What Is True/Slant?
275+ knowledgeable contributors.
Reporting and insight on news of the moment.
Follow them and join the news conversation.

Apr. 9 2010 - 1:11 pm | 1,789 views | 3 recommendations | 79 comments

The misguided, embarrassing war against feminism rages on

[via Broadsheet] There’s something that makes me really uncomfortable about people who get nervous and defensive about feminism.  It’s embarrassing in its unwarrantedness, the same way its embarrassing when people are violently homophobic.  To disagree is one thing, but to wage a war against something as tolerant as feminism with such vehemence just screams insecurity.  The same way that people who wage wars against homosexuals are often insecure about their own sexuality.

That’s how I felt when I learned about the group of intellectuals (?) who came together to finally fight back against the faceless, all-powerful monster known as feminism– which, I guess, was getting too big for its lady-britches and needed to be taken down a peg.  As described in an article in Inside HigherEd, these “scholars of boys and men” decided to fight back by creating a discipline called Male Studies.  Tracy Clark-Flory provides an excellent explanation of men’s studies, which already exists, which is I guess too pansy and feminism-loving for the “scholars of boys and men.”  So they created male studies, with the explicit purpose of excluding existing feminist and gender theory.  Feminism, as described by ManBoy scholar Lionel Tiger (roar!), is:

“a well-meaning, highly successful, very colorful denigration of maleness as a force, as a phenomenon.”

I am so tired of people’s willful misunderstanding of feminism as a war against men.  I’ve written about this before, and Chloe Angyal has a wonderful piece in the Guardian that talks about the systematic misrepresentation of feminist ideals and the resulting reluctance of young women to identify as an f-word.  And while, thankfully, gender equality has improved over the years, to call the feminist movement “highly successful” is a misrepresentation, given the powerful stigma against it that still remains strong.  And to call it a “denigration of maleness” is just willfully and demonstrably false.

In addition to seeing women’s studies as an “institutionalization of misandry,” the Motherboy scholars also believe that the whole power thing long associated with maleness and masculinity isn’t fair.

“today’s discourse on individual men is not a discourse of power — men do not feel powerful in today’s society.”

Fair enough.  But how is it logical to then, in turn, attack a movement whose aim is to empower all individuals, regardless of gender, race, class, sexuality, or ability?  Again, there seems to be a lot of willful misunderstanding here:

Primary and secondary schools, as well as higher education, have been so heavily influenced by feminism, Tiger said, “that the academic lives of males are systematically discriminated against.”

I don’t know what primary and secondary schools these Boyz II Men went to, but I wish I had known about them when I was a child.  I cannot recall hearing the word “feminism” used in a non-derogatory way ONCE until I went to college.  And again, I can’t emphasize this enough: feminism is not about disempowering males.  To talk about the changing roles and representations of maleness in society is an important discussion to have.  But these BoyMan scholars are so obviously threatened by women that they feel the need to create their own discipline, rather than to operate in the tolerant, already existant institution of men’s studies, just because those men’s studies pussies don’t exist in an exclusive dichotomy against women’s studies.

The final paragraph of the Inside HigherEd article is hilarious:

Edward Stevens, chair of the On Step Institute for Mental Health Research, said he wants to see male studies search for ways to improve male academic performance. “What are the ethical concerns of devoting 90 percent of resources to one gender?” he asked (though without explaining exactly what he meant).  “What are the unintended consequences of the failure of our academic institutions to consider the 21st century needs of males?” (emphasis added)

I’m not even going to go into an explanation of how, historically, the “needs of males” have been the default needs of everyone, and that much of education is already male studies due to the, you know, historic and institutionalized marginalization of women. I don’t want to be a ball buster or anything.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, all this talk about the “scholars of boys and men” has left me with a powerful urge to watch the Arrested Development episode “Motherboy XXX,” or listen to some Boys II Men songs, or maybe that Beyonce song “If I were a boy.”  And if I were a boy, I hope I would be happy to have women’s studies and men’s studies and a tolerant, interdisciplinary system of talking about gender and difference, without feeling the need to wave my dick around and make my own No-Girls-Allowed club.


Active Conversation
79 Total Comments
Post your comment »
  1. collapse expand

    Instead of Redneck – use Feminist…

    You know you’re a feminist when:

    You believe in equal pay for equal work
    You believe girls are just as smart as boys
    You believe 17% representation in Congress is far too low
    You trust a woman to take care of her children so you also trust her to decide whether or not to have children in the first place
    You don’t assume a woman doesn’t understand sports – and isn’t a lesbian.

    Feel free to add to the list…

    Proud Feminist

    • collapse expand

      And if you believe that 9 out of 10 prisoners being male is too much, time to catch up!

      If you really believe you want equal pay for equal work, fine, just don’t pretend we are comparing apples to apples.

      The variation in males is FAR more extreme. News story of someone hiding in a portapotty or having carnal relations with a farm animal? Which gender do you think is involved in 99.99% of cases? You can’t have the base assumption of apples to apples comparison as most feminists simplistically do.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
  2. collapse expand

    You really have to laugh — at the notion men are powerless (hmmm, who controls most of every corporation, legislature, judiciary). It’s not even worth (I admire your trying) even responding to.

    Any woman who abhors the word “feminist” should, of course, eschew birth control or the vote or the ability (where it exists) to get a safe and legal abortion — all those things other women fought long and hard for.

  3. collapse expand

    Feminism is already “Gender Inclusive”?

    What has Feminism done about men having no reproductive rights (a central concern of Feminism), nor Parental rights (enshrined in law)?

    What has Feminism done about declining male enrollment in school (aside from say it’s either a good thing, or a non-isse because men “get paid more”…so nevermind if your son HAS to work in the mines instead of becoming a Doctor or something…because MEN get paid more)…nope, no sexism there. Nevermind the fact that the stats used to justify this sexism are…um, flat out fabricated.

    Feminism has done absolutely nothing for men, except tell them it’s OK not to be men.

    In short, Feminism is not saying a damn thing about men that we find either relevant, helpful, or for that matter even of tangential interest.

    To put it mildly, Feminism has never, and will never, have anything positive to contribute to the male experience other than minor nibbles around the edges of the main issues.

    Feminism, and Feminists, have little regard for men, their experiences, and the issues men face. Feminists have shown themselves, ESPECIALLY in their reaction to this Discipline, to be Antipathetic towards men, maleness, and men’s issues (or is the contempt “justified” in your bigoted eyes?).

    All one needs to do is read the comment threads on these articles, see the comments posted by self-described Feminists, and read the heavily misandry-laden articles the posts are responses to, to see that Feminism and Feminists are indeed not only hostile to the idea that men may actually, you know, have their OWN needs and opinions…but hostile to men in general.

    The bigotry, sexism, fear, and hate expressed by Feminists all over the internet on this topic is proof positive that not only is Feminism indeed virulently anti-male (DEFINITELY not pro-male, as the woefully short list of “benefits” men get from Feminism makes obvious), but given the repeated “all academia is the study of males” flat out bullshit…it’s obvious that if men are going to get anywhere in dealing with these issues, not only is Feminism a poor choice of ally, it’s tantamount to asking your enemy to help draw up battle plans..

    You argue Feminism has a “bad rep”, and blame MRAs and the like for “misunderstanding Feminism”.

    We MRAs say this in response:

    Feminism has earned every last bit of the public disgust it enjoys as an ideology, and the people espousing it’s man-hating views DESERVE to have their hatred, bigotry, and sexism dragged out into the light.

    It’s not OUR fault if you get hoist on your own petard. YOU’RE the ones lacking integrity, and pursuing a hateful agenda. You’re the ones blaming an entire sex for your “problems”, while completely ignoring or minimizing the issues facing your male counterparts.

    We’re not taking this shit any more. Deal with it.

    But these articles?

    They make your fear and loathing VERY apparent. So thanks for helping recruit a few more Male Studies students…

  4. collapse expand

    However, the problem really is that the word “feminism” means so many things to so many people, that really it’s become anathema. When feminism can describe anything from Lady Gaga, to UCLA coeds who work as sex workers for tuition, to sexless buttoned up WASPs who fight against drunken campus “rape,” to Conservative coddled housewives who believe in Jesus and institutional religion, to Miley Cyrus safe commercialism, can you see why it’s become meaningless? Semantic confusion and factionalism have pushed it into a word that has the consistency of morning porridge.

    The thing that always strikes me, having had different experiences around the world is that no African woman I have met who have lived in poverty talk about feminism, nor poor women in Cuba, not the supposed “repressed” women of Japan. It seems to be a middle class to upper middle class American phenomenon, or a european ethereal intellectual one like Iriguray, which come from the traditional of the dream, not the blood and guts of life.

    But I would say it’s low-hanging fruit to attack some morons who suggest a “men’s studies.” The whole argument is infantile.

    No doubt that gender is an issue, but I don’t think any rational person can look for any semblance of sanity on the topic in academia. It’s all become dithered screeds and dogmas, political polemics, and a controlled willful ignorance of science findings over the past 10 years.

    So I think that feminism, if describing a political movement is great, but if it describes a cultural movement, or intellectual movement, it has produced nothing but confusion, poor thinking, and a mess of pseudo-language that changes with the next theory. Post-structuralism be damned.

