Farewell

Leaving the sisterhood: A recovering feminist speaks

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.

About Elly Tams

Dr Elly Tams is a freelance researcher and writer. Her debut novella Scribbling On Foucault’s Walls wonders what would have happened if Michel Foucault the homosexual French philosopher had in fact had a daughter. Elly is known online as Quiet Riot Girl, the controversial 'anti feminist' blogger ( @Notorious_QRG on Twitter). She also runs Graunwatch, a blog dedicated to analysing and criticising the Guardian newspaper, especially its feminist dogma.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Codebuster

    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.

    • theonlysaneone

      Hey, sorry to nitpick here, but exactly how many deaths were feminists responsible for? How many millions did feminists torture, and how many lives were ruined forever as a result? What good things came out of any of those? Feminism resulted in women being able to vote, own property and not be sold off like cattle.

      I see your point though, nothing says bitter and twisted like wanting to be considered human, and genocide and killing based on religion is so much more honourable. How dare feminists try to be equal, when they’d be much better respected for the mass murder of those they don’t agree with.

      Would you prefer if feminists took to the streets with rifles and hung everyone ho dared speak against them? Though then again, it is a lot better for everyone involved to just paint the streets with blood rather than talk it out, or try to come to an agreement.

      These idiotic feminists, insisting women are real people… It’s people like these that make the world full of evil, rather than, say, actual terrorists, hate groups *coughcough* and violence.

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

        You really don’t know anything about pre-feminist history, or feminist history for that matter. If you think it was EVER about equal rights, you’re deluded. But hey, stay with that aggressive ignorance, wouldn’t want the cognitive dissonance of realizing you’ve been defending a movement of totalitarian fascism and censorship and, yes, rape and murder.

        • theonlysaneone

          Sorry, I didn’t realise feminism was worse than the 6 million Hitler murdered, but I guess it’s okay, because he didn’t challenge societal norms. Through that comment, I was trying to point out the absurdity of using feminism as the ultimate evil, worse than mass murders or tortures, or say, sending unarmed adults and children in to the middle of a war to use up the enemy’s bullets, but I guess Stalin did it openly, and killed, rather than emotionally blackmailed… all the same, I’d prefer to be guilted than lynched.

          Also, the KKK did encourage rape, male and female. Defending them only worsens public sympathy.

          By the way, google deaths caused by feminism, then death by Hitler, Stalin and the KKK…. seeing a bit of a trend?

          • East1956

            I find this line of argument curious.

            Feminism is a political movement that has always sought to exploit opportunities in the existing system. If one looks at feminist influence in government it has been primarily through promotion in the policy developing administration & academia and the media rather than out on the hustings. The entire feminist construct relies on continuing access to national commonwealth, the bulk of which is created by men. Therefore violent revolution would inherently threaten feminism.

            In European WW2 women were active participants on all sides and all activities. Despite the patriarchal environment of the 20′s & 30′s, women are surprisingly active in the fascist movements. The block leaders in both Nazi Germany & the USSR were frequently women who turned in their neighbours to the secret police.

            If we look at voting patterns since the 1920′s it is women who tend to vote for right wing parties more than men. In UK from 1970 onward the successive right wing governments caused enormous structural damage, that did not advance the interests of the average women one iota.

            Feminists would like us all to believe, even seeking to convince themselves, that feminism is a progressive liberal movement committed to social cohesion and egalitarianism. But scrape away the surface and one soon discovers that is a movement that is not enormously different from 1930′s fascism.
            It is dominated by the bourgeois that cites gender, rather than race or nation, as it’s defining character and willfully uses a vast array of distortions and plain lies to persuade its group (i.e. women) that they should award it unquestioning loyalty. It self-contentedly subordinated the interests of the masses to the benefit of the elite, and developed shaming mechanisms to enforce discipline. For feminism, men occupy the position held by Jews, Gypsies and Bolsheviks in the Nazi paradigm. Thus it is of no consequence that men and society may have changed over the last 50 years, men in all their forms present an existential threat to women. The “Patriarchy” is virtually interchangeable with “International Jewry”, it is an amorphous concept that can be conveniently molded to satisfy a need to avoid rational debate.

            It is absolutely true that Feminism has caused the deaths of 6 million people. However what is has done is cause immense damage through its ideologically inspired policies to many tens of millions of people, and continues to do so. How many working class communities have been devastated through the consequences of unbalanced feminist education policies since the 1960′s that has deliberately set out to deny boys an appropriate education. How many men in UK have died due to feminist control over health & welfare policies where resources have been allocated not on clinical need but by gender elitism?

            Killing someone in a gas chamber as part of a genocidal campaign is an absolute abomination. Deliberately withholding medical treatment from someone, knowing that they will suffer and die, on the basis of a political ideology is not much different.

        • theonlysaneone

          Sorry, I didn’t realise feminism was worse than the 6 million Hitler murdered, but I guess it’s okay, because he didn’t challenge societal norms. Through that comment, I was trying to point out the absurdity of using feminism as the ultimate evil, worse than mass murders or tortures, or say, sending unarmed adults and children in to the middle of a war to use up the enemy’s bullets, but I guess Stalin did it openly, and killed, rather than emotionally blackmailed… all the same, I’d prefer to be guilted than lynched.

          Also, the KKK did encourage rape, male and female. Defending them only worsens public sympathy.

          By the way, google deaths caused by feminism, then death by Hitler, Stalin and the KKK…. seeing a bit of a trend?

  • by_the_sword

    Thank you Dr. Elly Tams, for opening your mind and your heart to our cause.

  • kiwihelen

    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)

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

      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!

      • kiwihelen

        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

        • Robert St. Estephe

          “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!

        • Eye in the Sky

          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.

