magic woman fairy princess magic wand 750

The Myth of Women’s Oppression

Forty some odd years ago, feminists bellowed their way into mainstream attention, launching a major offensive on what they called a patriarchal system that had oppressed women for centuries. Painting women as downtrodden and powerless, they railed against men with the missionary zeal of abolitionists and with largely the same message. In short, women were slaves and men were their masters. They demanded liberation and have been making demands every since.

They did a magnificent job of pitching all this. That could be a testament to the inherent truth in their ideas. Or it might be something else, like the fact that they already had so much power that few were willing to question anything they said in the first place. You can put your money on the latter, because even a remotely objective examination of the facts leads to a far more reasonable conclusion. Women were never oppressed to begin with. Not even close.

I’m no historian, but I did attend some history classes before I finished middle school. So, by the time I was 13, I knew what oppression was. And lucky for me I was 13 in a time when people still knew what it wasn’t.

Oppression has some pretty obvious tell tale signs. Like torture and death; like bullwhips and chains; gas chambers and death camps. Oppression is a roadmap of scars on the back of a field hand that was purchased at an auction. It is the rope that gets strung over a tree branch in broad daylight and used to choke the life out of someone convicted of being the wrong color.

It is an indelible stain on humanity, void of compassion, dehumanizing to both the oppressed and the oppressor. And the evidence of it is so offensive to modern sensibilities that we preserve proof of it as lessons for the coming generations.

Now, when we compare those things to the historical world of women, which was largely one of being protected and provided for, we get an entirely different picture. It is a portrait not of the oppressed, but of the privileged. And it begs a good many questions that need to be answered.

For instance, how many times in history did we have slaves with the first rights to a seat in the lifeboat? Which slave masters were compelled to go off to war to protect the lives of their slaves? How many oppressors tore their own bodies down with brutal labor so that they could provide food and shelter for those they oppressed?

Zero sounds like a good answer.

It also makes one wonder, or should, how many slave masters had to get on their knees before their prospective slaves, bearing gold and jewels to ask permission to be their master? How many slaves could say “no” and wait for a better deal?

How about another goose egg?

It’s not coincidental that feminists pointed to marriage as an oppressive institution. Pointing at nothing and making a lot of noise has worked pretty well for them. And so, in a collective fit of neurotic activism they attacked the one institution that had served as the source of more support and protection for women than any other in history. They became obsessed with depicting a walk down the wedding isle as the path to oppression; each woman’s personal Trail of Tears. You couldn’t buy this kind of crazy if you were Bill Gates.

“Hey!” some feminists are shrieking by now, “What about voting rights? Women were not allowed to vote! That’s oppression!” Well, no, it’s not. And all we need to do is look at the history of voting in America to prove it.

In the beginning, almost no one could vote. It was a right reserved for a few older white males who owned land, which left almost all men and a lot of other people out of the picture. This doesn’t say anything particularly special about women. So if this constituted oppression, then it meant that nearly everyone was oppressed. Maybe the early Americans didn’t catch on to that one because they were too busy celebrating their new found freedom.

Anyway, as time passed, because men of good values wrote an amazing constitution, voting rights were expanded to other groups. First to the men who didn‘t own land, then later to other ethnic groups, then still later to (white) women. Further down the road, black women and men were finally guaranteed the vote in 1965. Even further down the road the voting age was lowered bringing another large group of people into the fold. And today we are debating the voting rights of illegal aliens. Formerly oppressed hamsters may be next.

And we should consider that there was something of a tradeoff for women regarding the vote. Like exclusion from combat and men compelled to turn over the fruit of their labors and to die for them at the drop of a hat. Perhaps it wasn’t a fair tradeoff, mainly to the men. But proof of women’s oppression? Comedians pay for material that isn’t nearly this funny.

The same was true for owning land. Plenty of women weren’t allowed to…for a while, anyway. It probably had something to do with the fact that it was men who had to have land on which to build women homes, or perhaps they figured that men who were expected to face bullets in order to protect that land might be better, more deserving keepers of it. Who knows what insanity plagued us before feminism restored us to reason?

Whatever the reasons, those rules weren’t long lived. Besides, not being able to own land was pretty much softened by the fact that women could choose men to provide it for them through that oppressive institution of marriage, and the phallocentric, linear thinking alleged tyrants that they married.

I am old enough to remember well the older rules for men. Work hard and take care of your woman. Be prepared to lay down your life for her. Watch your mouth in the presence of a lady. Offer her your seat, even if she is a stranger. The same for opening doors and lighting smokes. Disrespect her and risk a beating. Touch her in the wrong way and you’re a dead man.

