woman with fingers crossed behind her back 750

Yes to men’s rights (provided it never actually happens)

Awareness of men’s rights issues is on the rise around the globe. Slowly but surely, the unique plights of men and boys are receiving coverage in the mainstream media, though with varying degrees of positivity. The growth in awareness is not surprising given the clear and logical basis of most issues voiced by the MRM and the dedication of men’s rights activists. However, a quiet, veiled obstacle still pervades public discourse on men’s issues. In any social circle, even the most rigorously documented and obviously fair calls for social reform will be met with a particular type of evasive response from non-activists.

Most often this occurs when a non-MRA is presented with one of the more basic, less controversial men’s issues. Faced with a simple call for change built from well established studies and statistics, they will agree that reform is called for. Of course fathers should have fair time with their children. Of course boys should receive good education. Of course men should have access to birth control options.

However, things get problematic after that initial show of support. No one can argue with bare bricks of logic, so even those who don’t believe in men’s rights will tentatively agree lest they look as foolish as a climate change denier. Instead of openly disagreeing, they begin tacking on caveats. Like a lawyer adding clauses, a pseudo-supporter adds buts and ifs, saying reform should be made but only under very specific, politically correct and usually pro-feminist conditions.

A good example is paper abortion, the right for men to knowingly terminate their parental rights and responsibilities, disavowing anything to do with an undesired child. When this issue is raised, most fair-minded people will say “Sure, men shouldn’t be forced into parenthood“. What follows, though, is usually some variation of “…as long as the law doesn’t let men duck responsibility.”

A similar example is Parental Alienation Syndrome. Often, when an instance of PAS is shared, the response will be agreement that it is wrong in that case, but that in some cases (i.e. abusive partners) it is alright and in the best interests of the child. This is the equivalent of the Don’t Be That Guy post campaign, painting all men as potential abusers against whom PAS may be the only defense.

That is where the meaningful conversation ends. If a feminist is asked about paper abortion, there won’t be a conversation, but most normal people will politely agree, then shut down the discussion with a tagged on condition that serves only to demand more discussion on the finer legal details of how the reform should be implemented. It is a stalling tactic meant to derail the discussion onto a track of endless debate over how exactly equality should be implemented, rather than working to actually make it happen.

This bureaucratic delaying has left family law reform in the UK languishing for years. On an individual level, most people will agree that fathers get a raw deal post-divorce, and reform is often agreed with, but always with the addendum that the changes shouldn’t “give custody to abusive fathers”, even though only a tiny minority of divorces include allegations of abuse and that mothers commit twice the abuse of fathers.

Despite abusive fathers being present in only a single-digit percentage of divorce cases, that same argument is always raised, cautioning activists to slow down in case they overstep and put children at risk. This tactic is meant to avert attention from meaningful men’s issues toward the phantom dangers of social reform. It is fear mongering used as the last line of defense against men’s rights, an impotent barrier erected against the coming tide of reform. These aren’t real arguments, but reflexive flailing from pro-feminists desperate for a way to fight back.

This practice is proof that men’s rights has advanced past the stage where it can easily be fought. There are no viable arguments against the core MRM issues, so anti-MRAs resort to stalling and derailing, to slowing down the progress of the movement with needless objections. It is little more than filibustering, but it has been going on for years, and not just by feminists.

Gynocentrism runs so deep that even non-feminists, be they liberals or conservatives, balk at the idea of men’s rights. In part it is fear of change, but it is also shameless defense of female privilege blocking any attempt to improve the lot of mistreated men and boys the world over. Even when presented with irrefutable facts of injustice, most people will dance around the issue by fishing for minor arguments over details. It is vital that MRAs not get pulled into the quagmire of debate fielded by these faux-supporters; they agree with core men’s to save face, but their true opposition is shown by their evasiveness. Even young, unmarried men, possibly the greatest beneficiaries of men’s rights, will pipe up with these blocking tactics, so afraid to upset the boat and anger/oppress women.