          • kiwihelen

            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.

        • MrStodern

          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.

  • http://mrathunderinthehammer.blogspot.com/ Dannyboy

    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.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    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.

    • yurlungur

      These so called academic feminists are nothing ,but used car salesmen: able to sell you anything by taking advantage of your lack of knowledge.

      • Mr. J

        NEW car salesmen, you mean…LOL

    • Codebuster

      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.

      • Obaoill

        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.

  • yurlungur

    @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.

  • Mr. J

    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.

    • Robert St. Estephe

      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.

      • Mr. J

        Yes, for sure, and the “work ethic” morons who don’t know the difference between intelligent “work” and dumb slavery.

        • Eye in the Sky

          Agreed. Masculinity is complex – men are not the beer-swilling, sports-obsessed, moronic louts the mass media would have everyone believe.

    • tallwheel

      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.

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

        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.

        • DrewVox

          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.

        • Max Cade

          Dean, you could say it. Why not say it? Let us men who love our friends, say it.

      • MrStodern

        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.

        • Sting Chameleon

          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.

  • Simpsonsdidit

    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.

    • DrewVox

      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.”

  • JFinn

    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.

  • JingoStar

    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.

  • Carlos

    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.

    • http://www.quietgirlriot.wordpress.com Elly Tams

      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!

      • Carlos

        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.

      • DrewVox

        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.

  • http://www.quietgirlriot.wordpress.com Elly Tams

    Thanks to everyone who has posted links to other articles and posts. I am reading through them now!

    QRG/Elly

  • Phil in Utah

    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.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

      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?

      • MrStodern

        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.

  • ScaaarBeeek

    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.)

    • http://www.quietgirlriot.wordpress.com Elly Tams

      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

      • ScaaarBeeek

        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.)

  • Sting Chameleon

    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.

    • Astrokid

      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?

  • ScaaarBeeek

    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.

  • Tawil

    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?

    • Lee

      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.

      • http://www.quietgirlriot.wordpress.com Elly Tams

        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?

        • Raven01

          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.

        • Robert St. Estephe

          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”).

      • Tawil

        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. :-)

    • Tawil

      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….

  • Robert St. Estephe

    “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.

  • keyster

    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!

    • Tawil

      “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…

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

        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.

      • Shrek6

        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.

        • dhanu

          @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.

          • Shrek6

            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!

          • dhanu

            @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.)

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

        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.”

        • Tawil

          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.

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

      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.

  • Darryl X

    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.

    • Arvy

      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.

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

        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!

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

          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…

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

            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. ;-)

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

            I’m with you, Dean. Don’t let me fool you. :)

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

          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.

      • Darryl X

        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.

        • Arvy

          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.

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

            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.

          • Arvy

            @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.

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

            I’m with you Arvy :-)

          • Darryl X

            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.

          • Arvy

            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.

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

            @ Arvy
            He also didn’t say ‘all women’.

          • Arvy

            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.

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

            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.

          • Arvy

            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.

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

            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’.

        • Tawil

          “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.

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

            “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.

          • Tawil

            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.

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

            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.

          • Kimski

            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.

          • Tawil

            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.

          • Shrek6

            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.

          • Tawil

            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.

          • Kimski

            @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’.

          • Tawil

            ‘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…

          • Kimski

            @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.

          • Tawil

            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.

          • Kimski

            @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.

        • kiwihelen

          @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

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

      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.

      • Arvy

        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.

      • Darryl X

        I like the way you wrote it better, Perseus.

        • Raven01

          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?

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

            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’.

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

          :-) Cheers Darryl. This is a good topic, and I appreciated your astute and courageous dissent with the main.

          • Darryl X

            It’s never easy. Steep learning curve.

    • Tawil

      “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. :-)

      • Shrek6

        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!

        • Tawil

          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.

      • Darryl X

        @ 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.

        • kiwihelen

          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.

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

            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.” ;-)

        • kiwihelen

          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.

          • Darryl X

            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.

        • kiwihelen

          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.

        • Tawil

          “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.

        • jack

          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.

  • MrStodern

    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.

    • Shrek6

      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.

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

        Thank you, Shrek.

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

    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

    • Arvy

      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.

    • MrStodern

      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.

      • kiwihelen

        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.

        • MrStodern

          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.

          • kiwihelen

            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

          • MrStodern

            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.

          • kiwihelen

            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

          • Shrek6

            @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.

          • kiwihelen

            @ 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

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

          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!)

          • MrStodern

            “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.

          • kiwihelen

            @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.

  • HieronymusBraintree

    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.

  • yinyangbalance

    Thank you, this article proves that

    Feminism = Sexism.
    Feminism = Censorship.
    Feminism = Lies
    Feminism = Fascism
    Feminism = Anti-Heterosexuality
    Feminism = Brainwashing

  • Scented Nectar

    As a fellow recovered feminist, this was beautiful to read. I don’t know what else to say. :)

  • OneHundredPercentCotton

    @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.

  • OneHundredPercentCotton

    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”.

  • DerickBurton

    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

  • bowspearer

    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.

  • tom b

    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

  • Kelsey M.

    Hey there!

    So I’m gonna be that person: I’m a feminist and I am proud. However, that does not mean that I do not see the flaws you have presented in your article. I agree that a lot of what feminism is and what it has been misconstrued to be by many women is entirely misandrous and closed-minded. However, I urge you to not write the movement off as a whole: it has brought about a lot of great things. It is certainly interesting to see a woman describe how she is unable to see rape culture. Personally, I believe in it, but I have been affected directly in a near-rape case and a member of my family was raped a few years ago, so I saw firsthand the strange, backwards rape culture that accompanied it. 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. 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 honestly, antifeminist women contribute just as much to the opposing side than anyone in my opinion, it’s not that men are the “bad guy,” it’s just that they are what we are inequal to.

    • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

      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?

    • Bombay

      “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.

    • http://feministlies.wordpress.com feminismisbullshit

      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

    • Gordon Wadsworth

      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

    • Near Earth Object

      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?

    • aimeemcgee

      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?

    • Aaron Lawabidingcitizen

      You are a disgusting bigot.

    • Sasha Dence

      Some men rape. Some men sexually assault some women. It is true these things happen. The idea of ‘rape culture’ sees only the side of culture that seems to glorify these ‘some men’. Some men are criminals and our culture could be seen to promote violence and breaking laws, A lot of things could be read that way. But to see it that way requires having a lens from the outset when chooses to see the ways culture can be seen to promote violence. That means excluding all the ways that it could be seen to *not* promote violence. That is the problem with beginning all conversations with a bias. Once you have been raped or sexually assaulted it is very easy to see all, or most men, as potential rapists, but this is quite simply not true and is dangerous to the group, in this case, men, who are inevitably seen that way. That they are seen that way is understandable by victims, but victims must not see all people who are like the perpetrator as potential or actual perpetrators. I’m teaching my daughter to see most men as not criminals — and to be careful. I also think my sons need to be careful. But the other side never ever gets aired in any serious way. My son came home from a bar a couple of years ago saying he’d never go back because the girls literally swarmed him. I laughed and said that since he was stronger than most of them, he wasn’t in danger and he replied, that singely he could likely have been okay, but that together they were a formidable power and he felt objectified. He felt like a target. He felt disrespected. He felt like all that matter to them was his body. And he also felt scared. They were really aggressive and felt like they had complete permission to be so since they were never ever anything other than potential victims. The ideology that all men are potential rapists and all women their victims (and this does come from a former victim) is dangerously misleading. Most men are decent, law respecting and honourable. Not all women are.

    • Gman0730

      What is a “near rape”? I have been a Police Officer for almost 30 years.. there is NO SUCH CRIME…

  • Shrek6

    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!”

  • ErnestoGuevara

    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?

  • Michael

    A great post and I had to sign up after just discovering the site.

    I’ve never understood the concept of trying to improve equality by taking sides.

    If you truly believe in equality then be an equalitist, not a feminist and strive for the equality regardless of gender.

    The same concept applies to organisations like NAACP; if you truly believe in equality then strive for the equality of all rather than retaliating against those who are associated via race (or sex) with those who have done bad things to them; a sort of generalisation in itself which equates to racism (or sexism)..

  • Mr. Sungame

    “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.””

    I will give everyone one guess as to what word in that sentence my Google Chrome Spell Check believes is not a word. I’ll give you a clue, it’s not misogyny.

  • billiekent82

    Regarding the “Rape Culture” section of the article, it makes me think of a documentary on Ancient Rome I was watching recently in which Roman aristocrats actually said that they feared their Empire was “Christian.” This was during the height of the Empire, well before Constantine brought the mystery cult into the mainstream. So to say the Roman Empire was Christian at the time was a ridiculous claim.
    It is equally ridiculous to say that we have a “rape culture,” directed against women at any rate. Are there some things in our vast and multi-faceted culture that condone rape of women? Yes. But these elements are on the fringes. To say that our western society at large condones and encourages sexual violence against women is nonsense.

  • gypxie

    Thank you for this, I can say that I am too a recovering feminist..the last straw was when I commented on a feminist post talking about “thin privilage” I said it was stupid because your size is something you can change, and I got banned.for “fat shaming” and having “thin privilage”
    But not before having middle class white ladies insult my job partner and my apology!
    Feminisim like that isn’t sisterhood, its a bunch of mean girls who get off on ostracizing you from a club as soon as you put a foot wrong.
    I wish there was more info on how dangerous that is..

  • gypxie

    Thank you for this, I can say that I am too a recovering feminist..the last straw was when I commented on a feminist post talking about “thin privilage” I said it was stupid because your size is something you can change, and I got banned.for “fat shaming” and having “thin privilage”
    But not before having middle class white ladies insult my job partner and my apology!
    Feminisim like that isn’t sisterhood, its a bunch of mean girls who get off on ostracizing you from a club as soon as you put a foot wrong.
    I wish there was more info on how dangerous that is..

    • Kaitlin Powell

      Sounds like you got caught up in the “Opression Olympics” ergo – who has the least privilege.

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

    The idea that women are inferior to men physically, emotionally and intellectually has an established history and has been and still is harmful to women.

    Agreed. It was and is bigotry, pure and simple. With the exception of physical strength, it is also completely false. Both women and men have the same capacity for intellect and emotion, even if the sexes (in general) express them differently. (This should not be surprising though, given the diversity with which individuals within each sex also express intellect and emotion. And that doesn’t begin to address trans* people, etc.)

    Feminism has challenged and continues to challenge this harm and it is the main movement dedicated to doing so.

    Well, maybe some feminists do, at times, but modern feminism does a whole lot more, much of which is every bit as bigoted and sexist as the old stereotypes of women. This site documents at length what I mean. To pick a few examples at random:

    • promotion the Duluth model of domestic violence (men always perpetrators, women always victims)
    • the on-going attempts to weaken due process for men accused of sexual assault on university campuses etc.
    • the minimisation and the refusal to acknowledge the seriousness of false rape complaints, whatever the true prevalence (2% according to many feminists, 8% and 12% according to the UK CPS and US DoJ respectively, much higher according to some studies — though I recognise that many of those don’t necessarily generalise well)
    • the presumption that a man wishing to work with children, especially prepubescent children, have prurient interests
    • opposition to shared parenting, especially by organisations such as NOW.
    • the dismissal of male victims of rape, especially by female perpetrators, by feminists like Mary P. Koss and organisations like RAINN; also of the disgrace that is male genital mutilation

    I would suggest that perhaps rape culture does not affect everyone equally. Just because author has not personally seen it does not mean it does not exist.

