I remember a stand-up comedian from twenty-five years ago whose routine commented on the word “nymphomaniac.” (I’m sorry, I do not recall his name.) He wondered why there was a term for a woman who wanted sex all of the time, but there was no such term for a man who wanted sex all of the time.
He came to the conclusion that we do not have such a term for men since all men want sex all the time. It is implied in the word “man.” He joked that we don’t need a special term for a male nymphomaniac because it would be redundant. (Actually, there is such a term—satyr—but few know it.)
This reminded me of a semantic analogy that I had heard concerning the word “misogyny.” It was noted that “misogyny” was a term for hatred of women, usually by men, but that there was no such term for hatred of men, usually by women. It was concluded that we did not need such a word since all women hate men. It is implied in the word “woman.” It would be redundant to have a special term for women who hate men. (Of course, I later learned that there is such a term—misandry—but few know it.)
This notion that all women hate men to some degree has only gotten stronger for me over the last twenty-five years. In fact, women hating men is mainstream and prevalent and normal.
Here are a few recent examples.
Once again, a man with an assault rifle killed many people, this time in Orlando. Even though most of these attacks seem to be sparked by mental illness, the motivation for this attack appears to be terrorism. Once again, feminists tried to blame the attack by Omar Mateen on misogyny, ignoring that he killed six men for every woman (42 men and seven women were killed.) Here are a few quotes.
“He (Mateen) is the outcome of the United States’ political culture…” of “men controlling women….”
“This dominance is exercised in part through violence including systematic rape and the threat of rape….”
“domestic violence can be seen as a psychological training ground for someone like Mr. Mateen to commit a mass attack.”
“Homophobia, misogyny, toxic masculinity, and religious fundamentalism are all tied together in a noxious knot that feminists call ‘patriarchy’….”
As J.T. has pointed out, blaming the attack on toxic masculinity—on all men—is like blaming the attack on all of Islam. We have been admonished from doing that. But it appears to be okay to blame all men. This is the kind of hatefulness against men that is in the mainstream media now.
It seems as if all problems in the world can be traced by feminists back to misogyny. I wonder if they can blame misogyny for the potato blight, blackheads, anal fissures, unpleasant aftertastes, offsides, bed bugs, seasickness, the 7-year itch, losing Pluto as a planet, bank failures, chiggers, and athlete’s foot. I bet they’ll try.
And like other mass shootings, the media focused on the female victims of the Orlando shooting for sympathy and personal stories, probably giving the seven female victims more media time and sympathy than the 42 men. Even when the media talked about the male victims, it usually concerned the pain of female relatives.
Donald Trump has been criticized for not denouncing and not condemning his racist supporters. He played ignorant when confronted with support from David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan. Yet, Hillary Clinton has received no criticism for actually praising a hate website. Clinton was a fan of the now-defunct humor website, The Toast, which has been described as the center of “cheerful misandry.” Even though Clinton is known for avoiding the press, she volunteered to write a glowing farewell address for the website. It is no surprise to me that Clinton enjoyed a website spouting misandry. She has certainly hinted at her misandry with her constant focus on women throughout her political career.
Do we want a President who blatantly hates half of the population? She even hired two former writers from the website for her campaign. And her closing command in her screed was “keep giving them hell.” Misandry is mainstream and running for President.
In a monumental example of feminist illogic and hypocrisy, feminists do not think men accused of sexual violations should be given the basic right of “innocent until proven guilty.” Try to follow this. Feminists have long demanded that sexual assault victims (i.e., women) should receive special treatment from the legal system and society. This special treatment includes such things as accusers being called “survivors,” not releasing accusers’ names while identifying the accused, providing special counselors to walk accusers through the legal system, providing mental health and medical care to accusers, and imposing severe restrictions on the accused before final adjudications.
Legal scholars have complained that special treatment like this concerning sexual assault and sexual harassment strongly implies that the accused are guilty and that they, therefore, must prove their innocence. Also, in University sexual abuse tribunals, the accused must prove that they did not sexual abuse the accusers. In other words, due process for the accused is reversed to “guilty until proven innocent.”
Feminists have tried to nullify this argument that men are unfairly presumed “guilty until proven innocent” with the strange declaration that pointing it out will discourage victims from coming forward. Uhhhh!?!? What woman, who has just been raped, thinks to herself that she wants to go to the police, but decides that she can’t because the man will be considered “guilty until proven innocent?” No one would think like that. It is absurd. But it shows just how far feminists will go in their hatred of men to try to sabotage jurisprudence and deny due process to men.
