I first began engaging with feminists online, I was immediately struck by the fact that I did not recognize the phenomenon of “rape culture” they were talking about. And I certainly did not recognize men to be villains, as they were portraying them. I noticed that both men as a whole and individual men were being demonized by feminists. Julian Assange for example, still has not even been charged by the authorities, but feminist bloggers have already branded him a “rapist.”
In 2010 I wrote a piece called Why Rapist Is A Dirty Word and the reactions from feminists were telling. Some (as you can see in the comments) said I had no right to speak about rape as I have never been raped. Others called me a “rape apologist” or said I was “rapey!” My status as a woman was put into question, and “sisters” called for my feminism card to be revoked. When I tried to get my work on rape culture published by feminist websites and publications online, I was met with stony silence. It seemed as if I had broken a “taboo.” Undeterred, I continued to explore the issue and in September 2011, having given up on challenging the concept of rape culture within feminism, I had my article Rape Culture And Other Feminist Myths published at the Good Men Project. In that piece I said:
When I hear the word “rapist” I think of a man, and not a man who is capable of change, of reflection. We have to speak about and talk to men who commit sexual assault as if they are able to change, and we also must acknowledge men are not the only perpetrators, if we want to reduce sexual and intimate partner violence in society. Rape Culture is a myth. I reject it outright.
As a result of my stance, feminists, who still see “rape” as primarily sexual violence done by men to women, rejected me.
2) The Sex Wars
When I did finally realize how badly feminism treats men and masculinity, I was not able to identify as feminist anymore.
Sex is of course universal, and universally complex. My own sexuality and sexual politics have shifted over time. One of the reasons feminism and I parted company, is the “sex wars.” For all the puritanism that comes out of feminism, those girls are remarkably interested in sex! And especially the evils of heterosexual men.
Back in 2010 I wrote a post called Sex For Sale. Though I now disagree with my former self about much of it, the piece is important to me because it shows how I refused even then to accept the feminist panic over sex work. As I say in the article, “When I talk about sex work I include myself in the picture. And I include you too. If we don’t talk about it as participants, then we are “othering” the women who overtly exchange sex for money. (And now I would say “men and women!”)
The term “othering” is key here. Feminists LOVE to talk about sexual objectification, by which they mean the sexual objectification of women. But I know that in the 21st century, men are also objects of desire, and young men in particular are splashed across billboards and TV screens wearing next to nothing. But this metrosexual masculinity is ignored by feminism. Feminists maintain that it is women, not men who are objectified in our culture. And they love to blame the sex industry, and heterosexual men’s desires, for women’s “othered” status as “sex objects,” as victims of the “male gaze,” and ultimately as victims of sexual violence by men. But in my view it is feminists who objectify men and women the most. Whether they are “sex positive” feminists or “anti-sex and anti-sex industry” feminists, they simplify and objectify people into caricature portraits of “victims” or “perpetrators.” I refuse both labels and therefore I don’t fit the feminist mould.
3) No, Seriously, What About The Men?
The first time I remember hearing the term misandry was only a few years ago. I was a director of a feminist non-profit providing training for women in the music industry. We were at an “equal opportunities” training day and a man there suggested my organization might be sexist. I was angry, and incredibly dismissive of him and his views. I thought the “misandry” that he spoke about didn’t exist.
I don’t want a medal for realizing it does. I am recounting this anecdote to underline just how rare it is for feminists to take sexism against men seriously. During my PhD gender studies program I referred often to a “dictionary of feminist theory.” The entry for “misogyny” was long and detailed. There was no entry for “misandry.”
When I did finally realize how badly feminism treats men and masculinity, I was not able to identify as feminist anymore. In an article at the Good Men Project I wrote about the awful jokey retort feminists and their allies use when anyone brings up men’s issues in a discussion: “whatabouttehmenz?”. Incidentally, I do think I deserve a medal for the fact I was banned from the website called No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz?. NSWATM is supposedly a forum for people who care about men, misandry and masculinity, but I was banned for challenging Sady Doyle, the prominent American feminist blogger, activist and, er…man hater!
The list of well-known feminists who spend a good deal of their time and energy demonizing and putting down men is long. We all have our “favourites” – Amanda Marcotte, Melissa McEwan, Cath Elliott, Jill Filipovic and Gail Dines spring to mind. But I have found myself identifying the UK Guardian journalist Suzanne Moore as particularly guilty of misandry. In one of her weekly columns, Moore relayed a story about her young daughter asking her why she is a feminist. Her reply?
“Because men do horrible, horrible things.”
4) Who Is Silencing Whom?
Feminists, especially online, often talk about Silencing. They claim that men attempt to shut feminist women up using a variety of nasty techniques. These include “mansplaining,” “gaslighting” and “sexual bullying.” I won’t explain the concepts – A Voice For Men readers will be familiar with them, as I am sure they have been used against you in many an argument with feminists. In a rather strange discussion on Feministe blog a while ago, I was accused of all the things men are supposed to do to silence feminists. In fact they called me a man and awarded me an “honorary penis” which I treasure to this day.
The lovely ladies at Feministe also banned me from commenting on their blog. In April 2011 I made a list of all the people who ban and block me online, named after a feminist blog of the same name, called 101 Wankers. I have now reached and surpassed my “target” and have stopped counting. But this didn’t shut me up, so in March 2012 Julie Bindel the well-known anti-sex industry UK feminist, along with some of her friends, “outed” me. My pseudonym Quiet Riot Girl was revealed to belong to me, Elly Tams, and I was labeled an “anti-feminist,” “homophobic,” and a “troll.”
The term “troll” is particularly effective, because it is so generally accepted, way beyond the feminist blogosphere, as a word meaning someone “bad,” “untrustworthy,” “subhuman” even. I have been called a troll on many occasions, and even though I know it is used politically, the label hurts. When there are TV programmes about “RIP trolls” who trawl Facebook for tributes to recently deceased people and then deface them and abuse grieving relatives, it is difficult to be called a troll and stand tall and proud. But overall, in the light of my treatment by feminists and others who don’t like what I have to say, I am left with one question.
Who is silencing whom?
5) Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics
One of the things I have found hardest to accept about feminism is just how incoherent it is, and how it often uses dodgy data and – well, actual lies – to promote and justify its statements. I studied gender to PhD level and beyond, and so have based a lot of my own work on feminist theory and feminist-influenced research. Was it all wrong? The answer is yes and no. In my Against Feminisms essay I show that I reject ALL feminist assumptions and basic positions. But I do not claim everything written by a feminist to be useless. Feminist theorists and writers whose work I have not abandoned altogether include Camille Paglia, Judith Butler and Gayle Rubin. But I think they all still focus too much on women, and women’s issues, which weakens their arguments. I need another article, or maybe a second PhD to demonstrate how feminists are inconsistent in their views, and how research they use is often very poor. But here are a couple of recent examples:
In her recently published book, The Sex Myth, Brooke Magnanti, more famously known as Belle de Jour, showed how anti-sex industry feminists use bad data and poor analysis to come up with what I can only call lies about adult entertainment and “misogyny.” Magnanti shows how feminist campaigners have based some of their activism on wrong stats about the relationship between the number of lap dancing clubs in an area, and the level of rape in that same place. UK based feminist organizations such as Object UK and the Fawcett Society often present “facts” about violence against women that on closer inspection are not facts at all. Or are only part of the story.
The Fawcett Society provide us with another example of feminist dodgy data. They currently have a campaign about the way women are economically hit harder by the recession than men. I find the figures they use to be particularly insulting to all of our intelligence, because they ignore the “fact” that we all know from our own lives, that in the vast majority of cases, men and women live together, are in families whether nuclear or extended, and support each other. Another fact ignored by feminists is how fathers who do not live with their children, and who often don’t even have much access to see their children, tend to pay the mothers of their children considerable amounts of money in child support.
6) The Bigger Picture
The issue of fathers and fathers’ rights is one which brings me onto my last point. In my recent conflicts with feminists, particularly on the internet, I have found them to be incredibly small-minded, insular and unaware of wider issues in society that don’t affect them directly. The feminist blogosphere is dominated by young, white, middle class women who do not have to worry about whether they are allowed to see their children or not, if they are likely to be called up to fight in a war, or where the next meal is coming from. Globally, when it comes to major crises such as famine, natural disasters, armed conflict and unemployment, everyone, not just women, suffers. Even in America, the military draft is compulsory for young men, not women, but feminists have dismissed that as an important gender issue.
The constant whining by well-heeled feminist women about so-called male privilege, was probably the final straw for me as far as my relationship with feminism was concerned. Privilege? What privilege?
In the title of this piece I call myself a “recovering feminist.” Whilst I don’t think I was “addicted” to feminism, the phrase was deliberate. Giving up the dogma that has dominated my life thus far has not been easy. There are even parallels between how alcohol or drugs, say, can serve as a “prop,” a “safety net,” a way of trying to avoid some of the harsher aspects of reality and what feminism offered me. Without the comfortable delusion of feminism I am more vulnerable now. Without the “gang,” the “club” (the “cult?”) I sometimes feel alone. Sometimes I am alone. But I have no regrets. Apart from feminism’s misandry, lies, silencing tactics, and oppressive sexual politics, in writing this I have been reminded that even when I was still a feminist, who happened to think for herself, I was cast out and derided. Being a feminist, for me, was often being in the sisterhood without any sisters. I will never go back.
—
Thanks to Dean Esmay for encouraging me to write this. And thanks to my own sister who was never convinced by feminism, and is enjoying saying “I told you so!”
NB: My spellcheck does not recognize the word “misandry.” Maybe my PC is a feminist.
Tags: explorer
6 Posts in Total
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.
If you don't have paypal, check out the other options.
If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store.
GQuan:
Dean Esmay:
Tom (cough) Martin:
Bewildered:
Michael:
Welcome, Dr. Tams. And thank you for adding your excellent voice to this choir of the formerly silenced.
You’re certainly not alone now, Dr. Tams. Welcome, and thank you for sharing your experiences.
We have a lot of suffering, frustrated people here but we are most interested in the truth and non-violent protest and action. You’ll have all the support you need soon enough.
Thankyou Dr. Tams. It is people like you that provide so much succor and hope for the future. It is individuals like you who, although small in number, demonstrate the possibility of a reformed future – just by your existence. Your recovery from feminism is evidence that anything is possible in politics. We will reclaim our humanity – one day at a time.
I have enjoyed following Quiet Riot Girl on social media for a while now and I can vouch for her intelligent perspective.
Ah ha! Another has arrived. Welcome Dr. Tams.
This write here is something I can relate to big time indeed. For I was a feminist in another life also.
Feminism really is like a virus. It has its own existence and it will do as it does to reproduce. Like some afflicted with this virus the body rejects it entirely. You, Dr. Tams have, gone through the bodily thrashings of rejection, being cold shouldered and then “outed” as it were.
You’ve been outed and you cannot go back now. Good.
Isn’t it interesting how feminists lose their numbers all the time, and our lot with reason and real humanitarian motivation never do. Quite the opposite more and more in fact.
I just love stories like this and if I was a feminist I’d say something like, “Please come back. It feels so wrong you being over there. So it must be true.”
I think René Descartes as a former feminist once said, “I feel therefore I am.” but he also saw the light and tweaked it.
A virus takes advantage of the body’s healthy processes, and feminism often takes advantage of people’s healthy desire for fairness. I don’t blame people who used to be feminists out of good intentions.
Aargh, my head is going to explode!
-Quiet Riot Girl writing for AVfM??!
It just doesn’t get any better than this, and we’re just getting started.
I remember you very well from my first year of introduction to the MRM, and it is so nice to see you on ‘our’ side.
There’s so many things I agree with in your article, and so many things I want to comment on, but let me just reduce the threat of the clogging of my brain by saying:
Welcome.
You are not alone anymore, and over here you don’t have to polish anyone’s ego, by using false statistics.
You just have to stick to the facts.
A very interesting read. I have enjoyed Quiet Riot Girl’s work for a while now.
Don’t worry my PC appears to be a feminist too.
I don’t always tear up a little bit, but when I do, it’s usually reading something important on AVfM.
Hello Dr.,
It’s good to see you are operational.
Welcome aboard, sister. My own path was remarkably similar, so I can understand the feeling of being somewhat alone. But here, you’ll not feel that way very often.
What a wonderful article. I so much enjoyed reading it.
You’ve made the harder choice, but the right one, and I respect you for it.
Hear hear!
DT (Derived Topic): I mentioned a couple of Comments ago, the pleasant surprise of finding so many new names/handles at this site, most of them apparently new Mens Rights Advocates.
Just today I was listening to a recent archive of Doctor F’s show, and realized (it takes me awhile) that the various and noble AVfM flour and water poster campaigns across the anglosphere are almost certainly primarily responsible.
Brave, great work, Vancouver MRA – and all of you.
“Without the “gang,” the “club” (the “cult?”) I sometimes feel alone.”
Believe me…you’re not alone. There are men and women, on AVfM and elsewhere, which you can now call an ally. Like a recovering alcoholic at an AA group, we are your sponsors…making sure you don’t fall off the proverbial wagon.
I love how they accused you of using the so-called “silencing tactics” of a man and gave you an honorary penis, as if they were utterly incapable of comprehending a *gasp* woman disagreeing with the holy tenets of feminism.
Wear it with honor, my friend. We here welcome you with open arms.
Welcome to the dirty side of the tracks Dr Tams, and thanks.
I really appreciate seeing ex-feminists admitting problems with most of the data on researches, or the way they analyze it (the data might be okay, but the interpretation can be way off).
Great article, and great catch on how they try to silence any dissenting voice. The Troll term might be the most effective on the internet, you get instantly discredited.
I’m still lost on how seemingly intelligent people could fall for it. All that they have to do is read the studies/reports, and skip ahead to the methodology, and actual raw numbers. It’s VERY easy to see the flaws/lies.
I remember recently looking up the study for the wage gap (myth) during an argument with a feminist, and it says RIGHT IN THE REPORT that the 77% stat is wrong.
In the summary, and all throughout the paper, it talks of how women earn 77% of men’s wage, then in the methodology, it shows the elementary math they used to get that number, taking no account to anything other than the annual salaries of men and women.
But then deeper into the paper, they took into account time/occupation/experience/etc, and came up with a 4% gap (which could be explained in any number of ways)
I would have to echo kimskis statements. Im at a loss for words. QRG here?! AVFM?! This gets better by the day! Welcome.
A welcome new voice!!! Dr. Tams, you’ve seen the inside of the cult, so your insights are of particular interest.
I would like to share with you a couple of posts, the first touching obliquely (and astonishingly) on the topic of “rape culture.”
“The original feminazis? Fake rape cases – 1945” on AVfM
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/the-original-feminazis-fake-rape-cases-1945/
”A Woman’s Voice” (quotations from female American anti-misandrists, 1904-1953) on The Unknown History of MISANDRY
http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2012/06/womans-voice.html
ALSO, you mentioned the draft. Here is some information on American military service “and gender,” that will, I imagine, leave you gobsmacked.
“War-Marriage Vampires” & “Allotment Annies”
http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/search/label/Military%20Rackets
And an extra-special thanks to Dean Esmay! Brilliant idea. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
“My spellcheck does not recognize the word “misandry.” Maybe my PC is a feminist.”
Pretty much every spell check is like that so you are in good company-in more ways than just that of course. Looking forward to hearing more from you in the future!
The word has a long, if unstudied history. Here is the result of my lexicological research on “misandry,” “misandric,” and “misandrist,” “misandrous:
“Misandry” the Word – Its Origin
http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/search/label/Misandry%20-%20The%20Word
The spellcheckers are not, per se, feminist. They are dumbed down, which is in itself a result of the cultural marxist (Frankfurt School) project of deliberately dumbing down the entire culture in order to facilitate the indoctrination in which feminism plays a huge part.
I seem to remember duking it out with you once or twice. If I remember correctly, I told you to explore what I was saying – don’t bother taking me at my word.
Given the fact that this is how the MRM works, I can hardly be blamed for it.
And now you know why. Don’t take it hard, most of us were once ‘feminists’…until we did exactly what you are right now.
“most of us were once ‘feminists”
Maybe that is true ,but no one ever polled me.
I’ve never ever been a feminist.
I may have been a blue piller once upon a time, but I was never a feminist. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I just didn’t know what I was supposed to be, so I went along with what was expected of me.
Damn shame there were no red pills around in those days!
I have been a feminist, a mangina, and I repent of it. I guess my high point in that was in 1985 or so when I participated in the ‘March for Women’s Lives’ parade on the anniversary of Roe vs Wade.
My feeee-wings, as it were, continue to be in favor of ‘equality’ – but, of course, now I want this ‘equality’ to progress to the next stage, that of Equal RESPONSIBILITY on the part of women and equal consequences for their hamster-driven bad decisions.
Welcome, Quiet Riot Girl, to the Dark Side, where actions do have consequences. The Red Pill is jagged and uncomfortable, but the blue pill is addictive, mind-warping, and I fear it will eventually be fatal.
I was a blue pill man, but never a self-identifying feminist. I haven’t spoken much about this before to anyone, so I guess I may as well do so now.
There were certain things people tried to condition into me that took, and certain things that didn’t. I heard about women not getting the right to vote until 1920, and, per my male nature, put no thought into what rights men had in that regard, at any point in history, electing instead to just be bothered by what I’d heard women went through. I heard about men beating the crap out of their wives on a regular basis throughout the ’50s without consequences, and took it as gospel. I heard about all kinds of other things about past civilizations that pertained to women being oppressed, and assumed it all true as well. And again, ignored just about anything bad that happened to men.
But the arena of social norms was a different story. Many a time was my inner red pill man prompted to grab hold of the controls and go: “Wait just a darn minute…” Stuff like Ladies First, men being expected to initiate conversation, men being expected to pay for everything on dates, having to watch my mouth around women, etc. etc., you all know what I’m talking about. It all bothered me. It all struck me as sexist. The fact that hardly anyone else did, especially women, eventually led me to paying more attention to other hypocrisies and double-standards, which lead to discovery the sheer level of misandry in this country, which, in combination with discovering what kind of people most women really are, did more than shove a red pill down my throat. It turned my very soul red forever.
Sometimes I wonder if my lack of a dating/sex/love life helped or hindered my path to the truth. I guess it could have gone either way. Were I to have grown tall, instead of short, and ever looked my actual age, instead of constantly like a child, I’m sure I would’ve been much more of a ladies man when I was younger, and that could have either shortened my path to a red pill destiny or put me in jail at some point.
I’ll never know…
Welcome, Dr. Tams. Well met.
“Because men do horrible, horrible things.”
One could easily build a Ph.D. thesis around Moore’s comment to her daughter – Men Do, yes, but Women Are.
Feminists decry what Men Do, even as they rely on it for their very survival as Our Ladies of the Perpetual Victimhood, entitled to all the goodies we toss at them as they screech that we are still not Doing enough for them.
As adorable as it is when a grown woman whines like an 8 year old, their growth has become a cancer on society, and some cancers have to be cut out. Let’s start by toxic gazing at them until their Thumbellina’s break.
Again, welcome to the operating chamber, Dr.
I was about to say, “Hey, I’d like an honorary penis!” Then I thought for a moment.
Let me get this straight. Feminism is a vehicle for women who want to be more like men than women, so I think it’s safe to say that feminists suffer from penis envy. You were awarded an honorary penis (the symbol for everything feminists strive to be) by feminists, because you think like a man. By thinking (rationally) like a man, you naturally reject their ideology. And they consider it an INSULT to label you as what they want to be?
I am so confused. Welcome to where people make sense.
Confusing indeed.
The thing is Suz, yes they have huge penis envy, but they will never admit to it, and are too thick to realize that everybody else knows. So they throw it around as an insult thinking nobody knows their little secret.
Great! Can you devise a 12 step program for feminist.
“My name is xxx and I am a recovering feminist.”
How can you save other souls? What is needed? Can you cause a Tidal wave, a Tsunami of recovering feminists?
Is this contagious? Will we be over-run by recovered feminists? Will there be classes in women’s studies about “how to kick the feminism habit”?
Actually…this idea has some merit. A sort of “rehabilitation” document that covers what to expect on the road to recovery would be interesting.
Individuals who read it would know ahead of time what kind of internal (an external) trials and tribulations may await them…..and how to handle those situations.
It was my honor to solicit this article from Dr. Tams and to help her get it published here. I very much hope we can get her to post more in future!
One thing I would now like to challenge you on a bit though Elly:
I know mine is a minority voice among men’s advocates (which is OK I think, big tent and all that) but I have a theory that feminism often gets tangled up in a person’s sense of identity. Tribal and instinctive rather than intellectual, in other words. And that’s a much harder nut to crack than someone who’s an academic such as yourself.
Conservative / tory types have long had great fun bashing feminists, so it’s already a dirty word in those circles. But then there’s the moderates and the liberal-minded and so on, and to win any cause you often need them too, and I think they’re not all going to have the “Road to Damascus” type experience that you did.
Extensive experience shows me that “feminism” is more than a slippery word: it is a MEANINGLESS word. You might as well call it “X.” No two feminists can agree on what it is and what it isn’t, except slogans like “the notion that women are human beings” (to which the proper response is “well then of course I’m a feminist!” but which just gets contempt from the ideologues).
This is why we get so often to something that every men’s advocate has encountered: NAFALT (“Not All Feminists Are Like That.”) Quote something hateful from a feminist and they say “well I don’t think that” or “we’re not all like that,” and the discussion simply ends. What’s a men’s advocate to do? Walk away and say “fuck you?” Or is there maybe a better way to get through?
I have also had the experience–probably more common in America than in the UK–of women who grew up in very closed communities or families where subordination of females was a way of life for them as children/girls (and which their own mothers may have indoctrinated into them more than their fathers!). And to them, they grab onto the word “feminist” and feel liberated by it. Their experiences are very real, including some people close to me, and I wince on their behalf when I hear someone just blanket-bashing “feminism,” because their “feminism” came in reaction to a background of abuse and learnt-inferiority — in other words, homes that were ALREADY “anti-feminist.”