    If that’s true, then rape culture (for the sake of argument I’ll assume it, as described by feminists [c.f. "Schrödinger's rapist"], is real) is not as widespread or all-pervasive as feminists tend to say, in which case the argument becomes one of prevalence (a lot harder to prove) and the idea can no longer be used as justification for vilifying young college freshmen with seminars like “She Fears You!”

    (FWIW, I think something approaching “rape culture” is real in limited contexts, but I reject the general application of the phrase to society at large.)

    Gender is constructed and experienced differently depending on your cultural setting.

    We’re probably not going to agree on this point; nevertheless, let me ask you: if gender is socially constructed, why did the the case of David Reimer go so horribly wrong? Reimer was socialised as a girl from infanthood because of a botched circumcision but, when he hit puberty, his male brain rebelled against that socialisation and he went back to living as a male, albeit one with a neovagina. He committed suicide aged 38.

    I readily admit that this one case doesn’t disprove the idea, but the tabula rasa model of human psychology has long since been discredited in other ways.

    sexual harassment was the undercurrent potential violence a dimension of the problem is often denied.

    Yes, it does, and sexual harassment is a problem amongst certain sectors of society. I’d say, though, that it’s a symptom of a much larger problem (the main one being a lamentable lack of empathy for other people), and isn’t restricted to lines of gender.

    Some people are just arseholes, whatever their gender or sexual orientation.

    I appreciate that there are problems that effect men and I care very much about them.

    Thank you for saying so — because right there, in that statement, is important recognition of the complexities of gender politics that are so often dismissed by the disgraceful line “Whatabout teh menz?” some feminists are so fond of. Good for you: we could use many more like you in the subject.

    I’ll reciprocate by recognising that there are many genuine and urgent problems that affect women which I do care about, and do need urgent attention.

    Feminism is a movement that recognises and acknowledges the problems I have experienced when often society does not. [...] Feminism pays more attention to the problems of women than any other movement has cared to do. This focus on women does not invalidate the movement.

    Of course not, in exactly the same way that the MHRM’s focus on men doesn’t invalidate our movement.

    If feminism really were exclusively what you say (and what [other] feminists come here to say from time to time), then many of us would probably be feminists as well. Indeed, some of us (the most famous of whom, Warren Farrell) were feminists before we came to understand what modern feminism is actually about.

    The article is dismissive of feminism not because of the good things it does, but because of the bad. That might not be fair, but often times it is difficult to see the good because of all the bad.

    There might not be all that much difference between you and I as it may seem. I’ve thrown my hat in with the MHRM because, in my estimation, the MHRM is the only movement that is addressing men’s issues and fighting against the ills that gender feminism seeks to impose on half of the population.

    The two movements would probably get a long much better than they currently do were it not for the way feminism — or, so many feminists, if you prefer — demonise and “other” men in the course of going about their advocacy.

    • Ann

      I would concede that in general men are stronger than women.
      However, men are not physiologically more impressive than women…female
      physiologically is clearly just as impressive as men male
      physiology…regardless of the strength differential. Women are generally
      superior when it comes to fighting infection and women are better protected
      against things such as X-linked inherited disease. I also think physiologically
      speaking the ability to have babies is impressive. I think it should be self-evident
      that female physiology is impressive in its own right.

      Looking at your points

      Duluth model of domestic violence (men always perpetrators,
      women always victims)

      There is definitely a point here but there are other things
      than gender going on and certainly more than Feminism is in the frame. Before
      stating the situation as I see it…I am not saying it is right for things to be
      this way but I think this is why men do not get attention they deserve on this
      issue.

      1)
      The death rate among female victims of domestic
      violence abused by their male partners is much higher than the death rate among
      male victims abused by their female partners (perhaps because of the strength
      differential, perhaps there are others reasons). Regardless of the reason, dead
      bodies get noticed and it could be argued that the lethality of domestic
      violence directed at women makes it more serious. Although it should quite
      rightly be argued that sustained abuse directed at anyone is serious enough to
      matter. In terms of loss of life though women are more at risk than men.

      2)
      Physical abuse that amounts to serious physical
      injury receives more attention and is taken more seriously than physical abuse
      that does not result in serious physical injury. Furthermore, physical abuse is
      seen as more serious than emotional abuse. This is a problem in and of its own
      right.

      3)
      I think it is possible men experience abuse
      differently and what I mean by that is they have different vulnerabilities. Although
      of course there is a lot of overlap between the experiences of men and women. Women
      tend to be more economically vulnerable (at least while in the situation and
      upon first trying to leave) and more physically vulnerable than men in the same
      situation as shown by the higher death rate among women victims. They have very
      good reason to be afraid for their physical safety. Men of course also fear
      violence and there is always the fear that her violence may be directed toward
      your children who cannot defend themselves rather than you. Economically there
      is the concern that she will take your children and your money through child
      support or divorce. However, on balance I think women as a group have it worse
      on these counts. They suffer more exposure to lethal violence and they are less
      likely to have the economic means to leave. Therefore, women could be considered
      less able to escape the situation and more likely to remain trapped in an
      abusive and very possibly ultimately lethal relationship. So what about men as
      a group (what about the menz?). I think they do have their own vulnerabilities which
      thinking about it might be more emotional. For instance, the threat of your
      abusive partner taking your children and denying you access. The emotional
      impact of losing one’s children is where that threat would get most of its
      power. The second issue that men tend to
      have is their lack of close intimate relationships outside of their
      relationship with their romantic partner. This leaves them emotionally
      vulnerable and emotionally dependent on abusive partners in a way that make can
      it very difficult for them to leave. Of course emotional factors like this
      affect women too and it seems the emotional aspect of abuse does not get enough
      recognition in general whether the victims are male or female but on balance I
      see how men might be more vulnerable in this respect. You could also argue that
      this emotional abuse becomes physical in the sense that men kill themselves at
      higher rates than women…and it would be interesting to see what the death rate
      among male abuse victims is compared to female abuse victims when we count male
      suicide into the picture.

