Failed Stamp

The patriarchy myth revealed

Recently I made a video, Rosie the Riveter – A message for feminists, which calls out the famous feminist icon and hero depicted on the propaganda piece for the false idol she is.

After receiving many positive comments on the video, I received the following comment from a feminist who seemed quite upset with me for having spoken the truth about Rosie.

Feminist Comment

 

I found this comment to be quite ridiculous and replied to her with the following:

My Reply

 

As I am only allowed so many words in a comment on YouTube, I would like to address this tired feminist claim that there exists a patriarchy which is out to systematically oppress women and create complete subordination to male authority.

If it is true that this feminist theory of patriarchy exists, then there seems to be many inconsistencies in the feminist rhetoric which need to be answered.

The first would be that, if this patriarchy indeed exists, and has existed for years before the present day, then why do women have so many rights, benefits, and privileges?

According to feminist theory, which is not really a theory, feminists believe that the patriarchy is “an unjust social system that is oppressive to women. It is the concept of patriarchy which often includes all the social mechanisms that reproduce and exert male dominance over women.”

If this is indeed true, then it logically follows that feminism is not responsible for giving women any rights, benefits, or privileges. Indeed it would be fair to say that the patriarchy is in fact responsible for instituting those rights, benefits, and privileges which women enjoy and profit from.

Feminism is a movement, not a political power that can force the supposed oppressive patriarchal hand to suddenly embrace women and end their oppression. Feminists have stated that the patriarchy is a “dominant social system whose only goal is the oppression and dominance of women,” so why would such a system then grant women rights, benefits, or privileges? It just does not make any sense does it?

The other question one must ask is that, if this oppressive patriarchy exists, why have women been allowed to infiltrate it?

Today women are welcomed to be part of the ‘dominant social system’ by the patriarchal oppressors. What would be the benefit to these dominant and oppressive males to have women in their clubhouse competing for dominance, and in many instances, achieving dominance over these men? Would it not be to the dominant male’s advantage to refuse a woman’s participation in the dominant social system and to refuse the implementation of any laws, benefits, or privileges for women? Wouldn’t the goal of these oppressive men be to keep all women as obedient and restricted as possible?

The truth is one of two things. Either there is not now, nor ever was, any patriarchy as feminists would have us believe, or there does indeed exist a patriarchy which is nothing like the oppressive and domineering one that feminism has conjured up, and it is not concerned with dominating or oppressing women for some sort of male supremacy or world domination.

In fact, if the patriarchy does indeed exist, it seems that it is more concerned with women and their rights, well-being, and demands than they are with their own gender.

So when feminists claim they are fighting the patriarchy because it is an oppressive system, they are in fact saying that the same system that has given them all the rights, benefits and privileges they have, and continue to get is oppressing them. And it is that factual inconsistency that reveals the truth that feminist theory is completely bullshit, and nothing more than a way for angry, sexually repressed, ignorant women to hate on men.

 

  • Ken

    “…..and nothing more than a way for angry, sexually repressed, ignorant women to hate on men.”

    Wow was it nice to see that flipped over…

    Thank You!

    Lneufrasia is so confused by her own statement it staggers my mind. This type of feminist is so common to run across these days….

    …..It’s scary……
    ………They are like bombs waiting to go off.

    They will say or do anything at any time in any situation or company with no thought whatsoever of the consequence. They fabricate ideas on the spot out of nothing at all. I don’t even think they believe themselves. They make up their reality on a minute by minute, scenario by scenario basis defined entirely by their mood.

    I don’t know how a person can live like that. There is no way to talk to them like adults. They are not even capable of communication at an adult level. They have not a shred of responsibility, they are dimly aware of the concept…if at all. How could someone like this ever understand concepts like love, honor or dignity?

    Lneufrasia there is a reason you are sexually repressed!

    • Laddition

      ‘We’ are just enemies, us evil penis-wielders

      WBB is teh ebul betrayer who denies the one true faith…burn the witch!

      of course they’re more pissed at her

      • Ken

        Maybe but….feminist indoctrinated people don’t know the difference between “teh ebul betrayer” and a pair of shoes they can’t afford….

        So , honestly what difference does it make?
        lol

      • feeriker

        evil penis-wielders

        Another keeper!

        I wonder if there’s a t-shirt available with that label?

        • http://zazzle.com/iconografer ikonografer

          here, made this just for you guys: http://www.zazzle.com/ebul_penus_weeldur-235425624805253522 , email requests to WBB, she’ll make sure I get them.

          • Laddition

            like it!

            another suggestion would be (bonus points for cross outs on the first three lines)

            paterey…
            paytre…
            partyree…
            dammit
            ebul penus weeldur

    • Kimski

      “They make up their reality on a minute by minute, scenario by scenario basis defined entirely by their mood.”

      That’s actually a pretty precise description of how animals perceive reality.
      Oh, you were talking about RadFems??
      Sorry, my mistake…

      • Steve_85

        There was no mistake.

  • yinyangbalance

    I learned a long time ago that Feminism isn’t even a women’s movement. Incorrectly it is seen as thing thing that women started and has taken over government. It backdates itself and it demands credit for your present freedoms. Then it tells you that you are not free at all and that they are being oppressed.

