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

Apr. 26 2010 - 1:50 pm | 3,180 views | 0 recommendations | 76 comments

Finally, men tell women what the word ‘bitch’ really means

A few weeks ago, the world learned of a new academic discipline called Male Studies.  I made an argument that this discipline is confusing and unnecessary at best, because Men’s Studies already exists, and hateful at worst, since the Male Studies folks reject feminism and Women’s Studies all together.  I followed up my argument with another piece, in which I provided a number of examples of both male and female feminists who discuss men’s issues in a tolerant, inclusive, intersectional way.  A fantastic piece in Daily Kos yesterday has uncovered a few more examples of the ways in which Male Studies is explicitly intolerant of… women.

The Kos article looks beyond the sexy-named pioneer of Male Studies, Lionel Tiger, to a few of the other key-players in the “discipline.”  Another big man on the male campus, the “Chairman of the Foundation for Male Studies,” Dr. Edward Stephens, has coined the phrase “lace curtain.”   It’s like the “glass ceiling,” only for men!  You know, because women LOVE LACY SHIT!!! “Lace Curtain” sounds pretty sexy to me, but I’d like to point out that this is a loaded “analogy” that’s not really analogous.  The phrase “lace curtain” is a highly gendered construction– yet there’s nothing gendered about the words “glass” or “ceiling.”  If Dr. Stephens is calling the invisible forces that keep men from being all-powerful the “lace curtain,” than perhaps women should rename the “glass ceiling” into something equally dismissive of the opposite gender… like “football ceiling.”  Or “glass cock.”  Other suggestions welcome in the comments section.

Another key player in the movement is Miles Groth, who was a sponsor and speaker at the Male Studies symposium.  Groth endorses an ebook called Principles 101: Feminism, Manhood, and You, available for distribution on the hilariously named ManhoodAcademy.com.  Under the heading “What is Feminism?” is a subsection titled “What does the term ‘bitch’ really mean?”.  Here’s what it means, according to the Manhood Academy:

The slang term, “bitch,” is used to describe repugnant or difficult women. However, this context is too general and gives Feminists room to dismiss its intended meaning as a vulgar display of misogyny. To answer this allegation, it’s necessary to explore the common characteristics of this dysfunctional condition observed in many women today. These include:
• Anger towards men
• Use of insulting language
• A stubborn will
• A tendency to make demands
• A narcissistic attitude
• An argumentative disposition
Examining the relationship of these aspects reveals a common pattern of dysfunctional behavior typified by women deprived of male authority. [emphasis by this bitch]

Excuse me, I need to go mix myself a drink.

Okay, I’m ready to talk again.  There’s something wonderfully ironic about a paragraph explaining that women are bitches accusing women of having anger towards men. The anger of the author(s?) towards women here doesn’t count, I guess.

The book explains that feminism is ruining women’s dating habits, because– get ready– “It causes women to sacrifice the most essential feminine value—their submission.”  I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Groth, who said that this book is an “excellent resource,” should not be allowed to design a major at any accredited academic institution. Here’s a few more gems:

Men too possess their own natural advantages in the form of superior physical strength and superior mental prowess. However, when men seek to benefit from their own natural advantages, Feminists cries foul.  [emphasis mine, incorrect grammar from the "superior mental prowess" of the male author]

Also this:

Today, instead of gentleness and submission, women covet strength and independence…  But can a gender, unable to visit the bathroom by itself, really be qualified to determine its own future? … Can women who avoid the perils of personal accountability for the sake of convenience ever be fit to govern a nation, let alone their own lives?

Good question, Manhood Academy, but I couldn’t really concentrate because I have to go to the bathroom, and I’m alone in my house and I can’t go by myself.

This document is a staggering 143 pages long, which means I have a long day ahead of me.  A long, infuriating day.  The fact the man who gave the introductory speech at the Male Studies symposium endorses this “excellent resource” should immediately discredit the movement.  The document is full of grammar mistakes, not to mention unapologetically hateful statements about women.  It’s not an academic document, it’s hate speech.  And I know I’m not supposed to have an “argumentative disposition” or a “stubborn will,” but I’d like to “demand” that an academic discipline should not be allowed to call women “bitches.”  If that makes me a bitch, no big deal, because based on the list above I already qualify.


Active Conversation
10 T/S Member Comments Called Out, 76 Total Comments
Post your comment »
  1. collapse expand

    “this dysfunctional condition observed in many women today. These include:
    • Anger towards men
    • Use of insulting language
    • A stubborn will
    • A tendency to make demands
    • A narcissistic attitude
    • An argumentative disposition
    Examining the relationship of these aspects reveals a common pattern of dysfunctional behavior typified by women deprived of male authority. [emphasis by this bitch]”

    Wow. Sounds like most women I know. I am off now to find a man to submit to so I can learn the error of my ways.