This isn’t the way oppressed people are treated. But we do have another word for those fortunate enough to benefit from these kinds of standards. Royalty. We didn’t coin the term “princess” for women without a good reason.

With a few trivial exceptions, this has always been the gold standard for the treatment of women. The fact that this is beginning to change, that men are starting to put the brakes on doing a lot of things out of chivalry, is just another example of feminism shooting women in the foot. Accidents happen, especially self inflicted wounds, to people that play with guns when they don’t know what they’re doing.

Still, I have to hand it to feminists in their capacity to spin a wild yarn. Taking a privileged class of people and convincing the world that they were picked on was a masterful piece of skullduggery. But it was only successful because the mandate for men in western culture has always been to give women whatever they want without much question. Otherwise, the plethora of feminist ideas would have buckled under the oppressive weight of unchecked dishonesty.

Nonetheless, our unhealthy enabling of them set the stage for women to pass up men in every aspect of life. Women are now more educated than men and they also have most of the jobs. Nothing suggests this is going to do anything but favor women even more in the future. All that from an ideology that resides a house of cards that only remains standing because the wind itself has been scared out of blowing it down.

I would offer the feminists my kudos for shrewd work and a job well done, but winning a race is easy when you start with one foot already across the finish line, and everyone else pretends not to notice.

About Paul Elam

Paul Elam is the founder and publisher of A Voice for Men, the founder of A Voice for Men Radio, the AVfM YouTube Channel, and appears weekly on AVFM Intelligence Report, Going Mental with Dr. Tara Palmatier and weekly on MANstream Media with Warren Farrell and Tom Golden.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Do you want to publish a book?

    This is an early call for manuscripts. AVFM Education, LLC is opening a publishing house in the near future. Zeta Press (under construction) will house a wide range of literature addressing issues faced by men and boys. It will include literature not acceptable for mainstream sensibilities, which means it is the stuff you want to read. It will also host an array of other interesting nonfiction and fiction offerings.

    Simply put, we want to build the red pill library from hell.

    We have agreed to contract with a highly experienced editing team and will provide cover art graphics for those who desire it.

    Our contract with authors will be very competitive. We will provide you with extras like an editing progress account (RT) that allows you ongoing communication during the editing process and automated...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! Add to and improve the AVfM Reference Wiki. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing.

    Please create an account and then follow instructions here

  • Hayden Eric Johnston

    Problem is, historians don’t claim historical female oppression, it’s a purely feminist claim & now those claims influence the masses.

    Which I believe Paul even spends a fair amount of time discussing in the above article, about how female privilege is the reason it was so easy for feminists to get their “historical oppression” narrative accepted without question in the first place.

    Check your privilege woman!

  • driversuz

    They did and they were, usually upper class women.

  • driversuz

    Women have always been oppressed, but not by men and not more than men.

  • driversuz

    Both women and men have always been oppressed by women and men of more powerful classes.

  • driversuz

    Upper and middle class women often “had a choice to diverge from the norm was allowed to and (were) respected for it.” Feminists frequently brag about such women while simultaneously denying their existence.

  • driversuz

    Um, no. Learn some history.

  • driversuz

    Of course women weren’t excluded from oppression, then again their men protected them from as much of it as they possibly could…
    Why do you ask? Did I say no woman in history was ever oppressed, or did I say that women as a class were never oppressed by men as a class?
    You’re a troll and you’ll be leaving soon.

  • driversuz

    I’ll be impressed when you come up with some objective proof of that. You can’t.

  • driversuz

    You call that “objective?”

    • Charles Ray

      Do you find the information in it false?

  • Pauli

    As a woman, I love this article and I completely agree! Thank you for reminding us of the great respect and privileges we had BEFORE feminism. Sadly and ironically, we have lost some of it because of feminism! Women stopped acting like ladies and refused to be treated as such, so many men followed suit and stopped being gentlemen…and that’s why our society is steadily going downhill.

  • DeBorah

    Oppression, violence, discrimination….all unacceptable when any human suffers them. It is important in discussions like this to note the limited perspectives that “history” is written from. Further important is the necessity of the collaboration of many, socially and culturally diverse perspectives to see the true picture in its entirety, a luxury we have not had in the past. I wonder if green youngsters, much like this author once was, sitting in their future classrooms will receive a more well-rounded view of what the world was like due to the collaborative nature of the Internet. I can only hope so. Maybe then they will truly grow to be informed individuals rather than folks working with only a fraction of the truth. How many stories in your history books were written by women? We can not honestly understand what their plight must have been like without their personal accounts. Nonetheless, we banter here about how ludicrous the few voices who made it through the deafening din of masculinity were.