They didn’t become “feminist” by reading any books. Or maybe they read one or two books and no more. They latched onto this word “feminism” and it’s now part of their identity. So if you attack it, they feel you’re attacking THEM (or someone they love).
I call these people “blue collar feminists” or “working class feminists.” They didn’t decide to be “feminist” by intellectual process, they grabbed it as part of fleeing abusive backgrounds.
So while I don’t criticize anyone who says “I’m not a feminist” I do wonder at times: for some, do you think it’s possible to let them hold onto this word “feminist” (which is after all just a word) but get them to shed the misandrist impulses imposed upon it by the intellectual bullies that you and I are so familiar with?
I for one will happily befriend any person who wants to call themselves a “feminist” but who rejects all the misandrist lies and distortions (hello KiwiHelen!). Perhaps it’s impossible in academia, and the grayhairs that control academia will just have to die off for it to change. But at the working class level, do you think there’s a way to reach them without ramming down their throats the notion that they simply MUST shed this word?
Perhaps I’m asking you too much. But I do know some of these “blue collar feminists” and they’re really not man-haters–they acknowledge men’s issues readily and non-defensively and often even have men and boys in their lives that they’ve SEEN be abused, even killed. They KNOW something’s wrong. I think it’s important to reach them somehow, I really do. Do you think there’s a way, without FORCING them to give up this word?
Especially because it’s very clear to me that just being “anti-feminist” is not enough. I have met, up close and personal, deeply misandrist people who are at the same time proudly, even loudly, “anti-feminist.” In fact I’ve had it so up close and personal I almost flinch: I’ve been abused by people who proudly call themselves “anti-feminist.” Thus someone who says they are “anti-feminist” is never automatically trusted by me. I know YOU love men, but I do not believe every “I Am Not A Feminist” person does. I think there are TONS of misandrists who are not feminists.
I guess that’s a pretty open-ended question, but do you have any thoughts on whether it’s possible for the working class feminist to hold onto her precious word but shed the misandry? Or is that a lost cause in your view?
I know my view but I’m curious what yours is, if you have one.
Dean I sympathise with your position.
Feminism contains three elements,
1/ Women’s rights
2/ Women’s privileges
3/ Hatred/ mistrust or resentment of men
People identify as feminists using a blend of the elements. A lot of people who self-identify as feminists are thinking mainly in terms of women’s rights and don’t understand why men’s rights activists get upset with them.
The goal should be to detach women’s rights from feminism and expose the others as the man-hating privilege seekers they are.
Of course feminism is not the only enemy of men’s rights.
I’m interested in Elly’s view too. Welcome aboard Elly.
Dean:
“feminism often gets tangled up in a person’s sense of identity. Tribal and instinctive rather than intellectual, in other words. And that’s a much harder nut to crack than someone who’s an academic such as yourself.”
Dead on, sir. I hate to say it, as I’m sure there are others here who have the patience, time, and respect to try to argue intellectually with a person whose entire being is an emotional narrative, but I can’t do it. I’ve decided to focus my attention on my male friends who I might be able to enlighten and hopefully spare them a life of misery at the hands of feminist-driven male disposability.
Dr. Tams: Thank you for posting. It is interesting and helpful to hear and learn about your intellectual journey. One thing that struck me about the post was the last paragraph in which you spoke of feeling alone and not being part of the sisterhood. Although I believe your experience was probably more isolating, men go through this as well (though you probably already know this). Although I occasionally hear a “Wow, I never thought about it that way,” most men I engage in conversation with regard me as “weird” or “angry” or “hates women.”
These are tough things to hold on our hearts and in our heads. It’s nice to hear from someone who’s made the journey here and knows how to tell both parts of the story. Thanks again.
I believe I understand where you’re coming from, I really do. But when it’s people who you care about, who’ve helped you through life, who’ve been the soul of compassion, who’ve SHOWN that to you, and who’ve shown you they can acknowledge the real issues and discuss them like rational human beings… the “fuck you” response doesn’t work for me. But if you haven’t encountered that, how could you feel other than the way you do?
Maybe I’ve just been luckier than some of you guys. Although I’ve been pretty battered and bruised, there have always been compassionate women (and men) in my life who aren’t the thugs we’re talking about here. There was one in particular, recently deceased I’m afraid, who saved my life. They just don’t hang out at places like Jezebel or Feministing or other suckholes of hate.
I prefer to call the thugs “Brown Skirts” or “misandrists” or just plain sexists. “Brown Skirts” is my favorite of the moment (and Paul promised to credit me with that, pay up Elam!).
You make very good points that I would tend to agree with however one thing sticks with me.
“Their experiences are very real, including some people close to me, and I wince on their behalf when I hear someone just blanket-bashing “feminism,” because their “feminism” came from background of abuse and learnt-inferiority–in other words, homes that were ALREADY “anti-feminist.””
I have no problem with bashing Feminism because Feminism does not equal women. If someone chooses to become a feminist, good for them, they can pursue their grievances but that won’t stop me deriding them for attaching themselves to a movement of economic, cultural and intellectual supremacy.
I view capital ‘F’eminism as akin to KKK or other. Until it dramatically changes form (unlikely) or stops seeking entitlements at society’s and the taxpayer’s cost (again unlikely), my opinion will not change.
When you look at the writings of someone like Suzanne Moore, who even snarls at the very notion that there is a difference between “good” and “bad” feminism and blanket asserts the evilness of men, and yet is allowed in respectable society, given prominent and respected voice, it’s very hard for me to gainsay you. She’s just a horrible, horrible bigot, and my sons are growing up in a society shaped by such fascistic bigots.
I don’t mind saying the internal conflict is tough on me. But I’m just going to keep calling people like this hateful bigots and demagogues, fauxminists pretending to be about equality when they’re about anything but, and, just plain sexist assholes.
I believe there are women who view themselves as deserving equal opportunity for the situation of their lives – and equal responsibility for the outcome.
Exhibit A is my Mom’s last best friend, an accountant who ran her own successful income-tax and financial-planning service, who joined the Lions Club rather than the ‘Lionesses,’ and was King Lion in her club for one cycle of however-long they reign – because she was damn-well worthy of it there, and her BROTHERS saw that she took it that way! She earned that status by being what her local Lions Club chapter needed a King Lion to be, for her accomplishments and dedication to their ideals and goals – not ‘because’ she was a woman, but in spite of it.
Hateful bigotry and demagoguery will always be a problem in any movement. I honor and welcome anyone who reaches past that and acknowledges that Actions Have Consequences, and who for that reason acts in a fashion that will bring forth the consequences that we need desperately in our society.
quote: “Hateful bigotry and demagoguery will always be a problem in any movement”
No! I disagree!! There are many-many clubs, national, international, grass-roots or otherwise…. organizations that do NOT tolerate Hate, nor Bigotry, nor Demagoguery.
Beside, feminism primary tools are Hate, Bigotry, LIES, and Demagoguery. They, on purpose, by design, are appealing (appallingly) to the most base and negative emotions.
As Men, we can, and MUST maintain: our Honor, our Compassion, & our civic Duty.
Seen in such a light, as stated here: your statement has a strong strong slant towards a “pussy-pass”
May Peace, Joy and Honor forever be part of the MRM,
captn flailer
I respond to the slippery definition of feminism (which I will always view as a tactic designed specifically to make it difficult to shed a bright light on the ugliness within the movement) by giving it a solid definition myself, based on how most feminists act:
“A person who believes in the oppression lie and uses it to justify their anti-male behavior.”
I hold anyone who calls themselves a feminist to this definition. Why? The answer to that lies within my perspective on the future…
Feminism has always been a flawed movement, as, although the pursuit of being treated like adults by women is certainly one of great merit, that is not what the movement has been up to these past fifty years, because it is too easy to convince women that men have what they have by essentially stealing it, rather than earning it, because really, I don’t think women as a sex have as much grasp of what it is to truly earn something as men do. So naturally, when women pursue change, when they try to get men to treat them as equals, they do it quite haphazardly, and allow plenty of room for the true man-haters to hijack the movement and take advantage of the power it can hold.
And that’s clearly what happened. Granted, men wanting to just give women what they want plays its role in this, but if the child never asks for an air rifle, they’re not likely to shoot their own eye out, are they?
For fifty years, the hijackers have been dictating the feminist narrative, have been keeping the movement going by fueling it with lies, have been convincing people to join the movement for all the wrong reasons. Quite simply, feminism hasn’t belonged to the women who actually wanted to be treated like adults and knew what such a thing actually looked and felt like for half a century. As such, I firmly believe that the only appropriate way to deal with it at this point is by burning it to the ground. All of it. The entire movement needs to be seen as the corrupted, wicked thing it has been for so very long, and then destroyed. And the only way to do that is by requiring that those women who honestly see the truth, and aren’t just serving their own interests by jumping out of the sinking ship only to board onto another one and fuck it up too, to shed the label entirely, to cut the cord, to abandon the movement, and continue their pursuit of being treated like an adult without it. I do not believe we can trust them otherwise.
I agree that many women hold a very emotional attachment to the label. But that’s no reason to let them cling to it. In fact I think that can be part of the first step towards becoming a real adult. Do most of us not let go of some cherished stuffed animal or blanket or toy as we grow older and develop into mature human beings? Requiring reformed feminists to call themselves something else that doesn’t include the word “feminist” isn’t about hurting or punishing them. It’s about helping them. As painful as it may be, they will be better for the experience, I am sure.
If we allow feminism to remain intact, if we only go after the obviously bad apples, I believe we will miss the opportunists, we will miss the people who are just jumping ship to preserve their own reputation and interests. And I believe that will only lead to more problematic feminism down the line.
Like I said, feminism is flawed. Time for the members of the movement who harbor no true hate in their heart to step up to something better: human rights.
MrStodern,
I hope you don’t mind that I have used your definition of “feminist” in the Manosphere Glossary of my blog.
Go ahead. I think everyone should operate on that definition of feminism. It fits them like a glove, and if they’re not going to stick with one definition, if we’re forced to make the decision for them, then so be it. I despise the ambiguity feminists use, and until they let go of it, I will continue to slap whatever definition I feel is apt on them. No more shape-shifting, no more changing colors constantly. I’m painting them all pink until they make up their minds and settle on something else.
@Dean Esmay
It works like this. Some misandric new policy or law is proposed. If it somehow does get exposed to the public, people get to see how hateful it looks. The next question in their mind is, “Who could have proposed such a policy/rule?” And the answer is, “The feminists.”
Now, if the people consider feminism for being good and noble (or they themselves label themselves as ‘feminists’), they would immediately drop their logical hatred of the misandric policy and would think that there must be some reason for the proposal. And then they’re fed (by the feminists and their backers such as the media) the same illogical ‘feewing’-based victimization of women and falsely interpreted or downright false data analysis. Since the people identify with the proposers as being good as themselves, they see no problem with the policy (“I’m a feminist or a supporter of feminism, so if the feminists have proposed this policy, and since they’re good people like myself, we must be justified in passing this policy”). In other words, the blue pill (feminism) that they’ve taken prevents them from seeing the reality.
Therefore, unless the label of feminism is not exposed for what it is, it’s hard to make (most) people aware of the reality. You must be aware of the power of the ‘brand’. People buy products merely by seeing the particular brand name, as they trust it. Suppose a particular brand of cold-drink started supplying pesticide-mixed drinks to the public, without ever telling them (in fact, hiding the facts from the consumers, so that they could continue to benefit from the defaulted lot of bottles). Suppose some of the consumers got into serious health problems or died after consuming the drinks, and connected the dots to come to the conclusion that the fault lies with the particular brand of cold drink. So what do you think is more effective – That they point out to the drink poured in a plain bottle (without that company’s brand name) and tell people how to detect and avoid the poison, or that they tell people to avoid the drinks from the particular brand (which is currently very popular among the people)?
If we’re to save people, you’ve to expose the brand for what the company behind it is doing. If people continue to believe that the brand is good, then, even if you point out the poison in the drink to them, they’ll see that the drink is from their favorite brand, they will reject your facts, and will take you as a critic or hater of the company, reasoning that with that big and popular a brand, some haters are inevitable. You cannot win in such a situation. That’s exactly what the blue pill effect is: Disguising something toxic as being good for all.
The first step of cure for any illness is its recognition. If you keep telling the doctor over the phone that you’ve been vomiting for a few days, frequently feeling extremely thirsty, and have had dry skin – that is, a few of the symptoms of what you have – the doctor is likely to misunderstand you and may send you medicines that might make your condition worse. If you straightaway tell the doctor that you have cholera, the specialized correct treatment would arrive at your door. (Not that I recommend solving health related problems over phone, but this was just for the sake of an example.)
Brand name is important. Name of the disease is important. If you want to eradicate a problem, you first identify it (as a whole if in a bigger picture). If people see no problem with feminism, what is it you propose them to be against? Misandry is not recognized. And if people continue to have trust in feminism, misandry does not and will never exist for them. So they’ll just ignore your suggestions; if not immediately then after the next blue pill from media or school or the feminist neighbor/relative. But if you’re able to tell them that the feminism IS the root cause of the problem (red pilling them), they’ll be skeptical in believing the propaganda. Pointing out the individual events of misandry doesn’t do much good (they just get filed under “NAWALT” or “NAFALT”). Making them look at the puppet masters and their actions is important.
DislogicusFeministus: The Unknown Metal illness.
Symptoms include:
Imagining things
Inability to reason
Bouts of uncontrolled Anger over non-issues
Hatred Of Men
Irrational Fear Of men
Hold contradictory opinions in your head at the same time
Remind me – What is the cure for feminism again?
Take The ___ Pill?
Hi Dean
Thanks again for the encouragement to write this! It was cathartic for me and I am just glad it seems to have some wider resonance with others here.
I do understand where you are coming from. But I want to make something clear – although I am educated and have studied gender academically, my experience of becoming feminist was very very personal and not to do with theory. I was brought up as a feminist from childhood, just as some are brought up as Christian, Muslim or Republican. My ‘attachment’ to feminism relates to my attachment to my mother, who, incidentally I have not felt able to tell about my ‘conversion’. I am too scared of her reaction!
I mention my academic background in my story because I think it is important in how I have actually studied feminist theory and research and found many many holes in it. It is not just through academia though that I know feminism. I know feminism through my family, friends, work, daily life.
As for class: It is a huge and important issue in any kind of politics for me. I will say though there are plenty of right wing feminists. In the UK there are some prominent Conservative women feminists. They get a lot of stick from ‘liberal/left’ feminist women who think you can’t be a Tory and a feminist. But you can. As you say it is not a political party it is a word. A word that in some ways is meaningless but in others is incredibly powerful and meaningful.
Of course I am friendly with feminist women. If I wasn’t I’d be even more alone! My own family and friendship group is full of feminists. And when I have told friends about my change of mind, some have been upset and confused.
But I will always tell people (apart from my Mum probably!) why I don’t think it is a good idea to be a feminist, now, however ‘blue collar’ they may be.
QRG/Elly
“They get a lot of stick from ‘liberal/left’ feminist women who think you can’t be a Tory and a feminist.”
The only difference between them, from a man’s point of view, is that one group wants to use men as walking ATM’s, and the other wants to use men as cannon fodder and white knights.
Anyway you slice it, it’s a loose/loose situation for men.
Elly Tams,
I know how an article like yours here can be cathartic. I wrote a ‘light-bulb’ story about freeing myself from the feminist world as well. I think it will resonate with you. Actually, I am sure it will.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/fugitive-from-the-feminist-chain-gang/
Elly: I can see that. The UK is a different place, as is Canada. Here in the US, the Feminists are so very very very strongly tied to the left, there are practically NO conservative feminists, they’re an exotic species if you do find them, and conservatives love bashing feminists. Now I don’t hate conservatives, I’m just noting, they’re only one part of the population and they’re already anti-feminist. Which is just one of two or three reasons why I cringe a bit at it because I think in this country at least widespread social misandry is a disease that goes beyond the hateful Brown Skirt set and is in lots of other places too, and I want to fight them all with as many allies as I can. But that’s just me.
In the US people brought up by their parents to be communists are called “red diaper babies.” Perhaps the feminist version would be “rad diaper babies.”
I’m sorry, Dean, but “fun-fems” you describe and are called as such by the feminist core, are used as plausible deniability for the core to continue their ever increasing misandrist law-making.
To take down the core, the “fun-fem” shield has to be brought down right along with the core.
In fact, the previous victims, who know feel good because they identify as feminist, have not actually shed and defeated the abuse. Indeed, you could say they still are victims, this time of feminism. For they do not think for themselves, they do not have self-esteem for that which they did, and who they are, but that they are good little foot soldiers of feminism. They are every bit the demure, submissive, broken people that their parents attempted to mold them into, it’s just manifested in a slightly different way.
How much better would be for them, to shed even that. To actually think for themselves, see feminism for the evil it is, then reject it.
They are like children clinging to a safety buoy well into adulthood, and continue to cling to it, even though that they are grown they can easily stand up on the bottom and just walk out of the water.
How much more healthier and well-off would they be, if they stood up on their own two feet?
I have a friend named Chris who divides feminism into five distinct camps, four of which (Marxian, Nietzchean, and I forget the other two but they’re basically “people who like to complain” and “people who just hate”) are toxic. Toxic to both to those who practice it AND those around them. And then one other: the tiniest one, the one that just want equality and earned respect as self-actualized adults– and that it is from this small subset which all the malevolent versions derive the only legitimacy they have at all. And the sad part is, they’re exactly the “fun-fems” that the hateful ones gleefully mock to bully them into toe-ing the party line.
For me it’s a tough nut to crack. But for the moment my own tactic (we all have our own ways) is to not insist they give up the label, but, try to get them as best I can to see WHY there’s so much animosity and how it is NOT just a bunch of privileged boys who want free cookies/privileges, how it’s so much deeper than that.
I do point out to them that the very word “feminist” is arguably sexist on its surface, especially if there is no respect given to men speaking to men’s issues on men’s own terms. I find that the rational ones can hear that.
I just avoid the toxic ones anymore. Just flat walk away. I’ve taken enough abuse in my life and I refuse to go looking for it. But I WILL talk to people who will listen and act like adults about it without condescension or dismissal.
Welcome! We’re glad to have a fellow subversive in the fold.
To the Dean: focusing on the word ‘feminism’ can be used as a tactic to derail substantive argumentation against misandry. The MRA must reject tedious semantic arguments to address our grievances. Some here may disagree with me, but I feel that the many feminisms are just manifestations of cultural misandry, which is the true focus of the men’s movement.
We’re pretty close to agreement there. My enemy is misandry, my concern is for the future of my sons. That’s where I’m at.
congratulations on waving goodbye to the feminist movement. You are no longer a feminist! You are now a womans rights activist. You are a welcome mens rights activist. And most of all, you are now a humanist. Welcome! I hope you stay.
YES, Thank God! Can we just be human rights activists? Human rights activists who take the radical notion that men are human beings? LOL. It makes me bonkers!
Better yet, a JUSTICE activist.
One Hundred Percent Cotton used the term “equalism” to describe something like this, a couple of months ago: not only ‘equal opportunity’ but ‘equal responsibility’, and ‘equal actions have equal consequences.’
So many of us believe things strongly and continue to hold onto these beliefs no matter how many inconvenient facts we encounter.
I admire your introspection and honesty in modifying your beliefs.
Just a few days ago, I was looking over your blog. I have a lot of respect for your courage to stay vocal despite taking heat from a lot feminists. I know they can get scary with the “traitor” and “special place in hell” talk.
Welcome Dr Elly Tams. Thank you for the wonderful article.
Congratulations on choosing to walk away from the “ism”.
Also I enjoyed your honesty when you said
“Without the comfortable delusion of feminism I am more vulnerable now. Without the “gang,” the “club” (the “cult?”) I sometimes feel alone. Sometimes I am alone”
I can imagine one could get very comfortable in the “club”, it must not be that easy to walk away.
Once again, welcome. I look forward to hearing more from you.
Well hello QRG.
Congratulations on your transformation.
When you say it was hard to break free from feminism, I’m betting it was what I call the emotional attachment to the word feminism or the label feminist.
This idea women have that “true feminism” is about sugar and spice and all things nice and even when confronted with some of feminism’s worst deeds and most hateful ideologues, who always seem to rise to the top of the heap by the way, cling to this belief that their, politically powerless, non-funded, disorganized version of feminism, populated by a disconnected minority who’s beliefs and views are mostly cooked up in their own minds, is somehow the real feminism.
You however are a very highly educated woman who would have had in depth knowledge of feminists activities and feminism as a whole. The fact that you still chose to call yourself a feminist in spite of that, just goes to show the strength of this emotional attachment.
My belief is that all women who do not share the obvious hatred of men and do not wish to get by in life by being self proclaimed weak and pathetic victims of every little mole hill non-issue, reject feminism outright by saying out loud, “I am not a feminist, of any kind, I am an anti-feminist” Then of course you will be assumed to be a traditionalist and have to explain how you are not of course.
There is a new woman in town, her name is Zeta. A new deal too.
good to see another woman taking the red pill…
we are here to cure….this is our medicare
yesterday I was talking with my sister (about why I’m writing a book on misandry/feminism…) and she asked “does feminism still exist?”…it took a while to explain what feminism is today….but she got it…
BTW while writing these few rows, one word has been underlined in red as unknown by the vocabulary…guess which one?
QRG your journey as been long, but its the transformation, that journey requires that allows you to fly. Now you are the butterfly of truth.
I really admire people like Dr. Tams who can move beyond tribalism (just looking out for your own ethnic/gender/religous/label) group and speak on what she thinks is the TRUTH.
People only sticking up for their racial group, women only sticking up for womens rights. It takes a lot of selflessness to stick up for a group you’re not a part of.
Thank you.
Our need is so great. Few people realize how close boys are to complete collapse. This is the darkest hour for men and boys, and we desperately need support.
Thank you.
Dr. Elly Tams, Welcome to AVfM. And thank you for such an informative post. Can’t wait to read more of your work.
You are definitely in good company here. Notwithstanding the men here who will support you, there are good women also, in whose company you shall not know shame.