    Who exactly is paying the salaries of these… people?

  2. collapse expand

    Now that you’ve defined ‘bitch’ it’s time to move on to the list of ‘Types of Bitches.’

  3. collapse expand

    Every piece of the Miles Groth’s definition of ‘bitch’ sounds like any American teenager… I don’t see how any of the “reasons\definitions” inherently apply to Woman at all.

    Sounds like Miles may have borrowed a colleagues self help book for, Parents with teenage children and re-branded it as a self help book for, men who disrespect woman.

  4. collapse expand

    This is even worse than the last round of slipshod analysis from Knefel. It is an intentional conflation of different entities, done in the most repugnant of fashion.

    Knefel wants her readers to assume she is critiquing male studies via a single forum comment from an obscure website that has never had anything to do with the creation of the new discipline.

    Nothing here from the Foundation for Male Studies (FMS), or from any of the well known academicians that were seated at the conference, but rather some quotes from the Manhood Academy positioned to be interpreted as FMS ideology.

    I don’t speak for all men any more than what’s-er-name that wrote the above drivel speaks for all women, but I will say as one man that I know how to define “lying bitch,” when one of them is right here in plain sight.

    • collapse expand

      WOW Paul, how are the 1920’s and when are you going back?

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

      Do you not recognize the hypocrisy of your comment? You are the same guy who pulled out strange quotes from weird feminists that said all sex was rape in order to prove feminism as an inherently sexist institution the last time Molly wrote about this. So I guess we know what picture to look to when we look for a definition of “Hypocritical Dicknozzle” and it looks like a man with an uneven beard and an uncomfortable stare that makes it look like he’s covering up for the fact that he just molested his dog.

      Also, Molly: you have a grammar error in the sentence before you comment on their grammar errors. Not to be a part of the Scrotum Ceiling or the Locked Dick Door or the Penis Playhouse or the Invisible Cock of Thor, but just thought I’d be fair.

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

        No prob, h2money, but I don’t see it– point it out to me and I’ll fix it!

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

        I know it’s not the point of the comment, but I just have to defend the “sex is rape” thing. If you read the argument in context, it makes a lot more sense. The idea is: rape is not about sex, it’s about power. That should be clear, just reflecting on the way rape is used as a metaphor in everything from sports and gaming, to politics. In popular depictions of heterosexual sex, and sex roles, the masculine and feminine are designated dominant/active and submissive/passive. These male studies guys provide an example of such thinking, but the gender roles are culturally ingrained, not just in the minds of the obviously sexist. This becomes very obvious in gay porn, when the submissive partner is refered to as a “woman”, is feminized, etc.

        So, performing gender roles during consensual intercourse is also about power. Which then makes it difficult to differentiate between consensual sex and rape. Understood in terms of power relations, sex and rape are just two different iterations of the same thing. This has explanatory power for certain features of gender relations.

        The analysis has it’s flaws, obviously, but it also has useful applications, especially in the study of sexual assault. The larger point that I take away from it is that we need to create a new cultural paradigm for gender relations.

        Importantly, it is a macro-level analysis, about how we conceptualize sex and gender; it may or may not reflect individual relationships.

        To summarize: the feminists who talk about sex being rape aren’t crazy.

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

      Hey buddy, you and I should go out and pick up chicks some time!!!!!!

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

    Lot’s of rhetoric on both sides of this issue. I recommend you listen to this discussion between Lionel Tiger and Amanda Hess and make up your own mind. There are many liberal men that recognize the anti-male aspects of feminism. This is no longer a right wing phenom.


    • collapse expand

      There are many liberal men who are sexist, as well.

      Feminism is anti-male to the same extent that the civil rights movement is anti-white. It may offend your sensibilities to think that you have an unearned advantage over others, but ignoring your privilege doesn’t make it disappear.

      Male studies promises to study the problems that men face that are rooted in patriarchy, from the perspective of one privileged by patriarchy, without ever interrogating patriarchy. It’s not going to come up with any realistic answers.

      Tiger sounds like a whiner who doesn’t want to let girls in his sandbox.