      4)
      The abuse men suffer is discounted in part
      because it is difficult to recognise the emotional and physical vulnerability
      of men when men are considered to be the superior sex and so invulnerable. I
      imagine the strength differential is something that might be cited here. The
      idea that men are superior and invulnerable physically and emotionally
      invulnerable is not a feminist one it is just traditional sexism. It is an
      example of how the superior role dehumanises men. It is critically important to that men are dehumanised as superior and
      that this is qualitatively different from them being dehumanised as inferior (which
      is the way women tend to be dehumanised). That is probably the most legitimate reason
      Feminism has for dismissing and not addressing this problem, politically
      speaking it is not the same problem experienced by women. However, it is still
      dehumanisation. Feminism does at least attack the idea of
      male superiority. The illusion of male invulnerability may bolster the idea of
      male superiority but it does not help abused men. If men are going to stop
      being dehumanised in this way then they need to stop being seen as superior and
      invulnerable physically but most perhaps more importantly as invulnerable
      emotionally. Does the men rights
      movement point these things out or acknowledge this?

      If I go on this way it is possible I will end up writing a
      book so here are some short and sweet responses on selected bits of the other
      stuff.

      We don’t have a functioning legal system when it comes to
      rape because virtually no-one gets convicted. This is a problem for everyone. If
      men end up getting tried in the court of public opinion I would argue that is partly
      because of the lack of confidence in the criminal justice system to convict the
      guilty.

      Do men limit the time they spend alone with women for fear
      of being falsely accused of rape? If they are falsely accused after spending
      time alone with a woman who they do not know well are they told they were
      asking for it? If a man flirts with a woman and is later accused of rape is he
      told he was asking to be accused of rape? Do men have to be careful to monitor
      the time they spend alone and where/when they spend it for fear they will be
      accused of rape? Are they told the accusation was a result of their actions and
      carelessness?

      Replace the words men and women with each other and any
      reference to false allegations with rape for the paragraph above.

      I think the idea that men cannot be trusted to work with
      children is actually somewhat connected to rape culture. It is connected to the
      idea that men are sex crazed monsters with no self-control (it also hinges on
      that idea that men cannot enjoy spending time with children because men are not
      emotional or nurturing). When women are blamed for rape the suggestion is
      usually that men who rape are not responsible for their actions because they
      lack self-control and that this kind of conduct is to be expected. Obviously
      this is victim blaming but it is also insulting to men. This is not conducive
      to creating a society where men are trusted with children. On top of this the
      fact that sexual abuse has a history of being poorly policed and victims have
      traditionally not been believed helps fuel public anxiety…think of the disaster
      with child abuse and catholic priests.

      When I said gender is culturally constructed I did not mean
      culture is all there is but rest assured it is definitely there and its
      signifficant. I would also suggest that the degree of affinity one has towards
      their gender role/sex or (more problematically for the individual) to the
      opposite gender role/sex seems to vary between individuals. Biologically
      speaking perhaps it is possible this exists on a spectrum with some of us
      approaching the middle of that spectrum and others at either end.

      Sexual harassment is clearly a gendered issue and the type
      of harassment I described does not typically happen to men on a systematic day
      in day out basis the way it does to women. As for say it is a symptom of a
      larger problem and a simple lack of empathy I could say the same thing about
      the abuses men suffer but I won’t. A lack of empathy for other people is the
      key stone of most abuses but I would argue that does not make those abuses
      apolitical…also it is not just the acts themselves it is the way society reacts
      to them and misconstrues them that is of significance.

      To be clear women are NOT imagining sexism and they are NOT
      crazy for pointing sexism out or constructing a movement that takes the effect
      sexism has on women seriously. Clearly
      sexism, as in the ideology that men are
      superior to women exists…it is the dominant ideology or at the very least has
      been for a long time.

      “The article is dismissive of feminism not because of the
      good things it does, but because of the bad.”

      That is why I have stood up for the good things. However, I would also like to add I share
      some of your frustration in so far as many of the deeply gendered things that
      have affected me very very seriously are not on the feminist agenda either.
      I actually think your concerns are more on the agenda than mine right now.

      Over all it seems a lot of the problems you describe are not
      heard because of the resistance to seeing men as vulnerable human
      beings…because the idea is that men in their superiority to women can’t be vulnerable
      and can’t be victims. Perhaps Feminism screws
      up and plays in to patriarchy sometimes and that is a serious problem. Perhaps
      at the heart of that is the difference that exists between being told you
      cannot be a victim and be a man and being told if you are a woman and a victim it
      is because you are asking for it or inferior? However, there are signs of hope. This video
      popped up on my university’s feminist group webpage page today and that is a
      really positive thing.

      http://www.upworthy.com/a-man-shows-us-a-day-in-the-life-of-an-abusive-relationship-2?c=ufb1

      I would not have seen this video if I had not joined the
      feminist society at university and of course I care about these things…I don’t
      need to invalidate the problems men face for the problems women face to matter
      or for them to be gendered (and that works vice versa too).