    First of all when you step out of the whirlwind and look at this objectively you will see that Feminism is a post world war II new approach to government propaganda, a recruiting tool for putting women to work and sending men to war. You mention Rosie the Riveter, well those types of images if you look were created by a group called the War Commission to post ads in order to convince women to go to work in response to men being uproated from society and drafted to the war. If you notice, all those propaganda posters have the goal to convince women to shed their femininity and embrace masculinity. Lots of the paintings show women with huge masculine arms and shoulders, in fact I would argue that some of them were male models that had female heads painted on them. Its no surprise that Rosie the Riveter posters in Feminist hands have the little credits removed from the bottom. They don’t want you to know that the very person that created Rosie the Riveter was an old man, a would be ‘patriarchal’ corrupt government DOG who was paid with tax payer dollars to do it. THIS IS WHAT FEMINISM LOOKS LIKE.

    After WWII, and with the importing of Nazi ‘mind scientists’ we had the creation of Feminism. Its goal is the same, to seperate men and women in order to provide a nice soul harvest of male soldiers to die in tomorrows wars. The tactics are more psychological and the propaganda resembles that of Goebels for a very good reason, because those that created Feminism were Nazis themselves. Feminism is a government SPAWN, it comes from the government and the error is seeing it as infiltrating the government….which is not true at all.

    I have been sitting on this for a long time. I think its about time to make my next video.

  • Laddition

    I’ve always found it to be a mistake to attempt to apply mental rigour to feminist factology. It’s like trying to analyse Norse mythology using Quantum Mechanics…wrong tool at every level.

    Either you just believe, or you’re a person who operates within the realms of reason – either.

    I think that that is the mistake that you’re making.

    HTH

    • Ken

      I don’t think Kristina Hansen was wrong to answer.

      She probably got a good laugh out of it…

      …and so did we! xD

      • Laddition

        maybe…after she finished banging her head on the desk.

        • Bewildered

          Fortunately she is a very tough lady ! Repeatedly banging your head against anything can be fatal!

          • http://www.woolybumblebee.com/about Kristina Hansen

            I have a hard head after all these years of repeatedly facepalming and hitting the desk with it ;)

        • Near Earth Object

          Something I heard many years ago…

          Peasant: Why are you banging your head against the wall?

          Monk: Because it feels so good when I stop.

    • JGteMolder

      Ah, yes, but Kristina and the rest of us don’t do this to convince the feminists, especially not the radfems and the hardcore ones, it’s far too late for them.

      We do this so people who are not yet indoctrinated in today’s state religion get to see the bullshit and help prevent them from getting indoctrinated in the first place.

  • Bemused Curiosity

    In a democracy where women out number men it must follow that they voted for a Patriarchy if it indeed exists. Why have they voted for a system that oppresses them since universal suffurage? In a capatalist society where jobs get shipped out to low wage manufacturers any wage gap would make women more employable and therefore more competetive in the work place. If a woman can do what a man can do for less she would get the job and any man would have to settle for less pay or be first in line for redundancy or last in line for a new job. Fighting feminism has been likened to ‘sword fighting a fart’ because it too is capable of making a stink but actually has no phyisical manifestations. No patriarchy, no systemic disenfrachisement, no oppression (also no tall attractive empowered amazonian types in high heels helping me change a flat tyre when I need it either). Feminism is a delusion.

    • JFinn

      “Women vote for the patriarchy because the patriarchy tells women to vote for the patriarchy.”

      “The bible is true because the bible says that the bible is true.”

      Of course, voters/consumers/media viewers and readers have far more power than politicians or CEOs. And please don’t take my second line as a mockery of all theists. Far from it. I’m just noting how feminism = fundamentalism.

  • Bewildered

    “In fact, if the patriarchy does indeed exist, it seems that it is more concerned with women and their rights, well-being, and demands than they are with their own gender.

    So when feminists claim they are fighting the patriarchy because it is an oppressive system, they are in fact saying that the same system that has given them all the rights, benefits and privileges they have, and continue to get is oppressing them. And it is that factual inconsistency that reveals the truth that feminist theory is completely bullshit, and nothing more than a way for angry, sexually repressed, ignorant women to hate on men.”

    A comprehensive knock out that might just have resulted in the death of the boxer !

  • 86

    I am under the delusion that many of the issues feminists and other social justice warriors pin on “aging white men” are just out and out bogus. But the ones that are not bogus are more class related than gender or racially based. That is, if you can make it into the 1% that “rules” society, the existing colors don’t care if you’re female, disabled, a minority, or anything, it’s all pick up a stein and sing Stonecutters songs time.

    But this leads me to wonder if MHRA is really a class struggle.

    http://pianosa.com/pic/sketches/commquiz.htm

    Presenter: Yes, yes, it is indeed. You’re on your way to the lounge suite, Karl. Question number two. The struggle of class against class is a what struggle? A what struggle?

    Karl: A political struggle.

    (Tumultuous applause.)

    Presenter: Yes, yes! One final question Karl and the beautiful lounge suite will be yours… Are you going to have a go? (Karl nods) You’re a brave man. Karl Marx, your final question, who won the Cup Final in 1949?

    Karl: The workers’ control of the means of production? The struggle of the urban proletariat?

    Presenter: No. It was in fact, Wolverhampton Wanderers who beat Leicester 3-1.

