Thanks for nothing, Betty Friedan

While this is A Voice for Men, JudgyBitch has some thoughts on things everyone seems to be terrified to tell young women. We’re certain this will infuriate a lot of gender ideologues. But after the end of this message about young women, I will have a question for JB, as well as anyone else with the guts to answer it. –DE

It’s been fifty years since Betty Friedan tore apart her home. Thanks for nothing, you whiny bitch.

Both Slate and Jezebel are running pieces today on the 50th anniversary of the publication of Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique. The book was a grenade tossed in the cultural landscape and when it detonated, it left American families shattered, women of color sidelined and the millions of children without fathers.


Good work, Betty.

In all fairness to Noreen Malone, writing at Slate, she does acknowledge that “…work doesn’t automatically put you on the road to self-actualization (as Friedan implies it does), and the degree to which it contributes to it probably waxes and wanes at different points in a person’s life. What about women (or men!) who genuinely do find the bulk, or even part, of their creative fulfillment in more traditional homemaking tasks, or at least less corporate ones, and who derive their sense of mission from helping people—even if mostly the ones related to them?”

Work doesn’t automatically put you on the road to self-actualization. When you consider the “work” women actually do, that’s a giant no shit, Sherlock.

What exactly is so fulfilling about being a secretary? Still the number one occupation women who work outside the home choose.

A rewarding life of fulfillment

A rewarding life of fulfillment

Jezebel, in an uncharacteristic recognition of reality, has noted that women still don’t achieve very much, despite 50 years of college degrees and boisterous cheerleading telling them they can do everything men can do, backwards, in heels!


The idea that we may be on the wrong track, culturally, naturally never occurs to old Jezzie. Nope. If what we have isn’t working, well then, we must need more of it! Genius. In service to this idea, they have created a “reality check” for young women. I’ll give you the summary:

Teach girls to angrily blame others for their choices, emphasis on anger

Force them into STEM fields, against their curiously stubborn lack of interest in those fields

Teach them to be sluts and just call it “sexuality”

Teach them to be activists in supporting important causes like “slutwalks”

Teach them to put their own inflated sense of ability and worth at the center of their life narrative

Force them into creative fields (I thought we wanted STEM?)

Teach them a sense of entitlement to leadership

Teach them to choose only the choices preapproved by Feminist White Ladies™

Wow. Gee, I sure hope my daughters grow up to be feminists. Sounds like a world of happiness, right there.

A horrific subjugation by The Patriarchy

A horrific subjugation by The Patriarchy

To celebrate the 50th anniversary of the worst book every written for women, I’d like to offer my own “reality check” for girls and women.

Let’s start by teaching young women to calm the fuck down. There is no conspiracy/patriarchy designed to enslave you in the kitchen wearing nothing but an apron and Chanel No.5 (although that sounds like fun).

Feminism, by and large, has confused two separate ideas: patrilineage and aristocracy. Patrilineage is simply the custom of having children bear their father’s surname. When a family unit is formed, the family shares a single surname and in our culture, that surname belongs to the father. It says nothing about the personalities or the quality of the relationship between the two individuals who have formed the partnership.

It always makes me laugh to hear women say “I kept my own name.” Uhm. No you didn’t. You kept your father’s name, or if you are the product of a single mother, you kept your grandfather’s name. That’s just how we roll. Our names come from our fathers. Get over it.


The word “patriarchy” is thrown around by feminists to describe this mythical place wherein all women were oppressed and exploited by all men, who had all the rights and privileges of both citizenship and sex.


Most men had no rights or privileges of any kind. They were just as oppressed and exploited as women. By whom?

By an aristocracy of both MEN AND WOMEN. Queens Victoria and Elizabeth are the longest reigning sovereigns in the written history of the world, and neither of them took any particular interest in the plight of the working class, unless forced to by the circumstances of history.

Queen of the largest Empire in history, that made it a matriarchy right?

The last men in England, for example, did not win the franchise until 1885. One generation later, women secured to right to vote, too. Until then, almost all men and women were peasants slaving on lands owned by a ruling elite.

Wait, men didn't do this?

You want to hate something? Hate the crown. The rich (both men and women) are the ones who oppress and exploit, and confusing “rich” with “men” misdirects our anger and our strategies for redress.


Let’s teach young women that their interests and proclivities are often dramatically different than men’s–and that’s okay. It’s okay to let men dominate in STEM fields, where they continue to discover and invent technologies and tools that astonish us and transform our world. Forcing women into these fields against their natural instincts or abilities is only going to slow that rate of discovery. Women who want to be there should be (as they have been for centuries)…

Herschel Caroline, 19th Century scientist

Herschel Caroline, 19th Century astronomer

…just as men who want to be first grade teachers should be (and have been for a long time).

A 19th century children's teacher

A 19th century children’s teacher

Let’s tell young women the truth about their sexuality, and their fertility. Most women will want to have children. That’s the instinct that keeps us alive as a species, and all the iPhones and Pinterest boards in the world isn’t going to change that. And most women will not only want to have children, they will want to be with them. Women’s fertility peaks at 25 #sorry feminists. After 35, you are on a long, painful road to Clomid and IVF and after 40, the deal is pretty much done. You will not be having any children without a great deal of difficulty (and maybe not even then).

Not the end of the world, but be aware that it's a choice you make

Not the end of the world, but be aware that it’s a choice you make

We need to teach young women to respect their fertility and to plan their lives around that. Biology. Always. Wins. Heading off to college and trying to launch a “career” (most likely as a secretary) during peak fertile years is a recipe for total disaster, as global birth rates in the feminized world demonstrate.

part of life

part of life

The best possible scenario to raise children is a nuclear family (two parents, gay or straight) splitting responsibilities and sharing labor and with help from family and friends. Since women feed babies, that means that the domestic labor is hers, and productive, economic labor often falls to her partner, unless you’re really willing to plan out how to do it different, and respect that choice with a man who wants to do it different with you.

All of that strongly implies monogamy and fidelity. Teaching women that acting like sluts and having sex with a lot of different men outside the bonds of a loving relationship (whether that results in marriage or not) is somehow empowering and evidence for their strength and independence has had devastatingly predictable outcomes for young women: cutting, drug addictions, depression, eating disorders, suicide.

Feminism tells young women pernicious lies about their own desires: most women want loving, stable relationships with men they care about and feel deeply connected to, and they will want to have children and raise those children in the context of that sort of relationship. Young women need to be encouraged to make the kind of choices that will allow them to fulfil those desires.

Let’s teach young women that there is a difference between what you WANT to do, and what you are ABLE to do. This is toddler-ville, people! No, you can’t be anything you want. How does this even seem like a sensible thing to tell anyone?

image from flickr upload bot on wikimedia commons

image from flickr upload bot on wikimedia commons

True story: When my LittleDude was three years old, he got a pair of Superman pajamas with a little cape and he was soooooo excited. He stripped down and could barely hold still while I helped him don his new suit, then he climbed up on the back of the couch and flung himself down on the hardwood floor! It was a nasty landing. Poor little guy. I picked him up, sobbing, and he said to me, “Mommy, these don’t work!”

He really, really, really wanted to fly. He could not have wanted it more.

Guess what? He can’t.

Teaching young women that they can be firefighters or astronauts or combat soldiers or the President or a unicorn trainer when they grow up is encouraging them to ignore what they are able to do and just focus on what they want. Hey, for any women who are in fact, able, every opportunity should be open (except combat soldier), but the fact is that most of them are not capable of taking on physically demanding jobs that require enormous strength of either body, will or mind.

When we teach young women to focus on their ability rather than their desire, we encourage them to take rational stock of themselves, and we counter the cultural pressures towards self-absorption and narcissism–and shaming men who can’t give them everything. Be who you are, to be certain, but know who you are and what you can do, first and foremost.

Let’s teach young women that there is nothing wrong with being First Officer
. The USS Enterprise D has a crew complement of 1014 and only one of those people is the Captain. Most people, men and women, are not cut out for the Captain’s chair and that is just fine.


We can’t all be Captains, obviously. Teaching young women that they are not ambitious enough, that they will never be fulfilled, that their accomplishments amount to zero unless they are in the Captain’s chair does a huge disservice to all the many men and women who are happy to be crew members and gives permission for women to sneer at other women who are happy with their “lower ranks.”

(image by dave_7

image by dave_7 on Wikimedia Commons

It goes by the name “The Mommy Wars” in popular culture, and it is essentially a movement to devalue, discredit and shame women who would rather care for their own families than earn money caring for someone else’s. When the only measure of a woman’s value comes in the form of dollars earned, women who stay at home to care for their families have no value at all.

That’s nice, isn’t it? Feminism: making women feel like shit for 50 years.


And finally, let’s teach young women that they are not special. Young women need to know they are not better than men, they are not morally or ethically or legally superior to men, and we need to encourage them to start agitating for changes in the law and culture that will make those truths the reality. Let’s make young women activists? Oh hell yeah.

Insist on equal treatment before the draft board. Insist on equal custody agreements when marriages dissolve. Insist on the right to bodily integrity for both boy and girl babies. Insist on fair schooling that respects both boys and girls. Insist on equal health care and social spending. Insist on the right to raise your own children without shame.

It boils down to this:

Listen up, maggots.
You are not special.
You are not a beautiful
or unique snowflake.
You’re the same decaying
organic matter as
everybody else.

How’s that for a reality check?