I’ve never really read the words of a woman who once called themselves a feminist (I apologize if the others on here have written articles I happened to have missed), at least not to this extent. I appreciate you sharing this insight with us. I can certainly understand the shock you felt at having been so thoroughly excommunicated, simply for being what feminists pretend to be: a decent human being.
There are men and women out there who only subscribe to feminism because, thanks to indoctrination, they’re blind to the truth of it. If they’d had the chance to see that the movement isn’t about liberating women at all, but about hurting men and treating women even more like children than a traditionalist society does, they’d never join it. I’d say you fit under this category, Dr. Tams. You have a brain in your head, essentially, and no hate in your heart.
I believe women like you hold the key to freeing so many blue pill men, because as much sense as men like Dr. Elam and John the Other make, they are men, and that is a hindrance when trying to communicate with men who worship the ground women walk on about how deeply they’ve been deceived. But you, on the other hand, you are more likely to catch a blue pill man’s attention, at least. It can easily see it being a curiosity to blue pill men, a woman who leaves the movement because of how ugly it really is.
We’ll see how far it goes.
Welcome to the MRM. You’ll find soon enough that being a female is not a hindrance to earning respect from us at all. And unlike with feminism, anyone can become a member regardless of gender. We may look to women to help us male MRAs out, but you are not mere utilities to us. You are not a means to an end. You are human beings. We all are.
Welcome to our corner of the internet, Dr. Tams. I look forward to reading more of your work.
Not only do you deserve a medal for being banned from “No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz?”, but the people who run that site should be slapped with a wet noodle for their absurdly juvenile spelling choices.
I had a really good feeling about the “No Seriously What About Teh Menz?” site. Until I started reading it.
Same reaction to “The Good Men Project,” which I naively thought was about exploring what was good about men. I should have thought more carefully about the title, but reading some of the content made it clear enough after a while. Although I know one guy who’s gamely trying to turn that site into something other than the groveling “shame them into manning up and being good little white knights” bullshit. I wish him luck.
Thank you Dr Tams and welcome to AVFM, looking forward to more of your posts, though the links from this one will keep me busy reading for a while!
Thanks Elly Tams, your courage has been noted several times in this thread alone.
And your Road To Damascus moments has been received by a Seventy Times Seven welcome. Yet, realistically, there will be some in the “mrm” who won’t willingly be so quick to overlook such the illustrious past. However, your future writings and actions will provide the determining factor.
Another blogger above wrote that many here started as feminists. I’d wager heavy money that most would prefer to live free of and not align with any particular vexacious gender ideology at all and endeavour themselves with other interests. You’ve begun to understand why many enter into areas they originally not wished to go but are compelled by a just conscience to do so. Welcome to the freedom to tell it mostly like it is.
Cheers to your debut piece. May you imbibe us further.
Thank you, Dr. Tams. Women still need help achieving equality in many places in the world, and I don’t think any MRA worth ten cents would disagree with that. Please, never think you are alone. You have many intelligent and compassionate friends.
Seems like I survived the initial shock, and I would like to comment on something you wrote in the article.
“When I did finally realize how badly feminism treats men and masculinity, I was not able to identify as feminist anymore.”
From personal observation I can not count the times I have had a women standing in front of me, and proudly proclaiming to be a ‘good little feminist’, (-my words, not theirs), without having the faintest idea what that actually entailed.
It seems to be the case with a lot of women, that feminism has become some sort of extension of the same kind of herdmentality you witness in the behavior of grade school girls, where everybody is afraid to step out of line, in fear of being ‘outed’ from the group.
They simply agree with the more loud and radical man-haters, just like they did with the cheerleaders and the other ‘popular’ girls back in school, to make things easier on themselves, and be absolved from any personal responsibility of their ignorance and choices.
The nazi war criminals most common response from the Nürnberg trials comes to mind:
‘I just did as I was ordered.’
I generally agree with the viewpoint of MrStodern’s first comment, that feminism is a house that needs to be burned to the ground, and the reason for that being that I have absolutely no problem with seeing the aforementioned behavior of convenience played out in regards to jumping ship, while the radical feminist are burning any last bridges that may remain between the sexes.
Women needs to be held responsible for their actions, and accountable for their choices from now on. You may be women, but you are also individuals, and as such you must be held responsible for your individual choices. We need to change things from the very beginning of a girls upbringing, and teach them that they are NOT little princesses, but can be strong individuals that are perfectly capable of standing on their own two feets, and think for themselves.
Now, I know that feminism has been trying to do this for years, but it has been based on the false assumption that men were ‘the enemy’, and that they had to compete with men.
It’s a well known fact by know that men doesn’t find women who behave like men attractive in any way. You just have to look at the marriage statistics to see that.
What’s more, women doesn’t generally like men who are overtly sensitive, and are not likely to choose them as partners in their lives. And when they do, they tend to choose them to use them for different means, while going after the men that appears to be strong.
To prove that statement, you just have to look at the percentage of kids that grows up to find out, that they are not the offspring of their alleged father.
That means the herdmentality and the groupthink has to go. Women has to stop covering for the bad deeds of other women, simply based on the fact that they are women.
Feminism is a perfect example of the misled understanding that seems to prevail among women, that ‘women wouldn’t lie to eachother, because we would know such a thing’.
It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt with feminism, that this is complete and utter bullshit.
From my point of view, feminism has to start from scratch, while re-inventing itself.
One of the more radical notions that feminism has chosen to overlook and exclude from the ideology, is the fact that men and women need eachother to be the best they can. If you cut off a branch of that partnership-tree, the whole organism will wither and die in a very short time.
And that goes without mentioning that women in no way have come anywhere close to making it on their own.
They’ve just put the state in place of the men, and the housewife of the 50′s, who had to ask her husband for money, is now the ‘liberated’ woman of year 2012, who gets her handouts from a state that has taken the money from men, under the threat of incarceration.
Hardly worth calling ‘Liberation’, is it?
The old saying, that ‘a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle’, is still one of the most stupid things I have ever heard in my life, and the consequences of statements like these have been, that the big faceless entity known as a police state has moved very much closer into everybody’s lives, while being given the liberty to ignore every aspect of the individuals privacy and freedom, that we all want.
-And not just men’s..
And it has been done in the name of ‘Liberation’…-By women.
You just can’t make that kind of irrational lack of understanding of how the world works up, and the dire results of all this are yet to be seen, I fear.
-And when we go, we go together.
Very very cool. Apostates like you are priceless. Thanks for you courage.
Be prepared for more ‘murderous’ abuse though because you are the most dangerous kind of enemy for feminists…someone who both knows and is willing to call their game. Prepare for this (http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/trashing.htm) and more. Don’t be shy about asking for help either. Women like you are worth plenty of help.
Well, just got home from work to read this. Good to have another educated woman mix it with we “rapists” (etc). Welcome Elly!
Good for you that you posted on this, a more edgy forum than the Good Men Project (doesn’t the latter title say it all about objectification of men?!)…. your philosophical bent dictates that you need sharper idiological edges than those at Feminism Central and at GMP, and you will find some of those edges here.
Thanks also to Dean Esmay and your sister for being honest.
What you wrote above is fairly standard meal around here… looking forward to reading any posts you contribute to topic threads here…. I think you will find the red pill tastes kinda sweet compared to the others.
intrigued by your Foucault book… might come back to it when I have some spare time. Is it man freindly?
Hello all.
Thanks so much for your comments. I appreciate the warm welcome.
I am reading through them now and will respond to some of the individual points in the thread.
Elly/QRG
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Ouch! but I see your point and it’s valid. Perhaps if Elly contributes to AVfM generously -like GWW, Typhon, Fr. T- then that will be some recompense…. though I’m not assuming she has that kind of contribution in mind.
Don’t forget a lot of men posting here were once profeminist too (or chilvalrist), so you have a lot of cookies to hand out.
Sorry. Cookies are for those with advanced degrees in hatred only.
Reformed manginas and white knights already have their reward–a chance at self-realization.
I don’t understand the thing with biscuits.
Is it a saying?
Anyway, I used to be a feminist, a mangina and a white knight. All three indeed. The unholy trinity and there is no bloody way anyone here or anywhere else would think of me as anything but the polar opposite of those three chaps.
It’s not the mistakes we make that are the things to focus on. It’s how we respond to our mistakes that define our humanity. Our character.
The best reformers are always “formers.” Anti-prostitution, anti-drug addiction, anti-alcohol, etc. Its like doing intelligence analysis, you have to understand the way your opponents think. It is common for MRAs who do not understand cultural marxism (radical feminism) and organized crime (gov’t, big business such as pharma, NGOs, Rockefeller & Ford foundations, etc.) to make the most absurd assumptions about what is going on and about other persons. Dr. Tams’ background makes her an indispensable intelligence asset for those of us who resist authoritarianism under any name, including “feminism.”
I don’t want your cookies Jean. I am just sharing my experience. I have NO idea the level of your ‘virtue’ either. Just because you indicate you have never been a feminist that does not mean you are perfect! There are other ‘crimes’ in this world. I give you the benefit of the doubt though, maybe you could afford me the same?
Don’t worry about the knockers, you’ll get them. You’ll probably even come across the odd frothing at the mouth mad man who refuses to accept a woman into the fold. You’ll find that even most of them are ok when you get to know them.
I for one, and I’m sure the vast majority here see women like you who were totally indoctrinated at every level of their lives, and have come full circle and become anti-feminists, especially those that join the greatest band of anti-feminists in the world…..AVFM, as great assets, and a great victory of good over evil
Of course, you do realize that now that you are associated with avoiceformen, you will be universally hated and despised by all feminists, statists, extreme leftists and just about everybody except MRAs actually. But that isn’t the only benefit of being here, we have really great career opportunities and excellent affirmative action policies. In fact, you can probably start right now, and receive exactly the same pay as our top men, Paul Elam, JTO, and James Huff.
“Of course, you do realize that now that you are associated with avoiceformen, you will be universally hated and despised by all feminists, statists, extreme leftists and just about everybody except MRAs actually.”
Welcome to the Hotel California…. check in anytime you like, but you can never leave.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUbTW928sMU
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Oh jeebus, get over it already. Next you’ll be telling me a kid who grew up in the Soviet Union and got a degree in Marxist Studies has to answer for Stalin’s crimes personally. Get. A. Grip. Please.
Don’t worry about it. Nothing you say right now is very likely to change his mind, and its not so important. However, put as much effort into this cause as you used to with feminism and you may not get offered any more cookies.
So let me get this right. I used to be a feminist. I was educated in a feminist academic environment, and I supported feminist causes.
Life and experience taught me other lessons and I re-evaluated, winding up here doing what I do.
And your message to me and all other other MRA’s here that used to support feminism is “Here’s your cookie”?
It is still early here, but I am pretty sure that is the most stupid thing I will hear today, even if I spent the next hour reading Manboobz.
FAIL.
Former feminist here too, and still happy to embrace women’s issues when they’re real issues and not phony “the Patriarchy makes me shave my legs” or “Superbowl Sunday is National Wife Beating Day” or “women don’t become engineers because the bullies won’t let them” bullshit.
Agreed, except with a significant caveat. Other than a shrinking amount of traditionalist family environments where women are mandated to strict sex role compliance (which they also do to men, only harsher) I don’t see much, if any so called “women’s issues” that have not been addressed. Many of them have been beaten into the ground.
In fact, the only thing I can come up with after a diligent examination of laws and social customs that is discriminatory against women can be summed up in one word.
Tits.
The legal treatment of the sexes allows men to walk around in public with their shirts off, and in most places in the west, women can’t.
That is IT.
The legal and social decks have become so stacked against men in favor of women that when I hear the term “women’s issues,” as it relates to discrimination, the only sensible reaction I can muster is “yeah, whatever.”
Now, I would not react that way if women were facing a lot of systemic discrimination or were disadvantaged by law or custom. I would be fighting for them as well.
I just think it is important to put into perspective that “women’s issues,” in the west, is for all practical purposes, a misnomer.
vote for comment of the week Paul.
Knocked it out of the park
To be fair maybe he means issues that affect women in certain Arabic countries.
Can’t argue. When I look at the statistics, as well as my own personal experience, the only real cases I can find in my part of the world are either older women or, well, like I said, people coming out of pretty isolated environments or odd circumstances. If one more puke tries to tell me “most corporate CEOs and politicians are men, therefore, women’s oppression/male privilege” I will…. GRARRGH!!
On the other hand I know a woman who had a shared custody arrangement with her ex-husband here in the states, and he kidnapped their son and took him to India where the cultural and legal norm is that in divorce children belong to the father. Now that’s a gross violation of her rights and the rights of her child (not to mention violation of US state and Federal law and a US court order), but he’s beyond reach of US law. Still, even there just calling it a “woman’s issue” is only half the story because while men have auto-presumed privileges in Indian society the men also have auto-presumed burdens and secondary status in numerous other areas.
In developing countries there really are women’s issues that distinctly need addressing. But even THERE we’re often fucked up in our approach. For example I’ve written a few times on the issue of honor killings of women, which, no one here would support (or I fucking hope not anyway, what kind of fuckhead would?) but are common amongst multiple religious and ethnic groups in that part of the world. I’ve given support to groups trying to fight that. But I’ve gotten casual dismissal over something vitally important there: study has shown that in the case of honor killings of females in that part of the world, they are often done with the approval, encouragement, even at the direct behest of a man’s mother, sisters, etc. Which does not leave the honor killer less culpable, but if we do not acknowledge any female culpability in that, allowing them to cling to malignant hypoagency, we will never really “fix” it, we’ll just demonize the men and once again treat females as pure-as-driven-snowflakes. Which will actually IMPEDE the effort to end the practice.
Funny how when I bring that up though, no one who talks about honor killings over there wants to talk to me anymore.
I don’t think it’s even ideological. I believe it is literally a culture-wide blindness. I’m betting it has some biological basis, but I refuse to be that genocentric: I’m convinced culture has an ENORMOUS amount to do with this, Anglo culture especially.
‘Ah, but you just don’t know what ‘tits’ like..’
-Sounds like someone finally found out what that particular ‘it’ is.
Thank you.
-Been wondering about that for years now..
Actually … women can go topless in Ontario. However, most choose not to.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/07/19/gwen-jacobs.html
Being from Ontario, I can attest that I have not seen a singe topless woman walking about in public, despite being allowed to.
“The legal treatment of the sexes allows men to walk around in public with their shirts off, and in most places in the west, women can’t.”
That is true, but the counter to that is that virtually all establishments will let women in wearing the flimsiest singlet, whereas men are required to wear at the very least a short sleeved T-Shirt.
@Dean
I don’t think it’s even ideological. I believe it is literally a culture-wide blindness
Bingo.
As an Indian living in the US, I have often wondered how India got the way it is and how Anglosphere got the way it is. India’s greatest thinker Dr.B.R.Ambedkar (a brilliant man from the untouchable class..whose brilliance was recognized by the local king/rajah who decided to sponsor his higher education in the UK and Columbia Univ IIRC) looked into many of its problems and fundamentally concluded that we need an Indian Enlightenment first.. before we can get anywhere. Author Meera Nanda restates the same thing. A Gender transition movement can come after all that.
Consider the problem of non-egalitarianism in India.. via the caste system. people dont marry across castes, nor do they even dine with people of other castes. In the 1900′s plenty of leaders wanted to fix this problem..but they didnt have the intelligence to see the root cause.. or the guts to follow up on Ambedkar’s analysis and recommendations.. which was.. the rejection of scripture..because scripture is used to ‘provide divine sanction’ to EVERYTHING in India. Every fucking thing. And the fact that Indian society is collectivist to the core, and Individual thought has been explicitly forbidden as well(!) in scripture means that a lot of people oppose change rabidly. Even to this day, the caste system thrives.. and the only reason a dent has been made in the caste system is modernity and the rise of large cities.. where it becomes too difficult to figure out the caste of persons you come in temporary contact with.
Honour killings are a consequence of the largely shame-based culture of India (as opposed to the largely guilt-based culture of the West). Thats why both men and women are involved in it. People take plenty of umbrage at perceived insults to the honour of their families. people take great pride in their family-heritage..as if something your dad or grand-dad did rubs off onto you. Transitioning out of such thinking is a big task.
Meera Nanda describes today’s India as living in ‘reactionary modernism’.. i.e modern prosperity and technology, but traditionalist (collectivist) values. Women’s issues didnt take hold in the West (and wouldnt have made any sense) without the rise of the individual and the Enlightenment. I think India should similarly fight against its superstitious and supernatural ways of thinking first . But the task is vastly more difficult.. because of its immense population.
As an atheist, I was part of an online Indian Atheist group. On many issues they piggyback on the West’s groups, and the morons piggybacked on feminism as well.. and they are big fans of FTB baboons to boot. So much for Enlightenment ideas.
Sub-category of “Tits:”
Coach wouldn’t let me pole-vault in 8th grade track because my “anatomy would get in the way.” Sad face.
Back then they actually said such things out loud.
@Astrokid Ever known about the caste and gender based reservation policies and laws degrading the standard of everything nice in India (it’s like the affirmative action in the US, only more illogical and stupid)?
@Dean Esmay
You’re seriously deluded about the marriage, divorce, and child custody laws and the social norms in India, as they presently stand. Not surprising, given that the info you get is from the MSM which is biased and the statistics and truth twisted. They’ll show you the bad situation of the tribal women, as if their men own the wealth of the world. Everything just usual propaganda bullshit. But I never expected a red piller such as you to fall for it so easily.
Please study the Indian laws before propagating the misinformation to the others. Most of them are scarier than in the US. For example, a woman can claim a rape on any man, the man will be immediately arrested (no bails), and the proof of proving it otherwise would be on the imprisoned man. Yep, it’s really that illogical. By law. The US feminists are still demanding it, the Indian ones have done it. And more drastic laws are being passed.
That the man you mentioned flew to India has nothing to do with Indian laws and culture, it just might be convenient for him to choose that country. He was still guilty under the US laws and had done nothing to violate any Indian laws. He could as well have chosen any country that won’t send him back to the US for not violating any of its own laws.
@dhanu I am intimately familiar with the details of this particular case and its status, and would advise you not to talk about it until you know more. This particular case is still being fought in India’s corrupt system, but wherein the courts have already determined, by custom and cultural norm, that the boy belongs to his father. My friend’s only recourse is to argue that this is in violation of treaty obligations with the US and that the US court decision granting them joint custody should be respected. They’re still wrangling over it.
If you really need me to get into it, the specifics of Indian law vary tremendously, but generally speaking the preference is to give boys above the age of 7 to their fathers and, while they embrace a “tender years” doctrine giving small children to the mothers preference, in many cases even when a boy child under 7 is given to his mother’s custody, her rights terminate when he reaches age 7 and he goes to his father if his father wants. Again this varies and the courts do have some discretion on the matter.
If you would bother reading my comment closely you would see that I clearly acknowledged that there are areas in Indian society where men have definite burdens and second class status. The issues surrounding gender there are COMPLEX, but can best I think be described as 1) Men’s Issues, 2) Women’s Issues, and 3) Mixed Men-and-Women issues.
The point is, yes, in a place like India there are definitely things you can call Women’s Issues–for example, at least as of 2001 (see: CIA World Factbook), the literacy rate for male Indians was 74% but only 48% for females, an undeniable disparity that would justify greater focus on girls in that area–just like the flagging state of boys in education in the United States SHOULD be calling on us to address the needs of boys more effectively HERE, except that we don’t give a shit about boys here.
Please don’t become a kneejerk who thinks there’s never any such thing as a women’s issue any time or anywhere. “The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity,” and that’s one of our problems when we discuss gender issues: they’re often complex, especially in developing nations.
@Dean Esmay
“This particular case is still being fought in India’s corrupt system, but wherein the courts have already determined, by custom and cultural norm, that the boy belongs to his father.”
I’d speak more directly. As you said, the court system here is corrupt and the decisions are based on offering bribe to the judges. The always and intentionally unclear law statements can be made to say anything in any particular case, depending upon the judge’s intentions. This cannot in any way regarded as a woman’s issue here (that is, a systematic discrimination), as you considered it to be.
“If you really need me to get into it, the specifics of Indian law vary tremendously, but generally speaking the preference is to give boys above the age of 7 to their fathers and, while they embrace a “tender years” doctrine giving small children to the mothers preference, in many cases even when a boy child under 7 is given to his mother’s custody, her rights terminate when he reaches age 7 and he goes to his father if his father wants. Again this varies and the courts do have some discretion on the matter.”
That’s in theory. Read here (searched on the Web): “http://www.divorceindia.in/444/divorce-law-child-custody-india.html”. The population is mostly Hindu, and as the article says: “[despite what the laws dictate] such cases are generally inclined in the favor of the mother, since Indian society sees the relationship and bond that mother and child share to be more essential, and thereby nurturing”, contrary to your arguments of social and custom norms. In short, that the Indian society thinks the way you assumed is nothing but a lie propagated by the propagandists (media and politics). Fact is, the societal norms highly favor the women. It’s just that the norms are very well balanced and, if followed properly, the men are given respect too (respect is not a zero-sum game; all people can have it). This is what the feminists are opposed to, and are pushing ridiculously discriminatory laws. For example, consider this: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-05-18/india/31764519_1_mutual-consent-hindu-marriage-act-share-in-marital-property
“If you would bother reading my comment closely you would see that I clearly acknowledged that there are areas in Indian society where men have definite burdens and second class status. The issues surrounding gender there are COMPLEX, but can best I think be described as 1) Men’s Issues, 2) Women’s Issues, and 3) Mixed Men-and-Women issues.”
Right. But why make a general corrupt court issue into a women’s issue? That’s what I meant with the above discussion. It’s not because of the laws or customs as you seem to think; it’s about who bribed the judges. Why am I so sure? Because that is what happens there prominently, rather than in rare cases. Corruption is the rule rather than the exception.