It’s not a matter of “with us or against us” absolutes, but of recognizing that reform is needed and agreeing to get it done. Yes, a poorly written ‘paper abortion’ law could leave loopholes to be abused by deadbeats, but that risk is no reason to not write a law at all. No one wants a family law system that rewards abusive fathers, and repeatedly raising that concern serves only to defame the activists fighting for reform by implying they don’t care about children. With other men’s issues as well, no MRA wants reform to come out unfair to women or girls, but to be just for everyone.

Blocking social reform with cries of concern over fallout is the traditional weapon of those with entrenched privilege. Similar attacks have been fielded against every movement for liberation of oppressed races and persecuted religions, and even against the early feminists. People feared women entering the workforce would displace men, and now they fear giving men equal rights will let them run amok abusing women and children.

Major men’s issues are far too real to be ignored any longer and activists can’t afford to be bogged down by platitudes and diversionary arguments. People who raise such quibbles may not openly oppose men’s rights, but they aren’t true supporters and will continue to drag their feet every step of the way. They are trend followers who meekly back-up feminism because of its popularity; they will only change allegiances when the MRM has already made real progress. Energy shouldn’t be wasted on winning them over.

Instead the focus must be on finding real activists who are willing to challenge the status quo and push boundaries in the name of equality. Feminists will be pushed back and the politically correct lackeys will have to step aside while true activists do the work of abolishing injustice.

When discussing men’s rights or recruiting for the cause, remember to pick your battles and always bear one guideline in mind: unless their support for men’s rights is continuous and enthusiastic, they don’t actually want it.

About Ayami Tyndall

Ayami Tyndall is a self-trained network administrator and author from California. Mixing technology and social exploration, his science-fiction novels cast a new light on today's cultural problems. Raised rurally and in love with nature, he believes in the grand American tradition of Self Reliance.

View All Posts
  • Victor Zen

    Thanks for the article.

    This has been my experience on KSUM. KSU staff is really bad about saying “Yes, but” to ANYTHING sensitive to men or boys. Whether it be from the University Relations department, the Legal Division or Public Safety, everything is just loaded down with bullshit that prevents a good honest look at the situation.

    Two of KSUM’s first officers ended up quitting when they realized that I was not chivalrous. To them, speaking in favor of men’s issues is a problem if it means we might have to challenge women sometimes.

    I want to back the final statement in this article 100%: “unless their support for men’s rights is continuous and enthusiastic, they don’t actually want it.”

    This is absolutely, positively true. There are bullshitters that want everybody to think highly of them, and then there are activists who are willing to take risks because of their compassion. Choose activists when building your base, because they are genuine.

    Choose people who give a shit, lest you be left with pundits who will stab you in the back the moment they find a new position that makes them look morally superior.

  • ManWithPlan

    Good article, but be careful with statements like this. “No one can argue with bare bricks of logic, so even those who don’t believe in men’s rights will tentatively agree lest they look as foolish as a climate change denier.” A fair amount of the views put forth by “climate change believers” are not much more logically sound than theories espoused in women’s studies courses.

    • Chris Wedge

      Of course, the soundness of the scientific studies is the only thing relevant at all, to that and other topics.
      Feminism doesn’t have the science on it’s side, the MHRM does, so here I am.

  • Bewildered

    Instead of openly disagreeing, they begin tacking on caveats. Like a lawyer adding clauses, a pseudo-supporter adds buts and ifs, saying reform should be made but only under very specific, politically correct and usually pro-feminist conditions.

    I find this very exasperating and demeaning.It’s like the Muslim BELIEF that everyone is born a Muslim ! They become corrupt because of indoctrination by parents,Satan and other entities inimical to Islam. With proper advice they can REVERT[ non-delusional people say CONVERT] to their original state.

    Remember the bearded hoodie asking Victor Zen why according to his perception MRAs were attacking the feminists ?