Lots of love,


And now for the big question for JB, not to mention the people at Jezebel and Slate, and anyone else who’d care to take a spin at answering this: even if young women do finally begin to absorb the lesson that they are no better or more special or oppressed then men are, and that nobody can have it all and this is no more men’s fault than anyone else’s, and even if young women begin to respect men again, there remains one enormous questions: why, in the current legal and social environment, should any young man trust young women enough to commit to them and make children with them? What will today’s young women do to make young women worth the risk? Given that women file a majority of divorces in the modern world, it’s pretty clear that promises aren’t even worth the paper they’re printed on anymore. I’m certain heads will explode at this question in polite circles, and neither conservatives nor liberals will like the question much because it doesn’t involve lecturing young men to “man up. Young men have been told they’re privileged shits for 40 years now. So it has to be asked: why should men trust women anymore? -DE

About Janet Bloomfield (aka JudgyBitch)

Janet Bloomfield has an undergraduate degree in Film Theory and she has read most historical and current feminist theory. No, she doesn't need a dictionary. She was banned from Twitter for creating the hashtag #WomenAgainstFeminism, which continues to flourish without her presence. She has an MBA and a rewarding career as a wife to her husband of 15 years and a mother to their three children. She uses her spare time to bake cookies, blog at and she cares passionately about the well-being of women and girls and men and boys around the world.

Main Website
View All Posts

Support us by becoming a member

AVFM depends on readers like you to help us pay expenses related to operations and activism. If you support our mission, please subscribe today.

Join or donate

Sponsored links

  • 86

    That was a terrific argument that deserves widespread distribution.

    Thank you, JB!

  • Janet Bloomfield (aka JudgyBitch)

    Occam’s Razor: the simplest answer is usually the right one.

    Why should men trust women anymore?

    They shouldn’t.


    That’s the ugly reality, isn’t it? There is no good or compelling reason for any man to ever trust any woman, because no matter what her intentions may be, the fact is that she has the legal power to destroy her husband, take his children and his money and parade around the culture as a martyr for doing so.

    It’s like asking a slave the conditions under which he might learn to trust white people, when slavery is still legal: never.

    But therein lies the answer: we need to change the laws. Divorce and child support laws need to change to reflect the fact that fathers and mothers are equally important to children. We need progressive tax laws that benefit intact families with children, providing women with an incentive to stay married to the fathers of their children (most divorces are filed by women). Scrap the tax benefit that allows for mortgage interest payments to be deducted from income, and replace it with a family tax deduction.

    We need the culture to change, too. Divorce needs to come with shame FOR WOMEN. Men are already heaped with shame and blame when marriages fail. Let’s dish some of that out on women, too. Instead of the you-go-girl heroism that accompanies women who have destroyed their own families, they should face the Scarlet F, as in FAIL. Failing at marriage should scream out that you are immature, selfish and willing to hurt your own children.

    That’s the answer, Dean. No man should trust a woman. But they will. Because love. How fitting that this is posted on Valentine’s Day. Honestly, it’s men who are truly moved by love, aren’t they? Oh, women can love just as deeply and profoundly as any man, but it does not come with the risk a man’s love carries.

    Thank god for love. We’ll need it to get through the changes that MUST happen. Just as slavery was abolished, so too will the assumption of female supremacy in family affairs. Until then, men will suffer and children’s hearts will bleed, and from those ashes the phoenix of true equality will arise.

    It must.

    There are no other choices.

    • Heisenberg

      Feminism … “History is full of atrocities carried out in service of a moral cause …”

      ~can’t remember where I read this :)

    • Aimee McGee

      I agree, the answer is we should not be trusted.
      I hadn’t thought in terms of shame around divorce, so your post made me reflect on my own divorce experience. I felt deep shame in part because of the seriousness of how us Quakers view marriage in the first place. Also, it felt like a huge failure on my part, which while I still take some responsibility therapy did help me separate out where he also should have/could have taken some of the responsibility for the failure.
      Subsequently, my immediate family have made it massively clear that they will only acknowledge Beloved and I as a couple in the wider family once his divorce is complete. They’ve held out on any acknowledgement until recently when they accepted that 3.5 years in a two-year no faults system suggested that his ex might be making it a bit harder than is reasonable.
      We both want to marry according to the practice of Friends, but as two divorced individuals know we will have to go through a very thorough clearness process before the meeting will take such a marriage under their care.
      I also like your comment about women in STEM having always been there if they wanted. My namesake ancestress was a doctor in the 1890s. Her husbands mother was a formidable lady who had traveled as a new widow with 6 children to settle in a land halfway round the world, surviving a shipwreck and encouraging her children to develop so they contributed to the new colony – both the men and women. On my mothers side I just read the migration diary of her Gt. gt grandmother and her observations of life on ship and the first years in the colony. She was clearly both clever, well read and articulate. Those women would not consider themselves oppressed or victims. They all had children, but also satisfied ambitions and contributed.

      • John A

        Good comment, I’d add that Florence Nightingale is essential reading for some more understanding of women in STEM. She competed and worked with men in their turf on equal terms and was critical of women who asked for equality but would not do the equal work.

        Feminists must hate her with a passion – that’s why we never hear about her. If you want to dedicate your life to something then you have to give up something else, it’s that simple. People make choices, choosing one thing means rejecting others. Feminism’s lie is that women can have the safety and comfort of a woman’s life, combined with the excitement, achievement and fame of a man’s life – of course they can’t.

    • Steve_85

      And this, right here is the greatest shame in the world.

      Because even if your girl is the best in the world, the most loving and trustable person you’ve ever met… you still can’t trust her. She might say she’ll never do any of those things. She might even mean them 100%. But all it takes is one moment of weakness. One day where she’s annoyed about something else and you make a bad joke, or inappropriate comment. All it takes is one phone call (and it doesn’t even have to be her that makes it) one phone call and it is game over. Once that ball starts rolling, it doesn’t even matter if she’s on your side.

      Game Over.

      As much as you might want to trust her, as much as you might believe her when she says she isn’t like that… it doesn’t matter. Because one day, she might decide she wants to be ‘like that’ for an hour, and that’s all it takes to destroy a man.

    • 98abaile

      I take exception to the implication that only whites were slavers when it is historically proven that not only did slavery exist all over the world and was by and large not racially biased, but that white western society was in fact the very first society to reject slavery and then force that policy on the rest of the world.

    • JGteMolder

      I have to make the nitpick; that’s not Occam’s Razor: Occam’s Razor is that among options that are equally probable the simplest one is most often the right answer.

      It is a very important part; if you fail that first part, you start thinking to short and too simple. First you need to examine all the options scientifically and dismiss those that don’t fit the evidence regardless of simplicity. If you don’t this… you think too simply.

  • typhonblue

    “What exactly is so fulfilling about being a secretary?”

    What’s fulfilling about being a truck driver?

    Ironically all those grand mothers and great grandmothers domesticating men is what gave feminism its emotional resonance.

    If men hadn’t been conditioned to associate women with the provisioning of their primal needs in the domestic sphere, they would have told feminists to take a hike in the public sphere.

    • John A

      Male mid life crisis. I know some single 30 and 40 something single women in the process of achieving equality with men on this one.

      I also know a few 50 and 60 year old women. Their biggest joys are their part time jobs and their grandchildren.

      I’m 50 now, what I’d give to be able to work 30 hours or less per week and not worry too much about the pay.

  • thefeministmra


    It always makes me laugh to hear women say “I kept my own name.” Uhm. No you didn’t. You kept your father’s name, or if you are the product of a single mother, you kept your grandfather’s name. That’s just how we roll. Our names come from our fathers. Get over it.

    …I nearly died. You have won my internets for the day!

    Wonderful article. I must have recently been through the hospital, because I’m in stitches!

    • The Equalizer

      Feminist MRA, I am curious to know why you identify as a feminist, when so many of your comments debunk feminism? Excuse me if you have explained this before; I have only been on AVfm for a couple of months.

      • thefeministmra

        No problemo my good man. The short quip answer is does a Scientist have to believe in Christian Science? The long answer is being done through my blog (my totally unprofessional and completely shameless plug) because there are so many reasons why and every few days I find a new one.

  • feeriker

    Great article, JB, but my god, did you have to post Friedan’s picture? I just lost the delicious lunch I had eaten an hour earlier.

    • Ray

      Yes, another very cogent article at AVfM. Thanks JB.

  • Elly Tams

    As someone who has her mother’s surname, who gets a lot out of my work , who doesn’t have or want a romantic relationship with a man and who doesn’t really plan on ‘calming down’ either, I didn’t relate to this article from beginning to end. I’m not a feminist but I am not a biological determinist either.

    • Heisenberg

      It sounds like you’re a WGTOW. Be who you are. If you’re happy with that than that’s good enough.

      • Elly Tams

        I dont know what that is.

        • Dean Esmay

          MGTOW=men going their own way (refusing to marry or cohabit). For some it’s a philosophical/political choice, for others it’s just a way of being.

        • Bombay

          Elly: “I dont know what that is.”

          I guess some people are not innovative enough to google and look at the first page. That is OK, everyone is different and may need to adjust their expectations accordingly.

          • ManUpManDown.

            You know, she’s an ally of ours. Not sure if you knew that.

      • Steve_85

        WGTOW is actually not a thing.

        • Heisenberg

          All I was saying was that it sounds like she’s a woman with a mind of her own, who has chosen her own path. I applaud that.

        • Steve_85

          That’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with that. but the term WGTOW is an excuse, not a choice.

        • Aimee McGee

          Steve, I’m getting inspired to do a post debating whether a WGTOW can exist or not – contact me via the forum if you want to write the opposing argument

          • Steve_85

            Sure. Let me see if I can figure out how this ‘forum’ thing works.

            Although, my opinion is not that WGTOW CANNOT exist, just that it generally does not exist.

    • PHX MRA

      This piece has nothing to do with biological determinism other than to state the obvious fact that only women bear children.

      If you aren’t interested in true equality regardless of gender it comes as little surprise that you didn’t relate to it.

      • Elly Tams

        I am interested in equality. I dont think women are special. but neither do I think they are naturally more interested in relationships with men than in work, for example.

        • PHX MRA

          Then we agree on one thing. I don’t think women are special either nor do they deserve the cultural, legal and institutional advantages they now enjoy at the specific expense of men.

          If you are a career person then fine, do war in the workplace with everyone else on an equal footing and we’ll see how it goes. Unfortunately an equal footing is impossible due to preferences already in place for protected classes like women.