“The point is, yes, in a place like India there are definitely things you can call Women’s Issues–for example, at least as of 2001 (see: CIA World Factbook), the literacy rate for male Indians was 74% but only 48% for females, an undeniable disparity that would justify greater focus on girls in that area”
In 2001? You mean, a decade ago? How about 2011? From Wiki, “[E]ffective literacy rates (age 7 and above) in 2011 were 82.14% for men and 65.46% for women”. You can see where the rate of acceleration is headed. The female candidates are given 15% extra weight in the most prestigious management institutions (IIM’s) of the country, which is devastating to the male applicants. The most prestigious technology institutions (like the IIT’s) offer free entrance forms from the center to the female applicants, while making the fee 3.5 times higher for the male candidates (and for the top position holder female candidates, the individual states (to which the girls belong) pay the whole fee for their entire 4- or 5-year course, charging the male students higher). There also are reservations (including in the politics) for the females almost everywhere. In other words, the system is actively pushing the men down. Decades old statistics are published merely to hide the facts and perpetuate the familiar myth of woman-victimhood.
“ust like the flagging state of boys in education in the United States SHOULD be calling on us to address the needs of boys more effectively HERE, except that we don’t give a shit about boys here.”
It’s the same at most of the places (and definitely in India), with only a few years’ gap. India is approaching the US in these matters (and in a subset, has actually passed it quite a while ago). The last thing it wants is the myths based on outdated statistics.
“Please don’t become a kneejerk who thinks there’s never any such thing as a women’s issue any time or anywhere.”
Never said that. But I’m opposed to painting something that’s not a women’s issue as such.
This is my first post to AVFM so I’ll start by saying that my mind is currently blown. I had NO idea there were so many men out there like me who have seen the light.
I don’t understand why it’s so for this blowhard Jean to believe most of us started out as feminists. I think most human beings value equality and fairness by nature and unless you really “looked under the hood” feminism seemed harmless.
Furthermore, he is the epitome of what this movement does NOT need. What difference does Elly’s educational background make? If anything, we should be thankful that she has this experience under her belt. If we were hunting bears, would we prefer to team up with someone who has hunted bears previously or would we rather team up with an inexperienced hunter? She is who she is today precisely BECAUSE of her experiences. I have read many of Elly’s posts on various blogs today and I must say…I value her input and I think we need more like her within the movement.
I have officially swallowed the red pill. Is there a “new members” thread? Is it normal for me to feel like I’m abandoning my principals, to some extent? I keep trying to speak with friends (the ones I consider intellectual and logical) in an effort to reassure myself I haven’t gone off the deep end. Any advice is appreciated from the community!
Welcome Drew. Glad you found us. There are two new members threads. The first one is any recent article. Feel free to introduce yourself there — and to repost this excellent comment. Also, we have a forum linked on the masthead above. Feel free to participate there as well.
Welcome, brother.
Paul said what I would have. You may also want to read the Introductory Articles on the front page, there’s a lot there to read and digest, although you’ve already read one of them.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I hope you get counsel for whatever ails you, but I have to point out again that nothing you are saying holds any water logically.
As I said, I am a former feminist. Lots of us here are. Warren Farrel was on the board of NOW. Your obsession with the extent of a persons post graduate work, as though that is sufficient to make an informed decision about their character and beliefs, 5, 10 or 20 years later, is both woefully obtuse and self defeating.
No one is suggesting you have to trust anyone. I personally don’t care who you trust, or who you don’t. What I think is important here is that those of us not all emotional in our thinking see the unmistakable value to the men’s movement, and to our society, of someone with Elly Tams history rethinking her beliefs and having the courage to come out with it in the way she has.
Now compare that to someone whose current contribution to this site is to offer personally derisive comments to a contributor based on the fact that they got a an advanced degree in gender studies, and not on what they are actually doing with it.
You are off base, emotional and irrational. I hope it passes and you find enough peace of mind to have more to offer yourself and others in this movement.
But calling you out for the nonsensical and irrational nature of your comment is a given.
Perhaps another forum would be more to your liking at this time.
In the meantime, if you have rational dissent from the statements of any article on this site, you are welcome to post them. But I tell you something else with no hesitation. If you intent is just to come in and toss personal insults at those who contribute their hard work to this website (it ain’t like they get paid) without making rational arguments against what they are saying, then just be prepared to be treated like any other troll.
I hate to see MRAs reduce themselves like this, but I am too busy to waste time with anyone uninterested in supporting our mission like a grown up.
Oh, and the white knight insinuations were predictable, and as laughable as the rest of your ideas. Don’t let it hit you on the way out.
I myself supported feminism for 15 years — because I too fell for the lie it was about giving women an equal chance in life (which is itself based on the falsehood they have the same brains as men).
But when feminist political groups started pushing for the abolition of the presumption of innocence in sex-related criminal cases I began to question it. It was becoming clear that feminism was not a struggle for equality but a psychotic expression of hatred.
Then I began discovering the facts surrounding what, when I was a boy, was once obvious: men and women are different. Really different. Equality is a meaningless quest.
Indeed, I have since believed we should be celebrating our wonderful differences.
I woke up some time in the late 90s. And we in the MRM should be welcoming anybody waking up from their feminist slumber.
“Now compare that to someone whose current contribution to this site is to offer personally derisive comments to a contributor based on the fact that they got a an advanced degree in gender studies, and not on what they are actually doing with it.”
How did I make personal insults? I stated my feelings of distrust in an analogy. Never once did I call her a name.
“You are off base, emotional and irrational.”
CODE WHITE!
“But calling you out for the nonsensical and irrational nature of your comment is a given.”
And you have yet to show how I insulted ALL MRA’s. Yet to show where in my original post I levied insults.
Men are the most perfectly genetically engineered slaves that have ever existed. We derive pleasure from being exploited by a woman. Most men who don’t have a woman to rule over them yearn for one. We go to extraordinary efforts to be noticed and acquire resources that they might exploit.
You think you’ve found an ally. I think you’ve found a new master.
Either way, you’ve wronged me here today by putting words in my mouth and deliberately misconstruing my meaning.
You’ve made your choice Paul and you chose a woman.
Despite all you’ve learned you can’t help but be the guy with the pistol standing between men and the life boats.
Women and children first. Same as it ever was
The analogy doesn’t account for Quiet Riot Girl’s relentless clashes with feminists.
http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2012/07/07/this-is-a-troll/
My reaction would take into consideration her great value as an ally. Having said that, I completely understand how you feel.
I understand how he “feels” too, but his feelings are in conflict with logical appraisal. I gave up on the feelings state a long time ago, and I have little patience with it. This movement needs weapons, not tantrums.
Quiet Riot Girl relentlessly clashes with feminists.
http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2012/07/07/this-is-a-troll/
Jean, this is wrong-headed. Once someone has seen the light they’ll never go back into the darkness. Once you discover 2 and 2 is 4 you’ll never revisit the possibility it might be 3.
Forgiveness is a strong masculine trait. Vindictiveness is feminine cattiness at its lowest.
ANYONE in support of men’s rights is welcome and must be made to feel welcome.
In fact, anyone who shows the kind of courage Quiet Riot Girl did is worth trusting MORE than most. To rearrange one’s whole thought system 180 degrees and go public about that change is no little thing…particularly when one was part of a very vicious cult….and one infamous for torturing those who dare to question the Party Line. To me, she earned her forgiveness the old fashioned way. She’s not only stopped abusing us, but she’s owned her mistakes and she’s busy risking her ass to condemn the whole hateful thought system that helped create her mistakes in the first place. I, for one, am tickled pink that she is here. There’s no better person to challenge the bigotry than a former insider who knows the game. For instance, David Horowitz, a former liberal turned conservative absolutely enrages the pitiful pseudo-’progressive’ crowd because he knows how to cut through their politically correct nonsense like a hot knife through butter. Clearly QRG, is someone who will bring some similar power to our party.
Lightbulb moment? Road to Damascus moment? I’d say my realization of the true meaning of the “equality,” that gender feminism claims to be about was more like a knife in the back moment, or knives in the back moments.
My perception of gender feminism changed from the illusion of a “full cup for both sexes,” to the reality that gender feminism is about women getting “a full cup of privileges and special treatment,” and men get nothing but a “full load of crap.” :-/
That’s when I decided to make some efforts to address (publicize) what feminism is truly about:
a partial list
http://tinyurl.com/couwpnv
http://tinyurl.com/3qk4tv5
http://tinyurl.com/3euvxcc
http://tinyurl.com/69trzd
http://tinyurl.com/3beatw3
http://tinyurl.com/3prcpwt
http://tinyurl.com/8dh2c7e
http://tinyurl.com/8m6ckne
http://tinyurl.com/5az6w3
“The feminist blogosphere is dominated by young, white, middle class women who do not have to worry about… …if they are likely to be called up to fight in a war,
“Even in America, the military draft is compulsory for young men, not women, but feminists have dismissed that as an important gender issue.”
I’m not sure how it works in the UK, but in the US, men are required by law to register with the SSS (Selective Service System) by their 18th birthday, and are subject to “penalties” if they do not. Men who have disabilities, or mental retardation are also required to register, but women are exempt. Is the SSS saying women don’t even have the ability of a retarded, or physically handicapped, man?
Here’s a poster that still hangs in my local Post Office – without the question I added, “Why does a man ‘gotta do’ what a man’s ‘gotta do?’” Our government doesn’t even have the respect, the decency, to address young males using proper English, when discriminating against them.
http://tinyurl.com/7pba7yf
You should tear the poster down and burn it (somewhere safe, obviously, and then tell them, “Well, the poster told me I, as a man, had to do what man had to do, so.”
No conscription in the UK. You can volunteer to join the military from age 16 I believe, but the privilege of front-line battle is delayed until you are 18.
Basically, it’s a fast-track for blue-collar working class boys with no hope of a decent job to work as cannon fodder.
Women are currently not allowed in direct combat roles. About 99% of UK military fatalities are male.
Whenever there’s some argument about women not being treated equally in the military, I always agree and add that equality in the military will only be achieved when 50% of the returning body bags contain a female, and we should work towards that figure.
am i the only one who finds the irony in the fact that feminists, the same group that called for our heads over the agent orange files, who accused us of driving the femitheist to her apparent death etc are quite happy to dox someone when it is conveniet ???
“I sometimes feel alone. Sometimes I am alone.”
I suspect it’s very lonely being in disagreement with the closed mindedness of the gender feminist agenda.
After years in the MRM, I can honestly say I’ve had my fair share of disagreements, as have most who post here (and on other MRM sites), but I’ve never felt abandoned by that large contingent of fair minded people who comprise the heart of what the MRM strives to be. And I’ve yet to be banned from any MRA site. That’s a significant statement to me about the open mindedness of MRM sites, considering I’ve been as outspoken as I’ve wanted to be.
As another perspective of what MRAs are about, here’s a website I threw together a couple of years ago for a web design class, but have never gotten around to updating it. manamongoaks.com I guess you could say it’s kind of a personal statement of what I expect the MRM to be about. Of course, it’s also based on web design techniques I needed to show proficiency in to pass the class.
Wlecome to the MRM. You have now officially failed as a radical feminist, but succeeded as a human being.
The Draft–A law which, at the whim of politicians, a man can be stripped of his “unalienable right” to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, taken from his home, job, and family, and made into a military slave. He will be forced to endure abuse, hardening, and conditioning that shape him into a killer. Then sent to a foreign land where he will be required to kill or be killed.
In the U.S. 1.2 million men have died defending their country. Most of them military slaves. In WWI, Battle of Somme there were more than a million male casualties.
When feminists talk about female oppression do they have anything that compares to conscription? Can they come up with numbers that compare to the 100,000,000 men who died violent deaths between 1900, and 2000?
The answer is unequivocally–NO. At best women have the occasional inconvenience compared to what men endure.
If women wanted equality they would never have asked “Why didn’t men GIVE women the right to vote?”
Instead they would have asked, “How can women EARN the right to vote?”
But we know now that women were not interested in earning the right to vote then or now. In fact, the only group that organized to opposed women’s suffrage was a women’s group. Why? Because they didn’t want to be drafted. Even they knew how closely tied voting was to compulsory military service and they weren’t about to make the same sacrifices men were.
Feminism–rights without responsibilities. Privileges without obligations. Choices without accountability.
Feminism has taught me everything I need to know about women. That no matter how much they claim to love me they would gladly row away in half empty lifeboats while I go down with the ship. While they might cry and boo hoo for the camera if I dive in front of a gunman’s bullets to save her, that same sacrifice would never occur to her on my behalf.
We’re all equal. It’s just that women are more equal.
Well the cats out of the bag now. If they want to come to reason now that’s fine. Good for them. But I ain’t going back to paying their bills while they sit on their butts at home complaining about how they have to set an extra place at dinner for me.
No man should ever let a woman have power over him or allow her to be in a position of trust. I’ve seen what women do when they have power. I’ve seen how they take and take and hate and hate and have absolutely no concern about what it does to anyone including their own children but especially men.
“No man should ever let a woman have power over him or allow her to be in a position of trust.”
I know a few women I trust, including some that pay a price to advocate for men. And the quickest way to give anyone, male or female, power over you, is to mire yourself in resentment toward them.
A frog was sitting on the river bank and along came a scorpion. The frog was about to jump safely into the water when the scorpion said, “Hey wait a sec”.
The frog, being a friendly and curious fellow paused a moment to hear what the scorpion had to say.
The scorpion asked the frog for a ride across the river. The frog said, “No way. You’ll sting me and kill me”.
The scorpion said, “No I won’t. I’ll be your friend forever and besides if I sting you we’ll both die.”
The frog thought about that for a second and said to himself, “I could use a friend in this harsh world”.
So the frog said “OK” and the scorpion climbed on his back and they started across the river.
About half way across the river the scorpion stung the frog in the back. As the frog’s body became paralyzed and started to sink to the bottom of the river he said, “Why did you sting me scorpion? Now we’ll both die!”
The scorpion simply said, “I’m a scorpion. It’s what I do.”
Paul, If you’ve read “The Woman Racket” and I know you have then you know that women are genetically programmed to discriminate against men.
It’s what they do.
“Paul, If you’ve read “The Woman Racket” and I know you have then you know that women are genetically programmed to discriminate against men.
It’s what they do.”
Aye, and as a man I am programmed to compete with other men, by hook or crook, for pussy and status.
It’s what we do, right?
You are trapped in a vendetta that does not allow you to see past your own hostilities. You have surrendered your logic and your decency to it. And were you conscious of more than your distaste for women, you would be embarrassed by it.
This is a great moment, though. Unlike other times I have seen in the MRM, when men like you take down any chance of furthering a rational, inclusive men’s movement, you are the clear and fractional minority.
We are not only growing, but we are culling out the dysfunctional.
Its a good day to be an MRA at AVfM.
Paul I can tell we must be on the same wavelength because I agree with you. It is true that we (humans, both men and women) are genetically programmed to do lots of things, but that does not mean we do them.
What separates us from most of the animal kingdom is our ability to apply logic and reason.
We are compelled to do lots of things, genetically, and yet we somehow manage not to do them every day.
A great example: it turns out that racism is innate. Would Jean also now advocate racism as acceptable simply because we are programmed to be that way?
@Jean Valjean
“women are genetically programmed to discriminate against men”
Why don’t you join the radfems? You would feel 100% comfortable there: same nonsensical speech about genetics, same hatred of the opposite sex.
Sorry Ernesto, accidently downvoted you- meant to upvote!
The genetic explanation is bankrupt…. it’s essentialism pure and simple: http://reference.avoiceformen.com/wiki/Gender_essentialism_%28psychological%29
I don’t think genetic/instinctual explanations for behaviors is essentialism on its own; it becomes essentialism when you claim there are no other ways a human, or human of a specific demographic, can act.
For example, when a woman is in her fertile period, she is far more likely to wear sexier clothes, to the point you can practically treat it as a rule. The obvious instinctual/hormonal/genetic explanation is simple: for she is in her fertile period, she shows of her reproductive power aka her sexuality, to attract men to reproduce with her; even if she doesn’t want to reproduce, the instinct and hormones are there.
Now, there are two ways that I know of, that can teach a person to ignore/rise above such instincts. The first is the be socialized against them (and I include hard life lessons with this, not just societal pressure/parental pressure/shaming), the second is to be aware of the existence of these instincts, and deny them, well, the bad outdated ones, through reason and logic. But for latter option, one must be aware the instincts exist first; we must learn the genetic/instinctual/hormonal explanation of certain behaviors, otherwise we cannot become aware of them, so we must not shy away from these explanations.
The problem is of course with women; that we have a society that elevates them into saintly angels, with a constant drumbeat message that every single last emotional impulse she has, regardless of whether they are from a barbaric cavewoman era or even reptilian, are perfect, sweet, “spiritually more evolved”, angelic impulses that should be indulged in, for look how saintly they are.
The result is a large majority of women that are unconscious, toddlers in adult bodies that are slaves to their hormonal and instinctual impulses; and thus a minefield for men. Although it is good to remember not all women have fallen trap to the message, it is best to consider every women you come across they are that, until she has proven otherwise, especially given our present-day legal climate.
The whole reason feminism was able to be corrupted in the first place is because it was flawed to begin with. And it was flawed because it depended upon the support of large numbers of women, a group of people who hadn’t exactly grown much over the course of human history, because, really, men made the mistake of not expecting them to. We treated them like children. I don’t know if it’s because that’s exactly how they acted from day one, or if it became the reason they do, but one thing I know is that feminism hasn’t wanted us to actually learn from that lesson, and that right there should be enough motivation for any woman to reconsider calling herself a feminist. I’d prefer it be the inherent misandry that drives them from the movement, and sometimes that’s the case (Hey Dr. Tams), but I’ll take what I can get.
This can be turned around though, and the first step lies in awakening enough men to the reality of the situation, because the more red pill men there are, the less likely it is that feminism will not just be abandoned, but destroyed utterly.
“The whole reason feminism was able to be corrupted in the first place is because it was flawed to begin with. ”
Feminism is not corrupt. It is exactly what it claims to be. It is privilege for women at men’s expense.
Further, it is little different than the so-called patriarchy–privilege for women at men’s expense.
Men did not “treat women like children”. Women acted like children to encourage male helping behavior and to signal to men ways that he might be of service to her and thus gain access to reproduction (see Jessica Simpson, Marylin Monroe).
So long as women have a monopoly on reproduction that will never change. Men, having been genetically engineered to serve women through a million years of selective breeding will continue to serve women.
Recently in Colorado 4 men died while jumping in front of their girlfriends while a gunman shot up a theater.
They didn’t think about that. They reacted based on their genetic programming. That programming isn’t going to go away because of a men’s movement.
But men can LEARN to be different. That requires us to form the words that express our condition, to learn to work together rather than competing or undercutting each other.
We’ll never learn those words or ways by letting women speak for us.
And if that is the only way to get equal rights then what will future generations do when women stop speaking for us?
@Jean Valjean
Having read through this whole comments section, I have just one question.
Are you fucking stupid?
Dr Tams is a PhD graduate of a gender studies program, and that’s apparently your problem with her?
This is the same logical flaw we are constantly pointing out in feminist rhetoric: women are people, feminism is an ideology.
You are confusing the ideology of gender studies – which Dr Tams has quite completely shitcanned – with her identity as a person. Also, you say you don’t trust her because of her education? Its not like she hasn’t earned her stripes here, this is QuietRiotGirl for fucksake.
This has been a long and difficult challenge to come as far as we have so far. What may be overlooked by some – is that individuals like Dr Tams dumping the acculturated gender ideology is what success looks like for this movement.
Quit being an obtuse fucking moron. With utmost respect to you brother, and thank you.
Might I also point out that “Gender Studies” is not “Women’s Studies” and that there is a growing movement within “Gender Studies” to look critically at feminism and to start taking men’s issues seriously, i.e. actually STUDYING GENDER rather than the purile male-dominator/female-victim ideology that has been the running assumption since that field of studies started?
The proof? Well how about something A Voice For Men just published on August 7 from a PROFESSOR OF GENDER STUDIES who concluded that “women’s shelters” are hotbeds of misandry?
A gender Studies professor identified a serious problem of misandry. Called it that by name. Called it out explicitly. Hello? Can anyone find a clue in here that “Gender Studies” need not be a worthless endeavor?
I for one would LOVE to go and get a PhD in gender studies, if it were really about STUDYING GENDER and not swilling up misandrist ideology. Exploring things like evolutionary psychology, neuroplasticity, culture, brain makeup, which behaviors derive purely from practical anatomy and which go deeper, trying to tease out which things are cultural and which biological or at what level each contributes is all FASCINATING to study.
You think that dumping feminism is success that should be lauded.
I think that dumping bigotry against men is a given. It is the least we should expect of any human being who claims to want justice and equality.
To go on an MRA site and basically say, “Look I don’t hate you any more! Love me!” just doesn’t fly with me.
Why should that be applauded? Being a decent human being is what we should expect. It is its own reward.
I’ll applaud her future actions and contributions but I won’t thank her for not hating me anymore.
“Quit being an obtuse fucking moron. ”
No excess is too great in the defense of a lady huh John?
‘To go on an MRA site and basically say, “Look I don’t hate you any more! Love me!” just doesn’t fly with me.’
That would certainly be a bit silly, but it would seem to me that she was just writing an article on her journey of cluing in.
Then what exactly do you suggest? Pray tell, how do we solve this conundrum? Feminism didn’t succeed on its own, it did by the concerted effort of both men and women, what makes you think it will be different for the MRM?
@ Jean Valjean
“You’ve made your choice Paul and you chose a woman.”
Yes, I did. Damn fine choice, too. Bye.
Science becoming popular is a great thing, but it has some drawbacks. One being people talking about genetic engineering without having the slightest idea of what is that.
Besides, you are arbitrarily conceding men the power to overcome their genetic inheritance through learning, but denying the same to women. Now, who was the first person that pointed out women act like children to get advantage of male’s protecting tendencies? It was a woman, my friend, you could read her books: Esther Vilar.
A little bit more about a wonderful woman:
Your statement about women acting like children to manipulate men’s protecting impulse was analyzed, exposed and explained in detail, along with many other women’s manipulative attitudes, strategies and ploys by a remarkable anti-feminist woman from whom you could learn a lot: Esther Vilar.