    • collapse expand

      “The thing that strikes me, having had different experiences around the world is that no African woman I have met who have lived in poverty talk about feminism, no poor women in Cuba, not the supposed “repressed” women of Japan [sic].”

      Okay, first of all, I can only respond to this comment by saying that I cannot and will not speak for the entire continent of Africa, because that would be absurd. I can refute, however, on a very specific basis.

      When I was in college, I lived in Cameroon for five months and I saw an incredibly vibrant community of feminists and women who (perhaps lacking enough familiarity with the term to self-identify) certainly fell under that title in my mind.

      I think it’s absolutely ridiculous to say that women in abject poverty don’t wish to improve themselves and to have the same opportunities men do. In Yaoundé (the capital city where I lived), this came to light in a huge campaign to send the “girl child” to school. This was a movement created by Cameroonians, for Cameroonians. There were no white, upper-class feminists pulling the puppet strings. There was a demand, created by rural families who wanted to improve the lives of their daughters, but were unsure of how to break the cycle of keeping girls at home to work and earn money for the family; the ingrained sexism–that a “boy child” would someday be more worthwhile to the family as an educated individual (after all, he would have to earn enough money to pay “la douane” for his future wife) than a girl (who would eventually be entered into a marriage where her duties would include having babies, cleaning house, making meals, and often working side jobs at the market to help support her husband)–is at the root of this problem.

      There was also a response in the form of people campaigning (both men and women because, ahem, men also support feminist causes)–many of them with roots in these same rural areas and villages–to send ALL CHILDREN to school, emphasis on the “girl child,” who had been so long neglected.

      Yaoundé was also the site of the biggest International Women’s Day (March 8) parade I have ever seen. Women from all walks of life came out, dressed in the traditional mumus made from that year’s fabric, and marched together in unity.

      In my time in Cameroon, I also became quite close with a woman in her late 30s (the host-mother of a friend of mine) who had six children, the final three having been delivered by C-section. The eldest was my age (at the time), 21, and the youngest was 4. Her body was ravaged, and she spoke very candidly to me about the fact that she had no control over her own reproductive rights. I will say, this was not a woman in abject poverty, she was middle class, but she was still under the rule of her husband. He simply refused to use condoms, and she was afraid to try to get birth control. Her husband was not a violent man, just one engaged in a typically patriarchal, Cameroonian marriage.

      I also spoke with poorer women in the neighborhood who expressed (albeit without using the word “feminism”) frustration with the patriarchy (also without using this word); they complained that too many un-formally-educated women were supporting their unemployed, alcoholic husbands (alcoholism is a growing problem in Cameroon) and having babies they couldn’t afford to have and didn’t wish to bring into such an impoverished life. (This is not to say that these women did not love their children, just that they had no say in the reproductive process.)

      So you see, at least in Yaoundé, Cameroon, with the women I met, feminism is very alive. Repressed women are not always likely to discuss their true views, especially in casual conversation or with someone they suspect won’t be supportive of those views.

      Be careful when making blanket statements about experiences you have not had.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        My “March 8″ in parentheses turned into a smiley face with sunglasses. That’s meant to read “(March 8th).” Cheeky little sunglassed face steeling from my serious post.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand


        You took an aside way off the rails, but there is much merit in what you say. My roundabout point is that the cancer is in the mindset of mostly American and French academic feminists of the 70s and 80s, not the blood and guts feminists like the suffragettes and the political feminists who fought for something rather than masturbated about something, and contrived petty and unsubstantiated theories and confusion from personal anger. I think I made that clear in my last paragraph. Some of my great heroes are people like Mary Macarthur, for instance.

        I didn’t realize that I claimed to speak for the whole of Africa, but let me say that my point holds as far as “feminism” as a intellectual movement of actionable merit.

        Let’s talk about where the great movements in women’s rights around the world actually came from, and what political movements drove them, not academic movements. People like General Macarthur in Japan who gave women the right to vote, and believed and spoke eloquently of the rights of women. It did not come from a “feminist” movement external or internal to Japan. It was just the right thing to do, and was enacted by the most unlikely of personage. Now a feminist might argue that he was a misogynistic patriarch who believed in male domination of social structures, but it’s plain rubbish, and the same clichés repeated ad nauseum.

        I also didn’t realize that I was saying that I was against women’s rights in Africa. Au contraire. You’ve proven my point in that they were not arguing about whether or not their lesbian girlfriend should or should be allowed be able to insert a finger in their vaginas, as was the fashion with some academic feminists in the 80s. They were trying to make a difference in their community, and survive, and participate in their political structure.

        American feminists that I despise seem to forget the people that you were close with, that is my whole point. They’d rather argue over labial lips than AIDS, reproductive rights, or childhood mortality. (Because as everyone knows having a child implies being raped.)

        Believe me, I studied enough post-structuralist feminist theory to see this as clear as a slap in the face. And the only time I ever heard about Africa in my feminist theory classes was to point out the horrors of genital mutilation to only prove the facts that men are evil. That is my point in a nutshell. We are I am sure on the same page, but the problem is the hijacking of correct principles and obvious answers by literally crazy people.

        I mean, are you denying a whole wing of feminism theory is based on the idea that any penetration of a female wanted or not is rape and manipulation? I don’t use that to necessarily paint with a broad brush, but that was my point to begin with, that the word has been used by people who advocate for that contemptible insanity.

        I would hoep that you would agree with me there.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
  5. collapse expand

    These dudes feel threatened by something like feminist theory? How very flaccid of them.

    • collapse expand

      That’s interesting. Isn’t it more like feminists feeling threatened by male studies? Couldn’t this go both ways? Someone, it’s only the men’s rights people who are “flaccid” by daring to disagree with feminists, but not the other way around.

      And how very ignorant of you, BTW. We (both men and women) who dare to disagree with the one-sidedness and discrimination that feminism promotes and you call it “flaccid.” How dare we disagree with feminism in any way. Why feminism is totally beyond criticism.

      Obviously you were never a domestic violence victim who was denied services because feminism decided to lobby for legislation that leaves male victims invisible and excluded from services. http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/ap/judge-wva-shelter-rules-biased-against-men-63771622.html


      Isn’t ignorance blissful? You can be totally pro-feminist and have no clue what they’re really doing behind the scenes. Good boy.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
    • collapse expand

      Wow, feminists feeling threatened by male studies? How very flaccid of them.

      Oh, wait, I guess it doesn’t work the other way around. It’s only feminism that’s above criticism, right?

      And somehow you think it’s only men who are standing up for men’s rights? Why do you assume that? Because the blogger said so? Take a look at the men’s rights march in Mexico and see how many women joined the cause of equal rights, which feminists are not in favor of.
      http ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZcIL93nTOY

      Obviously you weren’t a male victim of domestic violence who was denied services or outreach because your male.
      http ://www.sfexaminer.com/local/ap/judge-wva-shelter-rules-biased-against-men-63771622.html

      http ://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/wood101508.htm

      Isn’t ignorance blissful, Graham? You can reactively side with feminists without knowing what they’re really doing behind the scenes.

      Good boy!

      In response to another comment. See in context »
  6. collapse expand

    Feminism is all about tolerance. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    “In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” Catherine MacKinnon in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies, p. 129..

    “I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.” From Robin Morgan, “Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape” in “Going too Far,” 1974. .

    “When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression…” Sheila Jeffrys .

    “Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.” Andrea Dworkin

    “Sex is the cross on which women are crucified … Sex can only be adequately defined as universal rape.” Hodee Edwards, ‘Rape defines Sex’

    “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.” Hillary Clinton, First Ladies’ Conference on Domestic Violence in San Salvador, El Salvador on Nov. 17, 1998

    “MAN: … an obsolete life form… an ordinary creature who needs to be watched … a contradictory baby-man …”
    “TESTOSTERONE POISONING: … ‘Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from ‘testosterone poisoning.’” from A Feminist Dictionary”, ed. Kramarae and Treichler, Pandora Press, 1985

    “Patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself… The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their home.” Gloria Steinem in Revolution from Within: A Book of Self-Esteem, pp. 259-61..

    “Women take their roles of caretakers very seriously and when they hear of someone who’s taken advantage of a child, they react more strongly than men do.” – Kathleen C. Faller, professor of social work at the University of Michigan

    “I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.” – Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan

    Melbourne City Councilwoman Pat Poole announced her opposition to renaming a street for Martin Luther King: “I wonder if he really accomplished things, or if he just stirred people up and caused a lot of riots.”

    “Our culture is depicting sex as rape so that men and women will become interested in it.” Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth, p. 138..

    “Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live her life, or to love, or to mother children. Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s daughter is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman,” Andrea Dworkin, Liberty, p.58..

    “Compare victims’ reports of rape with women’s reports of sex. They look a lot alike….[T]he major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it.” Catherine MacKinnon, quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers, “Hard-Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation,” Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1991.

    “The fact is that the process of killing – both rape and battery are steps in that process- is the prime sexual act for men in reality and/or in imagination.”. Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 22..