          The author accurately states that many women have a desire to bear children which is also true on it’s face. The fact that you don’t want to breed has nothing to do with the validity of her position.

          • scatmaster

            I don’t think women are special either nor do they deserve the cultural, legal and institutional advantages they now enjoy at the specific expense of men.

            Preach it loud and proud brother.

        • All Contraire

          “I am interested in equality. I don’t think women are special. but neither do I think they are naturally more interested in relationships with men than in work, for example.”

          “I” is fine; “they” is a huge problem. If only a few women are like yourself more interested in work than relationships with men and having children –– Fine. But if a lot of women and men come to share your view and eschew having families, then far fewer than the number of children will be born who are needed to keep an economy going. Sooner than you think, that steep demographic downturn is going to affect you in that the resulting rapidly falling wealth creation will undercut your job. So biologic determinism –– if you mean Mother Nature –– had best still operate. It’s certainly better if, in spite of Marxist-feminism, both men and women continue to sincerely want to marry and raise families, because it is still essential.

        • Stu

          Actually Elly, that statement just went by me, and I just thought, yeah, sounds right. But then, for some reason while I browsing this thread again, it stuck out as wrong. And I’ll tell you why. The word NATURALLY.

          I don’t think women are any more interested in relationships with men then they are in work, in this world… this artificial world. In the natural world, yes, I believe few women would be as interested in work as they are in a relationship with a man.

          In fact, the more of a natural world we live in, the obsessed a woman would be with securing a relationship with a man.

          Woman are less interested in relationships now, and more interested in work then before, because the nature of work has changed. Jobs ain’t what they used to be. But this is an unnatural environment.

          For example. A woman now, may well choose to be a secretary instead of a full time housewife and mother. But she is choosing to drive an air conditioned car to work, to her air conditioned office, which is full of computers, and ergo furniture, and high standards of health and safety.

          But would she still choose that if she had to ride a horse to work, or hook up a horse and cart. And when she got they, freezing maybe, and wet maybe, sit on a hard wooden chair, in freezing building, with ink well and feather pen, with no mod cons. Where documents were ruined if you made a mistake, with either pen, or big clunky manual typewriter. Where a typo meant re-writing the entire document, and many typos meant getting fired.

          Where any sort of incompetence was usually met with…..the sack…not counseling, or training programs.

          As for working the fields, the mines, the factories etc, I’m sure they are all jobs women would have rather married the elephant man to avoid.

      • Wendy

        I don’t think JudgyBitch is too terribly concerned with “true” equality regardless of gender. She’s a traditionalist, correct?

        • Wendy

          Okay, I had written that comment, thought it didn’t even remotely say what I wanted it to, but then discovered I wasn’t sure how to say what I meant, decided to exit the window by going backward, and I don’t know what happened, but this comment is here. Ignore it please. I swear, I have a poltergeist in my computer.

          • Stu

            Chicken. bok bok bok bok :)

          • Wendy

            @ Stu. Yeah. . . pretty much. :X

    • ManUpManDown.

      As a male MRA, I’m totally with you Elly. I am no traditionalist and I don’t think it’s in the interests of other MRAs to be either. My wife has a prestigious career and is awesome at what she does. One more chip in determinism.

      • Stu

        Now all you have to do is remove her power over you, and you will have a truly equal relationship. As for your power over her… ain’t got none.

    • Aimee McGee

      Hi Elly, I have mixed feelings on this, in part because of a recent surprise finding that lots of my efforts to avoid pregnancy over the last 25 odd years were probably unnecessary as I probably would not have been able to carry to term without serious intervention.
      Would I have maintained my career trajectory if I had had children? Probably not, unless it had been with a man who wished to be the primary caregiver for a large chunk of our child’s childhood. Would I have minded? Yes, if it was an assumption that I WOULD be the primary caregiver, rather than a shared decision. Yes, other people can and do use childcare – knowing what I know about the kind of quirky that runs in my family, I’m not convinced long nursery hours would suit a hypothetical child of mine.
      I guess what I take from JBs article is let people chose their own path and don’t undervalue different choices

      • Elly Tams

        Hello aimee
        well some men resent having to work and not be the main care giver when they have kids, because of the way the dice falls. paternity leave is ridiculously short in most countries for example (if it exists at all).

        I just didn’t find this piece very inspiring, reading it imagining being a young woman. In fact in parts it was dispiriting. maybe that’s the point – that the messages to young men are often negative. But we don’t want to make up for that by doing the same to girls do we?

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)

      Yes biological determinism (essentialism) is always a worry – no matter which camp espouses it. Even after reading the well-crafted arguments of Moxon I’m left cold by his frequent reductions to essentialist biological determinism.

      However there is much in JBs essay that transcends biological determinism, even if there a few reductionistic points made (I’ll get to them shortly).

      Elly T: “I didn’t relate to this article from beginning to end.”

      None of it? There’s a lot of baby in that biologically deterministic and borderline traditionalist bathwater. Take for intance the sociological emphases JB promotes: eg. social damage of Friedan’s ideologies; the question of feminist social engineering working against female agency; social priviledges of males and females – and lack thereof; occupational choice and merit; social exploitation of men and women; feminist conflation of patrilineage and aristocracy; the need to align with the reality principle (eg the example of her son hitting the ground), and so on.

      Can’t relate to any of that?

      On the other hand the article does promote some reductionist assumptions, eg. that wanting children is an “instinct”; forcing women into certain occupations is against “instinct”; women must be told to plan thier lives around fertility; that biology always “wins” (tell that to the next anorexic or suicide cult you meet); that heading off to college and trying to launch a “career” during peak fertile years is a recipe for disaster; “since women feed babies, that means that the domestic labor is hers”; that having sex outside a loving relationship leads to cutting, drug addictions, depression, eating disorders, and suicide, etc.

      All considered I found plenty to appreciate in the article, including her always refreshing in-your-face delivery. 😉

      • Elly Tams

        yes but I said I haven’t experienced ‘patrilege’ I have my Mum’s surname.

        • Peter Wright (Tawil)

          So thats the bit that got personal for you and made you dismiss the lot?

        • @thanatos Nyx

          And having the last name of a man is an issue why? My family has a tradition of hyphenated last names which tends to work out well besides my personal quirk of rather not having my bio mother’s last name on government documents. She never raised me and is an awful mother but that is besides my point…. My one last name denotes my french heritage and the other my british heritage which I am not ashamed of.

          In any case there’s a heritage to names and why should that heritage be shaming because it was traditional the name passed down was the male’s last name? It just worked out that way and since a person can choose to change their last name to whatever they want as long as it is appropriate… It’s a non issue.

        • gwallan

          Which means it’s your maternal grandfather’s name.

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          Unless Mum legally renamed herself Sunshine Starship, and you are little Elly Starship, you have GRAMPA’S surname, Elly.

          That violent, rapist old patriarchy wielding codger’s surname.

          Deal with it.

      • Astrokid

        It appears to me that JB has taken ample care to talk in generalizations and not universal statements. for e.g
        Let’s teach young women that their interests and proclivities are often dramatically different than men’s–and that’s okay…Women who want to be there should be (as they have been for centuries)…

        I dont know how else she could have worded it without triggering reductionism alarms.
        Coz these very concepts are at the heart of Baumeister’s theory of equal-but-different-due-to-tradeoffs, and even the oft-mentioned Catherine Hakim’s preference theory which claims that only 20% of women are work-grounded like most men are, 20% are home-grounded and the middle 60% are a mix.

      • externalangst

        Feminist ‘essentialism’ to my mind is not so much biological determinism as it is concocted to derive ‘moral superiority’ from the practice of bearing children. It’s the ‘practice’ of having children (and/or other feminine things) that gives rise to this superior morality – not the biophysical capability of such things.

        It is a way for feminists to claim a kind of innate ethical superiority for females whilst also giving a nod to the ‘social constructivism’ so firmly established in the academy. It is set up to grant moral superiority for women who no longer claim to be purely socially constructed in the Patriarchy.

        It’s the standard ‘have your cake and eat it too’ that feminists have become so accustomed to. IMHO, ‘essentialism’ is as contrived as ‘social constructivism’. A feminist can then continue to claim ‘women good, men bad’ in a socially constructed (not sexist) post-patriarchal matriarchy.

    • Janet Bloomfield (aka JudgyBitch)

      And where did your mother get her surname?

      From her FATHER, perhaps?

      You have your grandfather’s name. But your name belongs to a man. Make no mistake.

      • Peter Wright (Tawil)

        Ouch, drive that nail deeper! Lol

        It appears you have hit a nerve here, not just for Elly but perhaps for all women who imagine they are taking on their mother’s name.

        I don’t begrudge someone the fantasy (or “experience” and Elly calls it) that a mother’s maiden or last name belongs to no man. That fantasy is just as important to the person’s mental schemas as the fact of where the name comes from – which is usually from a man as you point out.

        Amazing how such a small thing can be laden with such profound weight… which is prob why mine and Elly’s comments above received mysterious downvotes. Go figure!

        • scatmaster

          Well Tams probably down voted you. I down voted her surname comment which JB explained in her piece and her reply to Tams.

          I told my wife to keep her surname if she so desired as mine was one that invited scorn and derision as a youngster. She was the one who reminded me that her surname was her fathers who was an abusive womanizing drunk and she could not wait to get rid of it.
          You take the good with the bad. My nieces are proud to carry their PHD fathers name. Two of them are Rhode Scholars and one is a cryptographer with the federal government. Tams knows her surname is a man’s. She needn’t of tried to deflect the point as if she was talking to children and thinking it would go over our heads.

          • Peter Wright (Tawil)

            “Well Tams probably down voted you.”

            Yep, I considered that might have been what happened. I also understand the reasons you downvoted her comment. Further, the emotional reaction to the surname and the biological determinism issue was a little far reaching when she claimed, “I didn’t relate to this article from beginning to end.”

            It doesn’t exactly instill confidence to observe Elly’s reluctance to discuss these things, in particular her emotional reactions to them. Hopefully she will elaborate.