    Gynocentrism runs so deep that even non-feminists, be they liberals or conservatives, balk at the idea of men’s rights. </blockquote

    By far this is the biggest stumbling block. This mindset indicates people merely like to fantasize about 'equality' [whatever the hell they mean by it!] while promoting real inequality under the guise of SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY.

    I remember a Charlie Chaplin clip where he tries to equalize his moustache by trimming it on the side that appears bigger.He ultimately ends up with no moustache !

    Even when presented with irrefutable facts of injustice, most people will dance around the issue by fishing for minor arguments over details.

    Not surprising at all ! I have seen it right here in the forum.

    With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad
    people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes
    religion.——-Steven Weinberg

    Replace ‘religion’ with ‘feminism’ and ‘people’ with ‘women’ the quote is remarkably accurate IMO.

    They are trend followers who meekly back-up feminism because of its popularity; they will only change allegiances when the MRM has already made real progress. Energy shouldn’t be wasted on winning them over.

    Aficionados of argumentum ad populum. In plain English people who argue that if something is popular it’s true.Period.

    unless their support for men’s rights is continuous and enthusiastic, they don’t actually want it.

    LMFAO! You have taken a leaf out of the feminists’ book.

    • ComradePrescott

      “Remember the bearded hoodie asking Victor Zen why according to his perception MRAs were attacking the feminists ?”

      What’s this from?

      • Bewildered

        The guy in this vid Victor Zen is talking about.

        • Michael Shur

          Thank you for reposting this, I am laughing even harder this time. Victor Zen, you are such a funny, brilliant man!

  • Shamednomore

    Great points in this article; main one being, if the argument is sound and just, don’t get hung up on the little buts. Society has the ability to make and enforce laws to mitigate little buts and we need push forward fearlessly for the greater good of all.

  • Sasha

    Thank you for the article.

    The opposition of feminist organizations to the recognition of parental alienation is especially frustrating as this is an issue that affects both fathers and mothers. In fact, the highest-profile campaign (PaCT) against parental abduction and alienation was set up by Lady Catherine Mayer, whose children were abducted by her German husband in the early 1990s.

    PaCT: http://www.gpdg.co.uk/pact_old/html/alienation_study.html

    Lady Mayer’s story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2490271/The-horrible-moment-when-my-world-came-crashing-down.html

  • Vương Vi-Nhuyễn – 王微軟

    I’d say demonstrate and ”they’ll” come (the future M.(H.)R.A.’s), we need to have media attention, people now see misandry and it’s a passing thought ”hmm, that’s unfair to blokes”, but if we’ll bring it to their attention, and go out in protests whenever possible the attention will generate more men to come, first major protests in North- and South-America would generate more men to come out here in Europe, then it’ll grow, and the movement will be mainstream, then we’ll be invited to debate, and the Feminists to ”stop from losing face” will probably stop all misandry and will even offer to be our allies (90% of their organizations), which will expose gender-feminists (straw-feminists and misandrists) to the rest of the few rational thinking ones, and maybe we’ll even have a normal discussion with the next generation of Feminists, and it would heavily challenge the zeitgeist. :-)

    • Chris Wedge

      But being on-guard is advised – a lot of feminists are just in it to line their pockets, and would just as easily bully the everywoman as the everyman if all eyes are on misandry, leaving misogyny unwatched.

  • DEDC

    Huh. Kind of like Bizarro Obamacare (most are in favor of its provisions whilst being against it ‘on the whole’ – whatever that means).

    This is the reverse: All for the loftiness of it its theme and general idea, but hating on the actual implementation of its provisions.

    It’s all the cognitive dissonance of herding animals.

  • B.R. Merrick

    Despite abusive fathers being present in only a single-digit percentage of divorce cases, that same argument is always raised, cautioning activists to slow down in case they overstep and put children at risk. This tactic is meant to avert attention from meaningful men’s issues toward the phantom dangers of social reform.