    I value both genders for their strengths and acknowledge their differences. But to claim that there is no such thing as oppression on women is the same as saying men have never been oppressed. Both equally immature arguments. Humans, all genders, ages, races and creeds, at some point or another, have been oppressed, treated unjustly and taken for granted by another. Your article only balloons the problem of issues like reverse sexism you seem to be so adamant about preventing. To deny the plight of any individual is to deny their right to fair, just treatment. It would behoove you and others who feel the need to deny another human being their struggles to consider what it might be like for someone to do the same to you.

    I’ll let another make a more elaborate response to this ungodly banter:

    • DeBorah

      I might add further comment when I share:
      The film is available via Netflix streaming or can be purchased online. If you’re truly interested in a full understanding of the subject you’re writing on, I recommend you give yourself the gift of insight and take the time to watch.

      • Astrokid

        Half the Sky is bollocks. for e.g The White Knight Nick Kristof was humiliated recently after his Cambodian protagonist Somaly Mam was exposed to be a fraud.

        And funnily.. 3rd world feminists themselves dont like Western White Woman feminism, and have told you to shove it.

        Although a few passing comments are made about rape, coerced sex work, and other gender-based violence existing everywhere in the world–including in the U.S., hello?!–the point that is consistently reiterated in the film is that gender oppression is “worse” in “these countries”–that it is a part of “their culture.” In fact, at one point, on the issue of female genital cutting, Kristof tells actress Diane Lane, “That may be [their] culture, but it’s also a pretty lousy aspect of culture.”

        There’s nothing that smacks more of “us and them” talk than these sorts of statements about “their culture.” Postcultural critic Gayatri Chakrovorty Spivak, in fact, coined the term “white men saving brown women from brown men” to describe the imperialist use of women’s oppression as justification for political aggression.

        Although Spivak was writing about British bans of widow burning and child marriage in India to make her point, we can see the reflections of this dynamic is the way that the US has justified wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as missions to “free Islamic women from the Veil.” (For a fantastic critique of this rationale, see Lila Abu-Lughod’s “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?“) According to Spivak, this trope of “white men rescuing brown women from brown men” becomes used to justify the imperialist project of “white man” over “brown man.”

        • DeBorah

          I do not believe the US ought to be condemning any culture for their beliefs. In terms of the definition of oppression (you can find it here: the sense of being oppressed is in the opinion of those both in and outside of the situation. Arguing that women do not have the right to claim oppression is, again, to deny them their valid opinion of what they are experiencing. Traveling around the world and telling other cultures they need to stop oppressing their women is just as bad as telling those who feel oppressed that they are not. I think you miss the point when I express that oppression happens to men, women and children all over the planet. I think its part of human nature to struggle with the desire to conquer things and other people. It makes us feel powerful, most certainly, but at the expense of those we impress ourselves upon.
          Yes, I do believe children were oppressed and still are. Not being given a voice is one of the most subtle, quite damaging aspects of oppression. If someone believes they are not oppressed, then they should be allowed to continue life as is. If someone feels oppressed, they should have the opportunity to remove themselves from the people or system by which they are being oppressed. Simple as that. There are women represented in Half The Sky who believe the act of genital mutilation is oppressive and a violation of their body. Others condone the practice and do not wish to change it. Does this mean that the women who feel they are being treated unjustly are wrong? Of course not. Yet that seems to be the argument you’re making against women who feel they are oppressed. Please correct me if I am wrong.
          Arguing that a historian “must have been drunk” does little to help your point and is a ad hominen fallacy adding no credibility to your argument. Nor does poor spelling in an attempt, I assume, to mock something you think a feminist might say. I personally, do not consider myself a feminist- a humanist, maybe.

          • Astrokid

            I think you miss the point when I express that oppression happens to men, women and children all over the planet.

            No I dont. I am waiting for you to show us feminist or mainstream publicity of things oppressive to men, esp where the perpetrator is women. There are many ways women are oppressive to children. I am waiting for you to talk about that. Each time you produce links only to womens “oppression” at the hands of men (like Half the Sky, and Howard Zinn).

            And Re: watching Half The Sky.. I am FROM the 3rd world.. I grew up in India and now live in the US. I am well aware of how life is there, for men as well..and for various under-classes. Retards like Nick Kristof will never even begin to understand the whole picture, and I am not interested in Western interference or even “understanding from afar”. centuries of Western colonialism leaves a lasting legacy.

          • DeBorah

            Let’s start with these. I’m sure you could personally find more if you looked for yourself.