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

        Male studies promises to study the challenge of males without the influence of feminism. Since the whole idea of patriarchy is fringe thinking, neither I, nor male studies will spend any time thinking about it. This is exactly why it is needed, to prevent people who think like you, who are well represented in women’s and mens’ studies from poisoning discussion. BTW, here’s another link to some of feminists top thinkers and their decidedly anti-male quotes:


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

            Your link is nothing more than a feminist blog whose author is stating her opinion. Given that Women’s Studies programs and those that hold degrees have banked their careers and livelihood on a concept which is theoretical at best and requires the assumption that women have no agency, ever, the only converts seem to be women exposed to bad men….which there certainly are many of. We can disagree on the concept of patriarchy, but I think I have provided ample evidence that feminism….especially in academia, has a long documented history in misandry.

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

            Your link is nothing more than a feminist blog whose author is stating her opinion.

            Actually it’s a link to a social justice blog whose author is recounting his experience.

            requires the assumption that women have no agency, ever

            Where do you get that idea from?

            Just because one group has more structural power does not mean that the group with less power has no agency. It may mean that their agency has limited scope, but no one is ever without agency.

            the only converts seem to be women exposed to bad men

            Given that most people have been “exposed to bad men” at some point, this is probably true. But women’s studies is not about painting all men as “bad”. Oppression is due to structural factors, not just individual behaviour. And when it is due to individual behaviour, there are social and cultural norms in place to support that behaviour.

            You seem to be saying “the only people who believe in patriarchy are people who have experienced oppression. Therefore their understanding of oppressive social structures is not to be trusted.”

            It’s a ridiculous double standard and it doesn’t make sense.

            has a long documented history in misandry.

            Only if you define “misandry” as identifying and challenging our society’s much more amply proven and long documented history of misogyny.

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

    Mr. Elam,
    If I understand your critique, you’re saying that the piece that I quote is not representative of male studies. I’d like to clarify that I cite the source, and all I say is that Groth, who spoke at the Males Studies symposium, called it an “excellent resource,” which he did.

    You say, “Nothing here from the Foundation for Male Studies,” but in an earlier paragraph I do talk about FMS chairman Stephens. I never claim that the book was directly involved with the symposium, just that it was endorsed by a speaker.

    It’s interesting, though, that you say that the quotes from the Manhood Academy book have nothing to do with you or the discipline, and then you called me a “lying bitch.” Very, very interesting.

    If you call me that again, I will flag you for abuse.

  7. collapse expand

    Hm. Well, I don’t like rude people of either gender, but most of those characteristics simply go with being human. I like human women, personally, but these guys sound like they could never handle one. Or should ever be allowed to.

    Maybe science will invent android partners for these creepy weirdos.

  8. collapse expand

    (Insert picture here of me with mouth agape in speechless wonder.)

    Ever notice how when times are bad economically, the trolls come out of the woodwork? The sexists target women with their anger, the racists target minorities, and the homophobes target gays. Maybe when there’s more money to go around, our male studies friends won’t feel so darned threatened by us.

    I think that’s the best argument yet for fixing the economy, don’t you?

  9. collapse expand

    I note carefully that neither the author of the piece nor anybody in the comments section has refuted the definition, instead they only pointed out the audacity in giving one openly.


    • collapse expand

      Actually, my comment refuted the definition. I’ll reiterate. The definition given appears to be a example of teenage angst, to claim that all Woman act like teenagers, because of a lack of male authority, is outlandish.

      The definition sounds like it came from a guy who can’t get laid, because for some reason, when he yells at his ladyfriends they tell him to fuck off and leave.

      Maybe these guys wish they were part of a extreme fundamentalist Muslim sect. That way they could force woman to wear burkas(or party hats if they wish) and stone them to death if they cheat on them.

      The last thing we need in this world is more groups of men sitting in a room while trying to think of ways to not be persecuted for crimes they commit.

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

      No one has “refuted the definition”? Since when do opinions have to be refuted? Especially the Stone Age variety?

      These guys have their opinions, and we’ve heard them, and we’re laughing at them (both the opinions and the bearers thereof). It’s not that complicated.

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

    Sounds kinds of gay to me. I mean how you gonna pick up chicks at a sausagefest like that?

  11. collapse expand

    How about a little common sense here? Aren’t there lunatic feminist academicians, and hate-mongering African studies profs, and bizarre queer studies intellectuals out there? Dismissing the whole area of study as “unnecessary at best” seems a bit intolerant and hostile. Men and boys have some difficulties in our society merely because of their gender.

    • collapse expand

      “Men and boys have some difficulties in our society merely because of their gender.”

      So the answer is to promote a philosophy of sexism that demonizes any woman who doesn’t submit to the nearest male? Maybe the best answer to intolerance is not to practice it.