    And if what is really going on here is more a class struggle than any sort of gender/racial social justice warrior struggle, what would most MHRA’s feel about that?

    • Ken

      I think a lot of that is true now, and, it is a worthy distinction.

      Either way the path forward is by restoring value to reason.

      • Laddition

        whoah

        comment of the day, I reckon

        “the path forward is by restoring value to reason”

        yeah, let’s try facts, truth and reasoning for a distinct change over made up shit, lies and emotion.

        crazy, crazy idea – I like it

  • http://gloriusbastard.com/ JJ

    The sad thing is, you won’t have even put a dent in this woman’s mind. She will read this, and say you are the crazy one. In her mind of course it exists, that is why “government” has to enforce her right to tell us we are oppressive!

    The fact that government does that for her, that “patriarchal regime” is a fact obviously lost on her; and all feminists in general.

  • http://www.judgybitch.com Janet Bloomfield (aka JudgyBitch)

    Kristina, I had a reader send me a link to an amazing piece of research that has been buried since 1975! It’s easily accessible, but has been completely ignored for decades!

    I wrote about it here:

    http://judgybitch.com/2013/04/14/there-never-was-a-patriarchy-and-there-isnt-one-now-in-related-news-mr-jb-cant-do-shit-without-running-it-by-me-first/

    The paper is one of the best explanations for the myth of male dominance I’ve ever read.

    http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/dcrawford/rogers.pdf

    • napocapo69

      your blog rocks

      • Bewildered

        Come on ! don’t be shy ,why don’t you compliment her directly ?

        @JB I love your no nonsense style of dealing with things.

        Your clarity of vision is admirable.

        A person who can speak her mind,expose the myriad hypocrisies she encounters without being a renegade.
        You are more of a sharpshooter rather than a rage filled maniac with a AK47,who doesn’t bother about the collateral damages,when letting loose a stream of bullets to get her target.
        No one can deny that you are a person who can talk the talk[you do it with style!] and walk the walk !

    • http://www.woolybumblebee.com/about Kristina Hansen

      Awesome! Thanks so much :)

    • Jay

      Thanks for the links. And thanks for the article Kristina. I’ve seen so many of my students over the years have to write papers and they all just seem to automatically believe in the “patriarchy”. Unbelievable.

  • http://feministlies.wordpress.com/ Theaverageman

    Even so we have to acknowledge that first wave feminism did a lot of great things for society however it’s worth mentioning that 2nd/3rd wave feminism in no way resembles first wave feminism. The fight for female autonomy quickly turned into a man hating ideology which labels all men as potential rapists.

    • Steve_85

      First wave Feminism did good things?? Like what?

  • MrStodern

    To quote Michael Kelso:

    BURN!!

  • Robert St. Estephe

    Misandry is based on theories. Anti-misandry is based on facts.

    (Facts are, of course, “patriarchal,” according to the gynocultists).

  • Rog

    Patriarchy in under 20 words
    Are there any laws that benefit men over women in the western world?
    no?
    patriarchy debunked..

    • http://www.judgybitch.com Janet Bloomfield (aka JudgyBitch)

      Uhm…. you get to take your shirt off in the summer *.

      Ha!

      Suck it!

      Patriarchy proved!

      Because once you can take your shirt off, you rule the world, obviously.

      *does not apply to breastfeeding mothers
      **does not apply to strippers
      ***does not apply to Girls Gone Wild videos
      ****does not apply to driveby flashings
      *****does not apply to slutwalks
      ******does not apply to breast cancer awareness advocates

      ….oh, never mind….

      • Kimski

        So what now?
        We’re not allowed to take our shirts off anymore or what?

        I get so confused these days..

      • Rog

        how does women not being allowed to take their shirts off benefit men again?
        “benefits men over women”? :P
        ohhhh the heat thing?
        ok then we must get rid of it immediately so that women in droves will be topless everywhere ;)

        • http://www.judgybitch.com Janet Bloomfield (aka JudgyBitch)

          I sense sarcasm, sir, and I see no need for it.

          What would be the problem with topless women everywhere?

          Wait…

          Obesity crisis…

          Average woman 5’2 and 165 lbs….

          Hot. Sweating. Bare flesh…..

          Yech.

          Be careful what you wish for.

          • Kimski

            -Aaand pass the bucket, please.

          • Rog

            hehe dont hate cause i have a dream of equality for all.

          • Laddition

            when you’ve finished with the mind bleach, over here please

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

        Correction, men get to take their pasties off in the summer. ;-)
        Oh the privilege….. stop privilege, you’re drowning me ….

  • sfer

    Patriarchy is a real thing:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy

    It is a social organization pattern that arose along with other increases in hierarchy allowed by agriculture. Pretending that patriarchy doesn’t exist is like pretending that kings, priests, slaves or armies don’t exist. It isn’t a good term to use with respect to modern society which seems to be moving toward more egalitarian arrangements.

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

      Patriarchies almost always involved strong matriarchal power and honor for women and extreme burden and sacrifice for men.

      One of the tricks of Feminist Academic Theory is the idea that there is a thing or force called “Patriarchy” that is a social construct which deludes and fools us all with a “false consciousness” regarding gender roles.