    “Man’s discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear must rank as one of the most important discoveries of prehistoric times, along with the use of fire, and the first crude stone axe.” Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, p. 5..

    “The newest variations on this distressingly ancient theme center on hormones and DNA: men are biologically aggressive; their fetal brains were awash in androgen; their DNA, in order to perpetuate itself, hurls them into murder and rape.” Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 114..

    When asked: “You [Greer] were once quoted as saying your idea of the ideal man is a woman with a dick. Are you still that way inclined?”
    Dr Greer (denying that she said it): “I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of the ideal man. As far as I’m concerned, men are the product of a damanged gene. They pretend to be normal but what they’re doing sitting there with benign smiles on their faces is they’re manufacturing sperm. They do it all the time. They never stop. I mean, we women are more reasonable. We pop one follicle every 28 days, whereas they are producing 400 million sperm for each ejaculation, most of which don’t take place anywhere near an ovum. I don’t know that the ecosphere can tolerate it.” Germaine Greer, at a Hilton Hotel literary lunch, promoting her book #34; The Change– Women, Aging and the Menopause#34; . From a newsreport dated 14/11/91

    “One can know everything and still be unable to accept the fact that sex and murder are fused in the male consciousness, so that the one without the imminent possibly of the other is unthinkable and impossible.” Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 21..

    “Cosmetic surgery and the ideology of self-improvement may have made women’s hope for legal recourse to justice obsolete.” Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth, p. 55..

    “Sex as desired by the class that dominates women is held by that class to be elemental, urgent, necessary, even if or even though it appears to require the repudiation of any claim women might have to full human standing. In the subordination of women, inequality itself is sexualized, made into the experience of sexual pleasure, essential to sexual desire.” Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 265..

    “AIDS education will not get very far until young men are taught how not to rape young women and how to eroticize trust and consent; and until young women are supported in the way they need to be redefining their desires.” Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth, p. 168..

    “In everything men make, they hollow out a central place for death, let its rancid smell contaminate every dimension of whatever still survives. Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it, and in life they commit it. They embrace murder as if life without it would be devoid of passion, meaning, and action, as if murder were solace, still their sobs as they mourn the empitness and alienation of their lives.” Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 214..

    “One of the reasons that women are kept in a state of economic degradation- because that’s what it is for most women- is because that is the best way to keep women sexually available.” Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 145..

    “Romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks.” Andrea Dworkin in the Philadelphia Inquirer, May 21, 1995..

    “Ninety-five percent of women’s experiences are about being a victim. Or about being an underdog, or having to survive…women didn’t go to Vietnam and blow up things up. They are not Rambo.” Jodie Foster in The New York Times Magazine, January 6, 1991, p. 19..

    “All men are rapists and that’s all they are.” Marilyn French in People, February 20, 1983..

    “All men benefit from rape, because all men benefit from the fact that women are not free in this society; that women cower; that women are afraid; that women cannot assert the rights that we have, limited as those rights are, because of the ubiquitous presence of rape.” Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 142..

    “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience.” Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52..

    “We have long known that rape has been a way of terrorizing us and keeping us in subjection. Now we also know that we have participated, although unwittingly, in the rape of our minds.” Historian Gerda Lerner in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women, p. 55..

    “Only with the occasional celebrity crime do we allow ourselves to think the nearly unthinkable: that the family may not be the ideal and perfect living arrangement after all – that it can be a nest of pathology and a cradle of gruesome violence,… Even in the ostensibly “functional,” nonviolent family, where no one is killed or maimed, feelings are routinely bruised and often twisted out of shape. There is the slap or the put-down that violates a child’s shaky sense of self, the cold, distracted stare that drives a spouse to tears, the little digs and rivalries… Barbara Ehrenreich in Time Magazine

    “The nuclear family is a hotbed of violence and depravity.” Gordon Fitch

    “How will the family unit be destroyed? …[T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.” Roxanne Dunbar in Female Liberation

    “Feminists have long criticized marriage as a place of oppression, danger, and drudgery for women. Barbara Findlen, “Is Marriage the Answer? Ms Magazine, May – June, 1995

    “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage. Robin Morgan, from Sisterhood Is Powerful (ed), 1970, p. 537

    “Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership. Only when manhood is dead–and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it” Andrea Dworkin

    “The cultural institutions which embody and enforce those interlocked aberrations–for instance, law, art, religion, nation-states, the family, tribe, or commune based on father-right–these institutions are real and they must be destroyed.” Andrea Dworkin

    “I was struck by what a beneficial alternative to the nuclear family this arrangement [communal housing and child raising] was for these women and children.” Lenore Walker, after visiting one of the early shelters for battered women, as cited in The Battered Woman, p.195

    “The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together…. Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process…. No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children… Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people’s needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all.” Linda Gordon, “Functions of the Family,” WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969

    “God is going to change. We women… will change the world so much that He won’t fit anymore.” Naomi Goldenberg, Changing of the Gods: Feminism and the End of Traditional Religions (Quoted at beginning of From Father God to Mother Earth)

    “We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men…” Elizabeth Stanton, One Woman, One Vote, Wheeler, p. 58

    “Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don’t like it, bad luck – and if you get in my way I’ll run you down.” Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia. (Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia – 9 February 1996)

  7. collapse expand

    Wow. Some pissed-off guys!

    I do think the argument that it’s become a word with too many meanings is worth considering.

    • collapse expand

      Well how do expect people to react when comments like InMyHumbleOpinion trivialize boys’ suicide and basically deny that it needs public attention?

      Just imagine a young boy in your family killing himself and this horrible woman says it was due to him being more compulsive and that is just part of being male so get over it.

      Wouldn’t that upset you?

      This is why many MRA’s seem very angry. Because they get such bigoted and sinister people arguing with them from an angle of “male suffering is either non-existent or a good thing”. Anyone who has compassion should be angry about that.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
    • collapse expand

      “Wow. Some pissed-off guys!”

      Well, you challenged their authori-tah with all this talk of women having their own souls and stuff. Such radical talk is bound to be met with long, impassioned posts describing the horrors of being male. However, your feminist catma (the female version of dogma) is preventing you from seeing the truth behind the hurt and tears. There’s simply too much of this women-guiding-women stuff going on these days, and it’s happening not only without men’s permission, but (in many cases) without even their knowledge!

      I hope you feel really, really horrible, because you should. On a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being “really, really horrible,” how horrible do you feel? You owe us at least that information. Anything lower than 9 should be accompanied by an essay of explanation. Thanks.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
    • collapse expand

      As one of the “pissed-off guys” I agree. Feminism has become a label that covers too diverse a range in ideology to retain any real meaning.

      But if you acknowledge that, it is hard to do so without acknowledging that those that identify as feminist have done little more clarify their definition of it than saying “It’s about equality,” or “I’m not that kind of feminist” when confronted with the pervasive misandry of many feminist icons.

      So if you are going to really consider that the word means too many things, then here is what I respectfully suggest. Take a look through the quotes I posted (they are sourced) and if you find yourself in disagreement with the likes of Dworkin, McKinnon, Steinem, et al, then you can make that choice.

      You can even write about it on your fine blog here and demonstrate openly and unambiguously that your brand of feminism is about tolerance, and is a pursuit of justice for all people, even if it means you have to confront a lack of those qualities in others that call themselves feminists.

      That would create a rare and welcome dialog that would further the cause you say you embrace more than you could imagine.

      But I also respectfully suggest that if you choose to hang on to the label of “feminist” without clearly distinguishing yourself from the hate preaching radicals in your movement, then any “consideration” you make regarding the words different meanings, won’t amount to much that could be taken seriously, that is, outside singing to your personal choir.

      And of course, that is not movement. It is orthodoxy.


      In response to another comment. See in context »
  8. collapse expand

    Before I found my vocation one of my favorite subjects was feminist criticism in college. What intrigued me was how, if you looked at all the ways the movement could be defined, the movement was keenly aware of the fact that flipping the poles of the equation was not the solution. In other words, replacing a patriarchal society with a matriarchal mirror image was not the objective. So you had feminists openly taking down the bra-burning wing of the party even as they fought for equality.

    And that’s the only point I would like to raise here, because the struggle you’re illustrating is only half of it. Not only is feminism under attack from say the non-feminist male side, it is also under attack from the non-feminist female side as it continues its quest for equality.

    That said, the image of Molly flogging her imaginary dick around to defend her misogyny made my day.

  9. collapse expand

    Well you’re unwittingly making their point for them. Nearly all of your arguments are just ad hominem attacks.
    If their ideas are so wrong, then you should be able to dismantle them without resorting to insults or verbal mud slinging. If you attack the people and not their ideas, then you’re revealing that it is YOU who is afraid.

    And your main counter argument is based on the ideological claims of feminism which are by no means reliable or accurate anymore than those of marxism or any other political ideology. Here too, you’re confirming the need for rigorous academic research in the field of gender without political motives or ideological goals. If I understood them correctly, that is exactly what they want. Lets wait and see if it’s suitable rather than just throw stones at them before it even gets going.

    How about explaining to me how feminists intend to tackle the suicide epidemic of men and in particular young boys? Oh wait, they don’t!