    This is always how it is. This is part of the never-ending modus operandi of political action: the use of fear to control the “phantom dangers of social reform.” Very perceptive and quite correct. Any individual who takes this as an operating premise will go far in life. Our minds are filled with phantoms. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of men will go on being people we need not fear at all.

    • DEDC

      Yes. Well said. And with a very large (and in my view, unnecessary) weight* on their shoulders.

      There are always the few who will be pointed to: the Adam Lanzas or James Holmeses which they will use as excuses to point to the REALNESS of the phantoms, when all they are really pointing to are their own promoted social disfunction. Men are taught to serve others and hate themselves, and never be fully conscious of their subjugated position. It is the unconscious disconnect of such a ‘wasted life’ which gives rise to the Lanzas, Holmeses et al.

      Who was it who said “I am surprised there are not more men whackos out there”? Perhaps the very introspective realization of what shits these so-called social warriors are is too much for *THEIR* fragile psyches? So they practice their retarded projected faux ‘social justice’ to convince themselves they aren’t despicable haters they are (in so doing, they continue to make things worse).

  • Pvblivs

    I think the issue is that most people will simply follow the prevailing dogma and label anyone who thinks differently a “denier.” Many feminists call anti-feminists “patriarchy deniers.” Many christians call non-christians “Jesus deniers.” People seem to be wired to latch on to dogmas. And they will insist they have mountains of evidence and the only reason they can’t convince you is because you’re a “denier” who won’t admit the truth no matter what, and that’s “why” they don’t bother presenting any evidence.

    Well, here, most people’s dogma is that the status quo is good enough. And they are not ready to be challenged on it. Ultimately, they don’t want to be asked to DO anything. They will “politely agree” with MRAs and they will “politely agree” with feminists. And then they will go home and forget the whole thing. They don’t really want to be involved.

    • DEDC

      Right. And I agree. But what about when it really counts? What side do they fall on?

      • Pvblivs

        When it really counts, they are apathetic and stay home. It’s like asking where a vegetarian stands on McDonald’s vs. Burger King. They really don’t care.

  • Susie Parker

    I agree, that statement didn’t belong there – many of us are agnostic when it comes to global warming.

    Global warming and climate change have been happening since the day the earth formed. It could be man made…or it could be people reacting like the “natives” to a volcano on a Gilligan’s Island episode.

    My Grandmother saw the Star Of Bethlehem as a child. It returns regularly every 200 years. The Mormons saw sea gulls suddenly “appearing” inland to eat invading grasshopper hordes demolishing their crops as a “sign from God” when, in fact, the seagulls were always there.

    Global warming, the earth being flat and eclipses don’t impress me none.

  • DEDC

    “People feared women entering the workforce would displace men, and now they fear giving men equal rights will let them run amok abusing women and children.”

    And what is the social basis for all of this? Where does this douchey hyperbolic fear come from? What exactly *IS* a deadbeat anyway? I can make valid economic arguments about women displacing men in the workforce or at the very least lowering wages for all by doubling the labor supply, but what is the argument against ‘deadbeat dad’? Because they can*? Mothers can and do walk away all the time. Financial? emotional? The very term deadbeat dad is bigoted as fuck. If financial, I can make an argument that moms are much more likely to be financial deadbeats than dads. How often do dads CHOOSE to be on welfare (quit their jobs) or try to use the courts to extract money from mothers? If emotional, who is more likely to drive emotional wedges and alienate the other parent? I don’t even need to answer this question.

    *Let’s break that one down by itself. What kind of moral superiority condescending shit is it to say “I can’t leave my kids because I care about them; but hey, you don’t!” . And what about relationship fallout. To what extent is it common for dad to just up and leave for no reason, as opposed to getting shown the door by mom? Also bullshit, IMO; in my experience, the latter is more common. Anybody who uses this term to apply more often to men than women or other than well documented and clear cases is a bigoted asswipe.

  • DEDC

    ‘Belief’ or ‘disbelief’ in climate change is irrelevant.