          • Dean Esmay

            While it’s commonly asserted that a woman somehow loses her identity when she takes on a man’s surname, I view it as just as valid as saying a man loses part of his identity by having to share it. Historically that was actually true, as once a woman was married to a man, he had an absolute legal obligation to support her, all his property was effectively hers (if not in name then in practice) but she could often hold her own property separately under no obligation to him at all.

            Even the traditional practice of a dowry was because it was assumed that marrying a woman was a burden on a man and he needed a dowry to be able to afford to keep her in a certain minimum level of comfort, and would be a failure as a husband if he did not.

          • Bombay

            My X, in addition to bonding to my assets, bonded to my name. She took it, kept it and still has it 15 years after the divorce. This woman does not give anything back once she gets it…..

    • Stephen O’Brian

      So you got your Mother’s Surname.
      Your mother’s surname is still in fact your Grandfather’s surname. The sur in the word surname coming from the verb to sire. Duh!
      So you get a lot out of your work.
      Whoopdeedoo again.
      The fact is many women who are home makers get a tremendous amount of pleasure from their work.
      That was a central point in Janet’s article.
      On those two points for someone who says she isn’t a feminist, you sure sound awfully like many feminists I’ve met.

    • Dean Esmay

      I’m probably somewhere right between you and JB.

      I’m not a biological determinist either, and I think neuroplasticity is important to remember. That said, I strongly suspect that the majority of women would very much like to be mothers. Some don’t, and that’s OK.

      For example, let us say that women are twice as likely to want to be psychologists as men, and men twice as likely to want to be engineers as women. Is that all culture? I doubt it. The danger would be in telling anyone that no man can be a psychologist and no woman can be an engineer, or in telling anyone they must do something because it’s their prescribed role.

      One area where I do agree biology is a major issue where we’ve given women a wrong message though: if you do wish to be a mother, you really should not be waiting until your mid to late 30s to do it. Yet that seems to be the message we’ve sold women, to do exactly that. THere’s a huge host of reasons that medical science may one day overcome but that right now make that a very poor choice.

      Still, if one chooses “I don’t want motherhood” then that’s fine. Also, “I want motherhood but I don’t want to be a stay-at-home” seems OK to me but you’d best be prepared to do it with a partner who WILL take on that primary caregiver role or you’re not being very good to the child. Or if you can arrange it so it’s equal between partners, fine. The point is, making choices, and owning your choices.

      • Bombay

        “THere’s a huge host of reasons that medical science may one day overcome but that right now make that a very poor choice.”

        Why should others foot the bill, if a woman waits beyond their “season” to try to have a baby? It was a choice they made. Correct me if I am wrong – insurance does cover such intervention. Another example of choices that others pay for.

      • Rick Westlake

        I’m ashamed to say it, but I got halfway through your argument when Peggy Seeger’s ‘Gonna Be An Engineer’ started going through my head …

        (AAARRRGHHHH! Make it stop!)

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      Well, yes – but you mother has her name from her father. So the argument provided by JudgyBitch still stands.

    • JinnBottle

      You sound like you’re independent, career-oriented, wild, free and in need of nothing from men.

      What are you doing here?

      • Steve_85

        I was wondering that myself. I’m not suggesting she should leave, I’m just wondering… why?

        • feeriker

          ManUpManDown said:

          You know, [Elly]’s an ally of ours. Not sure if you knew that.

          Very strange viewpoints to come from an “ally” of the MHRM. But I guess it takes all kinds…

      • Ricardo

        Do you not read her materials? She views feminist ideology as hateful and wrong and she cares about men. Does one need another reason? The last I have read, no one here has to agree with everything here. I see things here I disagree with every day, so what?

  • Heisenberg

    Stop! No More! Too much truth!

    Spot on … very well done. That should be required reading for a course on how FTSU!

  • greg

    Thank you JB.

    Men should not trust Women. They’ve already been given the “Keys to the Kingdom.” The Perfect Weapon to Destroy a Man(Children as well) with Impunity.


    There is No Repercussion.

    Want the House, Car, Children, Dad Alienated,and a Very Favorable Divorce Settlement??? Falsely Accuse Him of, oh let me think for a second….

    Sexual Assault/Rape
    Child Abuse
    Child Molestation(Of Course You Were Married to a Pedophile)

    You Want Your Bosses Job??

    Falsely Accuse Him of Sexual Harassment.

    All Men in Today’s American Society Have Bullseyes Painted on Them. They may as well take a Gun and Shoot off Both Their Feet. They are already Crippled, and just don’t know it.

    I’m an Alienated Dad(since 2008), and I’m going to Teach My Sons to Never Marry. Don’t Buy into the Myth/Propaganda.

    Your going to be Intimate with a Female?? Have Her Sign a Release Stating that She Will be Enthusiastically Consenting for the Entire Duration of the Encounter.

    Aside from that, Go Your Own Way. It’s Not Worth the Risk.

    Tragic…. But True

    • feeriker

      Your going to be Intimate with a Female?? Have Her Sign a Release Stating that She Will be Enthusiastically Consenting for the Entire Duration of the Encounter.

      I strongly suspect that even if you did that and had the document witnessed and notarized, no court of law would uphold it. Pre-nups, for example, are touted by many family law attorneys as legally-binding documents, but ask any ten men at random who’ve had them drawn up and signed by their wives, according to recognized legal procedure, only to have them unilaterally nullified by the divorce courts later on. IOW, no legally binding document that calls a woman to account for her behavior is ever likely to survive a court challenge.

  • Obaoill

    All I have to say is hear hear

  • Clem Burke

    When I was a boy ,she was some what of a big name, and that was the first time I ever saw a really ugly woman. I did not even know what to think. I thought it was Milton Berle in Drag again. (Not kidding )

    • The Equalizer

      Clem, I salute your humour and also, if I may say, your contribution to one of the best pop groups of all time.

      If indeed you are *that* Clem Burke 😀

      If you are, it is great to have someone high-profile onside. And if you are another Clem Burke, it is still great to have you anyway!

    • feeriker

      If you’re talking about Friedan here, you owe the memory of Milton Berle a very strong apology.

  • AntZ

    “Insist on equal treatment before the draft board. Insist on equal custody agreements when marriages dissolve. Insist on the right to bodily integrity for both boy and girl babies. Insist on fair schooling that respects both boys and girls. Insist on equal health care and social spending. Insist on the right to raise your own children without shame.”

    Beautiful words.

    • feeriker

      Beautiful words indeed – that are like kryptonite to Superman or salt to the flesh of a snail. We’re about as likely to see these reforms come about as we are to see Richard Dawkins become the next pope.

  • @thanatos Nyx

    You forgot one. The acknowledging that one does not need to have a job in academics or sciences to have a happy, successful job. This can be an extension of the points on not everyone being a captain and that people will have different interests. But there seems to be an assumption that people cannot be happy in skill trades.

    I think one of my favorite things society does but does not acknowledge is the “Skill trades are the lowest of the low jobs”. As someone in university I have recently sort of realized that as much as I like reading… I am not a person made for the scholar’s work of finding five different studies and summarize them in a paper for money. I want to do something with my hands.

    As a Canadian I was only half heartedly encouraged to do so because in high school I tried a class directed at those working in the skill trade. Nobody wants to be in skill trades nowadays so skill trades get a lot of money. It didn’t sink in until I looked at what I was learning and realized… Fuck sexuality studies and sociology. I want to be a mortician.

    What I have been met with when I tell people this? “Oh it’s a required job…” all the way down to “What?!! Why would you want to do that?!!” University degrees don’t matter anyways for most jobs… It’s just a standard requirement as a stand in for “I learned how to learn dogma”. Why not try for empowerment of those who hold society together? Why can’t I want to be a mortician because I also have a passion for it?

    But they won’t because this is an extension of the need to have females in higher pay flexible jobs for “empowerment” and males to have those high up jobs for marriageability. And so apparently the immigrants are supposed to cover the cracks. That is someday not going to work but don’t tell the Canadian government that or maybe they’ll have to stop ignoring it.

    • Rick Westlake

      One of the remarkable things about Society is how, over the past forty or fifty years, we’ve managed to make every job short of ditch-digger, waitress, plumber or prostitute into one that requires a college degree!

      I got into the Federal government without a BA in BS — as a ‘technical aide,’ targeted to become a ‘cartographic technician.’ Two years after I came aboard as a GS-2, the Powers That Be pronounced that all new hires would have a college degree and they’d come aboard at a GS-5 as ‘Cartographers,’ even if they had ‘a BA in BS.’ My lack of a degree held me back for a while, until my pilot’s-license experience (FAA Airman, Private, Single Engine Land, Instrument Airplane) combined with a special requirement that I ‘might be able’ to accomplish, turned me into the first Aeronautical Data Analyst CARTOGRAPHER at Defense Mapping Agency Topographic Center.

      Cut to the chase – when I retired it took four college-grad ‘experts’ to properly take over the work I was doing, two each in two widely-separated workplaces. And that doesn’t even include the international work I’d been doing, teaching aeronautical-data-analysis and aeronautical cartography to ICAO-member nations’ mapping agencies, that my Agency dropped before I retired.

      Yeah, go ahead and put yourself in debt, ladies, and get your degrees in Useless Studies. I just hope that Society will require you to pay back that debt


      “Why not try for empowerment of those who hold society together?”

      The John Galts…

      • Stephen O’Brian

        Funny you should say that. Yesterday I watched the movie “Atlas Shrugged”.

  • Hf
  • Ray

    And the more women complain about the shortage of good men, the less good men will want to be with them – but that’s gender feminism’s plan all along isn’t it?

    If men and women are ever able to come out the other side of the vile social experiment known as gender feminism, both men and women will find themselves (in many ways) in the same circumstances as when gender feminism began. Hopefully both sexes will have a few more freedoms to make choices in life, but the laws of biology and other laws of nature will not have changed that much – if any.