And she did this during the ’70s, being attacked, defamed, hated and even death threatened. Her books were an isolated but powerful voice for men’s rights.
And btw, she was a very attractive young woman. I envy any man who could spend half an hour chatting with her.
My only hope is that the MRM never goes on to become the sort of hideous beast that feminism is. I don’t think it will, but after 50 years of feminism, who can guess how far the backlash will go? I think that we should have it in us to forgive those who repent… heck, back in my blue-pill days, I supported feminism, and I’ve forgiven myself! But if ever the MRM becomes even one tenth the monstrosity that is feminism, you can count on it, I’ll be leaving it for dust.
What is it about feminists? At least the KKK, Nazis, Stalinists, etc, loved their children, male AND female, and didn’t try to destroy their souls if they were the wrong sex; At least the KKK, Nazis, Stalinists, etc, didn’t try to betray and incriminate their own kind without reason (remember the false memories fiasco?); At least the KKK, Nazis, Stalinists, etc, were motivated by something that they believed in, something larger than themselves, as imperfect as it was, rather than their solipsistic, self-indulgent selves; At least the KKK, Nazis, Stalinists, etc, fought their enemies instead of trying to guilt-trip them into submission; At least the KKK, Nazis, Stalinists, etc, took responsibility for their own bad choices instead of trying to redefine words like “rape” so that they too can become victims.
Feminism… nasty, bitter and twisted… nothing like it in history. End of men? Yeah, right. Feminism provides proof that hell is a very real place. What a moronic phenomenon.
Thank you Dr. Elly Tams, for opening your mind and your heart to our cause.
Welcome Sister Elly Tams!
I’m UK based and have been emailing with both Roderick and Tarwil about a meet up, I can make it to London from East Anglia occasionally, when work doesn’t get in the way. Dang and blast NHS reforms taking away time from activism!
If you want to get in touch, message me in a Shrink4Men, where I mod for Dr T – you aren’t alone.
(on telling my Mum who was a second wave feminist and socialist, I was amazed how discomforted she had become with the rhetoric of the third wave…but she had not had a chance to express it. Her comment was priceless…your great-grandmother didn’t risk prison to win you the right to vote by thinking like a victim. I will be posting her the link to your article)
That did my heart good to read. These whispered conversations like those between you and your mother should get louder and more frequent. Perhaps some are right that outright rejection is the way to go, perhaps for others it’s reform from within, perhaps it’s a little of both… whatever causes soul-searching and finding a conscience and a search for the truth wherever it takes you is good by me!
I don’t think there is going to be one single way – I’m having a bit of a battle with eldest sister as to whether financial abuse is abuse in relation to a family matter. I picked up her extreme hostility to the idea that a woman could be acting in a deliberate and cruel manner. For a 3rd waver like her, nothing short of shock tactics will make a dent. I hope it never happen but her son being a victim of misandry might get there.
For some of the real old guard like my Mum (76 years old), I suspect they are potential MRA converts because many of them have sons and grandsons who are hurting, and many wanted to see women empowered to make choices. Mum has often complemented me for my choosing career instead of children, not because it is ‘superior’ but rather because I showed self-awareness of my need to do one thing well, not 2 things part-time. Much as she loves my SIL, she has been known to say that life would be easier for that part of the family if SIL felt she didn’t have to be perfect at both career and motherhood.
Where feminism damages women is telling them they can ‘have it all’, a path to ill-health and misery
“I picked up her extreme hostility to the idea that a woman could be acting in a deliberate and cruel manner. For a 3rd waver like her, nothing short of shock tactics will make a dent.”
Agree.
That is why I have spent so much time collecting reports of cruelty by women and have posted them on The Unknown History of MISANDRY. Personaslly, I don’t care much for reading true crime, but this info provides a necessary tool in the information war. For the 100% dogma-minded specimens I offer:
1) Maternal Filicide: Spousal Revenge Motive
http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/search/label/Maternal%20Filicide%20%2F%20Spousal%20Revenge
2) above collection includes the astonishing: “Wife Murders Child Of Eleven Years Because She Kissed Father Too Much.” – 1915
http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2011/08/misandric-adademics-and-professionals.html
3) GIVE ‘EM THE AXE – Female Empowerment with an Edge (Axe and hatchet murderesses)
http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/search/label/Give%20%27em%20the%20Axe
4) The Creepiest Female Serial Killer Quotations
http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-creepiest-female-serial-killer.html
Yep, SHOCK TACTICS!
Yes, many women still think they can “have it all.” Do you know why? Because Feminism makes promises the same way politicians do – that’s how you know it is an ideology rather than a philosophy. Nobody can “have it all” without making sacrifices. A lot of high-powered supermoms are crumbling inside from the stress of getting it all and regretting the choices they made.
Unsurprisingly, many of these women are completely alienated from their friends and family due to their transparently callous and selfish ambitions. In their rush to act like men, to emasculate men, they gave up their femininity and everything worth having in life. Essentially, Feminism tells them that it’s OK to repress their humanity and their morality, that any collateral damage is payback for millennia of patriarchy.
At this point, Feminism has gone far beyond even the “have it all” point and they are now advocating women to “take it all,” by force if necessary. That is why there is a sudden growth in the men’s rights movement and that is why we are here.
I’m glad that I made the choices I did. I am not going to deny the sadness that I sometimes feel about not having had children with my beloved, but it is those kind of feelings that make us human, not amoral automatons.
I sometimes shake my head in amazement when these women who have failed to make their choices talk about how unhappy they are – hang on, wasn’t this idea you can have it all about making you happy?
Choice is difficult, but if it allows you to sleep at night it is a good thing.
The “have it all” attitude is a result of two things: the oppression lie, and a severe misunderstanding of what successful men actually have. Feminism doesn’t bother to tell women that male heads of household back in the 50′s needed a wife who stayed at home with the kids if everything was to function properly, and so if women today wish to be the head of household, they need a husband who doesn’t work as much.
Feminism also doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge natural female hypergamy, which doesn’t help at all. Hypergamy is, of course, the reason so many women, even while aware of what it really takes to have a career and a functioning household, either will not heed the rules, or will do so, but inevitably be dissatisfied with the arrangement.
This needs to stop. Women need to make a choice: Make your own money and be happy with whatever the father of your children makes, or marry a wealthier man and forget about the career if you’re going to have a family. Men figured this out a long time ago. Time for women to do the same.
Welcome aboard Dr. Tam.
Always glad to see critical thinkers who have a gift with the pen.
I do believe if I ran across a feminist who actually didn’t resort to ad-hominem attacks that I would point them to this very article.
I can’t help but see a bit of a parallel between your story and that of Erin Pizzey’s. The hatred and ostracism appear to be very similar.
Many thanks for writing this out.
Also, thanks to you as well Dean.
Here’s a favorite quote of mine toughing on the extraordinary value of the female voice in combating misandry:
1934 – Mrs. Rose Fox, activist, New York Alimony Club
“I joined this club primarily because I wanted to see justice done, and I feel that that very often a woman can attack her own sex with more effect than can a man. I am intensely against the ‘woman chiseler’ who marries not for a home and a husband, but for alimony and a good time at some decent man’s expense.”
http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2011/07/mrs-rose-fox-vs-alimony-racket.html
I pray that Dr. Tams will soon make another contribution to AVfM.
Her academic experience is invaluable. The academic world is full of bizarre cultism that is even weirder than many MRAs might imagine. When I was a grad student in a world class art history program I was served up by a prominent professor with such wisdom as: “Every representation of a woman made by a man (meaning: picture of a woman made by a male artist) in history has been a form of violence against women.” That’s right, when you are in the National Gallery of London Italian Renaissance collection you might as well be in the middle of an emergency room full of battered women. This kind of insanity is endemic to the academic.
These so called academic feminists are nothing ,but used car salesmen: able to sell you anything by taking advantage of your lack of knowledge.
NEW car salesmen, you mean…LOL
It’s naught but projection. What feminist women are doing is projecting their rape fantasies onto the artworks… it’s as much their doing as it is the artists’. It would seem that men are in a better position to understand women than feminists are. It’s one of the few things that I value in feminism… in their unwitting projections, they are giving away women’s secrets.
I do have a point towards the topic of women being used in art.
I have studied art history, and I am an artist that paints the human figure.
Artist usually do not choose the human figure as a subject, for objectification, yes we do find beauty in the human form, but if the subject is too sexually attractive to an artist he or she will not be able to truly see the shapes and form that develop from light and shadow. You would not be able the draw or paint that individual.
The reason that art colleges have life drawing is not to degrade any one. If you are drawing a tiger as a human being (unless you are a zoologist, or taxidermist) you will not be able to tell the age, sex, or what location the tiger comes from instantly. But a human being can tell these facts just from looking at another person.
If any of your measurements are out most people will catch that fact in the art work. Hence to become a good artist a person has to study the human body. Many professional artist who do landscapes still attend life drawing sessions to keep their skills up.
Except for some odd individuals like me, most artists only use life drawing for skill improvement. Some of us just love the dynamic shapes.
@Elly Tams
Have you any idea why the guardian has so many feminists writing for them? Because, It looks to me like there is some sort of girls network in operation. These feminist seem to graduate straight into a job with the guardian.
Speaking about “herd mentality”
Just for the record and not to take away from anything…
I’VE BEEN AROUND PLENTY OF MEN WITH THE “MASCULINE” HERD MENTALITY ALSO and its just as inane as fems with it.
Yes. Couldn’t agree more. I just tell ‘em “will you just shut up about your stupid sports and wake up to the world around you?” Got no tolerance for middle-aged boys obsessed with watching men throw balls at men and who wouldn’t read a decent book (like Dostoevsky) or listen to Beethoven (a “sexist” composer!) to save their lives. At least the feminists are industrious and organized (like the Brown Shirts, Bolsheviks, SS, and Black Shirts) as they go about their criminal activities.
Yes, for sure, and the “work ethic” morons who don’t know the difference between intelligent “work” and dumb slavery.
Agreed. Masculinity is complex – men are not the beer-swilling, sports-obsessed, moronic louts the mass media would have everyone believe.
I think what you’re describing is not really the same as the “herd mentality” as observed in women.
Men tend to naturally see each other as competition, and that’s why you tend to see them lightheartedly teasing or pushing each other around rather than being able to have openly intimate relationships where they can talk about their feelings like women tend to do. To do so would be to show weakness to the other men.
To further illustrate the point, I think if a crying woman were to come into the group of male friends and accuse one of the men of something, the other males would be very receptive to her complaint and would not hesitate to defend her from the man if necessary. A man jumping into a group of his girlfriend and her friends to complain about her would not as easily win her girlfriend’s friends to his side I imagine. So, you can see that men do not have the same same-group preference that women have.
I’m convinced that we often overlook the influence of culture on these things. Yes, our individual biology is part of this, but culture plays a *huge* role. If you study antiquity and ancient philosophy, you will find that love between men was considered normal. Just for one example, the ancient Greeks (stop snickering, keep reading) had different words for different kinds of love, including Agape (deep and unconditional love), Eros (sexual love), Philia (friendship love), and Storge (love for children).
Agape, the concept of unconditional love, was considered by some (SOME) philosophers to be something that only men were even capable of, and that women were too spiritually and intellectually stunted or clouded by storge and eros to really experience the true love of agape. (Others disagreed, and Sappho’s poetry alone is a pretty strong example of why they were probably wrong about women on that score.)
Weirdly, in our modern culture, we associate “ancient greek culture” with homosexuality, but that’s grossly inaccurate; while certain forms of homoeroticism were considered normal, they did not tangle that up with the idea of Agape. Eros between men (in certain circumstances) was OK, but would have little necessary relationship with the development of Agape between them.
Agape between men was considered normal, laudable, one of the highest things to aspire to. It was found in military units, but not just there. It was also an aspiration in the intellectual classes and any place and time where men congregated in their own spaces. WITHOUT implication of homoeroticism necessarily. While homosexual behavior might be there, it was a DIFFERENT THING, just like baseball games and hot dogs do not always go together.
It appears to be a distinctly Anglo-culture idea that men don’t love each other or that this is somehow faggy and unnatural. The ancient Greeks–who did not frown on homoeroticism much, although they had rules about it–would be rather baffled by the implication that agape (unconditional love) had much of anything to do with eros (sexual affection and attachment), or that men didn’t love each other as men.
We talk a lot about evo-psych around here, and that’s because evo-psych has much to teach us, but we should not forget that in the “nature vs. nurture debate,” it isn’t an either/or proposition. How we’re raised and the culture at large has *huge* influence.
In fact I’m pretty convinced that one major component of the men’s movement, whether we realize it or not, is rediscovering the ancient concept of Agape between MEN. It’s normal, it’s laudable, and it’s not to be laughed at or trifled with by stupid “I love you man (sob)” platitudes. Yes men really can love each other, deeply and unconditionally, without any romantic or sexual attachments. The ancients knew this. We’ve forgotten it. Time to bring it back.
In fact, just writing this, I suddenly realized: I have at least two or three male friends in my life for whom I have true Agape. Any one of them could call upon me, literally any time of day or night, anywhere, and if he said he needed something and I could make it happen, I would do it no questions asked. I have done so for them. And they would do the same. And we don’t keep score on that shit. It’s because WE LOVE EACH OTHER. We don’t say it, but it is in fact true: we love each other. And if someone calls that “faggy,” they can go fuck themselves.
Beautifully spoken. My eyes welled up with tears just reading it, and I’m not ashamed of that. I have very few male friends and I think that’s because my definition of “friend” is very different from most.
I tell my male friends I love them. I hug them with no awkward handshake/arm in between.
Dean, you could say it. Why not say it? Let us men who love our friends, say it.
I’ve known many men throughout my life, 99% of which have been through numerous relationships, and I can tell you right now that the absolute last thing half of them would ever have attempted in order to resolve an issue with their girlfriend/wife was by talking to their female friends. The other half? Let’s just say things didn’t get any better, most of the time.
I don’t think it’s just herd mentality, I think there’s a lack of loyalty to men by anyone as well. When it comes to men complaining about their GF/wife to her female friends, the only time I see it work is when some of those women have the hots for that man, and so even then, their interest isn’t in helping a man, but destroying another woman.
It’s amazing how women can be so simultaneously loyal and hostile towards each other.
If she doesn’t have the hots for you, you’ll get some feel-good platitude at best, but delivered in a ‘poor widdle boy’ fashion.
When feminism uses the word equality.
They really mean equality on the behalf of women since feminism is a strictly a woman’s advocacy group.
An advocacy group is accoutable to public and feminism is no exception.
Feminism is not above criticism and neither are it’s different flavors.
Anytime the behavior of individual feminists or group of feminists than it is always somehow the fringe feminists to blame.
Feminism will do anything for it’s own good image including giving critics a bad image.
They sometimes attempt to silence critics by calling them misogynists when they really mean anti feminist.
To be an anti-feminist than all you really need to do is disagree with one of any asspects of feminism.
You have inspired me to be more frank in the manner that i speak.
It reminds me of a quote I read, I wish I could remember where:
“Misogyny is a term that is overused these days, generally by misandrists.”
A post in Tams’ blog illustrating her life as a rebel:
http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2012/07/07/this-is-a-troll/
Her relentless attacks on “Feminisms” while remaining in feminist circles are inspiring to me.
Modern Feminism is an ideological cult, replete with dogma, rituals, glassy-eyed platitudes, punishments for disobedience, and a “conversion mandate”. They are self-appointed messiahs out to save the world (well, only half the world, at any rate).
The notion that certain people are inferior due to their biologically was supposed to have been exposed as a fraud after the events of World War II.
But feminists have revived “biological-moral inferiority” via their cult of “Men are Bad, Women are Good”. Their doctrinaire militancy and “Scarlet Letter” placed onto the head of any woman who differs speaks to this ugly reality.
Muahahaha…..Welcome to the Dark Side Dr. Quiet Riot.
I too once called myself a feminist and was both a mangina and a white knight.
In my case it took being raped, metaphorically speaking, for me to realize that the Empress wasn’t just naked, but actually a Java-the-Hut type villain who eats male babies and harps about with Andrea Dworkin’s voice (and face, but then I repeat myself.) Even after the rape though, it took a lot of study, soul-searching and reflection to come to terms with my new reality. Like any reasoned person or believer in the scientific method, I had to be certain that I wasn’t allowing my subjective and personal experiences to cloud my judgement.
In the intervening years I have often reflected as to how I had developed this conceptual blind spot in my understanding of the world. Much to my shame there’s just no denying the fact that I was not blind at all. How could I be when the evidence was all around me and the writing was on the proverbial wall? I was, indeed, refusing to see even though I once believed that I questioned everything and everyone.
I could effectively justify much of my previous doctrinaire and dogmatic views of gender issues by providing some historical context to them but I am not one for making excuses when it comes to myself. I have always deeply believed in the maxim “to thine own self be true” and my previous unwillingness to engage men’s issues with an open mind will be a source of shame for me till the day I die.
In closing, let me say that I am pleased to have found your blog, and followed you on twitter, even before seeing this article or knowing you’d be writing for AVfM, and I look forward to reading more of your work.
Hi Carlos thanks.
I think maybe I differ from you in that I don’t feel shame about my past. Yes there are some things I have said and done that make me cringe looking back. But I don’t think any of us are purer than pure. we all have regrets, and have made mistakes.
and for me being a good person is more complex than the dogma we do or dont subscribe to. Even when I was a feminist I wasn’t all bad!
I didn’t mean to imply that I was bad per se, just callous to the suffering of the men around me. Although I was never personally the source of other men’s suffering, and certainly derived no pleasure from it, I had little sympathy for them, because I just viewed their problems as a normal part of men’s lives not worthy of inquiry. In doing so I see now that I held men, myself included, to a much higher standard. Since then I have become much more understanding of men’s pain and less histrionic about women’s pain (which they can often handle all by themselves… thank you very much.)
The shame does not come from being bad in a moral sense (although to some degree from not being good,) but rather from being so spectacularly wrong about something. Many times there is more wisdom to be found in common sense than there is to be found in academia. In my case I prided myself on having developed both sources of knowledge. It’s a humbling lesson on the dangers of pride.
The shame also comes from the fact that my son and extended family have suffered because my blindness prevented me from protecting them as effectively as possible or even sufficiently foreseeing the dangers that we faced. I may object to the fact that men are forced to play the role of protector but that doesn’t change the fact that I have defined myself in that way for so long that no amount of red pills will change that part of who I am, nor am I particularly looking for it to. Still, I have learned to appreciate that protecting women as a class, or just random women on the street is not my duty. I can choose to do so at my discretion, but I have taken back my autonomy and will never do anything again simply because that’s what my rigidly defined sex role says i’m supposed to do while ignoring my own humanity and safety.
Great outlook, Elly. I realize it’s a bit cliche’ but I try not to be ashamed of my past either. Our past is part of what makes us who we are today.
I don’t believe in fate but I do believe in causation. It’s quite possible that, had you chosen a different path (educationally or otherwise) you might not be where you are today in regards to your beliefs about equal rights.
Thanks to everyone who has posted links to other articles and posts. I am reading through them now!
QRG/Elly
Welcome to AVfM, Elly. I’m sure I speak for all of us here about your feminist days when I say: All is forgiven.
I think it goes without saying that feminists would never be so generous.
Phil.
Good observation.
We can only imagine however. Why, because there will never be a single case where an MRA jumps ship to their loving arms.
Seriously. Can you ever see it happening?
Depends upon how the red pill was administered.
For example, any of the men who’ve been stabbed in the back by the women they would have died for, probably aren’t going to want back into the Matrix. Ever. Ditto for those men whose lives have been ruined by the lies of women they weren’t so attached to. 99% of them have undoubtedly seen that their situations are far from unique or isolated.
Then there’s the guys who experienced no such trauma, but rather transitioned into red pill men through their journey of exploration, prompted often by something that just didn’t seem quite right about the world around them. I’d say they’re pretty solid as well, since theirs was a gradual change, but a change nonetheless.
I’d say most red pill men fit under these two categories in some way or another.
Wow, QuietRiotGirl — good to see you here.
Actually quite surprised as well. I seem to remember your comments on the Guardian’s Cif were only part-way critical of feminism. Glad you’ve moved entirely in this direction. I was delighted to read your article as I am always delighted to discover women with thinking heads. (Yes, they’re rare today.)
I agree. Suzanne Moore is an odious piece of old fish. She doesn’t belong behind a keyboard. Let alone with a job. It’s rather disturbing that someone is willing to pay her to throw up her customary out-of-touch bile about men.
Indeed, most times I commented on her articles, my comment had been deleted. Feminism doesn’t stand up to criticism because feminism does its best to avoid criticism. And if, of course, you clock up deleted comments (as I did) you’ll get banned (as I was).
It was, in fact, through commenting on one of Suzanne’s articles that I finally got banned. She wrote a rather stupid article on “men becoming the new women” and “men blaming feminism for their problems”. I gave a fair response. I reminded her that national leaders like Obama and Cameron WERE the new women: they were using feminist ideology to discriminate against men to capture women’s votes. I indicated where. In her article she picks a weak example of a British parliamentarian (by the name of David Willetts) suggesting some policy might be unfair towards men. I referred her to Paul Elam, Warren Farrell and Rich Zubaty if she wanted stronger arguments backed up by fact.
My comment got nuked within minutes. I got banned.
For feminism and feminists, free speech is an inconvenience.
(I have kept the comment for reference, as I have kept most of my Cif comments after they started being routinely deleted.)
Thanks for your comment. With regards to CIF (for those that don’t know, cif is ‘comment is free’, the online forum for the Guardian newspaper) – as I became more anti-feminist I had more comments deleted there. I don’t comment there often these days for that reason. I tend to make most of my commentary about the Guardian and its feminism at my Guardian Watch blog: http://www.graunwatch.wordpress.com
Hello Elly
I see large numbers of comments from numerous posters on Guardian Cif deleted. And all those that I’d had the chance to view first were actually fair responses.
This happens in two main areas:
1. Topics that are legally sensitive
2. Anything to do with feminism.
The first is understandable. But the second is fascism.