      Intellectual feminism is full of these little pitfalls. Yes, patriarchy is a thing. “The Patriarchy,” on the other hand, does not exist. Rape Culture is also a thing, we just don’t live in one. Mansplaining is a real thing, it’s just been turned into a term of abuse to delegitimize anything any man may say even about his own experiences or feelings let alone documentable facts (and ignores the reality of its equivalent, which I call “femsplaining”). Privilege based on race, sex, ethnicity, accent, dialect, income, and so on are real things, and yes, Male Privilege does and has existed, but has always been counterbalanced by the Female Privilege which has always existed and which is at historically extraordinary highs right now.

      Sexual harassment is a thing. So is sexual harassment hysteria and exaggeration and outright lies about it.

      The point is, there is rarely any single word or term used in Feminist Theory that does not exist in some real form or other, but since it’s all relentlessly gynocentric and completely nonfalsifiable, they take what are potentially useful words to describe and examine human behavior and warp it into something hateful and deranged that is Orwellian in the way it twists reality to the point where words mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean.

      Hell, Exhibit A in the whole thing, I submit, is the very word “feminist” itself, which I defy anyone to give me a clear and concise definition of that everybody will agree with (which is partly why I rarely use it without qualifiers in the first place, or avoid it altogether).

      • Fredrik

        That was really awesome.

        Just because I love attempting futile things, here’s my shot at it: A feminist is someone who favors women over men in all cases. See also “female supremacist.”

      • Laddition

        “Intellectual feminism”

        wait! what? what did you just say?

        maybe ‘back in the day’, maybe.

        But now?

        Modern feminism appears to be truth and thought averse. Even female feminists dare not divert from the required narrative. Male ones are under the bus before they can say, “but I was just…”.

        That’s why sensible (red-pill) men don’t bother trying to debate with feminists – you cannot reason with people incapable of seeing reason. Feminists hate men, nothing that you can say will change that, it’s okay to ignore them and speak to the reasonable people instead.

        • Near Earth Object

          “Intellectual feminism”
          wait! what? what did you just say?
          maybe ‘back in the day’, maybe.
          But now?”
          * * * * *
          On another thread, Laddition, you referred to our foe as retards.
          Where I do appreciate some of your perception, I invited you then to exercise caution.

          Consider this definition of intelligence, brother.
          Intelligence is manipulating your environment to get what you need and/or want.

          Feminists have revealed their—collective—intelligence in demonstration—influencing government policy—after demonstration—an allegation (false) of rape—after demonstration…

          The architects of this ‘rape hysteria’ are brilliant, for what they have accomplished to date and are attempting to accomplish—some of which we may not yet have seen.

          Are they ethical? Ethics are about values and they do not share our values—some of which are now thousands of years old. Why should we even expect that they would continue to abide by our once shared and cherished values, when the first casualty of war is the Truth (reality).
          Make no mistake, we are at war and experiencing the raw intelligence of their foot soldiers and the rather sophisticated intelligence of their commanders.

          Never underestimate y(our) enemy.

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

          “Feminism as an intellectual movement.” The people who write all the Gender Theory papers and wrote books like “The Female Eunuch” and “Against Our Will” and “The Feminine Mystique” and “Intercourse” and so on.

          Have no question that this is an intellectual movement. That it’s batshit crazy and only glancingly touches on reality, often almost by accident, does not mean it is not an intellectual movement. Have no doubt, intellectual feminism is where all the most hateful vapid bigoted shit has come from, and it’s what’s driving the worst and most draconian laws and attitudes.

          At one time it could be said that this intellectual movement had some sort of mooring in reality; there were issues that frustrated women where they weren’t being treated quite fairly that needed addressing. The problem is they left men out of the equation, as well as their own role in setting things up the way they had been in the first place.

          At this point they’re completely out of intellectual gas and have to rely on hate and hysteria for everything, but that hasn’t slowed them down. Although it’s starting to scare them because they’re starting to notice, and it’s particularly annoying to them that we’re so fearless and unapologetic in pointing it out, we will not shut up we will not be silenced and it really upsets them. Poor things.

          • Carlos

            I would call it a rhetorical movement more than an intellectual one.

            Countless degree programs, students and public universities, funded by tax-payers, all striving to generate the finest propaganda and most compellingly unfalsfiable claims while publishing the same under the color of their degrees to give it a shit-shine of legitimacy.

          • sfer

            Pinker has an interesting defense of “against our will”:

            One surprise that I experienced upon re-reading Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 book “Against Our Will,” which originated the rape-is-about-power-not-sex doctrine, is that idea was a very tiny part of the book, thrown in almost as an afterthought (Brownmiller said she got the idea from one of her Marxist professors). Most of the book is a brilliant account of the history of rape, its treatment by the legal system, its depiction in literature and film, the experience of being raped and reporting it, and other topics. It’s also written with great style, clarity, and erudition. Though I disagree with that one idea, I would recommend it as one of the best and most important books on violence I have read.

            http://www.skepticink.com/incredulous/2013/03/19/steven-pinkers-reddit-ama-recap/

            There really was a weird spike in moderately positive representations of rape starting in the late 60s. “high plains drifter” is shocking to see now. Why is the hero raping somebody? I am glad that they shut that down.