      • Aimee McGee

        You are trying to tell me gender is learned, not innate…
        That is where the feminist movement completely looses women like me who are steeped in the sciences. So much of our human behaviour is genetically determined, or determined by epigenetic changes because of environmental exposure. I’m convinced that the hormone soup our cells are exposed to determines our gendered behaviour, and it is a small % of our behaviour we control through learning.

        • Ann

          No… you are missing my point.

          That is not what I am saying.

          I think this has to do with both politics and biology. More
          than that what is really important is understanding the INTERACTION between
          politics (including economics) and biology. Trying to decide between the two defeats the point. If you look at this from a political perspective you will see
          politics and if you look at it from a biological perspective you will see
          biology. So if you argue for the biological perspective I will bring politics
          into it and if you argue from the political perspective I will bring biology
          into it because they interact.

          The expectation is that feminism should be using female biology to explain the inequalities women face and yet I don’t see the men’s movement using male biology to explain the inequalities men face. If you really believe gender politics is just a matter of predetermined biology… then that reduces all gender politics including feminism (and any female privileges) to predetermined biological phenomena too. If you believe this why even have a men’s movement. Unless what you are getting at is that you hold to the double standard that when men face gendered abuses it is a political matter but when women face them it is a matter for biology and biology alone.

          I am willing to look politically (not just biologically) at the problems of men as group but I also think the problems women face as a group also deserve to be looked at from a political perspective.

          However, that is really a side point what I was getting at in the post above is…

          Is there a relationship between the Myth of Male Power and the myth of male superiority? What proportion of the gendered problems faced by men are underpinned by that relationship and what proportion are not (being
          instead based in pure misandry or other factors)? Does feminism unwittingly like
          society assume male invulnerability and is that a key part of the problem or
          not?

  • Astrokid

    I appreciate that there are problems that effect men and I care very much about them

    What do you think are the problems that effect men? What do you think causes them? Do you think feminism specifically has caused men any significant problem? Have you heard of Erin Pizzey, Christina Hoff Sommers, Cathy Young, Camille Paglia et al who have been raising serious issues about feminism for decades, and who have been trashed and sidelined.

    The idea that women are inferior to men physically, emotionally and intellectually has an established history and has been and still is harmful to women.

    Such sentiments did not exist in a vacuum. And ideas change over time as environmental and societal circumstances change. Surely you dont doubt that men are physically stronger than women. And I am pretty sure when the ancients thought about “emotional” superiority of men.. they were thinking about control of certain emotions.. like suppression of fear, or anxiety etc.. that impact activities in the public square. You do realize that hunter-gatherer life meant that somebody had to do death jobs, and that must have put evolutionary pressure on men in these aspects. for e.g Incredible 40m tree climb & bee attack – Human Planet – BBC. And do you know to what extremes some men can go to that other men would not even contemplate? Three Men vs. Fifteen Hungry Lions – Human Planet, Grasslands, Preview – BBC One And dont forget.. it is widely acknowledged that women are better than men at certain other “emotions”. The ancients believed that women were better nurturers, better manipulators via sexuality, evoking sympathy, etc. And your own feminists have tooted the horn quite obnoxiously about made-up superiority.

    And for intellectual superiority.. you do realize that the vast majority of women and men throughout history were just involved in day to day issues, and its only a tiny percentage of men that pursued intellectual lives. But as far as innovation goes, it is undeniable that the best of men are far superior to the best of women. At the same time, the worst of men are far inferior to the worst of women. As Camille Paglia put it, There is no female Mozart for the same reason there is no female Jack The Ripper. Darwinian Philosopher Helena Cronin has written a piece called More dumbbells but more Nobels, where she explores the reasons for it. As you may imagine, there are many contributing factors, motivation being a key one. As men, unless we have accomplishments, we are reproductively not viable. When was the last time a woman got down on one knee and proposed marriage to a garbage disposal worker?

    • honoriaglossop

      First off, Camille Paglia picked a poor example in Jack the Ripper considering we don’t even know if those murders were perpetrated by just one man or even perpetrated by a man.

      Second, let’s think about the Mozart thing. We know what happens when a male Mozart is born. His father pressures him to practice, practice, practice and takes every opportunity to show-case his son’s great talent. A female Mozart born in the same time and place would not be given the same pressure and encouragement. She would probably have to steal moments in an empty house to practice and would not be given any opportunities for public performance unless she could convince her father and mother it would improve her prospects for a better marriage. That means not only would she have to be a budding musical genius but also a master politician.
      Florence Nightingale was forced to study mathematics in secret with a like-minded relative because maths were considered that unsuited to women. Further, her work to bring proper medical care and nutrition to wounded soldiers of the Crimean war was thwarted at every turn by doctors and officers alike. Their objections to her work were two-fold. First, they didn’t like the idea of a woman out in the man’s world. Second, they didn’t consider most of the common soldiery of the British Army worth saving in the first place. Disposable male anyone?

      The fact is, when women have tried (and even succeeded) to contribute to society beyond reproduction, their efforts have been down-played. Again, I site Florence Nightingale. Most people remember her as the “lady with the lamp” in idealized portraits romantically flooded with moonlight. Now, she most certainly did pass many an evening walking among and personally comforting her patients. But to have that be the lasting image downplays her as the founder of modern nursing and hospital infrastructure. Another example is Hedy Lamarr. She was a brilliant woman and contributed to many highly useful wartime inventions.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr We remember her chiefly as an actress. But women being valued only as vessels of reproduction, desire and womanly virtue is at the heart of our our oppression.
      Men face oppression as well. But the heart of their oppression is pretty much the exact opposite. Men have been taught to use themselves up in constant activity and contribution, to allow themselves to be brutalized in the name of their own “superiority.” What could be more of an objectification than having your entire worth as a person based around your usefulness? Time and again, the call to war has glorified our men in uniform, venerated them in death and neglected them in sickness, both mental and physical. The scandal at Walter Reid hospital has shown this is not over. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Reed_Army_Medical_Center_neglect_scandal
      You can not separate the idea of the disposable, constantly active male from attitudes that make the Duluth model of domestic violence seem feasible, that make us blind to male victims. Feminism is not blameless, but only inasmuch as it has not taken enough of a critical look at all the angles of gender-based oppression.
      And as for your last question, regarding the garbage disposal worker, I did. My love is not a garbage disposal worker per say but is certainly in or below that tax bracket. But I am with him because I love him and value him as more than a set of accomplishments.