    Now if I tell you that boys are up to 6 times more likely to commit suicide than girls, are you going to tell me that numbers and maths are “male dominated” products of patriarchy and therefore wrong and only suppress women? That would match your other arguments.

    If you have even a shred of compassion in you, then you’ll acknowledge that young male suicide is a massive and dreadful problem and if you really care at all about solving it, then you MUST have noticed that feminists typically ignore or even deny that it exists at all.
    THAT is why we need a new take on gender studies and hopefully clean up the university departments from all the dogmatic self-perpetuating half truths.

    • collapse expand

      How did we get on the subject of suicide? But okay, since we’re there, I would argue that impulsiveness is a trait more common in teen boys and men than their female counterparts. They act before they think. It’s why their car insurance rates are higher. It’s just how their brains are wired. And so people who are depressed and left untreated, are probably more likely to off themselves, boys and men especially. So we’re talking about something physiological rather than attitudinal and cultural. So overall, I think your reply is completely off topic.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        First, the issue of suicide is that this is one of many areas (homelesness, dropouts, job deaths, early deaths) where males are doing much worse than females, for whatever reasons, and it is being ignored. When the media, academia and government address gender inequalities they always ignore male inequalities. That’s how suicide is related.

        Second, male car insurance is higher also because males have longer commutes and also drive more (in fact when couples drive it’s usually the male), so they have much more miles driven, and the data on accidents doesn’t account for that. More importantly, auto and life insurance policies are just another example of discrimination against men which is considered ok whereas it would not be ok if it were against women, no matter what the reason. Same for race. If blacks got into more accidents than whites, it wouldn’t make it ok to charge them higher rates based on race. But when it’s men, it’s deemed ok. That’s sex discrimination.

        It’s definitely attitudal and cultural too, because there is and always has been tremendous pressure on males to internalize pain, to not seek help, to not express weaknesses, etc., which is one of many reasons why men’s issues remain ignored.

        Simply put, if women were dying of suicide at higher rates than men, we’d be hearing about it all over the media and government policies would be looking into the reasons why. But because it’s males, nobody cares. That is totally societal and attitudal.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        Off topic? Is that a bad joke?
        The whole point of male studies is to address problems such as the suicide epidemic. How can you call that off topic and ask to be taken seriously?

        Then you go saying, as if you have the answer, that it is the inherent difference between males and females that accounts for all of that. It sounds like you’re trying to blame it on men themselves.

        And as if that isn’t enough, you dare to call suicide a function of impulsiveness!!!!!! You have NO BLOODY CLUE about suicide. It isn’t just someone taking a risk or being daring. So stop trivializing it like that.

        Besides, even if it was the way you said, does that make it any less of a tragedy? Does that mean we shouldn’t try to reduce it or tackle it? Is that how I am to read your comment? “Male suicide doesn’t need our attention”??????

        In response to another comment. See in context »
  10. collapse expand

    What war on feminism? Where is it?

  11. collapse expand

    Was it empowering to men when feminism tried to create a “man tax” on men in Sweden?

    Was it empowering to male victims of domestic violence and their kids when feminism framed domestic violence as “violence against women” and kept male victims and their children stigmatized and neglected as usual? I had to sue the state of California to successfully overturn the laws feminism created that excluded male victims of DV and their kids from services.

    Was it empowering to men when feminists in India opposed changing the rape laws to be gender-neutral?

    Was it empowering to men when feminism argued (against the ACLU) that men should be subjected to restraining orders without a hearing?

    Was it empowering to men when feminism continues to sweep the boy crisis in education under the rug and pretend it’s not there?

    Was it empowering to men when feminism opposed the formation of commissions on the status of men like the one in New Hampshire to address issues affecting men, such as discrimination in child custody laws, criminal sentencing, domestic violence policies, health policies, etc. and how men make 80-99% of homeless adults, job deaths, suicide deaths, combat deaths, dropouts, etc.?

    Is it empowering to men when feminism argues that it’s ok to have differential criminal sentencing for women because they’re women?

    Is it empowering to men when feminist opposes joint custody and shared parenting laws?

    Is it empowering to men when feminism in Germany wanted to keep the law that said sigle fathers get no custody of their kids unless the mothers consents to it?

    Is it empowering to men when feminism refuses to teach about discrimination against men in child custody, forced labor laws, criminal sentencing, domestic violence policies, genital integrity, etc.?

    Is it empowering to men when feminism distorts and covers up the boy crisis in education while boys are dropping out and failing at such higher rates than girls and killing themselves at higher rates as well?

    Is it empowering to men when feminism ignores and covers up that men make 80-99% of homeless adults, job deaths, dropouts, combat deaths, suicide deaths, etc.?

    Is it empowering to men when feminism created the funding provisions in England that only help girls but not boys who are sexually molested?

    Is it empowering to men when feminism constantly says women do more housework but ignores the fact that several studies show men do their fair share of housework when you combine work both inside and outside the home?

    Is it empowering to men when feminism constantly bashes men with lies about male privilege when males are doing worse than women in almost every way (health education, longevity, overtime, early deaths, homelessness, incarceration, dropouts, etc.)?

    Is it empowering to men when feminism lies about the oft-cited “pay gap” which is just a snapshot of average full-time incomes that doesn’t account for overtime (90% male), physical risk, hour flexibility, commute distances, etc. and which exists because women have more options than men to be primary parents.

    Is it empowering to men when feminism gives one-sided stories about how male gender roles were about “privilege” but ignoring the sacrifial, disposable and limiting nature of the male gender protector-provider role?

    Is it empowering to men when feminism criticize and put down men and women who dare to stand up against discrimination against men?

    Feminism has dominated the dialogue on sex discrimination and sexism for so long that nobody hears about discrimination against men.

    Yes, there is very good reason for a male studies program. Read Warren Farrel, Ph.D’s “The Myth of Male Power” to get a glimpse of reality.

    • collapse expand

      “Was it empowering to male victims of domestic violence and their kids when feminism framed domestic violence as “violence against women” and kept male victims and their children stigmatized and neglected as usual? I had to sue the state of California to successfully overturn the laws feminism created that excluded male victims of DV and their kids from services.”

      I (a feminist) couldn’t agree more that domestic violence against men MUST be recognized and dealt with. It’s not fair, however, to frame this argument by claiming that feminists want all the domestic violence laws for themselves.

      This comment requires a bit of a historical perspective. Feminists and other activists were instrumental in creating DV laws to protect women and children from abusive partners. By protecting women, however, these feminists were not intentionally excluding men. At the time, women were only beginning to speak out, to feel courageous enough to fight back and seek legal aid. Women were protected by law because they were finally given voice.

      I will remind you that it is a patriarchal mindset that says men cannot possibly be abused by/need protection from their female partners–after all, men are meant to be in control and able to stand up to women.

      Feminism, without a doubt, sets up a framework in which partners are equal. (Feminists who don’t believe in marriage, partnership or monogamy still do not promote violence against men as a solution.)

      I applaud you for your civic engagement in California. I hope these laws will be updated across the country to protect men and women in both homosexual and heterosexual partnerships. As more men are able to observe and break out of the confines of patriarchal shaming, more important changes like these can be made.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        Finally someone who has something constructive to say.
        I really really want to believe this to be true.
        Unfortunately, it doesn’t match my experience with feminists at all. People like you are the tiny minority in a movement full of misandrists.
        Perhaps my experience is just bad luck and I hope so but posts like Molly’s don’t exactly inspire confidence.

        But I disagree with you on the responsibilities that feminism has over DV laws. By deliberately protecting only women (most if not all shelters deny male victims any access), you are necessarily excluding men. That is the nature of our binary gendered society: If you praise one side, you’re automatically demeaning the other. By giving only to one side, you’re saying the other shouldn’t have. Violence is really a humanitarian problem and it was the feminists that turned it into a gender issue, so the imbalance we have today is at least partly due to feminist policy.

        I know that patriarchy is the main cause in suppressing men especially in DV; that part I agree with, but feminism plays a significant part in that game too.
        Now, however, feminism is the sole authority on gender matters in politics and education. That makes feminism responsible for all those areas that are neglected.

        You are right that men need a voice too but then why do feminists so vehemently fight any attempt on men’s part to get such a voice? This post on male studies is one example of how feminists typically respond to the potential start of a men’s movement. And this one is quite polite compared with others out there.

        Whats your opinion on the male studies by the way?

        I’m willing to bet you, that if most feminist institutions wouldn’t abuse their authority on gender equality while mocking men’s rights and ignoring or even denying their issues, then male studies and other men’s rights activists would work WITH them a lot more.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
        • collapse expand

          Wait, wait, wait, are the Feminists (capital F intended) running all the battered women shelters in the world? Is it some kind of crazy conspiracy of man-hating that leads to the protection of women and children who desperately need to escape their abusers? And what is a “feminist institution”?

          Yes, there are systematic problems that need addressing. I would wager that most men are (unfairly) turned away because women need a safe harbor, and in a case like this, the presence of a man (albeit a victim, himself) could be the opposite of constructive. Yes, men need their own shelters. Yes, we need to fight the (patriarchal) idea that men should never have to flee their spouses and that men should always be financially independent and without need of shelter. I couldn’t agree more, but blaming Feminists for this (again, is there some secret society I don’t know about?) just seems silly.