            Again, oppression is essentially unjust treatment of another. Unjust in the opinion of that person as well as in the eyes of the group. Both can be valid classifications of oppression. Men’s oppression is unfortunately not an issue that people are ready to face yet. Especially that of white, middle-class men. Though the bullying that happens in the school yard, the expectations set by women upon men to behave a certain way, the verbal abuse received by parents and peers alike when men or boys do not act as expected…these are all oppressive acts to the individual and, as widespread and accepted as they are, to the gender as a whole. But just because they are accepted does not mean it is still not oppressive.

            I do not understand, if you’ve seen the oppression some women face, how you can say that women have not been oppressed. Do you believe that every woman you saw enduring some form of, what I would consider, unjust treatment, thought the treatment to be just? Did you ask them? Are you simply arguing that feminism can be taken to an unnecessary extreme? I would agree with you. But the same harm that people seem so enraged about in regards to this exaggeration is done when you deny that oppression has ever happened at all. I am saying that this article and many of these comments below are both fallacies and exaggerations, none of which do any good to address the issue of unjust treatment of our fellow human beings.

          • Astrokid

            Let me get this straight..
            For examples of women’s oppression, you pull out widely circulated mainstream documentaries, such as PBS that seeps into the masses’ consciousness.

            For examples of mens oppression, you pull out obscure academic books by hardcore gender-feminist Harry Brod who is acrtually a critic of masculinity.. i.e as something bad about men that impacts women.. and is never a critic of femininity. And you pull out dissident-feminist CHSommers book.. the war against boys.. which is hated by mainstream feminists, and is even mocked on TV for last 2 decades, including MSNBC in the last few months.

            Again, oppression is essentially unjust treatment of another.

            No. You are not allowed to water down the word as you wish, merriam-webster notwithstanding. Throughout history there has always been ‘unjust’ treatment. At this rate, everybody is oppressed and that becomes meaningless. Holocaust sufferers were unjustly treated. Black slaves in America too. Workers in coalmines too. Blue collar workers too. I was unjustly treated in my job a few years ago when I was underpaid. It would be silly of me to say I was oppressed.

            In fact, this is the ‘Wide Redefinition fallacy’.
            We need a range to words to describe different degrees of oppression.
            We have milder words like discrimination that describes what you say.

            Men’s oppression is unfortunately not an issue that people are ready to face yet.

            Amen. And thats what mens rights is all about. And thats what this site is about. And your feminist sisters are standing in the way. We have had 50+ years of feminism acting politically making change after change for women, often making it worse for men. There is a zero-sum game in some things.. for e.g divorce proceedings.
            If mens oppression is not an issue that people are ready to face, thats more damning and dangerous.

          • DeBorah

            I apologize. Since I don’t watch television I wouldn’t have seen these pieces you’re talking about. I pulled up examples that I found through a simple search, as I did with women’s oppression. As I mentioned, main stream media doesn’t acknowledge the oppression of men with the same vigor as it does that of women. But you decline to comment on the other article referring to the oppression of gay men. Does that not constitute oppression? I still argue that, at some point men, women and children have been discriminated against on a mass scale, thus equating oppression. Nor do you respond to any of my questions.

            Are you denying that women, enmass have ever been oppressed?

          • driversuz

            Are you denying that women, enmass have ever been oppressed?

            Not one bit more than men. Indeed probably less, since we as a species and a culture are more sympathetic to oppressed women than to oppressed men.

          • DeBorah

            I produce links to women’s oppression because that was the basis for the article and the thing that folks are claiming does not exist. Yes, women also oppress children… as do men. That’s the whole point. Saying oppression does not exist is simply not true. Or saying that men are not oppressing anybody but women are or feminists are is just as silly as the argument extremists from the other side are making about men.

          • DeBorah

            I would challenge you to post a reply without name-calling, mocking or exaggerating. Are you not acting just as Western colonialists did in understanding from afar, as a foreigner yourself? I think everyone is entitled to their opinion, though I believe that opinions based on personal experience offer more rich fodder for a real discussion on topics like this.

          • Astrokid M57

            I would challenge you to post a reply without exaggerating womens oppression, or imagining that someone is calling you names or mocking you.
            I guess you have not absorbed that I live in the US (for well over a decade now). I have a reasonably good understanding of its history and society, good enough to have been made a Moderator on this website, a flagship of mens rights.

            Are you not acting like a Western colonialist by treating me as an outsider?

          • DeBorah

            Again, I think we’re arguing semantics here. I have not been treating you like an outsider, I simply thought it reasonable to point out the contradiction in your statement condemning colonialists style of “understanding from afar” (which I completely agree with) then telling me that you were “from afar”. There most certainly still lives a cultural gap between your background and someone who has grown up here, its just a fact of how we are encultured as children. It does not mean I value your perspective any less. However it is important to take differences into account. As a woman who has experienced physical, verbal and sexual abuse repeatedly through her lifetime, I think its important we do not deny the pain some women experience. Do I think we should blame all men for it? Of course not. Do I think we should pretend like it doesn’t happen? Absolutely not.
            I didn’t say I was being mocked, I was pointing out your misspelled commentary that I assumed was an attempt at mockery of some general female voice. Calling me a troll is certainly uncalled for.