    • Wilf

      Quoting from Wikipedia (a veritable gold mine of wisdom). Jesus Wept

  • http://www.judgybitch.com Janet Bloomfield (aka JudgyBitch)

    Patriarchies almost always involved strong matriarchal power and honor for women and extreme burden and sacrifice for men.

    Exactly right, Dean. Male dominance was a myth constructed to make men feel more comfortable with the fact that informal power over resources like food and children skew heavily towards women.

    And that men do the brunt labor to make food and therefore children (who survive into adulthood) possible.

    Male dominance is only visible when FORMAL power structures are considered. When you bring INFORMAL power into play, women have always had the upper hand.

    Society used to have a mechanism to balance that differential: it was commonly called “patriarchy”, although the entire concept was deployed to mitigate against women’s greater control over the basic resources of a society: children.

    Patriarchy is about equality between the sexes more than feminism will ever be (not that it intends such a thing anyways).

  • MGTOW-man

    I believe there is no patriarchy. What they call patriarchy and male privilege is just nature acting in the best interest of our species.

    Our species was driven to do things that may have seemed unfair to the misfits, but yielded the most success for the most people, about most things, most of the time, making life more fun and sensible overall. It progressed via each generation taking what worked best for our species’ success thus learned and taught so far, and used that information to eke out the best living for the current generation still having to figure out what to do.

    Men did not invent nature… or its ability to adapt while also refusing to embrace what worked well in the last generation. To have done otherwise would have proven fatal for our species…or at least would have stifled procreation to a great extent because we, men and women, wouldn’t have gotten along.

    Humm, sounds like the present, huh? (Tocqueville: “Weak men and disorderly women”.)

    But of course, do not blame women for ANYthing, even if it is the God-knows-it truth that even a cow could comprehend. Do not dare to be truthful;To do so is to “hate” women (!@#$%^&!).

    Even if Genesis (ADAM and Eve) isn’t true, wow!, didn’t men then (and now) understand most women and how they prioritize their emotions, confuse it with reality in a way they are unaware, and are oblivious to it all being soooo selfish and destructive?!

    …And on that note? If there is a devil, isn’t it obvious which side She hopes to win…sacrificial and protective men…or… their masters?

  • http://feministlies.wordpress.com/ Theaverageman

    It is arguable if utilitarianism is an ethical philosophy especially in an age of which technology has greatly reduced biological pressures on human as a collective.We’ve reached a level of intelligence of which we’re able to question the point of our existence and the reductionistic “biological imperative” viewpoint doesn’t cut it anymore.

  • Booyah

    The Easter Bunny has not bought me any easter eggs for over 20 years. I therefore declare the Easter Bunny an ageist bigot who is only interested in the oppression of adults.

    We must fight the evil Easter Bunny!

  • Nightwing1029

    Pure win, lady!
    So need to post this to my facebook.

  • Near Earth Object

    I’m not going to say that this is a well-written, well-reasoned and logically-constructed article
    —we all know that already. (gotcha)

    What I would like to point to is this:

    Lneufrasia wrote:
    Do you think you’d have such a “privileged” (word you keep using) life if it wasn’t for them?

    Lneufrasia could have written:
    Do you think you’d have such a __________ life if it wasn’t for them?

    Is this person weak-minded?
    Is this person too illiterate to generate a synonym for “privileged”?
    Is this person too lazy to consult a dictionary for a synonym for “privileged”?

    All are viable.

    However…

    I am left with the sense that she recognizes ‘her’ own privilege and that she is beholden to feminism for this privilege, but that she cannot use this word (privilege) to describe her status in society, without including a disclaimer, for having used the word.

    Lneufrasia is a female miser crying poor mouth, while she stacks her ill-gotten coins. And she knows it!

  • knightrunner

    Ok. Let me see if I understand.

    Women were oppressed by the patriarchy.
    Women ask the patriarchy for rights.
    The patriarchy gives women rights.
    Women use the rights given by the patriarchy to fight the patriarchy because the patriarchy is oppressing them.

    Anyone got an aspirin?

    • Sanguifer

      I think at least some feminists would argue that patriarchal structures are naturally occuring, and that they can and should be overcome by society, similarly how we dismantled other unfavourable naturally occuring structures.

      That at least resembles some sort of argument. Still, hard to tell, since for 10 feminists, there’s usually 14 different definitions…

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        Care to actually cite any feminist sources for that? I’ve only heard that idea coming from the MHRA camp, in defense of their often involuntary role as sacrificial defenders of wimmen folk.

        • Sanguifer

          Can’t cite any credible sources for that, I’m afraid. It’s the argument I heard from the more, um, civil feminist acquaintances. I assume they got it from somewhere themselves, so there’s probably some kind of source out there. I’ll remember to ask for it next time around.

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

            Same here. It’s usually accompanied by, “Patriarchy hurts men too,” and, “That’s why I consider myself an egalitarian feminist who cares about men’s issues,” and,
            “I don’t follow the nuts and bolts of feminist politics, but I’m sure most feminists are nice like me, and usually mean well. And they keep using that word – ‘Patriarchy’ – so I agree with them when they say it’s eeeevil…”

    • Bewildered

      LOL! you need a strong tranquilizer !

  • onca747

    I always knew feminism was self-refuting.

    • Laddition

      it often manages to be self-parodying in my experience

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F (Ian Williams)

    Kristina.

