Idiot Men and Wise Women

Consider your average commercial.

As the scene opens, some moronic clown of a man, usually a husband, is struggling to figure out how to do some basic task correctly and is failing miserably. It doesn't really matter what he's doing (laundry, sweeping, doing the dishes, even something as simple as eating lunch...), he's doing it wrong.

But don't worry about him, he's covered! For sure enough, an all-knowing woman (usually his wife but sometimes his co-worker) is there to pull his bacon from the fire. Rolling her eyes and shaking her head in pity, she saves the idiot of a man before he utterly ruins everything. And of course the product being peddled is usually part of the solution. And afterward, the all-wise woman gathers with some of her fellow women (all of whom are wise) and has a nice laugh about the guy, who can be seen in the background messing something else up.

And, by the way, did I mention that the man is stupid?

And of course we’re all supposed to laugh: “Ha, Ha, Ha look at that stupid guy. What an idiot! Good thing all that women were around, right? Because men can't be trusted to breathe and chew gum at the same time without messing it up!"

Now, sometimes there is a variant of this commercial in which it is a pack of children, almost always led and spoken for by a girl, who are the all-wise rescuers of the helpless idiotic father figure. They (the children) step in with the product and save the day.

You know, I have no idea who these people are trying to sell things to, but I know its not me, because commercials like this tend to make me boycott those products. I refuse to give my money to any company that, in their commercials, says to me "Buy our product, you stupid schmuck!"

Now, this is not to say I lack a sense of humor or I lack the ability to laugh at myself from time to time, but I have to tell you, after the thirtieth or fortieth time in a single day I see the "Idiot Man/Wise Woman" style of commercial, I'm tired of laughing and am getting irritated about what is clearly a problem.

You see, I think these commercials are actually hurting our society. They are helping to promote and continue the sexist (not to mention false) attitude that men are all incompetent doofuses who need someone smarter and wiser (not to mention female) to watch over/control/guide them before they hurt themselves or someone else.

Even worse, what are these commercials teaching to children? From what I can see, they're teaching children (especially male children) that adult men are idiotic, crude, foolish, lustful, and untrustworthy. A steady diet of disrespect for a single gender served up in commercials that adult men (especially their own fathers) are to be laughed at, abused, and generally disrespected.

What a healthy message to teach any child, much less a young boy. How does constantly being told that when he grows up, a boy will be a man who is lazy, unfaithful, inappropriate, rude, addicted to beer, unclean and unkept, inattentive, addicted to beer, and an utter moron help that boy become a decent human being?

The "men are idiots" message in these commercials might have a certain humor about it (it is fun to make light of the honest differences between men and women, after all) but in the end, its not the attitude we need to be cultivating. Women do owe men respect, if only as fellow human beings, in the same way that men owe women respect.

Constant ridicule of one segment of society is not helpful for anyone.

I've spoken on this subject before and people have responded with "Yeah, well, its just a joke." Yeah, well, its not funny anymore. One woman told me that "These commercials reflect our culture." Really? You mean to tell me that you think the men in your life (your fathers, your husbands, your sons, and your friends) are truly like this? That they are all idiots and morons who can't be trusted to tie their shoes correctly? What a wonderful opinion you have of them.

Try reversing the roles in these commercials and making the women the butt of the joke and see how funny you think they are after the twentieth time you see women depicted like that. See how soon you decide to boycott the product they are selling in the commercial.

Commercial advertisement, like all forms of public media, not only reflects our common culture but helps shape it. So I ask one more time, how does all this negativity toward men and boys affect the public perception of male human beings in general? I can't see it affecting them in any way but harmfully.

The truth is that its not just the commercials.  There are almost no healthy, balanced portrayals of men in our current popular culture. Its not just the morons displayed in the commercials, its the fact that men are generally portrayed as over-aggressive, overly violent, crude, dirty, and hyper-sexualized. In popular media, the "heroes" are often amoral, out of control, and bordering on criminal when they aren't seen as unintelligent, weak, and ineffectual.

None of which helps anyone become good, caring, attentive, and most importantly responsible husbands and fathers.

Feminism's False Dichotomy

"I'd like every man who doesn't call himself a feminist to explain to the women in his life why he doesn't believe in equality." -- Louise Brealy

Ladies and gentlemen, let me direct your attention to this statement by British actress, writer, and journalist Louise Brealey.  I call your attention to it because it is indicative of modern feminist thought.  It is also a perfect example of what intelligent people call the "False Dichotomy Fallacy."


Putting it quite simply, the False Dichotomy Fallacy is when a person frames their arguments as if there is only two possible options to choose from.  That is, they frame their argument so that either A is the truth, or B is the truth, as if there are no other possible options, despite the fact that its perfectly possible for any of the options C through Z to actually be true.


In this case, Ms. Brealey is saying "If you do not support feminism (Option A) you must oppose gender equality (Option B)."  Her statement makes it quite clear that, in her opinion, at least, you cannot believe in and support gender equality if you are not a feminist.  And the reason why this is a fallacy (that is, the reason why it is bad logic) is simple:  it is absolutely possible to not favor "Feminism" (a specific political movement) and yet still be in favor of "gender equality" (a specific political ideal).


If you're wondering how such a thing is possible, I beg of you:  open your mind and stop drinking the Kool-Aid for a moment and listen.  It is possible for several reasons.


First, it is entirely possible to be a proponent of gender equality, yet not agree with the methods by which the feminist movement goes about achieving gender equality.  Remember the push to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, back in the 70s and early 80s?  There were several pro-women groups -- groups made up of women campaigning on behalf of the rights of women -- who opposed the ERA because they opposed the specific language involved in the proposed amendment.  They were not opposed to the idea of gender equality -- they just didn't like the fact that the Amendment, as it was written, infantilized women and implied that they (women) were second class citizens.