    It either is or isn’t happening, and whether anyone thinks it is happening or not is irrelevant. End of story.

    These gripes are derailing the discussion.

  • fidelbogen

    “Gynocentrism runs so deep that even non-feminists, be they liberals or conservatives, balk at the idea of men’s rights.”

    Since I am assuming that the author of this article is a non-feminist, does that mean we should include him in the category of people who balk at the idea of men’s rights?

    Or did the author mean to say “many non-feminists…etc” ?

    • Ayami Tyndall

      What I was getting at is how entrenched feminists ideals have become that even people who do not identify as feminist will reject men’s rights. It is not just feminists who oppose the MRM, but many politically neutral people as well who unwittingly hold misandristic views.

      • Carchamp1

        Ayami, you’re speaking volumes here with few words. Right on the money! This is precisely why the men’s and father’s movement has such an enormous uphill climb. As I’ve said in different ways over the years, men will get nowhere in our “ladies first” culture. Reform is simply impossible right now. Somehow we need to get across the ideas that men are human and ladies are not children. Once you do that things will fall into place, but this is all a very tough slog.

      • fidelbogen

        How right you are. I have noticed this for years! :(

    • Chris Wedge

      We’re really more counter-feminists.
      We’re not unlearned like non-fems, or outright misinformed/immoral like the fems, we’re the smartest fucks around on the gender thing.

      • DukeLax

        Chris…believe it or not, there are still many Americans who still don’t know what the word “gender” is supposed to mean.

        Ask yerself….when did these massive American bureaucracies start to demand that the term sex…be replaced by the term Gender???

        I believe it was only about 10 – 12 years ago…. still relatively a new term that many still aren’t fully comfortable using.

        • fidelbogen

          I am aware of the distinction myself, and yet I find it hard to not occasionally say “gender” instead of “sex”.

          For example “gender politics” seems to convey something which “sexual politics” does not, and I find it hard to use the phrase “sexual politics” in many cases.

          Also, remember that “sex” is an abbreviated way of saying “sexual intercourse”. That, too, creates confusion at times when terminological choice confronts us.

      • fidelbogen

        We may be counter-feminist, but. . .are we not still non-feminist as a prerequisite to that? ;)

  • PoeTentiate

    Of course only a imbecile would say climate change doesn’t exist, climate has changed demonstrably and drastically throughout the history of this planet. It’s not referred to global warming anymore though, a convenient change to cover all bases.

  • http://www.stgeorgewest.blogspot.co.uk/ Angelo

    oooh, is’t all good, PAS etc. brilliant. …but “lest they look as foolish as a climate change denier” …Ice caps never been so extensive. We are about to enter a mini ice age. Lets stick to what we know. ;)

    Anyway I blogged it with one tiny alteration… denier to believer.

    • Chris Wedge

      Ice caps are melting. But even if they weren’t, and were expanding, that’d still be climate change.

      • http://www.stgeorgewest.blogspot.co.uk/ Angelo

        Ice caps are cyclical but fair point, it’s all climate change. It will be cooling into the middle of this century. ;)

  • http://batman-news.com MGTOW-man

    This brings to mind another way I see men—particularly men—dodge the legitimacy of not undermining their own sex. In unmixed, male conversations about women: how they are, can be, act out, have tantrums, emotional tirades, oblivio-selfish pouts, irrationality, “they don’t get it” and on and on and on…, men will be honest with remarkable clarity, intentions, and ability. But let one woman…even one they can’t stand enter the picture, and the so-called honest men will reduce themselves to worthless puppet-mush without so much as a single regret, all the while wearing shyt-eating grins for their cowardice.

    Men do this because they are mislead to believe that lying to and about women is “respecting women”. But actually this type of cowardice is infantilizing women and treating them like children who can’t understand or tolerate the truth. If men really wanted to respect women, they would be honest no matter how “horrible”. Treating them like EQUAL adults is what true respect encompasses, Otherwise they are merely competing for the admiration of women, and behaving like customers over women, but while hurting themselves, their boys, and their brothers…their world…their species!!