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

      It does seem redundant at best. Like “White People Studies” or “Heterosexual Studies” … it seems defined by a petulant desire to refute Women’s Studies and/or to suggest that the study of (well, just about) everything would have an alternate viewpoint as told through men’s eyes.

      I don’t think there’s anything wrong or disingenuous with studying the changing definitions of manhood and masculinity, but these sources do seem to have a vested interested in shifting the dynamic back to them rather than opening up the floor to parallel study.

      I think THAT is what makes the majority of posters here disturbed/concerned. Also, a man trying to define “bitch” and its appropriate usage is much like a white person trying to define “nigger” and its appropriate usage.

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

        “I don’t think there’s anything wrong or disingenuous with studying the changing definitions of manhood and masculinity, but these sources do seem to have a vested interested in shifting the dynamic back to them rather than opening up the floor to parallel study.”

        Totally agree with this statement. Someone with a second-grader’s grasp of history could tell you that, in essence, any field of study /not/ explicitly under Women’s Studies is by definition a Male Studies class. What was the ratio of important men to women in history class? Human history has been Male Studies since its inception due to its patriarchal nature.

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

    I have wondered for quite a while why “Male Studies” didn’t already exist. Women’s Studies, Queer Studies…. it’s about time, although this current example of “Male Studies” is not, at all, what I had in mind. I had imagined a socio political platform from which men might explore being men without being assholes. I am afraid this doesn’t measure up.

    However, as a gay man I find straight men fairly okay the way they are; kinda cute actually. I suspect I would feel differently if I were a woman trying to put up with them, or depend on them (like for monogamy).

    By the way, the real meaning of bitch is an unaltered female dog, and we dog people still use the term the correct way, all the time. We are confused by the other uses.

  13. collapse expand

    Oh by the way, “Lionel Tiger” is not very original. What no one realizes is that the name “viagra” means “tiger” in Sanskrit (ancient language of India).

  14. collapse expand

    Just to be my typical contrarian self, I will offer a defense of Groth. Clearly, much of what he says is stupid, degrading hyperbole. But there may be some wisdom in it.

    Men do possess certain natural advantages over women. One of them being strength. (The mental prowess argument is too stupid to respond to) In many ways, society has gone a long ways to crush male attributes. I was in high school before I had a male teacher. As an honors student, always near the top of my class, I got into fights at school, mostly in athletic contests on the playground. Punches were thrown, shirts were torn, bumps and bruises were had. These fights always resulted in a time out and a stern talking to. Now days, zero tolerance policies likely mean that I would have been suspended. It isnt that what I did was right, but I didnt start most of the fights, and most of the fights were with friends who were friends before and after. It is something about being a male that is now discouraged.

    As for the argument that women should be submissive to men- they should be. But only sometimes. It should be a give and take. Sometimes the men should be submissive to the woman. Having grown up with two parents who have now been married for over three decades, with grandparents who have been married for six decades, I see this well. When my mother or grandmother sees that their husband is really serious, they submit much of the time. But believe you me, it works the same way when my father or grandfather sees that their wife is serious, they submit. One of the flaws that I have seen in the feminist work that I have read is that it teaches that submission is a sign of weakness. It is not. There is a difference between submission and subserviance. Submission occurs in an isolated circumstance, as opposed to subserviance, which is a general theme of a relationship. Submission is often helpful.

    While this Groth guy is pretty offensive, it appears to a large degree that he is engaging in hyperbole, or at least going all Ann Coulter on the educational system- trying to parlay shock value into an actual job. To an extent, the feminist movement does the same.

    I certaintly understand how you are offended, but now you know how I feel when I read stupid feminist studies that say things like most men feel that women subconciously want to be raped. A lot of people in the feminist movement are over the top zealots. If there is now going to be a male studies movement, I would expect it to be similar.

    • collapse expand

      I think that maybe you are confusing the word “submission” with the word “compromise.” Yes, a relationship certainly needs compromise, a healthy amount of argument, and the acknowledgment (by both parties) that one cannot always be right.

      The author, however, refers to “submission” as a woman’s “most essential feminine value.” This implies that it is not the result of an “isolated circumstance,” as you suggest, but rather a way of life. If “submission” is a “feminine value,” then (according to this weirdo) it is a woman’s job to submit, and a man’s job to provide “authority.”

      This is not my idea of a well-balanced, equal and loving relationship. Just saying.