    Thanks for your kicking against those that spread the Patriarchy myth. Unfortunately there is a grain of truth in what these people say.

    Don’t quote me on this as there were lots and lots of illicit parmeceuticals in my system at the time, but I swear I saw that Patriarchy bastard running off the Easter Bunny in a paper mache car made from pulped porn. He’s real as of my writing to you.

    Your article is great. Hells Bells mate I love your writing, but this Patriarchy and rabbit oddity needed to be said and I hope it does not deflect from your fine message here.

    Please get back to me about this matter as the drugs have a long half-life and the carpet at my feet is starting to wriggle as worms.

  • Carlos

    Great article. I especially liked the comment about how feminists deserve no credit for the women’s suffrage movement. I would love to see this topic expanded upon along with the corollary historical revisionism where modern feminists re-brand the women’s suffrage movement to be “first wave feminism,” and attempt to create a false narrative of altruistic and noble beginnings to insulate themselves from, and shut-down, criticism of female chauvinism and fascism by claiming critics of feminism want to deny women the right to vote.

    The whole thing is about as intellectually dishonest as it would be if the MRM tried to rewrite history to claim things like the Renascence, Age of Enlightenment and Civil Rights movements were our “1st, 2nd and 3rd waves” and that anyone who criticized the MRM wanted to see men, and the families they were responsible for, back in the Dark Ages.

    I expect that the suffragettes would be rolling in their graves to see the things that feminists have done to society whilst claiming to walk in their footsteps.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    This succinct exposure of a basic fallacy in the feminist argument is valuable. It provides further evidence that A Voice for Men is a place where effective measures are being taken to expose and refute the propaganda of extremists (members of a particular, but large and influential extremist movement) — in an effort to assist the entire public, of all ages, of both sexes, to identify and protect itself from the particular extremist movement we specialize in analyzing.

    Gender ideology extremists are a threat to the freedoms and security of all persons. Thus it is a valuable public service to report on its doings.

  • Grumpy Old Man

    Good article..

  • Whatever_Bitch

    Classic ungrateful apologist. You call yourself a feminists?! Ha. You’re a traitorous moron, nothing more.

    She’s right you don’t deserve any rights at all, you deserve to suffer all the fates of those other women before they had rights.

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      Twat did you say? I cunt hear you.

    • Near Earth Object

      Whatever Bitch

      :)

      • Peter Wright (Tawil)

        Well played! :-)

    • Grumpy Old Man

      Is that the reverse psychology anti Trolling kind of Trolling, or is it the real Trolling type Trolling. Sometimes I feel the same way, something sets me off and I just can hold back. But damn you are good. :)

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F (Ian Williams)

      Whatever_Bitch.

      I am an MHRA and I totally understand your anger.

      In fact, I agree with you absolutely. Kristina is as you say a traitor and this organisation has been in discussions about this very issue.

      “Who is she really?”, we have been asking. “Surely someone who would turn on their own sex has a screw loose?”

      Not only that, but her turncoat ways have had Paul telling me this very morning that he has been going through all comments in the database that have been made by women. He has an announcement in the light of his analysis that will shock many.

      AVfM will be collapsing its tent soon.

      How can we pretend to be a humanitarian movement when we endorse by publication the very words of traitors? We now believe that traitors cannot be humanitarian and there is no way out of this truism. This conundrum.

      We have been led astray and will make amends by this site’s being packed away and in it’s place a new one bearing the name ‘avoicefor-whatever_bitch.’

      Thank you for your heralding, or bringing to a head this gathering menace behind the scenes. All will be restored as it should, and we hope the people here will leave this place bearing good memories of their hard work, although it has been work misspent none the less.

      Your salient reply will be read by me soon but presently it is difficult for my quick response due to typing with only one hand.

      Ian. Williams.

      • Kimski

        Best laugh all day, Doc. I seriously had to wipe away a tear there.
        You’re an undefeated champ when it comes to these kinds of replies.
        I thank god you’re on our side. :D

      • http://www.woolybumblebee.com/about Kristina Hansen

        All I can say is that your reply was excellent! :D Well played sir!

    • Astrokid

      These feminist nitwits are just mind boggling to read. Today, Fevrier Honette and Clockwork Jillian gave us several gems over at the Wasington Univ open letter to MRAs.
      Women have been trying to talk men “out of patriarchy” for 1000s of years http://i.imgur.com/pYWVE1d.jpg
      males in education are falling behind coz they think education and intellectual pursuits are weak and womanly. Its the Patriarchy http://i.imgur.com/dTsMRLh.jpg
      Men need to sit down, shut up and listen http://i.imgur.com/zpqSdDQ.jpg
      Men are born with golden peanuts in their pants http://i.imgur.com/JuyHZc2.jpg

  • Whatever_Bitch

    fuck both of you!

    • Grumpy Old Man

      Yup and angry Troll. It wasn’t talking to me Paul and NEO, my post wasn’t up yet. :)

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F (Ian Williams)

      Whatever_Bitch.

      If this is a request I remind you that there is only me here right now.

      I will not share you with another.

      • Booyah

        Thanks doc. I was confused, I thought it might be an explanation of enthusiastic consent.

    • Bombay

      Grunt!

    • Near Earth Object

      1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = “fuck both of you!”