    This is squarely obvious NOT what “real” men will do. Nothing wrong with loving women, but men shouldn’t forsake their own sex either. They also shouldn’t take for granted and simply believe all that comes down the pipe about how to be a “man”. Obviously, the ones they are learning from don’t know what manhood really is…not even if it managed to morph into a towering obelisk…AND FELL ON THEM!

    It is as if men have lost their bearings…over women. …and we all pay.

    Change men change the world! Many women have shown us their true colors; they will not budge. But getting men to change is the key. We should proudly use any way legal to get men to change…even if it seems daunting and a long way off.

    Strength in numbers. The eleventh hour is here!

  • Aimee McGee

    I regularly discuss the issue of PAS amongst professional circles. Every time it is “but (s)he is trying to protect the children”

    My partner is starting to rebuild a relationship with his 16 year old daughter. 3 years of alienation. She’s left school without qualifications, and now realises how toxic her mother actually is.

    But the damage is done – and the courts would not listen.

  • Chris Wedge

    The eventual push for renewable, clean energy is worth it for the societal security and clean air benefits alone.
    If we end up preventing global catastrophe, well that’s just gravy.

    • plasmacutter

      we won’t, we can’t at this point, and we shouldn’t worry about it from that frame of mind because our only moral obligation is the survival of our own species, not zealous cultivation of every other species at our expense, but denying it’s getting warmer is just stupidity.

      I’m going to stand on I-75 and deny there’s oncoming traffic.

  • Carchamp1

    Hit the nail on the head with this!

    I’ve commented here before about the supposed overwhelming public support for shared parenting. MRAs and father’s rights advocates point to opinion poles, but this “support” is just a mirage. When you drill down with people to see where they really stand any support for shared parenting disappears.

    This is way I’ve basically given up on “reform”. Nothing will happen in my lifetime for sure. I’m in my 40s. If I feel a man is reachable I’ll talk to him about avoiding marriage and fatherhood, and to look out for himself. This is the best thing you can do for men.

  • DukeLax

    If we can just dismantle the perverse “pork bloating triangles” that are giving American law enforcement financial incentives to enable women s violence, and persecute innocent guys on false accusations…..Society would slowly heal itself.

  • Magnus

    What? You seriously dismiss the WHOLE POINT because he said:
    “…lest they look as foolish as a climate change denier.”

    Firstly you can read that sentence in two ways:
    1. The writer holds that opinion about climate change.
    2. “Social Justice Warriors” often hold that opinion, and not agreeing with the MRA will make them feel/look like a group they look down upon.

    Either way, it’s just an example of “Not wanting to seem like a commonly held belief”.
    Besides
    “which seeks to bring together activists of many different political persuasions” doesn’t mean that each of us can’t express our opinions.

  • edtastic

    We’re winning the argument with average folk who still care about fairness. The main mission of the MRM has to be raising awareness for a long time to come and once it’s successful on that end the rest will fall into place. We should look to the paths traveled by many activist before us when fighting for a human rights cause. Until the issues you raise reach a critical mass of awareness its unlikely you’ll see broad support for addressing them.

    We know the world is unfair, but we fight unfairness anyway. We know they lack compassion for us but we demand compassion anyway. We will prevail like so many who came before us, and like those before us we should trust justice will prevail in the end.

  • Theseus

    Well I feel ya. When I read “climate change denier” my first response is WTF do you actually mean? It’s so damn broad.

    However, I would temper your last paragraph with the fact that we ARE going to piss off some people of certain political persuasions with some of OUR “hot topics”. Yes, yes, a thousand times yes, we need allies across the political spectrum. However, if an individual comes on here and happens to lean right, and gets angry because we have an article against private prisons and the drug war, then that person is gonna get a lot of heated opposition here. You see? It’s impossible to avoid ALL “hot topics” based on political persuasion.