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

        You make a good point, but I do not agree. I am talking about submission and not compromise. Compromise suggests that we take a particular issue on which we disagree, and we meet in the middle. Or alternatively, compromise means “I will grant you this if you grant me that.” I am talking about neither situation. I am talking about the situation where we are in a relationship and I decide that I really want to do XYZ for do discernable reason to you. You want to do something totally different, but you see that I am serious in my intent. Then you submit and allow me to do XYZ. That is not compromise. That is you submitting to my desire. That is necessary.

        However, I will agree with you that this guy is a wierdo, provided that we have the common understanding that we only use that term because the alternatives are too profane.

        Finally, I would not argue that submission is a feminine value. As I stated in my origional comment, the men submit to the women as well. Relationships are all about submitting to your other. There are certaintly situations in which you should not cede any ground. Nobody should be in a role of submission all the time. But when you are in a relationship, you can tell when your partner needs to be the dominate one. You can submit to that need. It does not make you a bad feminist or an emasculated male. It makes you a good partner.

        Just to be clear, I am not talking about subserviance, I am talking about submission.

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

          I understand where you’re coming from. I think what’s difficult for me is that “submission” is a loaded word. In this context, I have a hard time reading it by its dictionary definition; the word holds a history of oppression, sexual and otherwise, for women.

          I think our argument may come down to semantics over principle. When I say compromise, I mean an overarching theme of a relationship, a give and take. (This may mean allowing a partner to do something that opposes the desires of the other, but not at the expense of the well-being or personal comfort that person.) I’m glad you agree that “submission” cannot simply be ascribed to women. I think that’s the most important point to make here.

          In response to your comment below, of course women like sex! And preferences of sexual dominance and submission are personal and often fluid. The point is that forced submission (sexually or in daily life) without consent or desire is oppressive and dangerous.

          I really appreciate you taking the time to respond and clarify!

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

      Men are on average stronger than women. But there is a lot of overlap between the two categories. There are a lot of out-of-shape guys and a lot of hardy women. Ultimately, it comes down to how one takes care of one’s body. A farm wife from 150 years ago could probably beat up any random guy you pull off the street.

      You were in highschool before you had a male teacher because elementary school teachers are less respected. Nurturing young children is seen as “women’s work”.

      One area where men come up short compared to women is death rate, injury, and life expectancy. That manliness is defined in terms of violence and recklessness plays no small part in this difference. Recognizing that male violence is learned, and is not just “boys being boys” helps redress one of the major gender inequalities suffered by men.

      I think you’re confusing co-operation and choosing one’s battles with submission. The traditional female role was submissive, because her role was to provide domestic labour, child-rearing, and sexual services to men. Without regard for her own aspirations or desires. Men also frequently sacrificed their own aspirations in order to provide financial support for their families, which is equally a problem stemming from patriarchy and the nuclear family structure. However, barring economic hardship, men also had license to pursue their aspirations and life goals, and to expect the support of the women in their lives.

      Feminists who use shock tactics do so to communicate subversive insights. This guy uses shocking language to shore up stereotypes, prejudices, and the status quo.

      The rape thing has more to do with critiquing gender roles and cultural tropes than accusing individual men of wanting to be rapists. It has to do with popular notions of normal sex blurring into rape, which is obviously problematic.

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


        I will respond to your response on my comment because you were both coherent and not disrespectful, though I doubt you are truly willing to hear my point of view.

        1. The strongest woman in the world could totally creme the weakest man in the world. A lot of women could beat up a lot of men. That is not the point. I was talking averages. The averages show that men are physically stronger. That is why women and men are separated in sports, even down to golf and bowling.

        2.Your contention that I was in high school before I had a male teacher because nurturing children is womens work may quite possibly be false. Do you have the statistics of the male/female ratio of education majors in college? It is probably the function of many more females desiring to obtain the role of teacher rather than it is the process of the system making the men teach at a higher level.

        As for your violence claims- I described my “violence” in my comment. I did not grow up in a violent family. I grew up before the internet. I have well adjusted parents. I dont know that my violence was learned. I do know that if you called a hand ball on me in soccer, I might punch you in the face. If I punched you in the face, you might punch me back. Soon, we would be in a fight. Through timeouts and calls to my parents, I learned to control my competitive nature. Your death rate argument is separate from what you say in that point, so I do not know what you are trying to say, but to say that violence is purely learned, and in no point boys will be boys is untrue.
        3. Much of my response to your critique that I am dealing with cooperation and not submission is dealt with in my response to Anne Zander. While you use the term cooperation and she uses uses the term compromise, the underlying feeling is the same. My point here is that, while in the past, women have been forced to submit to sex, in your comment, and in many feminist arguments, sex is seen as a form of submission. Many women want sex. In fact, many women are sexually dominate. The idea that women are merely meant to provide sexual services to men I find obsurd, but the fact that women often willingly provide “sexual services” to men is undoubtable. Personally, I find the term “sexual services” sexist. In a sexual relationship, it is presumable that both sides are getting something out of it. That takes it out of the realm of a “service” and puts it in the realm of a relationship.