        • DeBorah

          Did you actually watch the film to see the women who expressed their personal perspective? Could be an eye opening experience for you.

    • Astrokid


      It is possible, reading standard histories, to forget half the population of the country. The explorers were men, the landholders and merchants men, the political leaders men, the military figures men. The very invisibility of women, the overlooking of women, is a sign of their submerged status.

      Children were also not “mentioned” much in history. That doesnt mean they were oppressed. And even after 50+ years of 2-nd wave feminism, the great explorers, inventors etc are still 99% men. The people who build dams, fight fire, fight in combat roles are 99% men. Heck.. even the great painters, chess players, music composers are 99% men. Just face it.. women were happy let men do all the extra-hard yards throughout history.. and only after freeways, air-conditioning, cars, had been invented.. they came into the public square full-time. If we write the history of the last 50 years, it will still be dominated by men. And there will be the occasional mention of women, just like Marie Curie, Florence Nightingale were mentioned in pre-feminist times.
      Howard Zinn must have been drunk, or just another White Knight.

      And you mentioned that men were also oppressed. So.. why dont you tell us how men were oppressed, and whats being done to solve that today.

      We never hear that in feminism.. except in some bullshit’ty way Patriarchy hurts the menz too , and the way to solve it is moar feminism. grovel harder for Team Vagina.

    • driversuz

      Nobody at AVfM believes that women have never been oppressed. What we understand is that women have never been oppressed *by men* or more than men. “Patriarchy Theory is a myth that would simply not have been believed even a hundred years ago, when most women were much closer to the dangers from which they require men’s protection.

      • DeBorah

        As our world changes, there is a need for structural change in our culture to adapt to the social and environmental changes occurring. Women and men no longer hold the roles they once did when we lived in small villages, exposed to wild animals and hunting and gathering every day for food. Patriarchy theory is not a myth. Our culture has been predominantly shaped and controlled by men. That was a product of how our social structure has been for a long while now. Does that mean that women were never and are not now oppressed by men in specific situations? Of course not. I don’t understand your point when you say “Nobody at AVfM believes that women have never been oppressed. What we understand is that women have never been oppressed *by men* or more than men.” So you do believe women have been oppressed but not by men? Then, pray tell, who? I would argue they’ve certainly been oppressed by each other, their churches, their government, even their medical professionals. These include, however, both men and women doing the oppressing.

        • driversuz

          The powerful oppress the powerless. Duh. You are mistaken if you think women have always been powerless. Men’s power has always been nominal and ceremonial, and they have used it primarily to attain resources for their families to use, largely at the discretion of the women who managed the homes.
          Oppression is not a genedered issue. The suggestion that it is, is a lie made up by 19th and 20th century feminists.
          You are basing your world view on presumed “facts” that are not factual, but are instead manipulated subjective perceptions.
          You may be sincere but you are being intellectually dishonest and you are behaving suspiciously like a troll. You don’t get to come here and demand that we poor misguided innocents pay attention to your preachings. We’ve heard it all before and we’ve refuted it. I would suggest that before you comment further, you “educate yourself” by reading a few more articles, particularly the ones by Peter Wright and Robert St. Estephe. They will give you an eye opening and well documented new perspective on the myth of women’s oppression.

          • DeBorah

            You are more than welcome to your own subjective perception, just as I am to mine. The beauty of an age when so many differing opinions meet on the battlefield of the internet is that there are valid, scientificly conducted explorations of just about every side of any matter. I appreciate that your point of view is different from mine and attempt to respect it by leaving name calling or belittling out of the discussion. Unfortunately it seems to be a favorite tactic of forums like these. Hence why I typically avoid them altogether. However, I’m taking a course required by my university on gender and oppression. In searching for articles for an assignment I came across this site. I was intrigued by the article and hoped to have adecent discourse with someone about it. I’ve thus received some quite interesting information that I intend to further investigate for myself. But, if by calling me a “troll” you are suggesting that I am here just to goad a reaction then you are mistaken. I find the opinion of this piece to be worth discussing further and would love to talk about it with someone who can carry a conversation without needing to use name calling and general fallacies to defend their point. In fact, explaining their point with some level of thoroughness would be pretty durn cool if you ask me (:
            I do not claim that all women have always been powerless, rather that many have expressed their desire for more or different power and have been denied by those already holding these higher ranks. For much of our history, that has been men. Oppression is a byproduct of the pressure caused by impending change. A group must push through it before they can gain higher footing. It is a perfectly reasonable request for women to ask for the things they have. It is unfortunate that they were meet with such opposition. This is what I consider the gender based oppression that folks here are denying exists. Would you call it something different?