          I can’t say that I know much about the male studies movement, other than some articles I have read recently. From the little I do know (and please feel free to enlighten me), it seems that they already exist — either in the form of general history (we do love white men, don’t we?) or in the form of men’s studies, which cover issues of gender.

          I am still troubled by your views of “Feminism.” It seems to me that you have a skewed perception, perhaps influenced by limited exposure. You say I’m in the “tiny minority,” but what is your experience with feminists/feminism? Where did you get such a horribly negative view?

          I’m sure you will, or perhaps already have, but please read Molly’s follow-up article. She re-emphasizes the point (and I couldn’t agree more) that feminism is for everyone, men and women (especially third wave feminism). You can also read my lengthy responses to other comments as cited in Molly’s post. Both of us strive to relate that feminism is a diverse field, and that feminist theory is read, disputed, and criticized on college campuses across the country.

          I’m am genuinely sorry if you have been hurt or excluded by what you feel is feminism, but please take the time to do more reading and realize that there is a lot to be gained (for men and women) by a better understanding. (I will try to do the same and formulate a better knowledge of male studies so that I may better articulate my opinion.)

          In response to another comment. See in context »
          • collapse expand

            I collectively refer to feminist institutions all public or publicly funded establishments that intentionally spread feminist ideology – political or educational.

            I never talked about a formal conspiracy which you do not need. There are common interests, mutual compassion and sympathy among these groups which is sufficient to push the overall policy in one direction. Also, I re-emphasize that the main culprit is the old stereotypes of men that leads to the exclusion of men. I simply don’t agree at all that feminism is completely innocent in that process. It has a noteworthy part to play in this.

            You said it yourself:
            “men are (unfairly) turned away because women need a safe harbor, and in a case like this, the presence of a man (albeit a victim, himself) could be the opposite of constructive”.

            A battered woman is a victim of VIOLENCE not of men. Her husband beat her and THAT is what was wrong. He happened to be male but that is no reason to exclude other men from shelters. That argument is suggesting that the problem of DV is one of maleness rather than one of violence. I hope you notice the undercurrent in that line of thought.

            We ALL should be mistrustful and critical towards all isms. I have similar mistrust for the MRA. Feminism just has far more influence and financial/political resources which is why it is currently far more under my scrutiny.

            I am likewise troubled by your defensive view of feminism. No political ideology is “the right way”. Rigorous scrutiny is the only way to keep things on track.

            I have an idea for you. Log into some openly feminist forums (other than ifeminists) posing as a man (that’s crucial) and tell them what you think about men’s rights and call for equal activism against men’s discrimination as against women’s (weighted by the gravity of the discrimination). The more forums you do that in, the better. Find out for yourself by the responses that you get.

            In response to another comment. See in context »
  12. collapse expand

    (long, low whistle)…Holy testicles, Batman! You’ve struck a nerve!

    I have never understood why feminism is a dirty word to so many and why it’s so darn threatening. As someone who is proud to use the term, all I ever wanted was to be treated fairly and with gender-blindness. For example, once many years ago, a boss of mine never put me up for a particular promotion because he assumed (wrongly) that because I had a child under the age of five I’d be unwilling to take on the the necessary travel. Of course, when I asked about it after the assignment was already given away, the gentleman in question looked at me as if I had three heads. At which point I said, “had you asked me, I would have told you it wasn’t a problem.”

    Point being, feminism is simply a cry for letting women make their own decisions, not the patriarchy making it for them. Now, is that really so hard?

    • collapse expand

      “feminism is simply a cry for letting women make their own decisions”

      To the extent that this is what feminism does, I support feminism. But that’s not all it does. Feminism has supported totally discriminatory and anti-male policies in child custody, criminal sentencing, domestic violence services/outreach, public health, and so much more. Why are people ostracized for simply criticizing feminism for that? You somehow thing feminism is above reproach, but it’s not, and it’s intolerance for criticism is very indicative of the bigotry that it , today, represents.

      For those of you who think the men’s rights movement is only men, you’re very mistaken and should do some research. Search “men’s rights march in Mexico City” and watch the video, see how many women are marching with their brothers. Look how many women joined the National Coalition For Men’s facebook page. Some of the NCFM chapters are led by women. Educate youselves rather than reactively talking about something you don’t know anything about.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        Don’t know anything about? Jeez, last I checked I’ve been female for the last 50 years and have witnessed all of this firsthand. Get over yourself!

        In response to another comment. See in context »
        • collapse expand

          Really? You were given a higher criminal sentence than men because you’re female? You were denied access to your kids because you’re female? You were denied domestic violence services because you’re female? You were excluded from the Forced Labour Convention of 1930 because you’re female? You were forced to fight a war because you’re female? You were excluded from rape laws because you’re female? Wow I’m amazed!

          In response to another comment. See in context »
        • collapse expand

          Get over your own self. Why don’t you read the comment again. I didn’t say *you* don’t know anyting about what you’re talking about. I said that about people who claim the men’s rights movement is only a bunch of angry men. The men’s rights movement is both men and women who are standing up to discrimination aginst men, just as feminist challenged discrimination against women. Somehow, hypocritical feminism has a problem with that.

          Masculism: “The belief that men have been systematically discriminated against, and that that discrimination should be eliminated.” Oxford Companion to Philosophy.

          In response to another comment. See in context »
    • collapse expand

      “Now, is that really so hard?”

      I guess you got your answer!

      I had a sort of reverse experience when I worked in a traditionally female job–females were favored over me a number of times for promotions. At the same time, I had enough sense and experience to know that the reverse reality was, by far, the norm throughout the workforce. And so I put my experience in perspective. Women live on a diet of denied opportunities, and my little taste of same should only sensitize me to that reality.

      Or I could respond like the entitled dudes on this board and get all outraged because something unjust happened to the great, important, male ME.

      How far we haven’t come.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
  13. collapse expand


    http : //timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/city/chandigarh/Harassed-men-kin-to-hit-streets/articleshow/5079028.cms
    http : //www.telegraphindia.com/1090817/jsp/nation/story_11368453.jsp

    MEXICO (men’s rights march in Mexico City)
    http : //www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZcIL93nTOY

    “Battered Men Emerge From Cacoons of Silence,” http : //ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=20858
    http : //www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/14/opinion/edtaylor.php

    Irish Times, “Marchers draw attention to plight of fathers denied access to their children”
    http : //www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1222/1229728440856.html

    http : //www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Abuse-against-men—MON-EXCH-pg-1-lead-TUE_7423940

    http : //www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,562400,00.html?test=latestnews

    http : //www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-u-of-c-mens-groupmay19,0,4707353.story

    “Discrimination commissioner to champion men’s rights” http : //www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24289828-953,00.html

    “Men to Discuss Men’s Rights” http : //www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1924493.ece


    “Battered men in Morocco shy away from shame”
    http : //en.afrik.com/article16241.html

    http : //ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/fundamental_rights_agency/doc/contribution_ass_mens_rights_en.pdf

    ALPHA PHI ALPHA (Black fraternity wants White House Council on Men and Boys)
    http : //apa1906.net/PressNewsDetails.php?newsID=90&newsCat=Press%20Release


  14. collapse expand

    Fathers have long been denied equal parenting rights with mothers.

    http ://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101011119-183968,00.html
    http ://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/254/mcneely.pdf.
    http ://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/12/02/1245d8f7621c
    http ://www.israelnewsagency.com/psychologytodaydivorcechildrencustodyfathersright48060307.html
    http ://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/06/cw-involve-dads/rs.htm

    In Germany, up till recently, single dads were denied any custody of their kids unless mom consented. http ://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8395456.stm

    In Japan, dads are automatically denied custody rights.
    http ://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR2010020200498.html

    In Ireland and England were men are denied equal paternal leave.
    http ://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2010/0209/1224264026364.html

    Men are in a silent health crisis but there are still no offices of men’s heatlh except in Georgia.
    http ://www.aolhealth.com/medical-myths/is-being-male-hazardous-to-your-health-intelihealth-version
    http ://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/9475.php
    http ://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/TopCausesDeath2000.pdf
    http ://www.aolhealth.com/medical-myths/is-being-male-hazardous-to-your-health-intelihealth-version

    Maternal gatekeeping is a major factor in the shortage of father involvement.
    http ://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/03dads.html
    http ://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19092063/
    http ://online.wsj.com/article/SB124519757969321229.html

    Men get higher sentences than women for the same crime when all other factors are equal.
    http ://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/sentencing.pdf
    http ://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2008782782&zsection_id=2003925728&slug=courtstudy25m&date=20090225

    Drunk drivers get a 3 year higher sentence for killing a female than for killing a male. “Unconventional Wisdom,” Washington Post, Sept. 7, 2000.