        4. Finally, as to your point about shock factor- many colleges now have more women than men attending. How can you call a male movement shoring up the status quo? More women than men are now afforded the opportunity of a college education. The rate of unemployment among men is higher than the unemployment rate among men because “the economy has hit traditionally male jobs harder, such as construction and factory work.” Where is the status quo?

        There are definately intelligently intelligent feminest points to be made. But in the climate where our younger women appear to have attained equality, if not more, there are intelligent points to be made in a backlash/pro male movement. Clearly, this guy is not the guy to do it, and many of his claims are absurd, but the underlying point has validity.

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

    The definition of bitch proffered by the manhood academy totally ignores the more widely used form of the word. To make someone your bitch is to make them your property, your servant. So I find their definition to be exactly what one would expect from a group claiming that a woman’s will is dysfunctional behavior. As for the lace curtain, it strikes me as pseudo sexual in a way that brings the debate regarding submission into a very specific and boring, tired, relief, which is that of the male penetrating the female. Somehow this one little aspect of our sexuality carries with it all manner of baggage like aggression, dominance, and strength. But the feminine is equally capable of all of that. In other words, sword and scabbard are two halves of the same union, and submission is really not part of the equation, but you wouldn’t know that at the phallus academy or whatever it’s called.

    It’s ironic then that if you submit one way you are a bitch, and if you fail to submit in another way you are a Bitch. The difference between feminism and this study of theirs is that feminism seeks equality in a space without the term, and it is a better form of criticism because of it.


    Love the picture of the men’s room, and would love to know if the sink increases or decreases the rate of hand washing there.

  16. collapse expand

    To start off with, I’ll have a moment of solidarity for men and women who are genuinely pursuing resolution of gender issues. For what its worth – my mother and father who were part of the 60s spoke of the absolute breakthrough of womens groups at that time where women finally communicated as peers rather than confrontational. In college, studying history and seeing gender studies at barnard, I thought men also need this development step. And on some level truly believe that only through mens groups and self-realization will the genders be able to mutually accept how much the current gendewr constructs hold them back -

    men have a hard time finding friends, expressing themselves, understand life partners in women – women distrust, don’t believe in themselves, sacrifice too much and fight amongst themselves… REALLY???

    Mens dialog/studies have a possibility of ushering in a new era of awareness of actually just how hard the mens struggle has been and possibly help them work around the pigeon hole they have been put into all their lives – don’t cry – fight – conquer. Whether they want it or not, they have all been taught to hate women and protect themselves.

    I support male studies which support another aspect of male self discovery. By how much this society has robbed you of creativity, love, imagination, self, and replaced it with strange action figure you need to work towards. i think u r smarter than that. and guess what? we need smart men and women on this planet and women are ready to love you for not being GI Joe.

    from the article:
    “Can women who avoid the perils of personal accountability for the sake of convenience ever be fit to govern a nation, let alone their own lives?”

    umm.. i don’t know any women who avoid accountability, but there may be some. Don’t worry about what others disengage from – just engage – show up – and focus right action – no wars.


  17. collapse expand

    Not trying to add fuel to an already raging and enlightening fire, but no offense to you Molly dear, but I believe you spelled academic (it’s written as “adademic”) wrong in your second to last sentence of your post. I checked Merriam-Webster so I wouldn’t seem like an ass just picking out errors out of spite. I totally understand your “slant” on the article, but I have to agree wholeheartedly with craig on this topic.

    Spending my adolescence hearing Beyonce celebrating her independence and being of a household where my mother earned more money than my father, I am comforted with the notion of being a strong, self-sufficient woman that doesn’t need a man in her life to make decisions for her. However, where I think feminism gets it wrong is the notion that today’s men still expects to.

    I believe feminists (and the proponents behind Male Studies) operate through exclusion, which to me, inhibits finding common ground between genders. In my opinion, today’s men are comfortable with us having our own lives, making our own decisions and following our own dreams. But, even with our strength and independence, one of our greatest gifts as women is the power of submission. It doesn’t mean giving up on something, it means yielding to something greater than yourself. It means knowing when to quit, let go and not try to dominate or control something beyond your control or undermine someone just as capable just to get your own way. Submission is the act of letting a man be a man, even if he is the figurehead of the household. It means to trust and stand by him, while not allowing him to diminish your own power.