          • driversuz

            The difference between your “opinion” and mine, is that yours is based on carefully edited “history,” and biased fake definitions. Mine is based on fact. Men and women are not different social classes of people, because men and women do and always have occupied all social classes.
            We welcome discussion, but we have no use for lectures treating mythology as fact. It’s rather like a child interrupting grownups to explain to them the taxonomy of unicorns. As I suggested, you should read some of the REAL history of relations between the sexes – the parts of history you won’t see in a university.

          • DeBorah

            Golly. The taxonomy of unicorns? I simply don’t know how to respond to that. I think it’s worth calling the Guinness Book of World Records for most creative insults. Your opinion must be fact, mine sheer buffoonery.

          • driversuz

            Your opinions are based on information which has been debunked. And instead of investigating the nature of that debunking, you are (unlike a serious scholar) derailing like a Look-At-Me Troll. This is your warning to either engage seriously, or leave.

          • DeBorah

            Do you threaten everyone who comments on this site who does not appear scholarly? You’ve clearly made assumptions about my motives and I apologize if my discussion isn’t to your liking but I’m genuinely attempting to engage in a conversation with folks about this topic. You don’t have to engage with me yourself.

          • driversuz

            We don’t permit anyone to spread debunked feminist lies on this site. You can do that just about anywhere else on the internet. If your goal is to disseminate feminist dogma under the guise of “discussion,” good luck. You will be shut down by other commenters and/or banned.

          • DeBorah

            Clearly this space is just as biased as the extreme feminist sites. Not surprising, I suppose.

          • driversuz

            Our only bias is against lies and gynocentrism, both of which you can get anywhere else.

          • DeBorah

            Personal expressions of unjust treatment are not lies. My opinion and thoughts on the topic are also not lies. Maybe you ought to consider scrolling through the rest of the comments and taking your anger out on others who are also expressing their views. I imagine you’ll find the ones that are not in line with yours to be particularly enraging.

          • driversuz

            Personal expressions that are informed by lies are worth nothing, except to the deluded party offering them. Goodbye Troll.

          • DeBorah

            The way a person feels about an act made upon them is worth a great deal. One person may feel that getting into a physical altercation with their spouse is run of the mill, another sees it as abuse and unjust treatment. Each is entitled to their own opinion. Those that seek refuge from perceived that deserve compassion and those that do not should not be forced to receive help they do not want. It doesn’t matter where their information came from, what matters is the way it makes them feel. It breaks my heart to read the words you post that seemingly convey no heart for the plight of others unless you personally think their plight is informed by what you think is fact. It was once thought that the world being flat was a fact. We can really only do our best to interpret the information we receive and use the resources we have to understand and integrate it. The belief that your facts are the only true facts is the kind of arrogance that breeds the very oppression you’re so ready to deny. Maybe that’s why it’s so hard to accept.

          • driversuz

            Strike 1: This is a friendly warning that you may need to re-read our Comment Policy, in particular the bits about derailing and trolling. [Ref: 2185]

          • DeBorah

            Thank you, I have and I’m not in violation of anything. Though its clear that you are not interested in having a discussion with me so we can leave it here.

          • driversuz

            Strike 2: This is a friendly warning that you may need to re-read our Comment Policy, in particular the bits about derailing and trolling. [Ref: 2193]

            Additional remarks:

            Can’t comprehend comment policy

          • Leibfarce

            There is no discussion to be had with you.

            You DO buy into a biased, ideological view of history.

            If you give in to the truth, and now your spoiled, selfish, self important perception of it, you will feel much better.

          • Astrokid

            Why didnt you tell us that you were a student at the beginning itself? I suspect the reason Suz thought of as a typical feminist troll.. is because your line of arguments were just indistinguishable from them.

            While the word troll is too generic, I am sure Suz is talking about the feminist one-way automaton troll who just spews the theory she has learnt at college, and just doesnt bother to respond to our counter aguments.

            Anyways.. to answer you question.. No, I dont think women were enmasse oppressed throughout history, nor were men. Were they discriminated against? Yes. (Like I said in another comment on the Wide-Redefinition fallacy). But so were men. for e.g men, but not women, were drafted to fight war. Men had to take up the death jobs, such as fire-fighting, damn-building, fighting wild-animals that surrounded them, etc. A man without status had no chance of procuring a mate. Even to this day, women dont marry down in general, even after 50+ years of feminism.