I see this as one more example of feminists’ hatred of men, and feminists’ continual effort to make men and male sexuality illegal. According to the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, examples of punishable unwelcome sexual conduct in universities include: “making sexual propositions or pressuring students for sexual favors; touching of a sexual nature; writing graffiti of a sexual nature; displaying or distributing sexually explicit drawings, pictures, or written materials; performing sexual gestures or touching oneself sexually in front of others; telling sexual or dirty jokes; spreading sexual rumors or rating other students as to sexual activity or performance; or circulating or showing e-mails or Web sites of a sexual nature.”
Obviously, these are sexual behaviors that men are more likely to exhibit. Traditional female sexual behaviors are oddly missing from this list. This is so sexist. Under this policy, women can punish men for sexual jokes, sexual drawings, or just about anything men are likely to do of a sexual nature. Discussions of sexuality in literature or psychology classes could also be risky. This is so ridiculous.
The ridiculousness of the situation is multiplied by orders of magnitude when affirmative consent is added into the mix. Under affirmative consent policies, men now must ask permission for every sexual move. If a request should happen to be “unwelcome” to the woman, he could be in big trouble just for asking. So feminists require that men request permission for every sexual move, and at the same time, feminists have made that request potentially illegal. Men are damned no matter what.
All of these policies to protect women have resulted in imposing outrageous risks on men. I understand that we generally try to keep sexuality away from small children who cannot handle it. But this should not extend to college women, who are supposedly adults. Supposedly. Are women so weak and vulnerable that we must protect them from all male sexuality? Meanwhile, women are free to express all of the female sexuality that they want—skin exposure, tight clothing, cosmetics, perfumes, flirting, vocal frying, etc. The hypocrisy is deafening.
To see just how ridiculously one-sided this whole debate has become, consider Jessica Valenti, author of the book, Sex Object. In an interview, she stated that sexual objectification of women leads to men seeing women as objects and not full people. Women are dehumanized. And this leads to sexual violence against women since it is easier to be violent against an object than a person.
When asked by the interviewer to explain the difference between sexual objectification and sexual attraction or appreciation, Valenti said that the difference is men seeing women as full human beings and “not a collection of body parts.” Again, Valenti puts all of the blame on men. There is no discussion of women portraying themselves as collections of sexual body parts in order to gain power over men: Women wearing push-up bras, women wearing breast enhancements, women exposing their breasts, women wearing clothing that is so tight that outlines of nipples, butt cleavage, or genitalia are clearly visible, women wearing see-thru clothing, women exposing excessive skin, women wearing make-up which imitates sexual arousal.
Once again, the feminist perspective is that women can do whatever they want, but men can’t. The discussion is always a one-sided, hypocritical, sexist blaming of men for everything. Also, there is no discussion of women dehumanizing men as financial and romance objects. Also, if sexual objectification leads to violence against women, then how does Valenti explain that men are victims of violence far more often than women are?
Consider that even our First Lady is a hater. In her recent “United State of Women Summit” at the White House, she was interviewed by Oprah Winfrey and was asked what men can do. Ms. Obama’s answer: “Be better.” To paraphrase her rant: Men need to be better at everything—be better fathers and love their daughters. Be better husbands, don’t abuse. Do the dishes. Don’t just babysit their children. Be better employers. Invite women into all-male groups.
This rant was accompanied by roars of laughter and approval from Oprah and the audience. Here is the First Lady, who is supposed to be the nation’s ambassador of sweetness and kindness, just eviscerating a group of Americans. She accused the vast majority of men of being abusers, incompetent, lazy, sexist, and bad fathers. She doesn’t think much of men.
Can you even imagine what would happen if a prominent male government official bashed women like this in front of a crowd of cheering men? He would soon be without a job. While Oprah and the crowd were shrieking and howling with delight, Obama even said that although she has never been abused herself, that not being abused is rare.
This criticism of men is outrageous. No other group receives this kind of treatment. Blacks, Hispanics, women, Jews, Muslims—only men are abused like this. And it apparently is acceptable. And funny. And by the First Lady of the United States! Ironically, the First Lady was praised for her anti-hate stand relating to race in her Democratic Convention speech but was also applauded for her hate speech concerning men just a few weeks earlier. It is hate. It is outrageous. I try not to bring invectives into my writing, but you can imagine what I am shouting at the First Lady right now.
Misandry is everywhere. But few can see it, and fewer want to do anything about it.
Read the complete article at http://hydrarch15.wix.com/selfindulgence
 In keeping with the media exploiting female victimization, whenever more women are victimized in a situation like this, the media constantly tell us that more women were victimized. For example, most every news report on the Charleston church murders noted that six of the nine victims were women. But when more men are victimized, the media suddenly cannot count. I could not find one article or news item giving the numbers of men and women killed in Orlando. I had to find a list of those killed and count them myself.
 http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2016/06/08/sexual-assault-stanford-jessica-valenti At about minute 25