    Human nature teaches us that men and women were created for different roles for a reason. Although societal changes do allow some flexibility concerning these sexual roles, I do believe that they should in some ways stay in tact. This doesn’t mean men are the superior sex and women are inferior. I just believe that our differences denote our tendency to be better at certain things than the other. It is our differences that should unite us and not exclude. It is our differences that are an essential and necessary part of our human design.

    • collapse expand

      Thanks for the typo alert, I fixed it

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

      I believe feminists (and the proponents behind Male Studies) operate through exclusion, which to me, inhibits finding common ground between genders.

      This has not been true of feminism for a good couple of decades now. When it is exclusionary, it tends to be along lines other than gender, such as race and ability. Feminism is an ongoing project of inclusion and alliance. There are many feminists/feminist allies who are men. Feminism and gender studies have spawned Men’s Studies. We cannot redefine one gender without redefining the other.

      In my opinion, today’s men are comfortable with us having our own lives, making our own decisions and following our own dreams.

      Obviously, the dude who wrote the quoted article did not. You mentioned that you were lucky enough to grow up without being taught that your gender is detriment to you. Know that you were luck, and that you were in the minority. Furthermore, regardless of the attitudes of individual men, there are still structural barriers to equality, such as the double shift.

      You’re confusing “submission” with cooperation. Submission means foregoing one’s own aspirations so as to serve men as wives, mothers, and helping professionals (secretaries, nurses, paralegals, etc.). This is the submission that male studies dudes are talking about.

      You’re engaging in gender essentialism. Everything humans do is “human nature” so it is non-sensical to assert that “natural” roles should remain “intact”. Around the world and throughout history, men and women have taken on different roles, have defined gender roles differently, and have played with the boundary between them. The “differences” between men and women have been deliniated differently, and have switched sides. Social construction is influenced by biology, but at the same time, there is nothing “natural” that has not also been socially constructed.

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

    Btw, Paul Elam is a noted MRA FRAUD. He often slanders others who don’t agree with his fanatical ideology. Manhood Academy exposed Paul Elam as FRAUD. Ever since then, he’s been posting vindictive, petty crybaby tantrums about them. I guess he’s just angry or jealous that the Male Studies symposium contacted Manhood Academy for their help and Paul threw a fit because he was hoping to take their place? Who knows. This guy is as petty and pathetic as they come. He’s always ducking the debate like a typical intellectual COWARD.

  19. collapse expand

    So, basically, these “Male Studies” guys are blaming willful, stubborn, demanding women for their impotence (and I don’t mean that just in the sexual sense)? They forget that if someone really is powerful (the good kind, not the abusive kind) they don’t need others to be deferential and submissive; they need equal partners!

    They’re kind of like Spanky’s “He-man woman haters club” minus all the irony, comedy, innocence, and sweetness (and intelligence). No surprise, but there’s a Facebook version that includes the classic oath that might also serve as an intro for Male Studies:

    “I… (insert name here)… Member in good standing of the He-Man Woman Haters Club… Do solemnly swear to be a he-man and hate women and not play with them or talk to them unless I have to. And especially: never fall in love, and if I do may I die slowly and painfully and suffer for hours – or until I scream bloody murder. ”

    Does this make me a “lying bitch?” Gosh, I hope so!!

  20. collapse expand

    Over the ages, women were not cultivating submission – we were beat into it! Sorry dude, since your “superior physical strength” doesn’t carry as much weight these days, you’ll have to find a new way to assert your manliness that doesn’t involve demeaning women.

    That manhoodacademy.com website is either horrifying or hilarious – I haven’t decided which.

  21. collapse expand

    The stupid! It burns!

    What kind of academic institution allows this? They don’t even cite any evidence. It’s just a bunch of over-grown toddlers pouting that they want a sammich, why isn’t mommy/mommy substitute making one?

    The type of gender relations they talk about never existed, but were always more complex, and allowed for more agency on the part of women than these guys acknowledge. One of my pet peeves is when “academics” fail to check their theories against reality.

    And of course entirely ignoring the way the economy structures production, the household, and hence gender relations. It’s mind-boggling how they’re able to over-look such major structural factors.

  22. collapse expand

    I wonder if the attempt to assert that “bitch” is most definitely a slur is in response to some women’s efforts to reclaim the pejoritive (much in the same way that “queer” was reclaimed).