All the best with your new Watch blog. (But you might need to come on a bit harder with these people. I cannot stand Zoe Williams by the way.)
Better late than never I guess. I welcome your change of heart, Dr. Tams, only time will tell if you’re the real deal or not. In any case, you got yourself in a very uphill battle and I fully support you in that regard.
I see that we’ve got plenty of men in our ranks who are so damaged that they begin to resemble mirror images of the very enemy we’re up against, and that saddens me deeply.
I really dont understand the false equivalence. Some men are just very reluctant to trust women. And they have ample reasons to. Even in our collective experience in the last month, we have seen a radfem woman feign suicide. We have seen LadyMRAs on reddit reveal their far-from-MRA nature.. a basic inability to handle criticism about femininity. Some men will need ample evidence before extending something ‘beyond a cookie’. They are not throwing any insults around, let alone do any damage as women have done in the last 50 years. So.. how do you begin to see mirror images of the enemy?
The word “silenced” was hijacked from the MRM by feminists anyway.
I first saw it used effectively by Heretical Sex — an eloquent men’s rights blogger who is disappointingly not very active now.
Admittedly, I copied it myself from Heretic and used it in more visible public spaces frequented by feminists (such as the Guardian’s Cif).
And hey presto, feminists are now trying to make it their own.
I’m currently attempting to read one of Dr. Tams articles at GMP entitled ‘A Partial Defense Of Narcissism,’ so as to get a better feel for her thinking. But her article is blocked at GMP as a viral Threat. Can anyone tech savvy explain what this is about?
Edit: Ignore the above…. it appears the threat has been suddenly removed and the article can be accessed now. Go figure?
I’m having no issues accessing it. From what I can tell, it is arguing that narcissism is not a personality disorder, merely a human characteristic. QRG, please correct me if I’m wrong.
Not sure what to make of it. Isn’t it either one, depending on whether you’re referring to excessive admiration of yourself or getting sexual satisfaction from admiring yourself? I’m actually curious about this, as I’m definitely no psychology expert.
Hi – I dont want to take the discussion off topic, but my interest in masculinity and men’s ‘narcissism’ does relate to my rejection of feminism! as I say in the piece here, feminists make out only women are ‘objectified’ or treated as ‘sex objects’ and I disagree strongly.
I understand narcissism to have become a much more accepted aspect of people’s behaviour and sense of self in recent years. You may not be a fan of Jersey Shore, say, but the young men (and women) on shows like that display ‘normal’ levels of narcissism, preening in the mirror and putting on hair gel and fake tan etc.
I don’t see that as a mental illness.
and I think it is dangerous to have a label for a set of mental health problems that can also describe healthy aspects of the self. Who decides which is which?
Many mental illnesses are simple over-expression of otherwise “normal” traits. To a degree that it causes problems in the persons life.
A tiny bit of sociopathic traits can help someone excel in competitive environments. No different than channeled aggression being extremely useful and, unchanneled, constant aggression being unhealthy.
Even schizophrenia seems to be tied in with over activity in in some neurons. i.e. Normal brain activity is hyper-expressed causing a huge disconnect from reality.
P.S. Jersey Shore is far from normal in my area thankfully. That degree of douchebaggery would force me to move.
The two “narcissisms”: I think it is really just a language problem. Common vanity and the personality order called NPD are quite different things. NPD connotes an intense sense of fear, a sense of having no core identity, an inability to feel sympathy for others, an overwhelming fear of rejection, crippling loneliness, etc. NPD describes a person in pain who inflicts pain on others as a way of life, and can only be seen as undesirable. Recovering from NPD is something to encourage, not to dismiss as unnecessary. The problem of the “two narcissisms” is indeed a problem of label, but is not a problem of unreasonably condemning a very real and painful pathology (which, technically speaking does not fall into the “mental illness” category really, but is “borderline”).
Ok, back from work now…..
Lee @ “Isn’t it either one, depending on whether you’re referring to excessive admiration of yourself or getting sexual satisfaction from admiring yourself?”
Its a bit more complex than that but your general idea is right- there is definately a continuum from mild to extreme. The important thing is that narcissism needs to be situated in various contexts – culturally, sexually, familially, developmentally, behaviorally, psychologically etc. When you situate narcissism in these contexts you begin to notice important variations and distinctions. In fact if its not situated carefully then its nothing more than an intellectual ‘no-thing’, a perhaps a vacuous generalization.
One very interesting ‘situating’ of narcissism is in gender, and that’s what Elly Tams was playing around with in her article. Yes both genders display narcissistic behaviours but its my contention that (the majority of) women display significantly more narcissistic behaviour than males in the contemporary world, feminist women in particular. I'd go so far as to say that feminism is almost wholly governed by the narcissistic impulse, Feminism = Narcissism. Feminism can definitely be reduced to that without losing much. Further, I would go so far as to say that just because we see a mass manifestation of narcissism today that does not make it interpersonally healthy simply on account of being widespread. In fact today narcissism has reached the level of an interpersonal and social acid, corroding all relationships and the fabric of society…. there's no room for an other in the extreme "Me" culture we live in.
On account of all that I get very suspicious when feminists attempt to champion the goodness and healthiness of narcissism (for women/feminists) such as Imogen in Tyler's whitewashing apology for feminist narcissism- ie. that narcissism is merely women's attempt to foster a stronger sense of self identity after eons of having their identities oppressed by the horrible patriarchy. This is a tired recapitualtion of Foucault's division of all humanity into victims vs' the powerful…. a conceptual barbed-wire fence dividing all human endeavour into a moron’s version of "good" vs "evil". If only it were that simple.
Lets face it narcissism at the pathological levels we see in society today is corrosive in too many ways to name, and that corrosiveness need not be conceptualised as a helpful new normal, but better as a mass illness in the body politic.
Sorry, that turned into a rant more than a response… guess I'm passionate about this one.
Ok just had a little read of that article now. Whilst I wouldn’t judge Dr. Tams entire range of thinking based on the reading of one article, I do wish to respond to it. The article suggests that the DSM is pathologising normal behaviour- that narcissism is ubiquitous nowadays and deserves to be removed from the DSM. Being Elly’s inaugural post here I don’t want to go into an in depth disection of the narcissism post and will save it for another occasion. However I can’t let it go without making a short response.
Conflating broad cultural manifestations of narcissism, such as those outlined by Lasch in the 1970s, is not the same ontological state referred to in the DSM as Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Yes all humans are hardwired for narcissistic expression and any given culture affords a permissive effect to release or inhibit narcissism- such as today’s world where it is highly encouraged. That is not the same as NPD which is an extreme reliance on narcissism that is not incited by enculturation, but is based in major intrapsychic pathology. To blur this phenomenological distinction is IMO ludicrous.
The etiology and variability of narcissism find analogy in the various forms of depression; manic depression, reactive depression, dysthymia, major depression, chronic depression, post partum depression, seasonal depression, agitated depression and so on (there are about 50 variations of depression). In other words there are varieties of what we label narcissism.
These distinctions are important and they differ in intensity, causes, duration, and associated behaviours. For that reason I get concerned when authors ask for the dissolution of one variety into a larger category. There is much more in Dr. Tams article that is worth comment -some of it valuable and insightful- which I’d like to come back to at a more appropriate time.
On the run to work hope made sense….
EDIT: Elly I just read your post above, will come back to it when not rushing to work. You comment here made sense: “I think it is dangerous to have a label for a set of mental health problems that can also describe healthy aspects of the self.”
I agree can be dangerous…. it can also be a useful distinction that empowers people seeking self knowledge (some people feel increadibly empowered acknowledged and oriented by a diagnosis!). So we don’t need to be as thoroughly negative as Foucault about the power issue. The people who decide and articulate these distinctions do attempt to do it meaningfully and scientifically, though its not without power problems, stereotyping and so on….
“Moore relayed a story about her young daughter asking her why she is a feminist. Her reply? ‘Because men do horrible, horrible things.’”
This is, with its blatant simpleminededness and its collectivist slant, utterly creepy. Immediately the story of Mary Orban came to mind:
FULL TEXT: Wilkes-Barre, Pa.— A two-year-old boy died in a hospital early today from the effects of a pint of caustic laundering solution [bleach] which his mother is charged with forcing down his throat so he wouldn’t “grow up and attack girls.”
Mrs. Mary Orban, 34, whom District Attorney Leon Schwartz described as “sort of a hex doctor,” was jailed on an attempted murder charge; several hours before the child’s death, Schwartz said she would be examined by a sanity commission.
At; a brief hearing the woman, mother of three other children – all girls – testified she called her son to the basement of their Newport township home yesterday and forced him to swallow, the fluid because “he wouldn’t be any good anyway when he grew up.”
“I killed four other people with my charm,” she added, “but that was nine years ago. I just wished them dead. I don’t do that any more.”
The “charm,” she explained, was a black bead tied in a handkerchief, over which she mumbled strange “gypsy” words.
Mrs. Orban told Schwartz and Judge John J. Aponick that she regarded male children as “no good” because they impose on girls when they grow up.
[“Vents Wrath On Males On 2-Year-Old - Mother Forces Boy To Shallow Caustic Potion Which Kills,” syndicated (AP), The Hutchinson News (Ka.), Mar. 27, 1940, p. 1]
http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2011/07/gender-cleansing-in-1940.html
People new to the MRA, who have no in-depth knowledge of authoritarianism and eugenics have no idea of just how devastatingly dangerous the big system that now has control freak cultural marxists (of which feminism is a subset) in influential positions is.
I’ve really enjoyed your writings as Quiet Riot Girl!
Be aware a vein of orthodoxy courses through the MRA community as well. As a man I’ve been slammed for saying anything remotely positive about women in other internet venues.
The NAWALT supposition can be a rather big deal to many MRA’s. There are many other “hot button” issues that set certian guys off. IMHO misogyny in the MRM is a problem. “We tried playing nice and it didn’t work!”, etc…
All that really matters is the truth and that both sexes recognize their innate differences and value. Neutered men, whether it be male or female, makes for a very unattractive human.
PLEASE contribute here OFTEN!
“IMHO misogyny in the MRM is a problem.”
Absolutely agree. The MRM gives angry men the space and some time to get over short term hate-reactions toward women after being jilted or fucked over… but the occasional career misogynist needs to be diligently weeded out. I’ve got no compassion for them.
Its also easy to tell who the career misogynists are- they don’t simply feel hate about a particular woman, or about women who unfairly use custody laws to hurt men (or some other specific issue), but spend literally years building an elaborate and paranoid cosmos in which every detail goes into the service of despising and denigrating women. The flipside of feminism. When their comments occasionally appear here they stand out like dog’s balls…
Some of them I do have compassion for. It depends.
I seriously believe every MRM needs to read “The Autobiography of Malcolm X,” and I mean read it all the way through from start to finish.
2nd best choice, almost as good, see the movie “Malcolm X” starring Denzel Washington.
Follow it up with the movie “American History X” starring Ed Norton.
There you will see the power of anger, the danger of anger, and the power of redemption. It’s powerful. These movies have affected how I see all of these issues, deeply, but I cannot discuss why or how with someone who won’t see them but… see them. Please.
There may be ‘some’ misogynists in the MRM, but they aren’t the men who come here, who are hurt and angry, because they have had their children kidnapped and their lives annihilated by a vicious woman and the courts.
These men are in no way misogynists and I would always reject that claim.
And I do realise you guys aren’t accusing these men, I just wanted to make this distinction, because it is important.
This is what the seething harridans out there accuse the MRM of. They say the whole movement is filled with angry women hating men. Misogynists!
No, that is not true at all. The truth is, these men and fathers have been traumatised by such vicious attacks, that they use the MRM to debrief and unload all their pain and suffering.
In well over 95% (my guesstimate) of those men, once they get the crap off of their chests and time begins to heal their wounds, they get back to being something similar to what they were before and they do not hate all women at all. They may be wary of women and find it hard to trust them, but they don’t hate them.
We must make sure we weed out career misogynists and feminists, who find their way into the MRM. That is necessary and a given.
But we must never brand a hurt and angry man/father a misogynist, just because he has come here fresh from battle and covered in blood from being torn to shreds by a vicious bitch and her dogs.
And yeah, he might be saying some bad things. This is something no one can blame them for. We should just gently lead him away from that behaviour, but do so with charity.
This man needs the space to unload, the time to do it and the respect and love from the rest of us, so that we can help him get back to some form of normal life again.
@Shrek6 From as far as I know, keyster’s problem is not with those hurt and frustrated men. Rather, some people here do not always agree with keyster’s political stance regarding the conservative women (they say that the conservative women can be trusted no more than the liberal ones, even when they sometimes do side with some slightly less negative side of the system). And keyster then labels all those people (and also by generalization the whole MRM) as misogynist, and tells everyone so as if one cannot get the idea all by oneself from all these comments. It’s a way of degrading (the whole group) people who do not agree with you.
I wasn’t trying to criticise or disagree.
Yeah, my post probably looked a bit like I was disagreeing. I really only wanted to further add to the comment, because we in the MRM are always criticised by feminists and women’s groups, that we are filled with men who hate women.
But also, you mentioned conservative women. I have a very big beef with women of all persuasions in western society.
Of course conservative women cannot be trusted. If they can, then why are they dead silent on the suffering of men/fathers and children?
Conservative women are guilty by association, even if they don’t hold to feminist values. Yes I am speaking in general, not specifically. There are always strong women who will stare down feminists and fight to the death, to help any males in their families or society.
But the are very, very few indeed.
It is my belief that the vast majority of women in society, regardless of their station or political/religious belief, ALL are happy that radical feminism has secured them the dominate rights in society over both men and children.
And that they silently hope that these benefits never go, for ‘JUST IN CASE’ the day comes that they may need to use these laws/benefits for their own purposes.
In the meantime, when someone tells them tales of suffering men, they will stare over the tops of their tea cups or wine glasses and go tsk, tsk, tsk, and say how bad it is. But you will never ever see them get involved in any campaign to change things, nor will you ever see or hear them publicly denounce these benefits and feminism.
No, the vast majority of women in the western world are drunk with power!
@Shrek6 Absolutely right. I agree. (The last sentence in my previous comment was not directed at you; it’s a general “you”, as in anyone.)
Thinking more about your remark here: I’m kind of known as the guy won’t bash “feminism” partly because I don’t think the fucking word has any god damned meaning at all that anyone will pin down, and also under the theory that if some woman is so enamoured of the word “feminist” she can’t give it up but WILL show herself to be on the right side of the issues then I don’t care about her meaningless label anyway–and I know a few such, people who’ve been very good and decent to me and other men that I’ve PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED. (Plus some bad experiences with “anti-feminists” by the way, I’ve had more than one of those and that colors my perceptions too.)
So if that “word that means whatever I want it to mean” label is so precious to some woman, fine, she can keep it, I won’t argue.
That said, I have one particular “feminist” friend who is generally on the right side of all the big MRA issues (and not in a condescending way, but a totally forthright way) and she’s really been an incredible blessing in my life in many ways. Now, she’s complained to me a few times about some (not all) of what she sees on this site, and I’ve explained to her “hey this is a male-safe space, a lot of these guys have been really burned, figuratively and sometimes literally” and she’s respected that. But then recently she pointed to some comment on feminism and she was wrongly saying it was “attacking women,” and when I pointed out that only feminists were being criticized she said “well to me that reads like an attack on women” andI finally lost patience and said, “Look, there are some very deeply hateful, vicious, bigoted, nasty women out there calling themselves feminists, and if feminists will not police their own and call these vicious haters out, then feminists deserve all the criticism they get.” Conversation ended.
This is why I will not tell a fellow MRA they are WRONG to attack “feminism.” Because if feminists really won’t keep their own house in order and will not tell the bigots and haters and female supremacists and self-entitled privileged princesses to shut up or get out, then my sympathy for them is LIMITED to say the least. Yes yes, I am Mr. “Try really hard to be nice” but even I’ve got a breaking point.
I do not think it is in any way out of line to say the same to MRAs. I think that’s one of the reason why Paul Elam (who has devoted his life to this) gets the respect he does: in a misandric culture guys need a place where they can blow off steam and say what they really think and we have that here–but guys who long-term cannot turn their otherwise-righteous anger to constructive purposes have a problem. We take care of our own, but we also know when to tell a brother that he’s let his righteous anger turn poisonous. That’s something to be proud of.
Wouldn’t it be sick if 20 years from now MRAs were a movement of people dominated by male versions of Andrea Dworkin and Gloria Allred and Amanda Marcotte and Suzanne Moore? It makes me sick to my stomach to think about. I don’t think it will happen, I’m just saying, I’m GLAD we know when to tell a brother “hey man, you’re losing your shit, reality’s back this way.”
We need to keep our houses in order to maintain the moral high ground, true. BTW good that you called out your female freind on her conflating of antifeminism with anti-women… my alarm bells go off when I hear someone conflate them; its an underhanded tactic pointing to an eager and unfair attempt label men misogynists.
How disappointing, “IMHO misogyny in the MRM is a problem. “We tried playing nice and it didn’t work!”, etc…”
I disagree with this.
Legitimate complaint, legitimate grievance, legitimate airing of frustration, anger, fury, and legitimate, justified, appropriate jadedness, healthy warranted mistrust and earned suspicion are what I observe.
I’ve read some of the posts here and was intrigued most by the ones which express concerns about misogyny in the MRM.
I disagree that it is a problem in the MRM. Simply because many MRA’s confuse a comprehensive understanding of the nature of women and concern expressed about it as misogynistic and woman-bashing.
Women are inherently dishonest. There’s even an article on this site about it with reference to their sociopathy. Understanding this disposition and expressing concern about it and condemning it is not misogyny.
Women have no business participating in the MRM. If a former feminist comes to the MRM with a sob story about her experience in the cult, it’s just another example of a woman trying to manipulate men with the public spectacle of her chronic victimhood. And too many white knights are happy to oblige and indulge her.
I am not.
I am not sympathetic. And I don’t trust any woman who does that. It doesn’t mean I hate women. It just means that I have an accute sense of her motivations and that they are insincere.
Someone like that corrupts the MRM. If she wants to help, there are many ways she can do that without interfering with or in the MRM.
A woman has nothing of value to contribute to the MRM. They have no empathy or analytical skills with which to understand the MRM and the destruction they have wrought.
Women need to understand that the past forty-four years of their destructive behavior can’t be undone with words – written or spoken. Only actions. And that can be done outside the MRM.
WOW! I’ll confess to having downvoted that one. My first. Depending on personal experience your wholesale mistrust of women in general may be understandable, but it’s neither helpful nor healthy IMO. The participation of some women here has been and is both honest and very welcome as I see it.
I’m with you. I have had far too many positive, enriching, rewarding, and honest relationships with women to hold on to generalized mistrust for them. There may be certain forms of dishonesty that come more naturally to women in some ways I suppose, but I’ve seen the way guys can lie and manipulate and backstab in their own ways.
I have, for more than ten years, had the pleasure of knowing and working with women who were genuinely and selflessly passionate about working for men without asking jack shit for it, or worked for only meager wages in a field where they primarily treated men in need, and I’ve seen at least one of them get the shit kicked out of them for it. One of my best friends in this arena of all time was named Trudy, and for a decade we often wrote together about the evils of ignored female abusers and of false female accusers, without ever once demeaning or denying the reality of female victims OR blanket-attacking either gender.
For thanks Trudy eventually got hounded into quitting after more than 30 years of activism on her part. They went after her family, and she couldn’t take it anymore. It was more subtle but arguably more devastating than what they did to Erin Pizzy.
If I believed the MRA was a hotbed of genuine misogyny (not short-term anger and mistrust brought on by an abusive relationship, or criticism of a culture of female victimhood/entitlement, but real contempt for women in general) I would have bailed a long time ago and, frankly, quit in despair.
But when I sit in a support group for men with a guy grappling with loss of his children, and there sits a woman beside him doing everything she can to support him… nuh uh.
We need women, lots more of them. If someone wants a male-only space, I’m all for it. It’s pretty obvious that AFvM wasn’t designed to be such a place though. So far as I can see they’ve been welcome from day one, so long as they reject misandry and know how to handle it when a man who’s had the shit kicked out of him has some angry words.
For God’s sake, Jan Brown has been operating the only domestic abuse hotline in North America that services men for more than a decade, pretty much as a one-woman show with MOSTLY female volunteers. In fact I have to wonder why more MRAs haven’t offered to be volunteers for her group. And look at the terrific work being done by SAVE to help male victims and attack false accusers, which is run by a man but whose chief coordinator is a woman.
No, no, I will not accept that women are not trustworthy. I will accord them the same respect and trust I will accord to a man, and on the same terms: by letting them earn it by their words and their actions.
An ex-feminist taking on hateful feminist ideologues on their own turf in their own terms has balls so far as I’m concerned. Kick ass, QRG!
Respectable retort. Acknowledged and largely granted.
This brings us to an interesting point in the discussion. In my estimation, critical analysis of female behavior ultimately leads to the following: individual females are both individuals, and operating as ‘agents’ of ‘the feminine’. I have no investment in ‘new-ageyness’, so that is not the point. But I think it is foolish to dismiss the concept that females are, to whatever extent, nearly inextricably tied to the overall ‘herd’ or ‘the feminine’. As individuals, they may live out there whole lives treating men well. However, on the whole, if the MRM is to have learned anything from the hell men have gone through, it is the ever-present potential for the dark side of the feminine to exert itself, generally via the female collective and not necessarily individually.
Feminism has earned females, the female collective, a similar mark as all humans bear from events like ‘the Nazis’. We recognize that explicit potential for evil in humans, and must be vigilant about it ever more. So it is with females as a collective, of course executed on an individual level. We have seen their particular potential for devastating evil. We must not become sublimated and surrender our guard, or repetition is a virtual certainty.
In summary, I am submitting that we clarify a distinction and a relationship between female behavior on an individual versus collective level. As Dean says, what we would like to do is regard each female on an individual level, based on her own individual actions and merits. This is what we do do. But again, if there is a lesson here to be carried forward, I wonder if it is not that the feminine, or female collective, has developed particular devices to exploit this egalitarianism, and that we must remain vigilantly wary of it. Somewhat reminiscent of the balances of power built into our (albeit perfidiously corrupt) government.