    Men were excluded from the international ban on forced labor for years.
    Article 11 at http ://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C029

    Male slaves are frequently ignored by human rights laws and policies.
    http ://nationmultimedia.com/2007/05/14/headlines/headlines_30034148.php
    http ://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-06/15/content_895414.htm

    Men are half of domestic abuse victims and suffer 1/3 of the injuries.
    http ://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
    http ://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941
    http ://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a
    http ://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/em_060519male.cfm?type=n
    http ://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf

    Male victims of domestic violence and their children have long been discriminated against.
    http ://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/pdfs/Intimate_Partner.pdf
    http ://express-advocate-wyong.whereilive.com.au/news/story/support-team-pulls-plug/#
    http ://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/05/domestic-violence-charity-funding
    http ://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1146783/First-refuges-battered-husbands-offer-support-male-victims.html
    http ://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/wood101508.htm

    “Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2008, 42% of staff in state juvenile facilities were female.”
    http ://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf

    “Inside youth prisons, scores of female guards violated boys.” http ://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA041107.01B.krod.3a6c8d4.html

    A student survey in New Mexico found 43% of teacher sex abuse comes from female teachers but over 90% of prosecutions are of male teachers. http ://www.newsobserver.com/672/story/501955.html

    Two out of five South African boys say they were raped, “most often by adult women.”
    http ://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=ad3524cc-6076-4bc2-a015-23860553bd04

    A Canadian study found high rates of homeless kids being molested, with 3/4 of the molestations of boys being by adult women, but there were still no programs for the boys, only for girls.
    http ://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=604d29af-5999-47ec-a156-0f5bc96954f2

    Male victims of rape often are ignored and denied services.
    http ://lfpress.ca/newsstand/CityandRegion/2007/06/25/4287949-sun.html

    Men are frequently victims of rape, including statutory and prison rape, by both sexes.
    http ://allafrica.com/stories/200708210872.html
    http ://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=413523
    http ://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/20/1957242.htm?site=idx-tas

    Between 9% and 60% of rape accusations are false.
    http ://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Delhi/18_rape_cases_false_Study/articleshow/3910217.cms
    Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994.
    Forensic Science Digest, Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.
    http ://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdf

    Men do their fair share of housework when you count all work inside and outside the home.
    http ://www.slate.com/id/2164268/
    http ://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007204060320

  15. collapse expand

    So, why is it considered to be a war against feminism when men want to explore their own identity and needs?? Is it really the feminists who are feeling insecure and defensive that there may be other opinions out there and ways of viewing the world? We have had decades of the “interdisciplinary” (feminist) approach. Apparently men are deciding the characterizations they have been saddled with by the feminists does not fit them. Men are different and the sooner we can recognize their talents and gifts, and accommodate them, the better as a society we will be. Feminism has not shown itself to be very supportive of men for who they are, nor are they supportive of women who choose a traditional identity and believe in motherhood. To Ms. Kelly – to somehow assert we have evolved because we have legislated the murder of innocent babies as a “right” is barbaric, and shows that women have not evolved because of the influence of the feminist movement.

  16. collapse expand

    I notice that the attacks on feminism use the same technique as all the attacks on religion. Namely, extreme examples (usually in the form of quotes, and context be darned) are presented as the norm and generalized from. Same illogical, ad hominem con.

    Yes, fellow male men, there are extreme expressions of feminism. There are extreme expressions of everything. And universities can, and often are, hosts for wacky P.C. ideas that aren’t going to fly most anywhere else–personally, during my college days, I simply enjoyed the disconnect of politically correctness, fully aware that, in vernacular culture, P.C. doctrine has as much chance as a snowflake in the Bahamas. If feminism is to be damned for its loopy, ideological aspects, then we’ll have to go about damning everything for that same reason.

    Regarding society’s tendency to play down the many problems that men face in today’s society, this brand of insensitivity stems from the traditional, same ol’ concept of men as providers, with our value as people tied up in our capacity to fulfill that provider role. Don’t think for a moment this has changed much, if at all. Having one’s human worth tied in to performance is brutal, but so is society. (And women are EXPERTS in coping with brutal expectations.)

    And, as a relevant aside, have you noticed the dominant message in those endless, “Contact your doctor if erection lasts more than four hours,” couple-in-the-bathtub ED ads on TV? Namely, that men of means need feel no shame in requiring a pill to get it up. In other words, the ability to perform as a provider trumps being able to perform in bed, with or without help.

    Male worth as tied in to ability to provide–this is a societal thing. Feminists are hardly responsible for the attitude–if anything, they’re trying to mitigate it, as Molly points out. To wit, a society in which men and women more equally share power is one in which men aren’t reduced to their role as provider. Nor women to their roles as mothers and/or attractive partners (the two roles being pretty much one these days).

    Any denigrating of maleness is traditional and society-wide. Feminism, God bless it, has the guts to critically challenge the gender-related notions that are keeping all of us down, and it deserves an A+ for making the effort. Why don’t we men take the hint and join the effort?

    • collapse expand

      This is the second time somebody drew a parallel between feminism and religion to me (both times by a feminist). Have you any idea how much you have reinforced the need for a new academic approach to gender studies?
      There is very good reason for why the constitution keeps religion out of politics and law. So I’ll play along with your analogy and call for a removal of all feminist influence from politics and law (and education while we’re at it).

      Of course there are crackpots in all places and institutions but feminism clearly has a disproportionate number of them and, more importantly, sinister fanatics go unchallenged by the followers. If women’s studies were really academically rigorous this would not be the case or at least the fanatics would have a much harder time. Again, that is why we need to start over WITHOUT dogma, ideology, superstition and all the other things that hinder the truth.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        Yes, nothing gives an opening to malign religion like the act of mentioning religion. Your post makes up for its lack of content by its petty, presumptuous disdain for any and all who don’t think as you do. Dig this–our founders recognized the danger of allowing ideologues like yourself free reign to demonize everything that rubs them the wrong way. They had your number.

        Re the Constitution, the First Amendment forbids the government from interfering with religious freedom. Or freedom of the press, plus two other rights. Thus, it is not allowed to form a state church or require membership in same to hold office. (It’s there–read all about it.) In recent times, the U.S. Supreme Court has added the detail that the government is not to favor one religion over another. That’s it. Nothing about what religion can and can’t do, or where it can and can’t go. You’re giving lip service to an urban legend, which I suppose is your choice.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
        • collapse expand

          Lol. Someone’s really getting hot under the collar. I wasn’t referring to the US constitution by the way but it doesn’t even matter, because I still agree with you that feminism should be treated as religion legally, politically and academically (in the US if you want). Talk about a failed red herring!

          I don’t know what ideology you think I’m a proponent of but if you’re referring to freedom of speech then, yes, I’m totally stubborn and blind in supporting that and have ZERO tolerance for people like you who dare to try and silence me.

          In response to another comment. See in context »
          • collapse expand

            “Someone’s really getting hot under the collar.”

            Don’t flatter yourself. Re your first joke, reference to “the constitution” on an American website can (and will) be taken to mean the U.S. constitution. Duh. As for your second–that I somehow agreed with whatever point you were making about religion and feminism needing to be treated the same way politically, etc.–I did so when and how? I talked about how our founders put safeguards in place against ideologues like yourself, and this constitutes (no pun intended) agreeing with you? Ohhhhhhhhh-kay.

            Glad to learn you’re a proponent of freedom of speech, which must explain your habit of slandering those people and things which annoy you. The Disconnect-ometer is peaking, so I’d better close before glass shatters and flies.

            In response to another comment. See in context »
          • collapse expand

            “I somehow agreed with whatever point you were making about religion and feminism needing to be treated the same way politically, etc.–I did so when and how? ”

            You were the one who likened feminist critics to religious critics. And we all know you only made that argument so you could hide your beloved feminist ideology behind the same reason-proof cloak that religion typically enjoys. I say fine, do that and take it the whole way and give feminism the same status as religion in politics and academic institutions. I.e. don’t go around teaching people feminist/religious doctrines as if they’re some kind of scientific theory. I suppose you agree with that or do you want to make feminism unchallengeable while giving it’s teachings the status of hard facts?

            “Glad to learn you’re a proponent of freedom of speech, which must explain your habit of slandering those people and things which annoy you.”

            I slandered you how? It is YOU who is using ad hominem attacks (and don’t make me go and copy/paste it. you know what you wrote).

            “I’d better close before glass shatters and flies”.

            Is that supposed to scare me? Again you’re just running from civilized debate. You don’t seem to have much faith in the strength of your position. Even if I’d left all your comments unanswered, anyone with an interest in the truth will see how they just confirm my criticism of the original post.

            In response to another comment. See in context »
          • collapse expand

            The weather’s kind of nice here, though the pollen is way too high. I understand that’s happening across the nation.

            Well, it’s been nice. Stay rational.

            In response to another comment. See in context »
    • collapse expand

      And I just spotted Marca’s two post-athons. Ouch.

      Wrapping data around an assertion–the father of all logical fallcies. Come on. We can “prove” anything by looking for enough examples that appear to support our point and stringing them together, tabloid-style.

      With all the atrocities routinely committed against women and girls across the globe, shouldn’t we be embarrassed to carry on like this? Good grief. Can I resign from my gender? Where do I get the paperwork?