      That seems to be a doubly bad case of conflation you have going on there.

      How many exclamation marks do you see here >

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

        Speaking of belly laughs,

        1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = “fuck both of you!”

    • Kimski

      Feeling better now?

    • http://www.youtube.com/user/DannyboyCdnMRA Dan Perrins

      Whatever_Bitch I believe a little poetic verbal justice is in order. I’ll use the phrase commonly used by one of your comrades
      Shut The Fuck Up

  • STONE

    It is impossible to say whether or not patriarchy “exists” unless patriarchy theory is made into a quantifiable and falsifiable theory.
    Some feminists will argue that the existence of gender roles is “evidence” of patriarchy. And they can argue that any given difference between the sexes is somehow “evidence” of the patriarchy.
    But certainly, the standard neo-Marxist model of patriarchy which holds that males as a collective oppress and exploit females as a collective, can be ruled out as a possibility. Males, collectively, would have nothing to gain from doing this, and neither would females.
    If patriarchy meant something concrete like “males holding the majority of CEO positions” then it could be said to exist, and could be verified, but then it would be a redundant concept, and useless as a source of insight into how the world works.
    Patriarchy theory makes no predictions and takes no risks, but its proponents still try to use it to explain everything that they notice, after the fact. It is a theory, but it’s a pseudo-scientific theory which can not really explain anything or inform problem solving action.

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

      Sorry you got caught in the midst of Whatever_Bitch’s little spate of vitriol, because that was an excellent comment. Patriarchy is a feminist’s best friend, in two ways. First, everything feminists claim to hate about it, is actually what allows them to exist, and second, its many ephemeral definitions make the very word a useful distraction from any substantial issues.

      • STONE

        Yup, patriarchy theory is a money pump for feminists.

        I was hoping that the whatever would play with me. But no such luck :-(

  • Whatever_Bitch

    Face of Men’s Rights is police brutality to keep the status quo
    all of you not one feminist here and intellectual idiots

    • Kimski

      Looks like feminism is raising it’s spiteful, hateful, and completely incomprehensible voice again.
      What is it with you people, and your apparent lack of ability to make sense in your own language?
      How do you even communicate?
      Do you have some sort of secret sign language, or do you stick to drums and smoke signals normally?
      Carrier pigeons? -No, that would require a basic understanding of grammar and spelling, my mistake.

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F (Ian Williams)

        Kimski.

        This muff-squirt does not smoke signals.

        She prefers smoking toad-skins wrapped by Havana’s most skilled cigar rollers.

        Good post you make but please inspect the photos I sent you via that pigeon yesterday.

        IW.

        P.S.
        Eat the bird. I have others.

        • Kimski

          Sorry, ate the bird straight away, ’cause I ran out of kittens the day before.
          Was there a message??
          I might have to go see a doctor now.

          • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F (Ian Williams)

            Seek medical attention immediately as I think I might have accidentally licked the bird and the photos themselves.

          • Kimski

            @Dr.F:

            It was the thing about the photos that had me worried.
            I didn’t see any photos.. o.0

            Edit: Btw, how do you accidentally lick a bird??!

          • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F (Ian Williams)

            Kimski.

            No photos? Oh crap!

            I think I smoked them as they looked so tasty. I forgot they were images of a toad-skin cigar and not the real thing.

            Meet you at the clinic asap.

            P.S.
            The bird licking? It was giving me bedroom eyes and I forgot that it was inappropriate for our species to indulge that way. I only got to first base however.

          • Kimski

            @Dr.F:

            Oh, my, imagine the offsprings:
            Flying feathered Aussies, with a preference for toad skin cigars and commenting on MRA sites..

        • Near Earth Object

          LMAO @

          “Eat the bird. I have others.”

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

        Not to downplay your own wit, but are you channeling Dr. F, Mykeru and AndyBob, all at once?

        • Kimski

          No, I would never attempt such a thing, Suz.
          Just something Dr.F and I have been going at for a couple of years now. ;)

        • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F (Ian Williams)

          Suzanne,

          Me, Mykeru, myself, Andybob and I are all proud to be five subsets of Kimski.

          He’s quite the inspiration for the five of us and I for one am delighted to be associated with the wrath of his unique bent humour.

    • STONE

      I disagree with you.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F (Ian Williams)

      @ Whatever_Bitch.

      Hand… still cranking… Pardon…

      Will… get back… to… you… soon… you vixen and fount o’ street… joy.

  • DarkByke

    Nice one!

  • tom b

    Lets not forget the fact that these men who went to war were also the backbone of the country before they went to war. It was on that backs of men, building roads, rail roads, manufacturing/labor that made us (at one time) leader in the industrial world.

  • Dan

    @Kristina or anyone else who can help me:

    For the record I don’t believe in ‘The Patriarchy’ for a second and never have.

    However, I need to play devils advocate here because I can instantly see the feminist response to the main logic of the article. They would respond that Feminism, or female activists in general, forced the patriarchal system to give them those rights, and that they were given reluctantly by, and in spite of, the patriarchy. An analogy would be the abolitionist movement, which gained freedom for slaves from the very system that enslaved them.

    PS. Just found this site and am really enjoying it – thanks for all the time put in. How ironic that many of the best and most insightful articles & comments on AVFM are written by women. I am yet to find a feminist site where the reverse is true.