    Generations of unhappy men, women, and children (enduring monumental suffering at the hands of a vile, disingenuous ideology) is a terrible price to pay for allowing spoiled, psycho-nut-case gender feminists to play the goose-stepping, master sex.

  • Clem Burke

    I was just reading that Mz Friedan was a bit homophobic.

  • Alphabeta Supe

    Betty Friedan looks like my grandfather’s bulldog before he died. Come to think of it she looks like him too.

    How very odd.

  • knightrunner

    I absolutely love your style. You tell it like it is and don’t give a fuck who likes it and who doesn’t. Your my kind of pitch. Great article.
    Dean, to answer your question, men shouldn’t trust them. A person who is taught to value themselves and their wants over everyone else is incapable of being trustworthy. If that makes me a misogynist……oh well. You can’t trust someone that doesn’t see you as an equal. Women do not see men as their equal. What is a promise to something that is less than human? Feminism has taught generations of women that their wants is important than their word. That men are less than human and therefore its ok to treat them like shit.

  • Mark Trueblood

    My understanding is that late in life Friedan made some concessions that maybe (just maybe) the movement had gone too far and maybe men and boys deserved compassion too.

    This was obviously ignored and swept under the carpet by the movement.

    • Dean Esmay

      She did.

      She was also thrown out of the organization she founded, NOW, in part because of some of her recanting. And she didn’t even recant all that much. Then again she’d never claimed quite as much as some of her “sisters” either.

      • Mark Trueblood

        Thanks for clearing that up. Funny how we are told NAFALT yet every NAFALT ends up getting thrown under a bus.

  • amlorusso

    An excellent article except for this:

    “Teaching young women that they can be firefighters or astronauts or combat soldiers or the President or a unicorn trainer when they grow up is encouraging them to ignore what they are able to do and just focus on what they want.”

    There is nothing inherent to these jobs that a female cannot do, they are doing them at the moment (and not just because of favoritism) and focusing on what you want out of life is precisely what should be encouraged (without completely ignoring reality). But the reality of if someone is capable of something is individual not generic. Your analogy of not being able to fly is weak, for that is currently an impossibility not a hindrance, no amount of willing or effort would have had your boy flying (i hope he wasn’t hurt too badly from his fall), but for most people their biggest realistic limitation is not their biology or physics, but their mind and their environment.

    If your point is that there is an culture of encouragement that is ignoring reality in favor of ideology that I would agree is wrong.

    • Janet Bloomfield (aka JudgyBitch)

      Hey, for any women who are in fact, able, every opportunity should be open (except combat soldier), but the fact is that most of them are not capable of taking on physically demanding jobs that require enormous strength of either body, will or mind.

      I think I covered that in the very next sentence, amlorusso.

      If you are ABLE, go for it. All I ask is that EVERYONE take stock what they can and can not do, and put what they “want” into that frame of reference.

      • Tony Lorusso

        Okay I’ll cede that. Given this was “President” a non-serious remark like unicorn trainer?

      • Steve_85

        Want in one hand, shit in the other. See which one fills up faster.

        Just because you WANT something, that doesn’t make you any more likely to be ABLE to do it.

    • Kimski

      Your comeback is just as weak, but I’ll be expecting you to volunteer as the next soldier being wounded in a combat situation, who has to be carried out of a crossfire by a 100 pound delusional female sparrow.
      You know, just to prove your point, okay?

      ‘Cause I sure as hell won’t, and that goes for a female firefighter and a burning building too.

  • Kimski

    Thanks, JB.

    Not much to disagree with from my point of view, so I’m just going to stick with one of my usual snarky remarks:

    I wish someone would make an article about the connection between radical feminists and their looks. There’s a more than obvious connection there, IMO. I have no problem imagining that some desired guy told them off, or broke their heart at a young age, and they’re taking those feelings of resentment out on men in general. The fact that many of them identify as lesbians is very telling and basically reveals a non-existing sex life, on which they base their claims of intercourse being rape in any form.

    “If I can’t have it, nobody should!” seems to be the general direction they’re heading in, without exceptions.

    Betty Friedan portrays a bulldog very well here, and likewise Andrea Dworkin as a walrus, including the huge moustache. Looks like Disney took the day off, and decided to drop some really bad acid, when the radical feminists came off the drawing board.

    • feeriker

      I wish someone would make an article about the connection between radical feminists and their looks.

      There definitely seems to be some sort of correlation between the two. While it’s tempting to naturally and reflexively dismiss this as shallow and petty, I would ask anyone to find a photograph of a conclave of radfems and count the number among them who would be considered “attractive” to the average man, even by the most generously distorted definition of that term. I suspect that the number would be in the very low end of the single-digit range, if you could even find that many.

      • Kimski

        I don’t really care if it’s shallow and petty, ’cause from what I’ve seen over the years, there’s absolutely a connection between the two. The more unattractive and disgusting they are, the more hateful in general they come across. Other women are by far any exception to this rule.
        And from my point of view, it also explains a whole lot of things when it comes to their rhetorics. It is mostly based on a distorted sense of reality and understanding of males, rather than anything substantial that you can apply to ALL men.
        Besides that, my thesis from last comment fits right in with the meme of a woman scorned, and so on and so forth. Some male once hurt the poor wittle darlings’ *feewings*, and once they get in a position of power all men must pay. Preferably the ultimate price, as far as I can see.

  • Stephen O’Brian

    Superb article Janet.
    And another fine example of the kind of thinking that will challenge many other women to get off the political fence and roll their sleeves up in compassionate support of men and boys rather than just mouthing off pseudo supportive words.
    There’s only one thing in the article I struggle with.
    You mention that children are best served to be in a family with two adults as parents – either a heterosexual couple or homosexual couple.
    My understanding of things from what I’ve read about such matters is that it’s a bit more complex than that. Research I’ve come across suggests children are best served in an intact heterosexual family, with a biological Mom and a Dad in other words.
    When Mom gets divorced and/or is shacking up with a boyfriend not so well served.
    Same goes for lesbian couples who are said to have higher rates of domestic violence than heterosexual couples. Then there’s the fact that when children are in a family with two homosexual parents they don’t get a balance of male-female energy. Given the paucity of male teachers in early education and increasing numbers of Men Going Their Own Way it’s difficult enough for kids to get male nurturing these days without encouraging lesbian couples as being on par with heterosexual couples when it comes to child rearing.
    This last point is perhaps well illustrated by an encounter I had with the 7 year old daughter of a lesbian couple I knew. Upon meeting the daughter I couldn’t help but notice her stiff cold attitude towards me. Then I noticed the fridge in the kitchen I was standing in – festooned with fridge magnets and stickers with proclamations about men’s violence and take back the night anti-rape etc placed there by her Mom. That’s not to say that lesbianism automatically leads to lack of compassion towards men, but given how much lesbianism has been politicized as feminist I think there’s a distinct risk of having two gynocentric parents.
    Your thoughts?

    • Janet Bloomfield (aka JudgyBitch)

      I’m a huge supporter of homosexual couples adopting/creating children for two reasons:

      One, it’s a powerful antidote to the “Cinderella Effect”, whereby stepchildren are sacrificed in favor of genetically closer offspring.

      Two, custody disputes between homosexual couples offer the best legal precedents for transforming family law. When it’s mommy versus daddy, mommy tends to win, no matter what kind of shit mommy she is. But when it’s mommy versus mommy? That will call for some objective standards to determine who is the better parent.

      I really think homosexual custody disputes herald the future of family law.

      Will the children of these families suffer? Do they already? Undoubtedly. But no more so than the millions of children being raised without their fathers, thanks to family court rulings.

      There is no way around that. I wish there were. I hate to think of children hurting. But they are ALREADY hurting.

      The battle will be ugly and the causalities will be innocent children. That’s war. And this isn’t called a “gender war” for nothing. Gloves are off. Bayonets are fixed. Gay parents and their children are allies.

      Let’s use them wisely.

      • Stephen O’Brian

        I really don’t see how any judge’s bearing on a divorce and custody settlement for homosexual couples is going to have any bearing at all on how those judges deal with a divorce and custody settlement for a heterosexual couple. In my view the judge is still likely to deal out the same old white knight crap and treat the woman in the heterosexual relationship more favorably than the man.

        You mention homosexual couples creating children.
        What a strange idea! Was that a typo error?
        If not, then I’m not sure what you’re driving at, as it’s an impossibility! And I still think there’s the issue of providing a male-female balance of nurturance for the kids. As I tried to explain before, in a society where many kids don’t get to see an adult male role model until they’re in their teens because of the widespread institutionalized fatherlessness and the dearth of male early education school teachers I wouldn’t be in any great rush to endorse lesbian couple families, however great they are as parents.

        • August Løvenskiolds

          There has already been successful research into ovum-ovum fusion to create a viable pregnancy. Lots of man-tech, of course, but a possible starting avenue for female couples to reproduce without direct male sperm.

          Likewise, certain cloning and clone-ish tech can remove women from the reproductive equation entirely. There are documented cases of non-womb, “abdominal wall” pregnancies carried successfully to term. Men have abdominal walls just like women, so there is no theoretical barrier to men gestating babies, either.

          Now we can have a gender cold war about this, and may the best, er, smartest man win (heh), OR, we can commit ourselves to destroying ideologies that call for gender enslavement/destruction.

          • Never Blue Again

            Creating offspring from two fathers already done.


            And since males have both X & Y chromosome so, it is possible to create both male and female from two father.

            But from two mothers it is only possible to create female offspring. No male offspring.

            Hmm… Somehow we heard, “women are the complete form of human species… and men tries throughout their life to complete themselves to be more like women …. !!” Damn… ! 😯

            And the artificial womb technology is going to be available in the market in near future. (maybe 20 yrs. And that’s like a damn century in the current pace of technological revolution…. !)


            So we don’t need women to carry the fetus anymore. :mrgreen:

            Women always wanted to be free of all the burden “evil oppressive patriarchy society” put on them. How can we not listen to our women …. ??