      • honoriaglossop

        Side note,
        It is not my intention to down-play the fact that there are feminists out there who do use feminism as a way to harm men in general. There are. I know there are and I am deeply ashamed of each and every one of them. And feminism overall provides plenty of cover for horrible people.

        • Astrokid

          So what are you doing about ‘all those nasty feminists who are causing harm‘? If you had read this article properly, you will notice that Elly Tams goes to their sites/twitter/whereever, and fights those nasties. She has included a starter link in this article called ‘Wankers 101′.
          And if you had read the article properly, you will see that while nasty feminists are a problem, their foundation lies in the nasty ideology itself. sentence after sentence in this article explains that. for e.g

          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..
          … (and if you follow the Link ‘Against Feminisms’, you reach)
          So here is my rationale for why I oppose ALL and EVERY FEMINIST THEORY. If you are a feminist but do not subscribe to any of these assumptions/beliefs, then let me know. But I expect there is not one feminist who doesn’t broadly speaking accept these tenets:
          1) Feminism is based on an assumption that overall, men as a group hold power in society and this power, damages women as a group…

      • Astrokid

        First off, Camille Paglia picked a poor example in
        Jack the Ripper
        considering we don’t even know if those murders were perpetrated by just
        one man or even perpetrated by a man.

        What a silly
        objection! So if Paglia had mentioned Ted Bundy instead, you wouldnt
        object this way? wow..Pithy sayings are meant to convey an essence,
        which you missed. Heck.. there are female Jack The Rippers.. there are
        many female serial killers, and Eileen Wournos who killed 7 men in the
        90s comes to mind. And there can even be the occasional female Mozart
        too.. say Marie Curie. But Camille’s point is to demonstrate the
        distribution curve. Men are distributed more widely than women. Here..
        she explains it around 5:30 End of Men: Pre
        interview

        Female Mozart.. blah blah..
        The fact is, when women have tried (and even succeeded) to contribute to
        society beyond reproduction, their efforts have been down-played.
        Again, I site Florence Nightingale

        All this amounts to
        the usual Feminist Patriarchy blah blah. Like I noted in other
        comment.. its as if you didnt read Elly Tams’ article where she mentions
        how this is the same crap that gets repeated.. over and over. The fact
        that you will search for and dig up a few women from the past, blurt out
        their names and parade them just proves the same old point. Women
        comprise 0.1%, men 99.9% at the top end of the spectrum.
        Heck.. even
        men from 3rd world countries have been at that top end. Remember India’s
        World Chess Champion Viswanathan Anand, who beat
        Kasparov? Chess, for crying out loud. In the top 100,
        there’s only one woman.. Judith Polgar from Hungary. Not from prosperous,
        feminist Western Europe or US.
        And who can forget the Mozart of Chess, Magnus Carlson

        Feminism is not blameless, but only inasmuch as it
        has not taken enough
        of a critical
        look at all the angles of gender-based
        oppression.

        Ha Ha Ha.. Feminism and “enough of a
        critical look”. Who are you kidding here. Your academics are a bunch of
        fools. There’s plenty of documentation on that..for e.g Daphne Patai’s
        work in the 90s.
        I am an ordinary fellow with a Natural Science and
        Engineering background. I can recognize scholarly knowledge. Womyns
        studies isnt it.

        • Ann

          I have a background in Natural Sciences and a background in
          Philosophy and Politics. Science and the Humanities are each very valuable and
          very different academic areas. Personally I find the Sciences a bit easier but
          that is just me. If you can’t appreciate the humanities then that really is on
          you. I suggest you develop that in yourself. The reason I say this is because I
          think it is a worthwhile pursuit and if you really care about these types of
          subjects it might open your mind to a new and very worthwhile way of thinking.
          As for the achievements of women throughout history it is fairly obvious men
          have had opportunities women have not. This is I imagine partly because of
          sexism and partly because women do the heavy reproductive lifting when it comes to procreation. Until recently women had a lot lot more children than they do in the developed world today (and sexism was more rampant). Women have achieved and do things today that they were once considered completely incapable of doing. Women out preforming men in education for instance (do NOT take this to mean I am saying women are superior, that is NOT what I am saying, I am saying simply that women doing this well in education was once considered impossible.) Also think of all the women doctors we have now. Once women were basically not allowed to be doctors they were though incapable of the job and yet so many women are in medical school today. Women doctors are set to outnumber male doctors. Women who were nurses in the past born in today’s society would have the opportunity and encouragement they need to become doctors if they wanted. I think some of the women who today go to medical school are the women who would in the society of the future be our physicists and engineering graduates and make up the gender balance in those subjects. The other thing is the importance of physical strength economically and political speaking has decreased with the dawn of the post industrial economy and this has changed the role of men and women, opening opportunities for women.