Furthermore, and just as a point of interest, whereas the notion of ‘races’ and assertion of material difference between them is false, I find it a compelling case that the sexes posses such material differences that exploring them as different species altogether seems practical. Consider that male and female have evolved on separate paths since early life, whereas species are often separated by a relatively short amount of evolutionary time. As much as has been written, there remains much to be honestly and critically explored in the female/male story…
Yeah, well, I’ve seen dudes go off on their own herd mentality shit all by themselves without a woman around to help ‘em. Sometimes right off a cliff, marching into hell for another guy without realizing the guy was nuts. A pack of young males especially all just heterodyning with each other will do some bugfuck crazy shit. Three hellraising young boys all by themselves can… well shit I don’t have to tell you I don’t think.
I will say I’ve seen things fall apart when men start fighting over a particular woman. Here in cyberspace, that looks pretty hard to do.
I’m with you, Dean. Don’t let me fool you.
Btw, while anecdotal experiences with given females are heartwarming and certainly good, it would be wrong to suggest that they somehow diminish what we have witnessed on the mass scale.
There are some great women. My grandmother was one. There are others.
But as I’ve explained on this site before (refer to previous posts) about the demographics of primitive social organizing, most men are too independent and intellectually-oriented for their involvement in a movement like this one to be problematic or obstacles.
There are some white knights and manginas, but most are not disposed this way.
Women however are herd animals and are emotionally-oriented and their disposition is much more homogeneous and it’s hard for them to move in a direction together guided by intellect and uncorrupted by self-interest.
And if it starts out that way with a few, then as more and more aggregate, it is likely to be abruptly and rapidly misdirected. Taking the men with them. And one should have serious reservations about a man who is motivating more than one at a time outside of his own household (ie his wife).
It’s hard enough to organize a large group of men as diverse in intellect and philosophy and ideology as they are, but throw in even a few women, and you’ve got a catastrophe. You’d think the past forty-four years or even the past four-thousand years would be proof enough of that.
I’ll simply say that the way you characterise “women” categorically sounds very similar to the way feminists characterise “men” categorically, and I’ll let it go at that.
We aspire to the point where we can honestly recognize characteristic male vices and virtues as well as characteristic female vices and virtues. What is currently and abundantly void in the collective consciousness and social dialogue, are the vices of females. Darryl is trying to correct that. But you are correct that we must be prudent about driving toward the objective of true fairness.
@Perseus: Generally speaking, I think it’s probably best to avoid emulating behaviour that we despise in others such as overly broad characterisations whether the attributions are based on gender, race or whatever. That said, I do get the point and have some considerable sympathy with it. The deceitful treachery of SOME women has been notorious throughout history.
I’m with you Arvy
Except that the way I characterise women and men categorically is based on medical and other scientific literature. Not a bunch of BS and solipsism from a women’s studies curriculum. And certainly not from a bunch of men chasing pussy. Men and women are not the same. They are different. And unless you acknowledge and embrace those differences, reconciling their respective problems will be impossible. I think much has been done during the past four-thousand years to rein in the negative elements of the male psyche and disposition. Time to do the same for the female. I think I’ve made it very clear that primitive behavior characterises approximately 20% of the male population but 80% of the female. There are important biological reasons for this disctinction. Reining it in will be much more difficult than for the males but acknowleding those differences and their relationship to biology will be critical. The problems are not political, social, legal or financial. They are biological. We had a great way to address them in the past. That was abandoned because someone thought there was a better way. I’m still waiting.
Darryl, you made an unqualified declarative statement: “Women are inherently dishonest.” You did NOT say some women, or most women, or 80% of women. You didn’t even exclude your own grandmother from that initial declaration with which I disagreed.
I do understand that you would now prefer to hedge that blanket assertion somewhat and I respect your second thoughts on the matter. Nevertheless, I cannot withdraw my objection to your original statement. I’m not even sure I could agree with all of your subsequent follow-ups, but at least they show some signs of having appreciated the nature of that initial dissent.
Frankly, I think we should probably just agree to disagree and drop it at this point. I think I understand the point that you actually intended to make as well as I’m likely to.
@ Arvy
He also didn’t say ‘all women’.
People who make such statements are inherently silly.
Oh, but I didn’t specifically say that ALL people who make such statements are inherently silly. You might be an exception.
C’mon, Perseus. Don’t be disingenuous. You know perfectly well the weight and implications of any such categorical assertion.
Easy Arvy,
There has been extensive discussion here about qualifying NAWALT every time a statement regarding females in general is made. Darryl X did not say a-l-l women, yet you condemn him for not addressing the exceptions. A statement in general is simply that and any interpretation beyond is the responsibility of the interpreter. While you may take pleasure in NAWALTing, it is not his duty or obligation to do so. We do not serve the PC police.
Then, by that same logic (or lack thereof) you must also believe that it’s perfectly okay when feminists categorise boys as stupid and men as rapists just as long as they don’t specify all boys and all men.
It has nothing to do with NAWALT or political correctness. It’s just a matter of basic logic, grammar and syntax. But if you don’t understand that, I give up. It’s not worth further discussion.
Wrong. If x is exhibited by two females, then it is logically, grammatically, syntactically and semantically true and correct that females exhibit x, irrespective of whether or not every female exhibits x. If you cannot grasp that, then indeed, you should give up. We must exorcise the PC worm from its burrow deep within your brain and certainly not permit it to masquerade as ‘logic’.
“Women however are herd animals and are emotionally-oriented and their disposition is much more homogeneous and it’s hard for them to move in a direction together guided by intellect and uncorrupted by self-interest.”
As someone who has studied emotion I find that men and women, generally speaking, are equally emotional reasoners. Both are guided by emotional self interest although I’ll grant there is more narcissistic self interest going on for women.
The herd assumption about women is valid, lone she-wolves are attacked by the she-wolf pack to bring about conformity. This is a behaviour based on envy and greed – the pack is concerned that a lone woman has the potential to glottonise a precious resouse – men. So the group organism is designed to ration the opportunities women are given so that each gets her access to a limited portion of men. This has everything to do with female culture rather than nature or biology. Its a cultural code amongst women.
I remember a book entitled “Damned Whores and God’s Police” which posited that men placed women in these narrow roles. In fact it is women -the herd- policing each other, not men. And the ‘damned whores’ are those the group of women deem to have operated independently. Funny how they like to blame males for the oppressive group-think they impose on thier own sex.
“This is a behaviour based on envy and greed – the pack is concerned that a lone woman has the potential to glottonise a precious resouse – men. So the group organism is designed to ration the opportunities women are given so that each gets her access to a limited portion of men. This has everything to do with female culture rather than nature or biology. Its a cultural code amongst women.”
This is very interesting, Tawil. Conventionally, we tend to think of the female as being the limited resource, due to her slow portion of the reproductive cycle. I am interested in how males would be considered a limited resource, if you could expound a bit.
Sure. Men are a resource because we shower woman with chilvalric attention and gifts. we make them feel like princesses, compliment them, be seen in public with them so they can show us off to their jealous girlfreinds, work long hours to bring home money they can spend on fashion, protect them, fight for them, die for them, fix thier cars, mow thier lawns, lift heavy things, paint and renovate their houses (palaces) etc. etc. Resource, much?
Women know this and thats why they despise a lone-wolf women who garners more than her “fair share” of these chivalric male resources. They get envious of her and thats why they control independent women ruthlessly – shaming each other on Facebook, generating rumours, cat fighting, and worst of all casting one of thier own out of the group. Men are a precious resource and each woman has to get permission from ‘the group’ in order to solicit the benefits of one or more males.
No wonder women want to experience male existence, we are independent agents and free of that shit!
As a tangent I often think the sense of control that women complain men have over them is a displaced statement about the ruthless control exerted by her sistas. She thinks men’s independence equals power, but she is missing out because ‘men’ are withholding that from her. Its almost like a cry for help to be released from the tight fisted grip of the girl code so they can experience male freedom…. but its unlikely they can ever acheive that freedom even by going out and getting careers and working…. thier sistas will still want to control thier movements to restrict access to male resources.
Tawil, thank you. This is fascinating to me as I apparently have a deficit of awareness on it. You should scribe an article on female politics and their displaced angst.
Above and beyond excellent observations, Tawil.
The ‘Girl Code’ are the very reason they will never experience the independence that males generally exhibits.
It is the equivalent of a chosen behavioral imprisonment, and will continue as long as belonging to a group, with the underlying craved acceptance from that group, trumps everything else.
No amount of feminist supported ‘liberation’ is ever going to change anything for women, as long as the ‘Girl Code’ is mistaken for male oppression, and valued above the interactions between the sexes.
I really liked your statement about the cry for help. Completely spot on, from my own observations.
I also agree with Perseus: You need to make a more in-depth article on this. You clearly have a subject of substance to dig into here.
That would make for a good article, Perseus… will have a think about that.
This topic is one of the few elaborated by evolutionary psychologists that rings true- that men and women operate under completely seperate gender codes with little overlap. I call them the “boy code” and “girl code”. Its like two radically different cultures living side by side in thier respective psychological ghettos. I was shocked when I first noticed the extent of this, was right before my eyes and had not even noticed…. am still trying to make sense of it all.
On some level I feel sorry for women. It must be suffocating being controlled like that with no way out, of having your every move scrutinised by other women who are ready to impose penalties for any infringement of the code. One worrying observation is that it looks like the girl code is being subtley extended to males and we are being subject to the same groupthink in the newly feminised workplace and beyond… though we males are still largely free of that code.
I agree with Perseus. This topic would make for a very interesting article indeed. It seems Mr. Tarwil is well versed on this subject and I find it to be of great interest to me. Although I feel that I have known about the boys and girls codes throughout my life, I have never been able to understand much past the point of knowing it exists.
I think we could all do with a bit more education on that front.
Looking forward to the article Tarwil, with great interest.
Kimski @ “No amount of feminist supported ‘liberation’ is ever going to change anything for women, as long as the ‘Girl Code’ is mistaken for male oppression, and valued above the interactions between the sexes.”
Well summarised Kimski !!
It appears no matter how much access to power women gain, their sistas will continue to control thier movements. Its the same problem Tantalus had.
@Tawil:
Could be very interesting to see some stats on how often female attempted suicides i.e. cries for help, are based on the consequences of ‘Girl Code’, as opposed to anything that relates to men.
I strongly suspect the difference in numbers would be staggering.
You may inadvertently have come up with something here, that has a little more substance than the ‘inherent herd mentality’, we so often discuss on these pages.
You should call it ‘the Tantalus Syndrome’.
‘The Tantalus Syndrome’… love it! That could be the title of an article.
“Could be very interesting to see some stats on how often female attempted suicides i.e. cries for help, are based on the consequences of ‘Girl Code’, as opposed to any relations to men. I strongly suspect the difference in numbers would be staggering.”
Totally agree. This is another of those uncomfortable facts that feminists must struggle with, females driving their own to suicide. Sounds like you have a good handle on the concept we are bouncing around…. if you feel like contributing to an article about it based on the ideas we have already discussed let me know. We could co-author. Muse on it for a few days if you like…
@Tawil:
Great idea, but unfortunately I’m up to my neck in work at the moment. It’s the high season for the product I sell in my shop, and I have promised to rewrite a rant I did for Dr.F’s show, to top it off.
I did however write JtO a memo and suggested the topic for a later AVfM Radio Show, no matter if you decided to do the article or not.
Hope it’s okay with you, ’cause this subject needs further coverage. It’s important, and as you point out yourself, it could turn out to be another frontline opened up against feminism.
Feminism/Girl Code as instigator of female suicide attempts, due to the indoctrinated Tantalus Syndrome.
I can almost see the headline already.
Kimski, I’m in the same boat busy with work so totally understand (in fact time constraints are reason I suggested co authoring a piece).
But I think you have a better idea.
This would be ideal for JTOs show because he has a couple of extremely savvy women co-hosting who could elaborate first hand what it feels like being subject to the oppressive ‘girl code’ and maybe flesh out the ramifications of that. This one needs to be explored….
PS. did you send him our entire exchange here? Thanks for suggesting it to him.
@Tawil:
No, I just directed him to the article, and the exchange in comments between you and Perseus.
As to the women on the show and their ability to elaborate from first hand experience:
My thoughts exactly.
@Kimski, the closest I have ever been to suicidal was over some female on female bullying in my first year at uni, with me targeted for my otherness. By the end of second year I had a hide to make a honey badger proud.
I have teeth and claws and snarl down as well now and can usually curb any female pissing contest in the first round, but it still has emotional impact. Complicit bystanders get a mark of distrust on their record. I have way less acquaintances than most women but prefer it that way
Upvoted. A trojan horse is not a trojan horse because of its obviousness. It is so because of its non-obviousness. Consider the penetration of the feminine into all male spaces- it starts somewhere by one of several tactics- but generally displaying the tell tale traits of some kind of victimization and appeal to empathy. Failure to imagine that the case at hand is one way the process begins? Imagine such a story but replace ‘feminism’ and ‘MRM’ with ‘religion’ and ‘atheist community’, and then fast forward to the present. See there, see how that works? Or with boy scouts, or sports, or voting, or university, or whatever..
In the beginning, a few trickle in presenting as doe-eyed stray dogs, exceptional, castaways, outsiders, and evoking- even from hard assed MRA’s- empathy laced with chivalry, or vice versa. Then a few more and more. Once sufficient numbers and social clout are established, the feminine has now succeeded in colonizing the male space and now feels safe to begin exerting her true condition- darkness, parasitization and consumption. Not unlike locusts.
As Darryl states, the fundamental qualities of the feminine are ingratiation via appeal to empathy and breeding impulse, deception and betrayal- the lie. You have been warned.
Female MRAs I love you, and in that love, I will not fail to see you for what you are, and act accordingly. I believe this natural order is what we all want.
The issue is not whether trojan horses of either sex might infiltrate this or any other venue. Nor is it simply an issue of female encroachment on male spaces. It’s a question of whether either of those undoubted facts, or anything else for that matter, can possibly justify the categorical conclusion that “[w]omen are inherently dishonest” as stated. If you think so, I can only respectfully, but very strongly, disagree.
I like the way you wrote it better, Perseus.
Well let me put it this way.
Have you watched GWW’s videos?
Have you examined the work Dr.T and KiwiHelen are doing to help men in a very direct way?
What exactly have YOU done?
Very quickly, I think I can count half a dozen female MRA’s DOING more than a pair of guys bitching about them.
You both fail to acknowledge that we check each other pretty closely around here and, faulty arguments are quickly exposed. If Elly Tams is in fact crying crocodile tears (which I do doubt having read her blog sporadically for the last while), do you really think this would not quickly be exposed?
All one has to do is follow Elly’s twitter feed and read her blogs to know she was already putting it out there and taken it on the chin, hard, well before she got here.
Also, she was invited here, she did not intrude. Just sayin’.
It’s never easy. Steep learning curve.
“Women are inherently dishonest. There’s even an article on this site about it with reference to their sociopathy. ”
No, the article about sociopathy refered to feminists, feminism and its effects…. not to all women. And I don’t buy your drivel comment that women are inherently dishonest. If you had contextualised it better and said that humans are inherently dishonest (and humans include the category women) then I’d agree with you. The real problem is when any segment of the human population are handed unfair power over other segments, they abuse that power and become dishonest about the fact…. do you think men would be any different?
Haters gonna hate.
I agree Tarwil.
We only have to look at history to see that men and women are capable of similar things.
Men are by far much more powerful than women. The power of a man’s brain and body, far outweighs that of a woman’s.
Therefore, when a man (or men) goes off the rails, the destruction to life and property, can be seen and experienced for decades or centuries. We only need look at the effects of war to realise that fact.
Women on the other hand, having direct access to the inner lives and souls of men, children and indeed other women, have a power that is equally as destructive as that of men.
Women can psychologically and emotionally destroy everything from the lives and relationships of a family to the very soul and building blocks of society.
So, knowing the above, I reckon it pretty much puts men and women on a par, when it comes to bad or evil behaviour.
We are capable of such great deeds, both good and evil!
Yep, thats it Shrek. It just so happens that society today actively solicits and encourages evil from women moreso than than it does men, but that situation could go 180 degrees in the historical blink of an eye.
I agree with Darryl and Perseus to the extent that most women should not be easily trusted while they have this kind of power to weild over men, but the way power corrupts really is a human problem.
@ Tawil -
“do you think men would be any different?”
Thanks for your reply, Tawil. I am not a hateful man. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
The answer to the question above is an obvious YES. Four-thousand years of history has shown this to be the case. Approximately 80% of women occupy a place high on a continuum of pysychopathy / malignant narcissm in contrast to approximately 20% of men. This biological difference (in neurotransmitters among other things) is what kept civilization suppressed for so long and why the invention of marriage and the Scientific Method were so important to mitigating the effects of those biological differences and advancing civilization. Men did this with the cooperation of women. But men did it.
And the article on this site about sociopathy was about the primitive behavior of women but also feminism. But it was specifically about the behavior of women in an uncivilized environment. Like right now under a brutal feminist regime. Any woman currently enjoys the benefits of that feminist regime – even ones on this site. Keep your friends close but your enemies closer I guess. Huh?
But those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. There are important reasons why a woman’s influence outside her household was very restricted. It wasn’t to be mean but to prevent her inherent malignant narcissism and hypergamy and psychopathy from screwing up civilization. As far as I can tell nothing has changed. If anything, feminism has reminded us of some valuable lessons about women that many men seem to have forgotten.
Not all women are bad. As a matter of fact none are. But they are very dangerous if mismanaged. And as we’ve seen from the past forty years, mismanagement is pretty easy. They basically need to be handled with kid-gloves. And generally the men who are doing that tend to be very easily corrupted. Need a different approach than the past forty years.
With due respect, where are you referencing the 80:20 figure from? I’m not necessarily disagreeing with it, but if we are going to have any credibility then that sort of statement needs to be evidence based.
As for managing women, are you saying women lack capacity to be autonomous, self aware and responsible? In my opinion (note I am not claiming this as a fact) women can be all these things and feminism’s greatest failure has been to educate women to think they have rights without responsibility. That’s not about nature, it is about socialisation.
I’ve seen multiple women each individually doing more on-the-ground work for little or no compensation than any ten guys who sit around bitching about women. And of course many men too, some of who are on this site and some of them men whose name you’ll never hear because they’re operating more or less underground, getting things done without making a big splash about it.
Thank you for being there. You’re needed. Not because I’m white-knighting you, but because I dub thee “brother.”
Still keen to see the papers, because if you use unsubstantiated numbers like this we are no better in the MRM than the feminists and their use of statistics to their own ends.
Oh please, helen. Of course there is no “paper” which identifies incidence of psychopathic traits and malignant narcissism among human males and females. Do you honestly believe anyone would be able to get something like that published in this culture. You know that. That almost sounds like an attempt at using some kind of shaming technique. One of the codes? Your insistence is disingenuous. The ratio that I have promoted is however based upon vast amounts of data concerning divorce, who initiates and who doesn’t, the reasons for divorce, false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, false allegations of rape, incidence of paternity fraud and many other behaviors that are directed at one sex by the other. Also, market research and data concerning sex-specific resource consumption. Throughout the scientific literature and criminal records and many other sources of data and facts and information, maladaptive behavior by human females is grossly underreported and misrepresented and similar maladaptive behavior by human males is grossly over reported and misrepresented. That ratio is also based upon volumes of data concerning social organizing among primates including humans. It also is from volumes of data concerning the physiology and endocrinology and neurology of humans, both with reference to their sexual behavior and the incidence of addiction. It is a typical female response to challenge many years of good scientific research with solipsism and indignation. I’m sorry reality as it is measured repeatedly within certain tolerance and assigned a term of error and then used to test hypotheses for predicting the future within certain probabilities can’t be challenged by unsubstantiated and unqualified beliefs and opinions. Sorry to interrupt the regularly scheduled programming. I think there needs to be more “red pills” distributed about. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
I agree most journals would refuse to publish such a paper, having had several failed attempts at submitting research that goes against the prevailing paradigm in my field, but important ideas should not be quashed. Write an article for here with your references and submit it to Paul/JtO, let others see your reasoning so it can be critically discussed and either added to or argued against. Again, I’m not disputing your assumption (I’ve been on the receiving end of plenty of nasty behavior from women), but using numbers without rigour is disengenious by anyone.
If you think this is gender based shaming, it isn’t. This is my request as a health professional who has more than a passing interest in epidemiology – your assertions have implications for public health policy at multiple levels, so I am curious to learn more. I have more than enough work keeping up with the research in my own field, so I rely on others with specialist knowledge in other areas to inform me of their findings.
You can decide my request is part of a misandrous code, but would I receive the same response from you were I to publish this request without identifying my gender by my username? I made the choice to maintain my feminine username in the MRM out of respect to this being male space, so I could not be accused of deceit from that angle.
“Approximately 80% of women occupy a place high on a continuum of pysychopathy / malignant narcissm in contrast to approximately 20% of men. This biological difference (in neurotransmitters among other things)….”
That’s a bunch of crap you pulled right out of your ass. I was with you when you stated that narcissism and sociopathic behaviour is a much greater problem in women than men today, but when you pretend to be a scientist ascribing that narcissism/sociopathy to female biology I know you are kidding yourself. Thats an example of emotional reasoning dressed up as science.
Sounds like you are damning all women to some kind of biologically disabled hell, and in my book that has a ring of overcooked hate… its messing with your powers of logic.
The Man = good, Women = bad is too simple, it omits that the pathology you observe is potential in both sexes equally (ie. given a permissive society), in other words is a biological potential in human beings.
Not buying this one either: “Any woman currently enjoys the benefits of that feminist regime – even ones on this site. Keep your friends close but your enemies closer I guess. Huh?” The opening is valid but to think of women on this site as enemies is not a rational assessment of what most of these women have consistently proven themselves to be – our freinds and allies. Overriding that evidence shows your ‘thinking’ is being guided by paranoia and hate…. though I appreciate the cause for male paranoia in this present world.