    Personally, I would have used the phrase “evolution denier” rather than “climate change denier”. This has a solid basis in fact, yet even THAT would piss off some people of certain political persuasions.

    • fidelbogen

      ” However, if an individual comes on here and happens to lean right, and
      gets angry because we have an article against private prisons and the
      drug war. . .”

      Do right-leaning people favor the drug war (as this statement seems to imply)?

      That’s news to me. Too bad we can’t get somebody like Barry Goldwater in here, to get his opinion of the drug war.

      • Theseus

        Did I say ALL right leaning people? This was a for instance; not a broad brush of right leaning people like Libertarians.

        Left leaning progressives support feminists; I could have made a similar statement about left leaning people. However I identify as liberal and I am not a feminist.

        Yes, a great deal of right leaning people DO support the drug war; they identify as “conservative”. Y’know the Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Fox News and a huge chunk of the Bible belt south crowd?

        “That’s news to me”.

        C’mon, this is just denial with a bit of dishonesty. When we talk about trad/cons on here we are talking about right leaning people. When we talk about feminists we are talking about left leaning people.

        • fidelbogen

          Thank you for making clear that standpoints on the issues don’t map reliably to the left-right paradigm.

          You could have said “if an individual comes on here and gets angry because…..etc”, and omitted the ‘right-leaning’ part altogether. This would have avoided the “some v. all” quagmire.

          Plenty of “right-leaning” people hate the war on drugs. A non-trivial number, and it is best not to clump and tar them.

          Come to think of it, precisely what is “right-leaning”, anyway?

  • RSDavies

    The starting point for the societal stance that we have today, where while men may have theoritical equal rights they find it difficult to exercise them, is at the beginning of the 1960′s and modern feminism. The post war era was one where men were not engaged in the debate about equality much beyond the progression to remove disabilities that women faced. No one really questioned whether it was right that men had only one role that of worker, and could & were required to submit to the states demand to temporarily remove their basic human rights through conscription. That was just the way it was.
    This state became concretised with feminists demanding greater and greater concessions, yet making none themselves. Primarily they sought not equality but political and social advantage and thus superiority.
    So now we find ourselves in a situation where feminists have social / political advantage having arranged access to all spheres while still drawing upon Victorian notions of the feeble victim of male oppression. (This notion emanates from the Temperance Movement whose propaganda relied heavily on popular revulsion at the idea of the drunken man returning home to batter his wife)
    As man began to rail at the disadvantage they experience and demanded equality, feminists faced a dilemma. They could not be seen to oppose equality, for that would be against the principals of equality. Yet they didn’t want to relinquish the advantage they enjoy.
    Thus from observation they synthesised a position in which they acknowledged men’s theoretical right to equality while undermining & blocking every attempt to implement it.

  • plasmacutter

    I lived in detroit for a long time.

    The area I lived used to have a foot of snow from november to march.

    It now has no snow for longer than 24 hours at any one time.

    You may as well be shrieking the sky is pink or the earth is flat.

    If you want to debate what to do about it, I’m all up for that, and don’t think humanity’s presence on the earth is some sort of “original sin”, but if you deny the the bus is coming you’re going to be very shocked for the fraction of a second you have to realize you’re part of it’s grille.

  • Deansdale

    “lest they look as foolish as a climate change denier”

    Man-made climate change is preached by the intellectual elite we so adore, and they would never lie to us about anything, right? Who could name just one instance of them lying – well, I mean, apart from the wage gap, the rape epidemic, the IRS scandal, the wiretapping, the war on terra’ & drugs, discarding citizens’ constitutional rights, and so on.
    I’m pretty sure we can trust our leaders on this one though, Obama looks plenty trustworthy to me when he introduces new carbon taxes and whatnot. And all the scientists he finances say he’s right, too. Only idiots would doubt his word.

    The earth’s climate was never stable for a day in its entire history of billions of years, but hey, now we’re here, it could only be us causing these changes.