            The content on this website is quite expansive.. It took me many months of reading to understand the big picture. And the views expressed here are very much counter-mainstream, esp feminist gender studies courses in academia. In fact, I would not recommend this website to start with. Start with dissident feminists such as Cathy Young, Christina Hoff Sommers. Follow her on twitter, and you will see things like this.

            Follow the work of 70s/80 feminist Camille Paglia

            It was always the proper mission of feminism to attack and reconstruct the ossified social practices that had led to wide-ranging discrimination against women. But surely it was and is possible for a progressive reform movement to achieve that without stereotyping, belittling or demonizing men. History must be seen clearly and fairly: obstructive traditions arose not from men’s hatred or enslavement of women but from the natural division of labor that had developed over thousands of years during the agrarian period and that once immensely benefited and protected women, permitting them to remain at the hearth to care for helpless infants and children. Over the past century, it was labor-saving appliances, invented by men and spread by capitalism, that liberated women from daily drudgery.

            What is troubling in too many books and articles by feminist journalists in the U.S. is, despite their putative leftism, an implicit privileging of bourgeois values and culture. The particular focused, clerical and managerial skills of the upper-middle-class elite are presented as the highest desideratum, the ultimate evolutionary point of humanity. Yes, there has been a gradual transition from an industrial to a service-sector economy in which women, who generally prefer a safe, clean, quiet work environment thrive.

            Power comes in many forms. Women have enormous sexual and emotional power. Even with respect to something like the vote for women in US/UK, unless one looks at the whole picture (which feminist literature wont), one cant see the big picture. for e.g consider this woman in Victorian England who opposed the vote.

            Corelli on the Women’s Vote, in 1900s

            I love my own sex, and I heartily sympathise with every step that women take towards culture, freedom, advancement, and the moral and intellectual mastery of themselves. I would fain serve them in all that may be for their peace and perfect happiness, but I honestly feel that such peace and happiness are not to be gained by violent or unnatural methods. The object of woman’s existence is not to war with man, or allow man to war with her, but simply to conquer him and hold him in subservience without so much as a threat or a blow. Clever women always do this; clever women have always done it. It is only stupid women who cannot command men

          • DeBorah

            I appreciate your sharing more information with me. I didn’t come here to blindly oppose, I was interested in a real discussion. It’s unfortunate that I received such aggressive responses, though I understand if you and others here are accustomed to having to take a defensive position against closed minded “trolls” as its apparently called.

            I think my issue is still with the use of the term oppression, discrimination and sexism. The points that I have been attempting to make is that women and men alike have endured a variety of unjust treatments throughout human history. Thus, I do not align myself with feminists because I don’t agree with the severity of their claim. On the other side of that coin, I do not agree with hard-core anti-feminists who claim women have never endured mass discrimination. I don’t understand arguing that one has had it worse than the other when both have been victimized.

            “The object of woman’s existence is not to war with man, or allow man to war with her, but simply to conquer him and hold him in subservience without so much as a threat or a blow.” – Comments like this seem irrational and just as overblown as feminist claims. It’s an over-generalization, grouping all women together as some kind of manipulative tyrants. This is my problem with both sides of the argument.

            Generally, I don’t believe that there are throngs of men or women out there consciously attempting to oppress each other. Do I believe the genders engage in a struggle for perceived power? Absolutely. In this struggle both men and women have been discriminated against on a mass scale. That does not make one side more justified than the other. I cringe at the blaming that happens from both sides, pointing fingers like someone is just making up stories of unjust treatment. The kicker is that I think people on both sides of the fence honestly feel unjustly treated. They both should be honored, not told to “shut the fuck up” or that their feelings are invalid. One person feeling oppressed is cause for concern and should be addressed. By whom? That I do not know. But I don’t believe that telling everyone to suck it up and move on is the right course of action either.

          • DeBorah

            If Webster is wrong about the definition of oppression, then who is right? It seems more a game of semantics now than a discussion about the actual acts of discrimination.

  • DeBorah
  • DeBorah

    Thank you for making the point about male circumcision.

  • K Bren

    I appreciate many of the points this author has made. I believe women are being oppressed to this day, but not at all by the magnitude that most feminists put it. In fact, like the point he made about men being drafted for war while women were safe is unjust treatment. As is the way a man is expected to pamper women just because they’re a woman. Of course, I don’t want a man to disrespect me, but I don’t want him to feel the obligation to treat me like, as he mentioned, a princess. Women aren’t anything special. Like men, we are human. Eliminating sexism means treating one another with mutual respect.
    What I would appreciate from the author, though, is a bit more research on his history. Some of his claims are a bit flimsy and they could be a bit more accurate or more clarified.