            Already removed all the burden society and men put upon them … (Just don’t know what those were … !!)

            Now it is time to free them form the most basic burden put on them by the fu**ing patriarchic mother-nature … 😈

        • JGteMolder

          True, however, now the law is on those white knight judges’ side. If the law is rewritten and not just for child custody, but also alimony and child support, especially if barest minimum demands are put into law, they will be hard-pressed to push their white knightery to the same levels as it is now.

      • feeriker

        Two, custody disputes between homosexual couples offer the best legal precedents for transforming family law. When it’s mommy versus daddy, mommy tends to win, no matter what kind of shit mommy she is. But when it’s mommy versus mommy? That will call for some objective standards to determine who is the better parent.

        I really think homosexual custody disputes herald the future of family law.

        I see your point here, JB, but I have serious doubts that even once such a precedent is set that the law would be applied equitably to heterosexual couples, given the terminal corruption of what now passes for “the law” in most of the western world.

        Just because “daddy” in a homosexual divorce case, whoever that might be in a given relationship of that nature, gets custody of the kids following a split does not necessarily mean that the courts will consistently award the same merit-based verdict when it comes to adjudicating comparable cases between divorcing heterosexual couples. As we’ve seen in all too many cases here in the U.S., even those having nothing to do with family law, especially cases that are decided on appeal, precedent that favors either the continued power of the State Itself or some politically favored special interest/victim group useful to the Almighty State will always be applied, regardless of the specifics or merits of the case. In this case that would mean the same reflexive bias toward the mother, regardless of her custodial abilities or merits.

        Bottom line: unless “society” (god, I HATE that meaningless term!) changes its attitude completely, and unless the law changes concurrently with this attitude adjustment, I just can’t be optimistic that anything will change in the foreseeable future. I certainly hope I’m wrong, but the signs so far don’t seem at all encouraging.

        • Stephen O’Brian

          Thanks feeriker,
          You spell out exactly the point I was trying to get across to JB. I expect that when heterosexual couples separate and come before judges the men will continue to get screwed by the judges regardless of how those judges treat gay couples who separate.

          In the meantime until there are changes in laws and the way those laws are interpreted by judges to make things equitable for heterosexual men I see it’s business as usual.
          I therefore think there’s an uncomfortable fact that even MRA women like JB who are in heterosexual relationships have to live with – their hubbies are one misguided short phone call away from being the victim of a false accusation and having their lives destroyed.
          JB is incredibly fortunate to have a man who will live under the same roof as her in such circumstances. Personally I couldn’t do it. I know many other men of a similar attitude. I’d be walking on eggshells and looking over my shoulder all the time if I was in her fella’s shoes. Not my idea of a good place to be, so it’s MGTOW for me until laws and social conventions reflect my full worth as a human being.

          I reckon the standout comment in this whole thread, indeed the most powerful short comment I’ve seen at AVFM in a long time is –

          ” Dean, no man should trust any woman until the laws stop inviting women to become untrustworthy.”

          That one short statement speaks volumes to me.

          Thanks indeed Betty Unfreedmen.

    • JGteMolder

      There’s a good chance those “lesbians” aren’t even “lesbians”.

      A staunch feminist heterosexual couple can have the exact same stickers and teachings on their fridge.

      Indeed, genuine lesbians look at women about the same as men do; there’s a good shot they have male friends with which they grade girls. There’s no reason to believe that lesbians equals anti-male teachings.

      If anti-male feminism is the problem; feminists should be banned from raising children, not homosexual ones.

      However, it is interesting to note your incomplete knowledge, and speculate on the reasons why; for one thing, you don’t name male homosexual couples. That’s because male homosexual couples are punished for being men as other men are; single men and homosexual men have a far harder time adopting children than single women and lesbian women, so the statistics on male homosexual parents are pretty much non-existent.

      However, there are some statistics that exist that you didn’t name:

      Heterosexual couples seems indeed the best until there is reliable statistics on male homosexual parents, but then comes your missing one: single fathers. Single fathers do better at raising their children than either single mother households, AND lesbian households.

      The conclusion then, is not that homosexual couples are the problem, but the lack of fathers, the lack of male role models is. This would also indicate that a household of two fathers would provide better than a single father; possible as well as heterosexual couples if not better.

      Of course, this is NOT a argument against lesbian parents; this is an argument against lesbian blue-pill parents, lesbian parents who do not know this, and do not provide a dedicated father figure. Every lesbian couple that wishes to adopt, should be taught this fact, and should take some time to think about how they provide a (god)father (figure) for their children. Whether it’s a neighbor or a friend or a family member, they need to provide for their children a male role model; he doesn’t have to be there a 100% of the time; but he needs to be in the children’s lives regularly enough, that whatever men bring to raising children instinctively it seems, he brings.

      • Stephen O’Brian

        My argument is simply that wherever practicable I think it’s best for children to get a balance of non feminist male and female energy. As I said more than once previously the fact is currently many children are fatherless and because of a dearth of Male school teachers don’t have an adult male role model until they reach their teens. For that reason alone like I said I’m in no rush to promote lesbian couples parenting.

      • Stephen O’Brian

        Oh, they were lesbians alright. through and through. I was there, remember? And I didn’t equate lesbianism with being anti male in all instances. Can you read more accurately?

        You say “Every lesbian couple that wishes to adopt, should be taught this fact, and should take some time to think about how they provide a (god)father (figure) for their children. Whether it’s a neighbor or a friend or a family member, they need to provide for their children a male role model; he doesn’t have to be there a 100% of the time; but he needs to be in the children’s lives regularly enough, that whatever men bring to raising children instinctively it seems, he brings”.

        Which makes some sense to me.
        But I think your argument provides a slippery slope towards not only fatherlessness but additionally a lack of sufficient adult male mentorship in the lives of young children, for you say “if not there 100% of the time”……… then how much 93%? 62.57%? 18%?

        • JGteMolder

          A slippery slope to fatherlesness!?

          Lesbians, genuine lesbians, make up only about 10 percent of the female population; there is never any more.

          Meanwhile, feminism doctrines to divorce, relationships, access to sperm banks has some 50 percent of the children in the US and other feminist-heavy countries live in single mother homes. Those are children who not only don’t have a father, they don’t even have the benefit of a second mother.

          We’re already AT fatherlessness; if we go back to just about only the lesbians we have a massive improvement.

          • Stephen O’Brian

            I agree we’re already at fatherless central. I said as much in previous posts.
            That’s exactly why my energy is invested in supporting men as fathers rather than lesbian couples as parents.
            It’s simply a matter of priorities.
            I don’t assume “a second mother” as you put it is a “benefit” to kids either.

  • Keith

    I found this piece to be an ironic romance comedy of the early 21st century. I enjoy traditionalists waxing on about female agency. But the governmental determinist position is that females lack the agency to function in a modern relationship. It is the reason for family fracture laws.
    Asking what women should do about it is like asking water what it should do about being in a hose. The fact that primary aggressor laws exist is proof that females have no agency and no choice.

    The joke is when you trade in the slavish oppression of marriage and family you get to be over priced government lease hold objects.

    Its a nostalgic piece JB but really how long do you think it will be before your own husband is hauled off even against your objections.

  • sevencck

    An interesting article, I enjoyed reading it. I mean I’m sure people will be outraged by your comment about the president, although I understand what you meant. If a young girl is interested in politics, by all means she should be encouraged to pursue that life.

    I think it’s time we throw women in the combat meat grinder for our cheap oil. I just don’t care about the reality of combat or simple facts about men and women anymore. We have a society that tosses reality aside like it’s worthless anyway. Force women into battle in exactly the same way men are forced, close the door behind those poor women, lock it, and send the bullet riddled bodies home later. I’m serious too, it’s ridiculous that after 60 years of advocating equality the women’s movement keeps ignoring combat and the draft.

    If men aren’t worth anything, perhaps some women in body bags will at least make us rethink our foreign policy.

    • by_the_sword

      I was going to make a similar comment, but it would have come out in much cruder language.

      Let women shoulder the burden of war. And if their deaths and injuries approach a fraction of those suffered by men, then perhaps our society will akgnowlege the horror and cost of war.

      It is time that women walked a mile in ~his~ combat boots.

    • feeriker

      If a young girl is interested in politics, by all means she should be encouraged to pursue that life.

      If any young person, male or female, demonstrates an interest in politics over that of a productive and peaceful life, they need immediate and intense counseling.

      Just sayin’.

  • Robert Sides

    > “telling [young females] they can do everything men can do, backwards, in heels!”

    Provided, of course, guys lead them… and choreograph the dance.

    > “The last men in England, for example, did not win the franchise until 1885.”

    Actually, men didn’t get universal suffrage until after WWI, in 1918. Even then, they had to be 21. Men and women over 18 only got the vote, together, in 1969:

    > “for any women who are in fact, able, every opportunity should be open (except combat soldier)”

    Why not combat if they are “able”? They’re not worth more than males…right? And how about obligations instead of options?

    At the very least grrrrrrls should form all-female grunt units.

    Also, did you really think your 3-year-old, wearing a Superman outfit, climbing atop a couch, would NOT jump?

    Getting married and having kids isn’t for everyone, male or female. It might not fit individuals’ needs. And in many cases, it won’t fit their kids’, either.

    Too many families are “crazy-making crucibles.” That is, units where unfit/emotionally-damaged parents warp kids for life. So in addition to changing divorce laws, we need to change child-rearing practices. The new Commandment should be: “Honor thy children!”

    Friedan was basically bored. She had that luxury, being female. Her husband, though, HAD to work… and not necessarily or foremostly at what he liked. While he “toted the barge,” she bellyached about “the problem that has no name.” As if guys risking black lung while mining coal led lives of leisure! As if her male-peers in grey-flannel suits enjoyed wondrously fulfilling days!