      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        How about giving us your opinion on male studies savio? You’re here attacking others’ but don’t actually say what your problem is with having an academic discipline that studies males (or anything else for that matter).
        I don’t see how anyone can mind someone studying something. Nobody is forcing you to take part in it or are you trying to deny us the right to learn and write about a subject? Talk about repeating history!!!!!
        Expanding knowledge and understanding can only be a problem if you’re afraid of the truth. So what are you afraid of savio?

        In response to another comment. See in context »
        • collapse expand

          A world ruled by people of your limited intellect? Take your Glenn Beck antics someplace else. You’re picking on the wrong adult.

          In response to another comment. See in context »
          • collapse expand

            So what is your opinion on male studies? Can’t you answer a simple question instead of just blasting out ad hominem attacks whilst hiding behind an anonymous profile? I won’t lower myself to that level of discussion and judge what such behavior says about you.

            Since you seem to think so much of your maturity, then you’ll surely realize that if you have to resort to personal insults, then you’re either on the wrong side or you’re harming the right side. In any case it isn’t helping your cause (or anyone else’s).

            In response to another comment. See in context »
          • collapse expand

            “I won’t lower myself to that level of discussion….”

            Glenn, you set the TONE for that level of discussion. And now you disavow it. Tell me Fox News isn’t courting you as we speak.

            In response to another comment. See in context »
          • collapse expand

            Name calling, personal attacks, insults and witless sarcasm is all we got from you in all of your comments. You never even stated your position or what you think about male studies (despite my requests to do so).

            You are the personification of why we need rational, academic research. If I was a feminist I’d feel ashamed of having my position defended the way you did.

            I challenge you to try and refute my position WITHOUT name calling, sarcasm or personal attacks!
            Lets see if you’re up to it….

            In response to another comment. See in context »
          • collapse expand

            Okay, Glenn, master caster of aspersions.

            Your point–hm. I’ll have to guess what that is.

            1) Feminist. No, I’d flunk the gender test. I do support feminism, however, and don’t consider it to be an inherently radical thing. I seriously doubt that the average feminist is radically so. And there is a difference between feminism and the feminist movement, per se. Even if the latter is as flawed as you seem to think, there’s the principle itself. Which I presume you agree with?

            2. Male studies. I have nothing against them, but the topic of the post is the war against feminism, with “war” a metaphor for attitudes and actions of an anti-feminist nature. I stuck to topic. You’re doing everything in your power to divert discussion away from it in the fashion of a control freak. You’re also failing to support your own assertions, which is the ultimate logical fallacy in that it circumvents the basic requirement (in a debate) to clearly and directly state one’s positions(s) and defend same. You ask me what I have to hide, and meanwhile YOUR posts have consisted of mostly aspersions. You either can’t argue or don’t know how to.

            3. Ad hominem. No, when someone calls you out for poor debating style, it’s not ad hominem. Critical observation, yes–a.h., no. Ad hominem is “You dress funny,” or something of that nature. Your form of ad hominem consists of stating other people’s intentions with little regard to anything they’ve actually said, all because you presumably know what they REALLY mean. Which amounts to accusing your foes of lying. Sweet. All anyone can really do in response to that allegation is ignore it or protest it, and you won’t accept either. That’s really logical, isn’t it?

            4. I’m equating religion with/to feminism. No, I compared the comments in this thread to the comments that pile up at posts about religion–broad, unsupported charges dressed up in mock logic. That’s not comparing religion TO feminism. The bit about my wanting feminism accorded the same protection from criticism as religion–what protection? Religion is a favorite target in our pop culture. Dawkins and Harris didn’t reach the best-seller charts by espousing a fringe sentiment.

            5. Platitudes like “Expanding knowledge and understanding can only be a problem if you’re afraid of the truth” aren’t going to inspire anyone to take you seriously. Stop mimicking your favorite celebrity skeptics and learn how to create and defend an argument. Learn the difference between show and substance. And stop wasting our time by complaining every time someone debates back at you–if you can’t take the heat, depart.

            In response to another comment. See in context »
          • collapse expand

            I stopped reading after your fist line.
            I said WITHOUT name calling.

            In response to another comment. See in context »
          • collapse expand

            Actually, that works out fine, since a couple things I said weren’t accurate. I got so involved in answering your bizarre charges that I literally forget the article IS about male studies. Since you’re not willing to debate, I will ignore you.

            In response to another comment. See in context »
  17. collapse expand

    I’ve been really busy and haven’t had time to formulate a proper response yet– one is coming, tomorrow or Monday. All I can say right now is thanks to all of you for reading. As for feminism, I have much more to say, but I’m going to wait till I have the time to articulate and support my ideas.

    This discussion has gotten pretty heated– I recommend we all watch the Arrested Development “Motherboy XXX” episode to cheer up.

    • collapse expand

      Molly, I wouldn’t waste anymore of your time. You’ll not convince the ilk who have shown their true colors in some of the most bile-spewing missives I’ve ever seen. Let’s just hope they are the lunatic fringe and not indicative of any real substantive sentiment out there.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        Actually I would like to hear what Molly has to say. The original post was full of polemic sarcasm and inflated assumptions.

        My challenge goes to everyone by the way. Tell me what’s wrong with studying males (or anything else) without attacking me or anyone personally.

        I’m also sceptical of male studies but else like these raging feminists I’m willing to listen and learn.
        Pity that’s not contagious.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        Mr. “Raging Feminists” will NOT tolerate personal attacks! Unless he makes them.

        Re lunatic fringe, don’t bet on it. These guys have issues galore, obviously, but they’re only expressing more openly and angrily fairly common sentiments on the left. It’s taken all the hostility against Hilary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi to open my eyes to that. I wish it simply came down to some comically insecure guys, but life’s never that funny.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
    • collapse expand

      I, too, look forward to your observations. This thread is the second one in which I’ve been aggressively jumped on by someone convinced I’m female–the first time was at Huff-Po, back when they were busy dissing Hilary for not being Obama. I supported Hilary, so I guess that made me female. I was called “dear,” told to take a nap and not to get so worked up, and so on. In real life, I’m a 2XL bald guy built like a bouncer, and I rather doubt I’d be treated in a like matter IRL, as they say. But all I’d do is laugh at the bluster, I’m sure. I’m guessing these characters are even funnier in person.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
  18. collapse expand

    “something as tolerant as feminism”
    Feminism is anything but “Tolerant” and your article is the perfect example of this. Just because some negative opinions were directed on the influence of feminism in education you declared an all out war. Every day we can read similar opinions on different beliefs and ideology but we do not declare an all out war each time. But for some unknown reason, feminism is sacred, it cannot be criticize, it cannot be questioned nor can it be debated. The only insecurity that is demonstrated so far has been your comments regarding the opinions express by Lionel Tiger and others, and you will hear from them again, they will not go away so be ready to spend more time to debate the “Wrong side of Feminism”

  19. collapse expand


    Oh I am obviously willing to debate.
    But when I specifically challenged you to refute me without name calling, you started off with one in the first line. I’m guessing there were a whole lot more but I never read the rest of the comment so perhaps there aren’t but I’ve given you enough chances.

    As I see it now, this “debate” between us will illustrate my point perfectly as it demonstrates the need for rational debate and unbiased research in a field that is absolutely flooded with anger and bigotry. You’re the living proof of that. You even said yourself that you forgot what the topic was during all the (one sided) mud slinging.

    I’ll be curious how you’ll justify your initial contempt for male studies after what we’ve seen on this comment thread. I hope you’ll do it without ridiculing men’s issues or making fun of peoples’ names.
    Certainly the feminists on this blog have demonstrated themselves to be highly intolerant, offensive and bigoted compared with the non-feminists. And I can assure you, this nearly always the case on blogs/forums where feminists debate non-feminists.

    Time to rethink maybe.

  20. collapse expand

    I am a lazy selfish man, and I am also a feminist. The reason I so strongly identify with feminism is because I am tired of being forced into a box as a man. I do not like beating people up or raw meat. I prefer romantic comedies and baked tofu. Feminism is more about undercutting all gender roles than any of the supposed male hating that man-studiers have been claiming it is about. Claiming a necessity for series of testicle-talks to counteract the labial-lectures that supposedly dominate feminist studies is the same as claiming that Sex in the City or Cosmo magazine are pinnacles of feminism. Sure, SITC and Cosmo are powerful tools in allowing us to understand that women have sexual feelings too, but it also forces women into gender roles that they don’t necessarily identify with.

    All of the issues brought up here that face men could/should be dealt within the discipline of feminism. By separating out the disciplines you are also separating the genders and only further dividing the norms we feel we have to follow. Instead of fearfully running away from feminism to create your childish boys-only-club why not work within feminism, a discipline very open to change and new voices, to express the very real problems facing men because of gender roles?

    • collapse expand

      I feel as you do and want the same things as you. That’s why I’m also critical towards any men’s rights movement.

      But I have to ask you, are you an active feminist or a passive one? Meaning, are you actually at meetings, discussions and do you try to lend your thoughts a voice in feminism? Because, what you describe sounds more like the fairy-tale version that I used to believe in. Most MRA’s were actually feminists but turned away from it because it didn’t live up to the promise to fight for true equality.