Your assumptions are not fact-based and scientific like you assume…. I’m seeing paranoid anger that requires a bit of trimming to validate the otherwise useful facts you raise. Occam’s razor.
This biological difference (in neurotransmitters among other things)
Where did you get that from? You must be making a confusion with hormones. But even hormones would only be proximal causes. Proximal causes are not helpful at the level of understanding required for evolutionary and social analysis.
Compare: testosterone to “explain” alleged male aggressiveness.
Since I’ve never outright stated my stance on this, I figure I may as well do so now.
On a large scale basis, I don’t trust modern day women. But on an individual basis, I am perfectly willing to trust those women who have earned it.
Not that I’m accusing anyone of wanting to do this, but I won’t reject the presence of women in the MRM based solely on them being women. Dr. Tams, for example, I can see she abandoned feminism because she saw that it had long ago betrayed itself. She didn’t jump a sinking ship. She’s not trying to make good with us because she thinks that the jig is up. She honestly sees that being a feminist is not conducive to working for equal rights.
Or GWW, who is… well, she’s probably the best example of a woman behaving like an adult that I could possibly point to at the moment.
I would have to agree MrStodern, that my opinion and point of view is much the same as yours.
I have little trust in modern women, especially younger women, in this day and age, that they can behave as adults, let alone take responsibility for their appalling behaviour. It is not all women today who behave this way, but it is most.
I know, and have met, some women in my time, who do so much more for the MRM than what most men do. They are passionate in trying to get the pendulum to swing to the centre and bring about equality for all. And some of those women are right here in AVfM.
However, I have to agree with one thing said about women joining ‘men’s only’ groups/forums. I doubt very much that women will destroy this blogsite, because the calibre of women here is above reproach.
But here in Australia, we use to have a few different men’s rights internet support groups. Those groups were finally destroyed, once women were allowed to join as members.
Why did this happen?
Two reasons:
Because the women were not the same as the women here. They were disingenuous and were not mature enough to allow men the space to vent their feelings publicly without demanding that the men ‘tone it down’ so that their poor little senses weren’t offended.
And then the manginas and white knights in those men’s groups, would come out metaphorically swinging punches at anyone who criticised these women, or who indeed used that horrifying of all words – “Bitch” in any of their rants, even if referring to their ex wives.
Once you used that word, you were attacked by the moderators, where another transgression would see you banned at worse or treated with indifference at best.
So, although I do not paint all women the same and I do not believe the women we have here in AVfM, will do anything but make this site much more enriched and successful, I do agree that in some circumstances, especially here in Australia, women have actually been responsible along with the white knights, in destroying men’s rights forums.
Thank you, Shrek.
Sexism and the single hacker: Defcon’s feminist moment
The prosecution rests. They ruin everything they touch.
Step:
1) Ingratiate
2) Colonize/infest
3) Gut
We built the tree house, now stay the fuck out.
I am sick to death of watching women destroy what men build. Over, and over, and over, and over, and over.. again
They have no choice. Any area of activity, edifice or institution that could possibly be seen as evidence, past or present, of superior male abilities — or even just independent male thought — MUST be destroyed to protect the sisterhood.
What is even more sickening IMO is the tremendous amount of support they get from some men in carrying out their destructive agenda. Without that support, they’d just be a hollow and utterly insignificant echo chamber full of the sound and fury of the same bitching and moaning that has never ceased in the entire history of mankind — and never will.
I would love to see a day when accusations of harassment alone aren’t enough to get people in an uproar. I want some evidence. I want to see the harassers getting caught red-handed, and in large numbers, before I want to see anyone considering making any changes.
This is going to seem like an unfair thing to say, perhaps, but I’m going to post it anyway:
There are certain male-dominated communities who quite often have among them men whose truly asshole-ish behavior only reveals itself when women are around. Sometimes these guys are obvious, sometimes they’re not. Sometimes they’re pretty much always assholes, but they’re the type of assholes other men can generally tolerate because those men aren’t as sensitive as most women are. And beating these assholes up doesn’t cause any extra problems, since they’re men, so no one gives a shit.
Men seem to be the people who more often pick communities to become apart of based on how tolerable the social climate is within that community. Meaning, guys who are made of sturdier stuff tend to gravitate towards communities filled with dudes who are very trying on one’s patience, while the guys who aren’t so thick-skinned tend to stay way.
I don’t see women observe this tactic very often. They seem to be pretty bound and determined to join communities without looking into what the social climate is like within them. I see communities both online and off with women joining them who are not the least bit prepared for what awaits them. They don’t look before they leap.
But the real problem is that when women join a community and are shocked and offended by what they find, they don’t just pack their bags and leave like any man who finds the social climate intolerable would do. They exert their power to manipulate men in order to try to change the dynamics of that community instead. The more resistance they face in that, the more they feel it necessary.
Of course, this really only works for communities dominated by blue pill men. Red pills don’t tolerate that shit. So the solution is simple: We need more red pill men in the world.
I read here several months before posting…got a feel for the culture. I find the standard of debate here (mostly) excellent and thought provoking.
I’ve said previously as someone working in health if I felt there was info that men needed I would submit a post, but I would ask male MRAs who work in health to critique it first, so I’m not making cultural blunders.
This is predominantly men’s space (as is a Shrink4men) and I am honoured to participate.
And I’m glad to have you here. Your perspective has been enlightening, and not just because you’re a woman. Although it must be admitted that it helps.
With more men going red pill every day, women are going to have to learn that they can’t go stomping their way into every community and bossing everyone around, because not every community is going to just bow down to their demands. It’s going to be a rough transition for them, but it’s necessary.
But what I’d really like to see happen is for women to realize that they don’t HAVE to be part of every community. Female presence is NOT necessary in every community in order to achieve equality. Indeed, what we have going on right now in so many communities is pretty fucking far from equality.
I support men’s sheds in Aussie remaining male only, in part because it is a space I know my father can go to to escape the abuse in his current relationship.
I celebrate my beloved has started a men’s group as part of our faith community. I get why men need their own space. I’ve had the interesting experience of belonging to a craft group which is the first female group I’ve ever been in where bitch culture hasn’t erupted. Healthy female space is also necessary but bloody hard to find
I do imagine healthy ones are a rarity, yes.
I have a theory that women aren’t as capable of turning off their competitive side once they’re in an all-same-gender setting. When men who’ve known each other a long time get together, and there’s no women around whatsoever, we usually don’t try so hard to outdo each other for the sake of maintaining/asserting our superiority. Sure, we’ll still be competitive, but not in such a serious manner. We’re relaxed.
But I’ve seen women who’ve been friends for years never let up when it comes to bragging (or complaining) about their boyfriends/husbands. They don’t relax, if anything, it gets worse with time, because so many women are so hung up on “going somewhere”, “taking the next step in their lives”, and when they’re “falling behind”, it eats away at them.
I’m convinced at this point that women in general are the reason families went from being happy with keeping up with the Jones’ to being miserable trying to keep up with the Kardashians.
I’ve deliberately opted out of the competitive aspects of female interpersonal politics by chosing to dress in a form of modern plain dress and by chosing to live in the poor community where I work.
It’s a strange experience, most women don’t know how to deal with it. Lots of them ignore it. It has secured my friendships with some pretty cool women who are relieved to have no need to compete with me
@kiwihelen. I am so glad you raised the issue with Men’s Sheds. They are such an important service and organisation for men. There have been some men’s sheds here in Australia that have dissolved so I have been led to believe, because some idiot blue pill men decided to invite women into the organisation. These sheds were destroyed in little time. They effectively transformed in to ‘Community Sheds’, and the men in those regions lost an important male only organisation.
When it comes to men’s only organisations, women are (in general and in my opinion) nothing more than a destructive force and will more often than not, see out the end of the organisation, regardless of how hard the men work to keep it going.
Why is it that women feel that they must be involved in everything men get involved in?
Men certainly don’t care about being part of a sewing circle. What is it with these women?
However, the above opinion changes for me, when talking about the MRM.
As I have said before above, women introduced into the Australian MRM, have destroyed all the men’s support forums. And as I pointed out, it was both the fault of the disingenuous women as well as the blue pill men in those support groups.
However, I am of the opinion that the MRM cannot move forward to any acceptable conclusion, without the aid of good women. And no, that does not mean we must have women included in men’s groups, but it does mean we must have the full support of women, who are also prepared to fight for proper equality, the protection of human rights, mostly that of children.
But in the end when all is said and done, women need to have female only spaces and men need to have men only spaces. It is human nature and neither sex should be jealous about the other.
@ Shrek, I can not overstate the benefit I’ve seen to my Dad of the men’s shed movement. For various reasons he is rotten at forming healthy relationships, but the work alongside ethos of his shed has freed him up to express and explore his creative side like nothing else I’ve ever seen.
The craft circle I belong to is not gender exclusive and we have one male regular, but he certainly is a rarity.
When Dr T asked me to mod, I thought long and hard about it. I agreed only because I could bring a background as an experienced mod from other places including I-village. I hope in the longer term we might have more male mods on S4M, and it is my intention to follow good practice and lay down the office of mod after a max of 3 years to let new people (hopefully men) bring their knowledge and experience to bear. This use of triennium reshuffling is a practice amongst Quakers to avoid both burnout of activists and to ensure there is succession planning within leadership. My co-clerk in my Quaker meeting was not convinced she was right to clerk (which is remarkably similar to moderating I might add), but us doing the task together has grown both our skills. I do suspect in 18 months time I will be called to a different role (possibly at Area or Yearly level rather than Local), but I know that she could undertake the second triennium as clerk with another person as co-clerk, making our future stability more assured.
My beloved’s men’s group is a long drawn out process of shaky starts as the blue pill men get anxious it is excluding women. He’s slowly drip-feeding red pill ideas in to the mix about the need for men to discuss men’s issues, but OMG it makes the family court process look positively rapid and straightforward by comparison IYKWIM. Still, we both are planters of acorns, and that’s an eventuality we predicted. Once he is through his current bout of depression, I am sure he will get back to working on this task
That is well and fairly put in my view, Shrek.
Sometimes I think one thing we should all be more aware of is the fact that even though we all speak English here, there really ARE different experiences that can come from being Australian, vs. American, vs. Canadian, vs. British, and so on, and even what PARTS of those countries you come from. In my part of the states, for example, my community, it’s dominated by traditionalist women, and feminists are viewed as either an oddity or with contempt, but cultural misandry is visible all over the place.
So for example the experience of women ripping apart a men’s advocacy organization: haven’t seen it. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, or can’t happen. I feel zero danger of that here, but that doesn’t mean your experience of it elsewhere is to be dismissed, or make the need for genuine men’s-only spaces less important. I may not think this site needs to be same but such forums should still exist I think. (Oooh, such a scary thought, what might those penis-people be plotting without women to watch them! Must stop that at once!)
“it’s dominated by traditionalist women, and feminists are viewed as either an oddity or with contempt”
And the feminists probably feel much the same about the traditionalists. Which is hilarious, considering that they’re practically the same fucking ideology, the former just happens to be interested in treating women even MORE like children than the latter.
You know, I wonder if women had anything to do with the fracturing of Christianity? There’s so many churches that worship the same God, but they all consider themselves to be doing it the right way.
@MrStodern,
Us Quakers were started by George Fox who I think was a proto MGTOW. Yes, he did marry Margaret Fell, but I suspect it was at least in part a convenience match as she had some political influence being the widow of a judge.
Other churches I can’t comment on, but the council of Nicea has a lot to answer for with regards to what is called the bible, reading this kind of history is enlightening as to how organisations can get unbalanced so easily by individuals with their own agendas having unchecked power.
Dr. Tams,
As someone who has been damned as a troll on countless occasions I have never been terribly bothered by it for the following reason: In most cases a troll is simply someone who openly dissents from the general consensus–that is a dissenter. It is often a sign that one is a genuinely independent critical thinker who, right or wrong, is willing to take on the shit that comes with taking responsibility for one’s ideas. Remember how gays undermined homophobes and the hurtful power of “queer” by calling each other that? Well, I’m a troll and proud of it. Those creeps who stalk the Facebook pages of the recently dead notwithstanding I think you should be proud to call yourself one too.
Thank you, this article proves that
Feminism = Sexism.
Feminism = Censorship.
Feminism = Lies
Feminism = Fascism
Feminism = Anti-Heterosexuality
Feminism = Brainwashing
As a fellow recovered feminist, this was beautiful to read. I don’t know what else to say.
@Jean ValJean
George Wallace is probably the man who most symbolized the worst of the worst racist in American history.
…yet later in life he had an awakening, sought – and recieved – forgiveness from those he hated and oppressed.
It’s an amazing story, and a lesson for us all to learn, because we ALL have mistakes we made in our past that NEED forgiving. I do. Reformed “Feminists” do. Even YOU do.
“George Wallace began to realize how he had been corrupted due to the racial society he grew up in, and actually had the strength and courage to learn what he was truly meant to believe.
Soon after his injury, in the 1970s, George Wallace became a born-again Christian and publicly renounced his previous pro-segregation views and apologized to several black civil rights leaders all across America. He admitted it: he was wrong to judge humans on the basis of skin. When he was re-elected governor of Alabama (1983-87), he appointed a record number of African-Americans to government position, something many Southern leaders at the time were still hesitant to do.
George Wallace proved to be a man that was originally corrupted by growing up in racial times to becoming a loving father-like figure that truly acknowledged what he was meant to believe: that segregation is wrong. George Wallace amazingly proved not to be a hypocrite, but a hero in the hearts of many Americans that once thought all racists were incapable of reform and undeserving of forgiveness, because George Wallace proved to be an exception to that thought.
From wikipedia:
- George Wallace said while he once sought power and glory, he realized he needed to seek love and forgiveness.
****Welcome Elly Tams. I don’t know how I missed this article until today. Very profound.
Bill Maher (paraphrasing) “Any insitution where no women are around, like churches….just goes to hell without women…men do stupid things without women….”
Shrek@But in the end when all is said and done, women need to have female only spaces and men need to have men only spaces. It is human nature and neither sex should be jealous about the other.
I just posted my own epiphany on Huffpost, in a discussion of “Why Men Fear Women” which veered off into a diatribe about what life would be like without men.
I realized the notion of life without men sepoused by the women there is the result of women dawning realization that they, like men have always known, need separate spaces of their own.
Women have succeeded in destroying every male-only retreat, from Spanky’s He Man Woman Hater’s Club, to The Good Old Boy’s Club, to the military, to Gold courses, to man camps, to men’s LOCKER rooms, for Gawd’s sake!
Imagine a bunch of male reporters swarming the Ladies change room after a game…
Anyway, having throughly trampled every last male only endeavour in existence, women are now realizing they too would enjoy a place to relax, to revel in their shared personhood without interference of the opposite sex.
…but they blew it. They queered the deal.
They. Effed. Up.
Now even women nominated to the Supreme Court are shamed into resigning from Female Only “Old Girl’s Clubs”, because they brought it upon themselves.
It’s going to be some time before someone figures a way to blame MEN for the dissolution of “Men Only”.
I’ve been reading both of Elle Tam’s blogs for a while now and find them a great for exposing feminist garbage. It’s good to see her contributing here
Welcome Dr Tams and whilst I’m late to the party, I do want to congratulate you on taking the red pill.
However one thing the points you have raised show me is that you’ve barely scratched the surface in terms of how deep the rabbit hole goes, figuratively speaking.
The thing with me is, unlike many here, I was never a feminist. Growing up in an abusive environment, being the victim of predominantly abusive women – both in terms of family members and teachers; the whole notion of feminism’s claims of women being oppressed by men flew in the face of what I experienced day in day out.
And this is where you really do need to investigate things.
One thing I noticed you didn’t mention was domestic violence. The fact is that as countless experts such as Erin Pizzey and Richard Gelles have demonstrated; domestic violence is roughly 50/50 yet the way battered men in society are generally treated, both judicially and socially, is either as “feminine” for “being beaten up by a girl” or villainised on the grounds of “he had it coming to him”. Of course the irony is that the driving force of this these days is almost entirely the shelter movement and feminism- ultimately culminating in VAWA.
Things get more depraved when you look at attitudes to male rape. To really go for shock value, I’ll take it right to boys. When an underage boy is violated; society tends not to see a violated child – a victim of an unspeakable evil – but rather a coming of age. While homosexual rape is no longer tolerated due to rad. feminist attitudes towards male perpetrators, male victims of female perpetrators tend to be viewed as “becoming a man”. I’d encourage you to look up countless cases of statutory rape against boys where not only did the law not recognise it, but in cases where it results in pregnancy and birth; boys as young as 12 having to pay child support.
In fact the 2 biggest issues we face in terms of abuse which feminism is actively obstructing, are female pedophiles and raped men.
My advice to you if you really want to see just how [messed up] things really are, would be to research these areas.
Sometimes it will make you angry and enraged, sometimes it will break your heart – but it’s a roller coaster ride I can honestly say you wont regret being on one bit.
I have heard many so-called progressive or modern-day feminists say the same and it’s a breath of fresh air to finally see a women say these things and remove herself from feminism. Why women who supposedly feel the same continue to hold on to that label, is confusing to me. Well maybe not confusing as much as anoyed that they are trying to re-brend themselves to be something that that they aren’t
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
First read this:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/to-the-nice-feminists/
Those “crazy radicals” hijacked “your” movement before you were born, and you’re utterly deluded if you think they’re not completely in charge of it. They have the ears of 99.9% of the highest office-holders in the West. They have even taken over most Christian churches (“Obey your husbands” has become conditional at best…)
Tell you what. You and your egalitarian sisters rise up and kick those anti-male, anti-family psychos out of your movement, out of the courts, out of the mass media, out of the universities, out of the Church and out of the government, and then you change its name so that “fem” is not its root, and we will consider not “writing off” the movement as a whole. M’kay?
“I identify as a feminist because, as a woman, I believe it is my role to fight for my future daughters or future granddaughters to be seen by society as people, not just as objects or something to own.”
As a human, I am concerned for all people. I feel sorry that your sons and daughters will have to put up with your bigotry.
NAFALT ad nauseum. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t prove what feminists consider to be a cultural phenomena of which men everywhere use their patriarchal power to oppress women.
According to feminists rhetoric even making a joke about rape somehow compels rapists to rape women and rapists aren’t deranged individuals who make up a marginalized population of people who tend to have mental disorders and or have been victims of sexual/physical abuse themselves,they are a representation of ALL men and their patriarchal power.Rape is a terrible crime,but having the knee jerk reaction of blaming the “patriarchy” ignores the intersection of sociological/psychological factors and is foolish.
.The many lies you built your doctrine upon have been disprove ;the wage gap,1/4 women will be raped sometime in her life,the duluth model,95% of DV victims being women,the masculine hegemony in business,ect.Instead of telling us what we’ve heard 1000x times take a look around this website
Hey there,
I will only oppose you to the same degree that you oppose me.
If the belief that underwrites your efforts is that Western women still haven’t gained legal equality with men and need more help, I will oppose you fully.
If, on the other hand, you demonstrate an opinion more nuanced than “men have all the power, women still aren’t equal” and can acknowledge some of the grievous male human rights issues that exist, I will gladly listen to your views.
Otherwise, I simply go to war with you.
Have a nice day,
Gordon
Kelsey M.
Your comment is just that much more evidence that feminism, as a movement, needs to be written-off entirely.
You write: “But it frustrates me so much when people see “feminist” as a bad word due to all of the crazy radicals out there. Feminism is supposed to be about equality, not about disequality. It is the radical movement that identifies women as people, not as objects or something to own.”
The proof is in the pudding, Kelsey.
YOU are the Crazy Radical Feminist you are referring to.
“I identify as a feminist because, as a woman, I believe it is my role to fight for my future daughters or future granddaughters to be seen by society as people, not just as objects or something to own.”
And what of the boys in this video:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/video/remember-misandry-does-not-exist/#comment-160974
Are they not currently owned and the objects of horrendous physical and psychological abuse, at the hands of…at the hands of a twisted woman with entitlement issues?
What happened to your humanity, Kelsey M.?
Did it go out of style?
I would love to know how you conflate your experience of near rape and a family members experience of rape into a whole culture?
Also, what specifically are you planning on fighting for that your daughters and granddaughters can’t achieve through hard work and personal responsibility?
You’ll fight for your daughters, while you throw your sons or male relatives under the bus. Yep, that strikes me as a very Charitable loving move for a woman like you.
Tell you what, if you think I as a male are more privileged than you, how about we swap. You take the penis and I’ll take the vagina and let’s see just how you feel after you have lived in the shoes of a man for a decade.
And please don’t come back at me with all that bullshit about the pain of childbirth, because men suffer intolerable pain over the time of the life too, which is rarely acknowledged by any woman.
You will soon learn about the disposability of men, just to keep women like you happy.
You madam are a fence sitter and someone to be abhorred. Your so-called movement of equality, is nothing but an intrinsic evil and for the past century the intent was NEVER to gain equality. You now have what you wished for, yet blind fools like you cannot see that you are now standing on the heads of men and boys. Yes, even the boys in your own family. Cracking their skulls under your weight, but yet you deny this!
If it wasn’t for the blood, sweat, tears and deaths of men MADAM, you would not have everything you enjoy today, from the planes that fly in the sky, food you eat, health services to keep you alive and the knickers you wear on your backside.
I think you are like most women. You feel inadequate because you are not quite there yet with the mental capacity to achieve overall what men have achieved. So you call this Patriarchy and then project this hatred onto men and call it abuse.
Yet, most men would give all that so-called privilege away in a heartbeat, if given the opportunity to remain home to raise their children. But you don’t know that do you. Why?
Because apart from your obvious arrogance, you haven’t got the guts to even ask. The outcome of that may mean you have to work your arse off to provide for your family while hubby stays home with the “Girls!”
Dear Kelsey:
Go to war in some distant country, get one arm or leg cut off on the battlefield, come back and be forgotten. Enjoy some “male privilege”. And if you die, Hillary Clinton will say that your life is nothing, that the one who really suffer is your poor husband at home, as he will have to cope alone.
How do you like it, sister? Ready for the exchange?