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

      http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/karen-straughan-at-ny-libertarian-convention/

      Pay attention to how Karen addresses the “slave” issue. Women as a class have never been oppressed by men as a class; instead they have been protected by men. The women who “feel” oppressed are the very women who are SO WELL protected (primarily by males) they are entirely unaware of that protection. They are like naive sheltered princesses in palaces; they’ve never laid eyes on the warriors who fight and die to keep them safe, nor on the sweaty laborers who built everything they take for granted.

      You might also note that just about everything feminists blame on The Patriarchy, has been done on behalf of women, *at the behest of women,* and has largely been enforced by women. You could almost go so far as to call it a matriarchy in which men take most of the responsibility for the survival of our species. They used to get both the blame for failures and the credit for successes, but now they just get blame. Feminists have rearranged it so that women now get all the credit and men get all the blame. According to a feminist, women are never at fault.

  • Dan

    Powerful speech and wise choice of audience wasn’t it? Karen was precisely who I had in mind when I said ‘best and most insightful’..

    I agree with everything you said, and you said it well. Particularily the idea of ‘gratitude’. Men & and women have traditionally been very grateful of what each provides the other in a relationship. Until, as I believe Paul said, feminists didn’t just ‘walk out the door’, but ‘spat in the man’s face on the way out.

    However, I can’t see/perhaps I miss the connection between that and my argument:

    AVFM: It is illogical to claim Feminism ‘earned’ ‘rights’ from a Patriarchy whose very purpose was/is to deny those ‘rights’.

    Feminsit Retort: They weren’t given or ‘earned’; women fought and coerced the Patriarchal system to give them rights against the Patriarchal wishes.

    AVFM: …? (I honestly cannot think of a reply, as I don’t think the logic of the article works. I understand that there is no Patriarchy, and that women were never fighting one to begin with, but I don’t think it can be shown in this way. Your argument Suzanne, is another argument altogether, and, I think, stronger.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rland Rachel Land

    “[A]llowed to infiltrate”?
    “…they are in fact saying that the same system that has given them all the rights, benefits and privileges they have, and continue to get is oppressing them.”

    The fact that you believe we need to be given these rights is the problem. We are not blessed to be given these opportunities, they are ones we should have always had and the fact that they had to be fought for is sad and significant.

    Unfortunately you have completely bought into the “Patriarchy’s” perspective on feminism and everything you have said about how feminist think is completely off-base. While there are plenty of woman out there who have been hurt and are now scared or angry with men and who may call their rage feminism, it is not. Feminism is not a conspiracy theory and to want equal rights is not the same as wanting to bring men down. The fact that you feel that someone else gaining rights means some else is loosing them is problematic.

    Woman’s rights are human rights.

    I’m sorry for whatever may have happened to make the different people on this site feel that feminism is an obstacle to men’s rights. But having read your site mission you should take a new serious look. Modern feminism is about equal rights for all, including men who should not be “subject to the patriarchy” either. The old patriarchy is what creates a fear and mistrust of men (not just for woman but other men too!). If you want men to not fear woman’s fear than maybe should help make fewer reasons to fear them.

    It honestly makes zero sense to me that you are fighting against, instead of along with the feminists.

    Why Men Should Fight Patriarchy *written by a man*
    http://usilive.org/fightingpatriarchy/
    A nice brief article on why the feminist fight is *directly beneficial* to men.

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

      The one who is most desperately in need of doing some research here is you. You really have no idea what you’re talking about and are clearly deeply ignorant about the things people have done and are doing in the name of feminism. You have some serious ignorance going on here, and it’s the aggressive kind: you assume we have nothing to teach you and that you already know all you need to know. But you know less about feminism than you think you do, and even less about what we stand for and do here.

      Just deconstructing the article “Why Men Should Fight Patriarchy” would probably both help you and the poor deluded man who wrote it. You’re both very ignorant. The question is, are you interested in learning so you are no longer ignorant, or are you content to stay willfully ignorant? I guess that’s up to you.

    • Astrokid

      I’m sorry for whatever may have happened to make the different people on this site feel that feminism is an obstacle to men’s rights.
      Dumb brianwashed bitch,
      Nobody gives a shit if you feel sorry for whatever happened. Go learn what exactly happened. Thats what an adult does.

      It honestly makes zero sense to me that you are fighting against, instead of along with the feminists.
      Oh.. So you dont understand. Each and every feminist cunt that comes our way proves Schopenhauer right. Most women have no sense of justice. And that article you mentioned.. better title would be Why Manginas Fight “Patriarchy”

  • ChitownMaverick

    Hey Rachel Land–

    You say there’s some magical Patriarchy ruining things for women AND men. I should warn you, I’m about to say two specific words to you. These words are going to cause one of several reactions. You will find yourself tempted to:

    1. Call me names
    2. Tuck your tail and run back to Jezebel, where you’ll proceed to call me names
    3. Write something that barely qualifies as “passable English” in order to try and confuse me, probably with a condescending “Oh honey you just don’t get it” tone, which by the way, is another way of calling me names.

    Ready for it?

    Here goes:

    You say there’s a Patriarchy.

    PROVE IT.

    And also send me their mailing list, it sounds kind of awesome and I’m going to apply for the Overlord position.