      This is the most common argument from feminists. They, as you, say that feminism is for all people’s rights and thus men don’t need their own emancipation movement. But even the title “feminism” implies a one-sided approach and in political activism, a title can make and shape a movement.

      If there is any doubt:
      I ask you, what is a bigger issue: the astronomical male suicide or the supposed glass ceiling? Which issue should we deal with first from an ethical and humanitarian perspective (or from any perspective)????
      Then I ask you, which of those two issues have feminists been crying out for more??
      You don’t need to answer, we all know the horrible answers to those two questions.
      And that was only one example.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        As I said before, I am lazy. Thus my involvement in any activism is closer to apathy. That being said, I am a feminist sketch comedian and blogger who has grounded many shows, with my female partner, in feminism.

        My point is not that the feminist movement has succeeded, or is even doing a perfect job succeeding at this point, but rather that the feminist movement has done a fantastic job changing the way men are forced into gender roles, and backing up the movement will provide quicker and better results than creating an opposition movement.

        To deal with your points directly:

        1) the word “feminism” and the one-sided nature of the word. First of all that is semantics, but if you look deeper into the feminist movement there are a fair amount of feminists who are working to change the title. “Gender Studies” is becoming the preferred nomenclature for many. The reason the word was chosen was because we do live in a patriarchal society and so naming became a way of subverting the norm. I don’t think the name is that harmful in the end and can be turned to mean many things. Plus, women are still definitely second class citizens in our culture and are given no agency besides through sexuality, so I think there still is a necessity to counteract that with a predominantly female name.

        2)Male suicide. Big problem. Sure. It sounds like you have intense feelings about it. Which issue should we deal with first though? Harder question than you pretend it is. Males commit suicide 4 times the amount that women do, but this still only effects 0.016% of males. The glass ceiling effects nearly all women. Plus, I feel as though the biggest issue in feminism is the constant degradation of female power to purely about sexual prowess. So we all have our issues. Valuing one over the other is problematic. If you have a passion to fight the male suicide problem, I think that’s noble, and I personally would be happy to welcome you under our tent of feminism if you believe that this is a gender issue.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
        • collapse expand

          1) You think women are 2nd class citizens. That is just an assumption on your part. Probably not even that. As you said, you’re lazy. That means you probably just picked up the mainstream popular notion and never bothered to question or verify it. That explains why you are a feminist in the first place.
          Don’t underestimate the importance of titles.

          2) Human life ALWAYS outweighs the other problems. No matter how few it is. Besides, the glass ceiling also only affects those who want to rise to the top ceo positions. That is a small minority. I don’t even buy the glass ceiling myth. What about the glass floor? You don’t ask why fewer women are homeless or have the really unpleasant and dangerous jobs.

          All very one-sided reasoning. Sorry, but to get me to return to feminism you’ll have to do a lot better than that.

          In response to another comment. See in context »
          • collapse expand

            1) Saying I picked up on mainstream popular notion implies that all of my information comes from media news outlets and not from living in a world that is very obviously dominated by men. It also implies that mainstream america believes in feminism which is absolutely false. I wonder what world you live in where feminism reigns as popular opinion. Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pdbnzFUsXI
            It’s not a great video, but that’s what normal people think. Normal people assume feminists are lesbians, women are dumb and don’t deserve agency. To be feminist is to question mainstream popular notion. My belief that women are second class citizens comes from living in this world and seeing the injustices committed against them on a constant basis.

            2) Human life does not always outweigh other problems. That is an absurd claim. If we could kill one person in our country in order to prevent homelessness for 100 years we would do it. If you want to make the claim that life is more sacred than anything else: 26,000 males commit suicide, 7 million women have eating disorders of which an estimated 5-10% will die in the next ten years. Eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of any mental illness, and they effect women at a rate of 7 times that of men.

            3) If titles truly mean that much to you than I expect you to never use the phrase “you guys” or “mankind” or spell woman or human with “man” in the word. Begin using the word humyn and I will start trying to come up with a new word for feminism to make you more comfortable.

            In response to another comment. See in context »
          • collapse expand

            1) You believe it to be obvious that the world is dominated by men. I believe it to be very different – especially in western countries. Therefore it’s a matter of perception and that is why we need unbiased research. You can throw your beliefs at me all day but they won’t change the truth. So you think so, I don’t. Next topic.

            2)Sorry but I resent your attitude. The ethical concerns for trading in human life for anything make it impossible to decide for it on a social level. Especially when implementing politics on a large scale. If you can’t agree with me on that, then we shouldn’t continue at all. Don’t even try to compare female and male deaths on diseases or mental illnesses. It’ll only backfire on your argument.

            3)Titles of POLITICAL MOVEMENTS! They don’t mean much to me personally so don’t try and put words in my mouth. they mean much to the followers – especially those who are lazy and don’t research their own facts – and are therefore easily persuaded by a catchy descriptive title.

            And I mean it, if you can’t agree with me on point 2 then don’t bother answering.

            In response to another comment. See in context »
  21. collapse expand

    Okay folks, I responded to the conversation that happened here. I tried to be thorough and respectful (I still make a few jokes, but if you don’t like jokes you probably shouldn’t keep reading my blog). Check out my newest post for a specific response, and thanks again for reading.

  22. collapse expand

    In a patriarchal and male dominated society a story like this one seems way too ironic. There does seem to be a growing societal pressure which appears to be separating misogynists in one corner and growing misandrists in the other. (just a side note: the spell-check does not even recognize misandrist as a valid word! more irony lol)
    That being said, I have hope for the future. The young men of today are much wiser than earlier generations. They seem to be able to grasp the “big picture” and live in peace, by way of accepting they have (and should not have anyway) no control over another human being; male, female or otw.

  23. collapse expand

    The problem is that there has been a problem with feminism that has led to sexist and frankly dishonest views.

    Early feminists tried raising their boys without toy guns, we know how that worked out. But still the problems linger.

    Just how equal are our jails? 90% of prisoners are male, and have been for the longest time, women will never catch up, so the foundational idea that women and men are simplistically equal is fauly.

    But this simplistic idea is applied all the time, even now they are trying to force women into boardrooms in the Eu by enacting quotas, but based on what? The assumption that men and women are identical populations? The fact of attrition by child rearing and life choices is never considered. There will never be as many women in professional sports or as professional sports fans because of simple preference, you can’t force what is not there. So while many feminists liked the idea of the WNBA, very few actually every bought tickets to watch them.

    Early on in feminism many of the social theories were based on the idea of the blank slate, the idea that men and women were the same, and only social factors made for differences, and that everything could be hammered out to be the same. Thus feminists from their own view soughts to enforce the idea that anything that didn’t match their own gender preference was inherently sexist. Thus when men looked at pornography, they were “objectifying” women, because women don’t watch pornography at anything close to the rate of men. Thus men were demonized for being men. The fact that homosexual men liked to watch pornography was simply not something the feminist could consider, because the problem with social theory that doesn’t match what one see’s in reality is that it has to become dogma to survive, it has to be to exempt from scuitiny, and that is what happened, and much damage has come from it since then.

    Now there is a little understanding of gender difference seeping into the movement, but even now there is dishonesty. Many will acknowledge that women multitask better or that they are less risk tolerant and more are going into higher education to the degree that they are majority in many institutions. But this implies other differences where they might not do as well as men, and this part is never considered. If one acknowledges superiority in some area, you are implicitely admitting inferiority in another. But this is not allowed, it is blocked out of the minds apparently.

    You see this when feminists claim that university math departments are sexist because there are more men than women, they tend to cite figures for high school standardized exams where boys and girls do about the same on average. But they fail to cite that males are FAR more likely to get all the answers right, and also far more likely to get all the answers wrong, and it is the exceptional that matter when you get to the elite in professions or academia. So you have such dishonest arguments constantly repeated in feminist circles and it puts out the opposite message from what they intend, it basically sends the unspoken message women are bad at math and reason.

    You see this also in the statistics cited about pay disparity and sexual assualt figures all the time as well. When you compare apples to oranges you will get differences, but the more factors you consider, the more the gap narrows, and that kind of says it all. Warren farrel has a good book on this called “whey men earn more”. The assault figures such as that countless men beat their wives on superbowl days or that 1 in 4 college women were sexually assaulted only add more fuel to the fire. The reliance on simplistic or blatently wrong figures and reasoning send the opposite message from intended, they say that women are not rational or honest. That is the problem with the feminist movement, it became damaging to women because of the inability to be self aware or critical and honest.

Log in for notification options
Comments RSS

Post Your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment

Log in with your True/Slant account.

Previously logged in with Facebook?

Create an account to join True/Slant now.

Facebook users:
Create T/S account with Facebook

My T/S Activity Feed


    About Me

    I am a stand-up comic and writer living in Brooklyn. I also teach theater and comedy to elementary-school kids in the Bronx. My writing and comedy videos have been featured on the women's comedy website Funny Not Slutty, Punchline Magazine, and EDGE.

    I co-write and co-star in a web series with my brother called John and Molly Get Along, which can be found on Youtube.

    I really enjoy a lot of goofy pop culture stuff, but I'm also a feminist, which makes things difficult. That's what I like to write about.

    See my profile »
    Followers: 62
    Contributor Since: February 2010