          You were right to point out it is a small proportion of people who are intellectual leaders. The vast majority of us both men and women will never reach the intellectual heights of those individuals whose work has led to major advances in civilisation. So this raises questions about neurobiology of this group of people. I think you are wrong to isolate maleness as the vital factor here (partly because so many people are male). To illustrate this point more clearly. Let us take me and you. You are male. I am female. I am dyslexic. You I am assuming are not. (Of course it is possible that you are also dyslexic but I am going to play the odds and for the sake of the argument suggest you are not.) Einstein was dyslexic and it has been suggested that this was a crucial part of his neurobiology that allowed him to be more imaginative and inventive with ideas than average. (Dyslexia has been traditionally more recognised in males but research has now shown that in females it has been underdiagnosed and that in fact both sexes are equally affected). Out of the two traits being dyslexic and being male I would argue that the trait I share with Einstein could easily be considered the trait more relevant to his abilities. (Just to be clear I am NOT suggesting I am Einstein the point is…). The fact that historically speaking a larger proportion of these people have been male than female proves male intellectual superiority the way you suggest it does. Clearly these people are a subclass of their own. A subclass whose intellectual pursuits have been supported by society…for instance they have had access to education…which has not been at all common for most people throughout the majority of history. Women have contributed more than is recognised (you have been given examples) and have contributed a lot considering the opportunities they have had. It really is quite obvious that women (like most individuals throughout history) have not had the same opportunities as the highest achieving men. This is the point honoriaglossop was making and I was actually really quite impressed by how well she argued that point in her comment.

          • Astrokid

            1) How did you conclude that I ‘cant appreciate’ Humanities? I dont appreciate ‘Womyns Studies’. And its not just me. I have mentioned Daphne Patai’s work.
            2)

            Once women were basically not allowed to be doctors they were though
            incapable of the job and yet so many women are in medical school today.

            You are not telling me anything new. just regurgitating same old stuff. Back in the 1800s, very few people were doctors, and doctors were required to see patients in the dead of the night, and typically ride horses good distances to get there. Very few women were up to the task. Another example is astronomy. William Herschel built his own telescopes, and made the mirror using some metal he handled himself in his foundry. When Edwin Hubble he did his groundbreaking work in discovering ‘island universes‘, he had to climb a mountain everyday. Its only when society was prosperous enough to afford freeways, cars, etc that women came out of the woodwork in larger numbers. Before that it was just not cost-effective to invest in a woman who will only drop out. Even today, this is a problem but society has so much wealth that it can afford to do this.

            Female doctors who work part-time after having children put NHS under strain Female doctors who have children and then work part-time are placing a huge
            burden on the NHS, a Conservative health minister has suggested.

            Whatever false image of history feminists have disseminated and you may have internalized along with society, there are no limitations in the last 50 years and yet the greatest achievements remain male.. including in the “gender egalitarian paradise” of Scandinavia. Perhaps BanBossy, and it will all work out as per feminist utopia?

            Did Florence Nightingale have problems? probably. So does everyone. Its funny how you use her experiences to prop up your theories. Do you also use what she said about Women and Sympathy?

            I have read half your book thro’, and am immensely charmed by it. But some things I disagree with and more I do not understand. This does not apply to the characters, but your conclusions, e.g. you say “women are more sympathetic than men”. Now if I were to write a book out of my experience, I should begin Women have no sympathy. Yours is the tradition. Mine is the conviction of experience.

            I have never found one woman who altered her life by one iota for me or my opinions. Now just look at the degree in which women have sympathy – as far as my experience is concerned. And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. I have lived and slept in the same bed with English Countesses and Prussian Bauerinnen. No [other woman] has ever had charge of women of the different creeds that I have had. No woman has excited “passions” among women more than I have. Yet I leave no school behind me. My doctrines have taken no hold among women…and I attribute this to a want of sympathy.

            Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream out at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving any in return, for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so…They cannot state a fact accurately to another, nor can that other attend to it accurately enough for it to become information. Now is not all this the result of want of sympathy?

          • Ann

            So are you still basically arguing that men are superior to women? Are you also suggesting that this extends to individuals like you and me?

          • Astrokid

            Have you stopped beating your dad?

          • Ann

            Firstly, I do not beat my Dad and you asking me that is like me asking if you beat your mum or your wife. Secondly, that is not an answer.

          • Aimee McGee

            Ann, you are totally missing the point.
            The MHRM supports equality of opportunity, and requires all men and women to be responsible for their own agency.
            The greatest lie we’ve been sold as women these last 50 years is we can only be fulfilled if we are mothers and career women and all round champions in our lives. True mastery of a task takes 10,000 hours deliberate practice, and you can’t split your life up and be satisfied.
            So we need to make choices and want to be career driven, either go at a slower rate of promotions or accept we need to find men who want to be the primary caregiver for those children.
            It’s not rocket science. And as a woman who has chosen no children, but also is entering a relationship with a man who will be on a caregiver path of part time work for the next 5 years until his children are grown, I have to “woman up” and be the provider

          • Ann

            I
            am against the idea that women are inferior to men physically, emotionally and
            intellectually and should be considered or treated as such. What I was talking about was being
            dubbed inferior and treated that way on the basis of sex whether you are a stay
            at home mum or a childless career woman (or a man, a stay at home father or a
            career man) …that is not just a matter of fulfillment. I know sexism exists and gendered abuses of
            women happen. I asked “So are you still basically arguing that men are
            superior to women? Are you also suggesting that this extends to individuals
            like you and me?” It was a genuine question it is not a statement and I think given the comments above a valid one. I was not commenting on what the MHRM stands for I
            was commenting on the argument above. Someone else commented on what I said and
            I didn’t ask them that question because it was clear he was not arguing that. I do see the conflict between caring for children and
            careers you mention I would draw attention to the wider political implications
            that has had for women (and men)and how that relates to sexism but that is a whole other massive can of worms.