    Betty might have had a political interest in seeing nuclear families “explode,” too. As someone wrote:

    “…the woman [Friedan] who has always presented herself as a typical suburban housewife until she began work on her groundbreaking book was in fact nothing of the kind. In fact, under her maiden name, Betty Goldstein, she was a political activist and professional propagandist for the Communist left for over a decade before the publication of ‘The Feminist Mystique’ launched the modern women’s movement.”

    She also initially lied about her husband, Carl, being the sole violent person in their marriage. Ultimately she admitted, “My husband was not a wife-beater, and I was no passive victim of a wife-beater. We fought a lot, and he was bigger than me.”

    Guess she missed the memo about not starting fights you can’t win. Or maybe she counted on his pulling punches due to her pudenda. In general, though, it’s unwise for bicycles to play “chicken” with cars. Or for smaller parties to initiate violence with those who are bigger.

    • feeriker

      She also initially lied about her husband, Carl, being the sole violent person in their marriage. Ultimately she admitted, “My husband was not a wife-beater…

      Whatever else he might or might not have been, Carl very obviously was both 1) blind and 2) devoid of any self-respect whatsoever.

      • Laddition

        and unlucky…very, very, veeerry unlucky

        RIP mate

        • feeriker

          We might even be able to add “damned” to the list too.

  • Legion

    Too much time spent on the whole pregnancy thing, it came off as preaching a bit too much “have babies and fuck the career!” for my liking. Liked the rest of it.

    • Janet Bloomfield (aka JudgyBitch)

      Oops! That’s not really what I meant.

      It was more like this: most women WANT children so have them first. Make certain you have made the choices in life to make this possible.

      Your career (as a secretary, for most women) can wait.

      Hey, my littlest one is four years old and will be going to kindergarten next year (maybe) and I’m teaching my first course in a decade this September. My “career” is actually as a professor of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at at well-respected four year college, and I will take on duties as the needs of my husband and family dictate. The Faculty can go fuck itself. Luckily, I live in a small town that has trouble recruiting talent and my college is more than happy to accomodate my family needs.

      Guess what? There are lots of small towns. Move to one! All you give up is money, and really, who gives a shit about money. You need enough. Everything else, by definition, is superfluous.

      There is nothing wrong with a career lady. There is something very wrong with a career lady who thinks her career is more important than a husband and children.

      Most women are crippled with guilt and regret when they put their own personal fulfiment, measured in economic terms, ahead of their families.

      Some aren’t and good for them! Carry on, childess and kicking ass. Your genes will be duly weeded out.

      But most women want children. And for that, they need men. Biologically and sociologically. I rail against the idea that men are “useless” because they are, in fact, utterly and completely vital to women’s happiness.

      And I hate how utilitarian I sound. Men are not some means by which you get sperm and cash. Not what I mean at all. Marry a man you love, and always be grateful that he has been 50% of your happiness, and he, in turn, will be grateful that you have been 50% of his.

      I know, I know. I’m a romantic. Hopelessly so. But I truly believe that teaching women who and what men really are (NOT THE SAME AS WOMEN) will allow them to open their hearts to these strange, wonderful creatures without whom we quite literally cannot live.

      The idea that men and women are interchangeable and identical is just so destructive. We’re not! We need to to love each other for our differences and celebrate each other for our own unique strengths.

      • Rick Westlake

        I made decisions in my life that left me ‘weeded out’ of the gene-pool. I gave my attention and efforts to my mother, who had raised me as a single mother, who couldn’t get along without me, rather than abandoning her in search of a mate. But, of course, that’s no loss, when it happens to a male.

  • Dennis

    When it comes to suffrage (voting rights) Janet Bloomfield is wrong. She says; “The last men in England, for example, did not win the franchise until 1885. One generation later, women secured to right to vote, too.”

    That isn’t true. Most men got voting rights in England at the same time women did, in 1918. Before that the only men who could vote were upper class landowners leaving most men with no right to vote. (see; Suffrage in England; Wikipedia)

    • Janet Bloomfield (aka JudgyBitch)

      I stand corrected.

      Only makes my point more eloquently.

      Men and women were enfranchised at basically the same time.

      There was no patriarchy whereby all men had political power over all women. They had no political power.

  • Stu

    This whole idea that we can go back to these traditional relationships is just wishful thinking. The only way it could be, is if we reconstructed the conditions that existed in those times.

    If I took, the internet, mobile phones, the pill, and all the other modern innovations back with me to 1900, along with a crystal ball, and shown all the women the life of the 21st century, and run workshops for women to educate them on all the perks enjoyed by the 21st century woman, most them would be on board faster then you could blink. They would dump their current lifestyle with one decade.

    Things were the way they were because they couldn’t be any other way. And if things are ever going to be that way again, it will only be because things once again, can be no other way.

    Things are different now because men provided the means for women to be different. The modern world, the high tech world. The reason men are enslaved now is because we have given the women the means to live however they want, and still demand men perform traditional roles, when it suits the women, and, to maintain control of the children, the home, and the assets after they kick you out.

    We are still in the early days of this arrangement. Just wait until all the women who were raised with different expectations are dead, and there is nothing but these entitled princess bitches that have known nothing but female entitlement and zero accountability and advancement via self proclaimed victim hood all of their lives. Do you really think we can reason with a collective majority of toddlers that have been trained to think of nothing but what they want, and feel?

    Attempting to reason women out of making full use of their current position, is like trying to reason someone out of collecting their lottery winnings. This approach, of “teaching” women to value X and Y, but not Z will not work. At best, it will produce a very small number of JudgyBitches. And even you JudgyBitch, are free to decide you want something different at any time, free to decide you are bored, free to decide that you want your independence, and all the assets that your man has accumulated. That is the environment we live in, and that is the reality men must be advised of, and react too.

    The problem is that men are still seeking what no longer exists. Still looking for that equal and fair arrangement in marriage. Chasing a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, a mirage. And it is this, that enslaves them. The pursuit of something that does not exist. This pig headed determination that they will have this lovely, equal, nuclear family and monogamy, while all the restraints are on them, and none on the woman, and you rely on nothing but their changing whims for security. It’s insanity. Total insanity.

    There are good women out there, I know that. I have the privilege of enjoying some very long lasting relationships with some, but they aren’t traditionalists, none of them are.

    I have nothing against the traditional arrangement, as long as each party is paid their dues, legally as well as socially. Women who want that arrangement must be legally obligated to provide reciprocal services in return for it…..end of story. And until that day returns, I can’t advise any man to enter into any legally recognized relationship with any woman. It’s the equal to advising a man to put everything he has, and everything he’s ever going to have, on a long shot at the races, or even to play Russian roulette.

    And when will that day return. Well, there are only two ways it can happen. The total collapse of civilization is one, and that is what I think will happen, without doubt eventually, beginning in the not very distant future actually, unless men opt for option number two. Option number two is to force individual women, and governments, and society in general, to abandon misandy, male disposibility, feminism, female victimhood etc etc.

    And how do we force them. Well, we are at the point where politically, we aren’t even allowed to have a say in the gender issue. So we can only do it, via withdrawing all support for the relationships that feed this beast. No marriage, no defacto, no kids, and no monogamy. And it’s not enough to do that, you must tell them why you are. And you can’t do it from a position of being a mothers basement dwelling loser who spends his life playing video games.

    Strive to earn a decent living. Live frugally and save some money. Look after you health. Dress well, eat well, be well groomed. Look after numero uno. Have some interests in things in life. Be active. Learn to play guitar, fly a plane, get yourself a Harley, whatever. Stop focusing on finding Mrs Right, and just be good things, for yourself. And when all those women your enjoying the company of, want to rope you into a committed relationship, you just politely state your case. You are not the least bit interested in marrying, or living with a woman at all, and it is because of the laws that you are taking that position. And you are not going to change that position……period. Those that become bitchy and use shaming tactics, flick them to the curb like a freshly picked booger out your car window. Don’t even agree to monogamy, and this is the big one, never, never have sex with any women who you have not stated this position with. They have sex with you only if they understand this is not a precursor to you caving in and being coerce into a monogamous relationship. If they harass you about this, just tell them that NO means NO.

    Now, here is where I can be called a hypocrite, because as I’m sure all the regulars here are aware, I have my own resident feminazi. This is actually more proof that I know what I’m talking about here though. Yes, I lived the life I advocate for many years, and was perfectly happy in that. The only time in my adult life where I actually felt free in fact. And the most prosperous time financially, as well as the most rewarding time in terms of happiness. So how did I end up in a defacto relationship. Well, that’s because women are so conniving and devious, that the odd one, the very rare one, can even worm her way in with a genius like me :)

    Lets just say she hung around so much, for so long, that I didn’t notice that I was married again. And the reason I didn’t notice, is because nothing changed. Well, apart from the fact that the place started looking like a trinket shop, and three quarters of the wardrobe space is taken up with shoes, and the entire dressing table surface, and most other surfaces in the house is covered with useless junk. But we were like two peas in a pod.

    When the living together started, things were a little different legally. Defacto arrangements didn’t do through the family courts, had no access to them in fact, except for issues regarding children, but not property. They used the magistrates court to resolve property issues, and the magistrates court worked on the principal of contributions made during the course of the relationship. This wasn’t perfect protection for men, but men didn’t get screwed over to the degree the family court can, and does screw them over. So I was willing to enter into this arrangement, within the level of risk, and legal terms that existed and applied to me at that time.

    However, a couple of years later, the Labor Gov, made all new laws and applied them retroactively. I found myself married, by shotgun wedding. I was forced into a deal I never made. This is what happens guys, and it’s not stopping here. This ramp up is going to continue until enough of you abstain from any legally recognized relationship to FORCE women to abandon this course. As long as you keep entering into these relationships, that send the signal to the feminists, and the government, that there is room to ramp up the draconian laws even more. They are not going to stop…….until you stop….and send them the message loud and clear that you are cancelling their right to steal from you, and brand you an abuser, and treat you like a disposable piece of garbage.

    YOU, enable this process by continuing to opt in.