    • DeBorah

      I appreciate your use of the term sexism. It gestures to the oppression faced by both men and women by the present social structure. My concern is when we swing from one end of the spectrum to the other, denying that women have ever been oppressed and that men are the only oppressed. The article here seems a bit more like an opinion piece than the kind of scholarly article that would end up in a peer-reviewed journal. Thus, I also feel it is lacking in a few areas.

      Thank you for a thoughtful post.

    • fernsoles

      A relationship with woman=abuse. Glad I finally learned this. Fooled no more.

  • DeBorah

    ::chuckle:: I particularly like the way you expressed your opinion here. I’ve attempted to express mine and ask questions as to whether its “oppression” they believe does not exist or any form of unjust treatment of women, ever. I was told, in fact, that the Merriam-Webster dictionary is not correct and that I’m using the term inappropriately when I refer to the oppression that women, men and children alike have faced throughout history.
    What I’m most confused about is the Title and sub-title of this site: A Voice for Men (clearly a gendercentric, male oriented representation) Humanistic Counter-Theory (a gesture toward being in support of BOTH sexes). Yet articles like this are posted, clearly denying the unjust treatment that women have endured. Ignoring sexism doesn’t solve the problem, nor does claiming it doesn’t exist. I’m still curious if its just a game of semantics being played here or if the author and the pro-article commentors really believe women have never endured unjust treatment enmass. Thoughts?

    • Astrokid M57

      Strike 3 which, since you can’t seem to adhere to Comment Policy, means you are now autobanned. [Ref: 2197]

      Additional remarks:

      Crazy bitch.. off you go.
      I wont let a dimwit pretend-victim like you mis-represent and denigrate this site on this site

    • Leibfarce

      P-people were treated unjustly in the past?

      People who weren’t aristocrats?

      Well… golly gee. That’s a stunning revelation.

      Who woulda thunk it? In an era where MIGHT(note: not cock and balls) was right, people were put under heel?

      Man. Thank you for letting me know this. I’m really glad to have such a mighty thinker as you here to debate us lowly men.

  • Leibfarce

    So you hate men who think they should be listened to…

    But you obviously think YOU should be listened to.

    Reading your comments is like reading HowToBeAnInternetFeminist 101.

    Do you have an original thought in your head?

    P.s Men, throughout history, have gotten the shorter end of the stick on violence compared to women. This is not even up for debate. There’s a difference between being battered and being maimed. This tradition of men being the primary victims of violence in the world continues to this day.

  • franco-american

    I just tire of hearing the stories about past oppression to explain present attitudes or actions.
    The analyzation of the past can get so damned complex and confusing- besides the recorded historical facts, we’ve got things that were going on underneath it all but were implicit. Women have held it as “mystique” that they can manipulate emotions, pull strings in “unseen ways”, be the invisible power behind the image of men, so then those recorded facts have less strength in representing the whole story.

    I find the exercise of trying to clarify that in vain. The past is not the present. It’s like blacks that rationalize unethical behavior now, because slavery of blacks once existed.

    I won’t make any friends with this opinion, but I think some of it is due to the generational characteristics. Baby Boomers on the whole still defend the myth that their provocation of a cultural upheaval was nothing short of heroic action worthy of worship, and though many of their X Gen kids didn’t buy that (we were too close, we saw the reality) the grandkids, the young adult generation now, are eating it up – and using it.
    This gives the grandparents the ego caress they want and are used to, but it ignores the reality and I think it is destructive.

    I don’t care if we once needed feminism or not. Looking around I don’t see a need for it now, end of story.

  • Paulus Magus

    I don’t interact with stupid white college kids, and television is for retards, so I actually don’t run into many Feminazis. But I really would love to knock the teeth out of one. I’ll give them a reason to cry.
    Basically, Feminazism is the worst thing since Christianity for making women into fucking retarded, delusional twats who contribute nothing.

    However, I completely blame men for the success of Feminazis. Men really do control the soldiery, the economy, the State and are generally much better at philosophy and planning. The only, ONLY reason Feminazis exist is because men put up with that shit – you pandered to bitches for pussy.
    As long as men are too fucking dependent to refuse to deal with stupid cunts and learn to jerk off they have no one to blame but themselves for this shit.

    And the average crypto-Transexual bitch that is called a ‘man’ today is basically a eunuch, an illiterate dope, an unemployable douche and more or less deliberately irresponsible. These subhumans don’t deserve anyone’s sympathy, they deserve a eugenics program.

    • driversuz

      You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (misandry and misogyny and violence). [Ref: 3424]