  23. collapse expand

    Wow. This makes me feel extremely angry. Which apparently as a woman I don’t have a right to feel. Which I’ve known for some time. In my daily interactions with men at work, and even with male friends, I have noticed the double standard that women are held to. A man expressing his opinion with strength is called “passionate.” A woman expressing her opinion with strength is told to “calm down,” or called a “bitch.” A man is “determined.” A woman is “argumentative.” It is incredibly frustrating being a woman! Reading this also makes me feel so happy to have a boyfriend who appreciates my strength and passion, and who never would have been interested in me were I a submissive doormat.

  24. collapse expand

    So we have a bunch of stupid incoherent bitches yapping nonsense on the internet. Sounds like business as usual.

    Learn how to keep stupid cunts like this in check: http://manhood101.com/principles101.pdf

  25. collapse expand

    From the 101 Principles:

    “Pain Maintains Authority: Once your authority is established, pain is required to maintain
    it. This doesn’t mean you suddenly cut off the pleasure. It just means that the pleasure you provide must be conditional—it must be merited. You should give others pleasure to motivate them to move toward order. However, if those under your authority stop moving toward order, they will become disorderly. Thus, you need to apply pain to quell dysfunctional behavior. Pain causes those under your authority to fear your authority.” (p 52)

    “Fear is required to meet the universal need for order. By neglecting to address violations of your authority with pain, you undermine any order previously created. In layman’s terms: if women cease to fear you, they will also cease to love you. Whenever you experience disorder in a relationship, you need to realize authority is missing—fear is gone. Whenever you neglect to establish your authority in your relationships, you fail to apply the very cement meant to hold relationships together. A woman refusing to submit to your authority is not in a position to receive your provision. In fact, if you continue to validate her with your attention, affection and provision, your efforts will backfire.” (pp 54-55)

    Forget about pejoratives. This piece of s*** document is encouraging domestic violence as a means of control.

    Do other people agree with my reading that “applying pain” is a dangerous phrase purposefully left ambiguous?

  26. collapse expand

    Im not deprived of any “man’s” authority, I don’t need it, and if those are the characteristics for a bitch, why dont you sign me up? AND while your at it sign up 99.9 percent of the population of women, because dudes your never gonna find a women who dont have atleast one or two of those characteristics so good luck looking.

  27. collapse expand

    Once again amazed.. Ack Son that is one of the most ridiculous rants I have ever seen. Obviously Prof. Plum, “The Dean of Beatdowns”, has never read the Wikipedia page on logic and will never grasp the basic concept of deductive reasoning.

    Plum ever so eloquently starts his argument with the inherently flawed use of inductive reasoning (if a then b). Starting a inductive argument, one that can not be proven true or false, and claiming you know the answer, simply makes you look like a fool with your pants on the ground.

    I must say it is worth reading Prof. Plum’s signature quote on the bottom of his rant, it really helps paint a picture of this guys mental landscape.

    “Women are a complementary reflection of men; if women are “strong and independent,” men are weak and dependent. The poor condition of women reflects the poor condition of men.”

    This is the type of guy that “highlights” the results of how his “girlfriend” acted after he “put her in her place” for questioning his authority. Literally, here are a few.

    “dinner cooked when/if i want it. no hassles.
    laundry done, no complaints.
    sex when requested, check
    keeps the condescending & sarcastic remarks to a minimum
    apologizes if she acts like a bitch”

    I have not been this appalled in quite some time. Feel free to delete this comment and Ack Son’s as well Molly. Rubbish like that doesn’t even deserve to see the light of day.

  28. collapse expand

    Could not agree with jeremywinter more. I am a fairly calm person, but that “analysis” of your piece made my face all red and my ears spout smoke. Some people don’t seem to know the difference between playful fun-poking and hateful slander.

    What “Prof Plum” wrote makes me feel physically ill. I feel sorry for his girlfriend. I hope she has some time to do things for herself in between all of that servitude.

  29. collapse expand

    How friendly of them to repost my comedy videos!!

  30. collapse expand

    Wow, that’s scary. sex when requested, check … regardless of her desires? Way for this guy to imply that he’s a rapist.

    To everyone trying to argue the merits of “submission”: ^this^ is what we’re talking about.

  31. collapse expand

    Thanks, inmyhumbleopinion, I flagged him too. Thanks to everyone who’s keeping things civil. I’m not trying to censor people but I think there should be a “3 cunt limit” or something when it comes to abusive name calling

  32. collapse expand

    Censorship implies there was actually an idea built into those comments, which I think we can all agree was non-existent. Nothing to see here, ladies and gentlemen. Let’s move along.

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