    And anybody who is encouraging men to continue to opt in, is enabling it also.

    Traditionalists. If you want your preferred lifestyle to continue, you have to get on board with destroying feminist governance, and that includes all the bullshit definitions of DV, Alimony, favoritism of all sorts in the family courts, etc. The only traditionalists I have any respect for are the ones that want to remove all these things. The rest, I call bullshit on. You just want men to be slaves that have no rights in the home, so you can behave however you want, and he just has to eat shit and say……yummy……can I have some more please. What you want is man as a scat toilet slave, the same as radical feminists. You’re shcum, fucking shcum. And your dumb shcum, because you are to dumb to see that you’re killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. I will win this argument in the end, and men will see that I am right, even the very traditionalist minded, and you know who will prove me right…..YOU.

    My prediction regarding Gillard’s latest video on Vday, is that this is a precursor to yet more ramp up and implementation of “The Plan”. I also predict that there will be not traditionalists, not in any large numbers opposing it. Yep, they are on board with ever draconian radical feminist initiative. They may call themselves different things, but they are all for voting away men’s rights.

  • JFinn

  • Suzanne McCarley

    Good article JB! Certainly NAWALT, which you did state, but there’s nothing dishonest in generalizing about the majority. I didn’t see this as a plea for traditionalism (even though many of us miss it) I see it as a call for women to take responsibility for our choices. The first step in that process is arming oneself with facts instead of fantasies. Unfortunately, due to your own personal preference for a traditional lifestyle, you will be dismissed as a dinosaur. Most of your critics will assume that your personal bias (which you obviously recognize and to which you unapologetically admit) blinds you to reality. However I found no shortage of reality in this article, bias or no bias.

    Dean, no man should trust any woman until the laws stop inviting women to become untrustworthy.

    • Bewildered

      ” Dean, no man should trust any woman until the laws stop inviting women to become untrustworthy.”

      LOL! Indeed ! Since we don’t have a helluva lot of saints this is like ennobling gold digging !

    • Rick Westlake

      NAWALT = ‘Not All Women Are Like That.’

      But all women can be like that, at the change of a whim.

      AWALT, All Women Are Like That, because all women have the power to be like that – all women are able to shatter and smash a man to bits, on the basis of a false accusation, even on the basis of starting a nasty rumor.

      ‘Society’ is disposed to believe the worst of men. Society trusts the baseless, vicious rumor of a scorned, biased, vengeful woman, over the proven record of a man’s good behavior.

      Men are f***ed, period.

      NMCRI – No Man Can Risk It!

  • Never Blue Again

    Excellent article ….

    a little bit of correction may be…

    “To celebrate the 50th anniversary of the worst book every ever written for women, I’d like to offer my own “reality check” for girls and women.” :)

  • Andy Bob

    Excellent article, Ms Bloomfield. You have a knack for delivering the verbal smack that so many of today’s misguided young women desperately need. A smack that can only be delivered by another woman, so your contribution is essential.

    Congratulations on your blog – it is always a rewarding read which has upset a few entitled princesses, and their white knight husbands.

  • keyster

    A+ knock down of the feminist orthodoxy.
    I’m not worthy.

  • Autcel

    “Given that women file a majority of divorces in the modern world, it’s pretty clear that promises aren’t even worth the paper they’re printed on anymore,” That implies that it is men who are not trustworthy instead of women because people who file divorce is usually the victim, not the perpetrator. As such, I am very disappointed regarding that sentence.

    However, regarding your question, my answer is this:
    It is humans as a whole who are not trustworthy and marriage is the two commit towards each other instead of a man commit to a woman, though in practice that is the exception rather than the rule. Still, this is better than having lots of orphans out there because the parents are not willing to form families.

    • Stallion

      What have you been smoking?

      Typically the victim who files for divorce? What the fuck are you talking about? Have you looked into the reasons why women file for divorce before uttering such drivel? Victim my ass, what about all the women who file for divorce from boredom, trading up, and other such reasons?

      And no, this is not better than having lots of orphans because their parents don’t want to form families. Orphans’ parents are dead, or have permanently abandoned them.

      Today, the courts make sure that financial ties to children are enforced against men, and the mother decides whether the father will get to have a meaningful relationship with their children.

      What about the current situation is better?

  • Zorro


  • TheMalesOfGames

    “There is no conspiracy/patriarchy designed to enslave you in the kitchen wearing nothing but an apron and Chanel No.5 (although that sounds like fun).”

    Curse you, JB, for putting that thought in my mind!

    Very good article though. One of the best pieces of advice I was ever given was “you are exactly the same as everybody else” and I think it’s something all young people need to be taught. You worry about school, work and family? So does everyone. You’re worried your illness will be misdiagnosed? Don’t worry, your body is pretty much the same as everyone else’s.

    This goes for making the most of yourself too; feel free to aim high but don’t become disillusioned if you fail because you were told “you can achieve anything”. Be realistic.

  • donzaloog

    Excellent article, JB. should men trust women anymore when it comes to marriage and starting a family? No they shouldn’t. There really is no reason to. In countries plagued by feminism, marriage is a financial black hole for men.

  • Sheldonshells

    One of the best articles I’ve read here yet. You strike all the right points: the myth of the traditional male role as privileged, the increasing female suicide, depression, and heart disease rates that are bringing this unprivileged reality home to women, the highly flawed feminist obfuscastion of patriarchy and aristocracy, the truth about the history of universal suffrage, and so on. All while showing the spine to proudly criticize one of the supposed “untouchables”. Perfect.

    THIS is what i call the next wave of writing and thinking on gender.

  • MGTOW-man

    Answer to the question proposed at the end of the piece:

    Men should not trust women because men did that already…and look what it got them?

    I truly believe all men and sensible women should have seen all this mayhem coming. Didn’t men know women well before silly women claimed they were the (identical— as opposed to opposite) equals of men? Did not those women know they were female (with alternate biology) before they asserted to be the equals of men? (Now, they expect special preferential treatment to excuse away all the equality they have found themselves to be not capable of producing…and hope “good men” will not notice or dare to be honest).

    Why did we ever trust women with this? As soon as they got “in the door,” they sought to takeover, run everything, punish and control, and assure their superiority—typical female behavior. Women will be women! We knew better. Even though NAWALT, we still knew better to let all women pass through not scrutinized just because a select few ANLT.

    So the answer is to not trust women because they have proven themselves untrustworthy and selfish. When given an inch of rope, they snatched a mile-long piece, and sought to make nooses out of it—even to men who have had not a single thing to do with the wrongs of yesteryear and in fact, voted in favor of change against yesteryear treatment of women. Those women do not “get it”, so they can not be trusted at all.

    (To the MRA-friendly women on this site and beyond, don’t take my comments personal. Let us men do what we have to do. Of all people, you being women, you have to know how most women are and how you have avoided being the way they are. So let us tell the truth here… and if you are NLT, then great, but do not hinder us. Help us instead).

  • alarocco618

    The male patriarchy in America does not exist. Women in this country have made landmark achievements before they even the right to vote in this country.

    Wyoming first allowed women the right to vote in 1869, 51 years before it was made a national law and one year before the 15th Admendment was passed (this admendment allowed voting rights for all races). A woman in Wyoming was able to vote before and African-American in the South.

    In 1640, the first significant American female author was Anne Bradstreet.

    In 1750 Jane Colden was the first female botanist.

    In 1756 Lydia Taft was the first woman to vote.

    Margaret Corbin, the woman synonymous with loading the cannon was the first women soldier to receive a pension.

    In 1809, Mary Keyes was the first women inventor.

    Harriot Hunt was the first women to practice medicine in 1835 while Elizabeth Blackwell was the first American woman to receive a doctorate in medicine in the United States in 1849.

    In 1840 a law was passed that allowed woman to own property.

    Antoinette Blackwell was the first woman reverend in 1853.

    In 1866 Mary Walker was the first female recipient of the Medal of Honor.

    In 1872 Victoria Woodhull was the first woman to run for president.

    Susanna Salter was the first female mayor in the United States. She was elected as the mayor of Argonia,Kansas in 1887.

    Margaret Abbott was the first American woman and second in all to win a Gold Medal in the Olympics. This was achieved in 1900.

    Alice Wells was the first woman police officer in America. She was made a police officer in 1910.

    In 1911 Harriot Quimby was the first licensed airplane pilot in America.

    In 1916 Jeannette Rankin was the first female senator.

    In 1918 Annette Adams was the first female attorney general in America.

    Madame C.J Walker was the self made female millionaire in America.

    The patriarchy system never existed in this country. Women have clearly made achievements in many fields even before they were given the right to vote. The patriarchy system was told only to anger young females in America today. The system is a fantasy.

  • alarocco618

    Feminism is both a blessing and a curse to America. While it somewhat offers rights for women a lot is sacrificed. What America needs to do is reform the family court system. Woman are normally the ones who file for divorce so therefore they should see and be punished for their actions. It must also be ended in our schools, business, etc. It has produced gender bias which has ruined this country.

  • Grumpy Old Man

    Janet, thank you for the article, it resonated with me.
    I have literally trained supervised and mentored hundreds of young men and women during my career. One of the most difficult challenges is to encourage them to set their goals, have reasonable expectations and achieve their potential. Not everyone is going to make the highest grade or level in their vocation or career and often goals and feelings change. That does not mean what you do today does not count, on the contrary everything counts. I’ve known women who have attained high levels of success including commanders and Astronauts and made the decision to cut short their rise to spend time with their families.
    Knowing all this makes your article more poignant because I have seen individuals fail at the last rung of the ladder and were so devastated they never considered the other steps in the process as being of value or even the people they met along the way.
    On the larger scale we see this disappointment with our college grads who never consider that those who preceded them walked a longer tougher road. They lack resilience are easily frustrated and much of that is caused by the expectations we put on them including those you mentioned on our young ladies. No, life is a compromise, time is invaluable and how we spend it is precious. Things change, we change and life takes unexpected turns. Everything counts.