In addition, several of those women refused to describe themselves as "feminist" and did not support the ERA because they didn't go for the "sexual politics" part of the movement (and by that they and I mean the actual "sex" parts of the politics -- the free access to birth control, the support of abortion, and so on) while supporting the "gender politics" parts of it (equal pay for equal work, no second class citizen status, and so on) involved in feminism,  These women still supported gender equality, but didn't agree with the entire platform built by organized feminism and thus would not identify themselves as feminist.


Second, it is entirely possible to dislike the "enshrining female privilege" aspects of the modern feminist movement without wanting to end equality between the genders.  The modern feminist movement opposes -- and I am not making this up, they actively OPPOSE -- any attempt to bring more public awareness to male victims of rape or domestic violence, or equal access to recovery resources for male victims of rape and domestic violence.  The movement apparently sees such efforts as "taking the resources away from women", who are apparently more important than men simply because they are women.


They also oppose doing anything about leveling the playing field for men in Family Courts (thus giving men the rights and consideration already enjoyed by women) or the problem of false accusations of rape and abuse being used as weapons in divorce cases (to put it bluntly, the feminist movement claims that there are no false accusations, and that women would never stoop so low as to use a rape or abuse claim as a weapon against a man).


They oppose doing anything about the fact that the percentage of men graduating from college is dropping swiftly.


And they oppose -- and this one get's me fucking angry, guys -- they actively lobby against the increase of governmental funding for research into so-called "men's health issues" like testicular cancer and the like despite the fact that men's health research is only funded to the tune of a tenth (1/10th) of how women's health research is funded.


And remember, while they are fighting to stop anyone doing anything about these problems, they are screaming to the rooftops about how society as a whole is ignoring "women's problems".  Which makes their opposition to men's causes a little suspect to me.


Now, realistically, I cannot say that every single feminist on the planet opposes all of these things.  As individuals, I'm sure that they don't; I'm sure that there are feminists out there who are perfectly willing to campaign for more assistance to male domestic violence victims, or to level the playing field in family court.


But...


However...


That said...


Unfortunately, the feminist movement -- organized feminism as an overall whole -- actively and effectively does oppose these things.


And on that basis alone, it is perfectly reasonable for a lot of people to look at the actions of the organized feminist movement, think about it a little bit, and then come to the conclusion that they just can't get on board with that.  It is perfectly reasonable for them to say "Sorry, but I am not a feminist if feminism means treating male rape victims as jokes to be ignored at best and insulted and abused at worst."  Or say "Sorry, but I am not a feminist if being a feminist means thinking that there's no reason to do anything about men dying ten to fifteen years earlier than women, or committing suicide four times as often, or dying of cancer twice as often."


Which, to bring it back to the point I started on, means that anyone saying "You're either a feminist or you're a bigot who opposes equality" is either an idiot (which Ms. Brealey isn't) or has some sort of agenda that would benefit from people not thinking about just how much damage the feminist movement is truly doing to our society.


Think about it.

NAFALT!

You know what I hear when a feminist tells me that not all feminists are like that (NAFALT)? Here's what I hear:

"Hey, I know we feminists are all on the same team, and wear the same 'uniform', and I know how even moderate feminists give tacit approval via their silence (and strength in numbers) to the radicals, but that doesn't mean you can paint us all with the same brush.  I mean, I know some of us are actively throwing our fathers, sons, and brothers under the bus, and I know some of us are actively taking away the basic legal rights of men, dehumanizing men, and demolishing their futures.  I know some of us are manipulating the system so it benefits women and demolishes men.  And I know that in addition to the ones doing active harm to men, there are a whole other bunch of us cheering them on from the sidelines. But not all of us are like that. Some of us stand around and do nothing but telling men who complain about the treatment those other feminists are giving them that not all of us are like that."

Believe it or not, I realize that, technically at least, not all feminists are like that. Feminists, like all human beings with a dogma, exist on a spectrum of belief like anything else. A few feminists, I am sure, believe as I do. They are truly egalitarian and are interested in things like a level playing friend before the law for everyone regardless of gender. The majority are only mildly toxic and self-serving in their rhetoric, agenda, and notions of female superiority. But the level of toxicity landslides quickly until you get to some truly evil, deranged people who are authentically calling for the mass murder (or at least the mass castration) of men. Rather than telling me that "not all feminists are man-haters, you'd be more accurate to tell me that not all feminists are actually interested in anything remotely resembling gender equality. Most feminists (especially most vocal feminists) absolutely believe they are egalitarian, but when push comes to shove they really, really aren't. And that's the problem, because these people are capable of justifying and promoting almost any sort of anti-male prejudice under the banner of "equality" in the same way that conservatives twist the words "liberty" and "freedom" in their rhetoric. When you scratch the surface of even the most reasonable feminist, what you find is some combination of gynocentrism, essentialism, misandry, and in some cases even misogyny. You find beliefs of female superiority and unchecked female privilege, none of which are compatible with the idea of "equality". That's what mainstream feminism is. That is what it has become. Once upon a time, I considered myself a feminist. Unfortunately the contradictions, fabrications, the fact-spinning, the outright disregard for the lives of men (except as they exist as privileged oppressors), and to put it bluntly the outright hate finally convinced me to separate from that movement. It convinced me that Feminists are no different from fundamentalist Christians in their inherent persecution complex and self-righteousness. Feminism offends my sense of what is objectively true, and I value objective truth more than I do subjective truths any day. Women only determine half of all subjective truth, and for that half to be imposed on men is not "equality". I still believe in the ideas that led me to feminism in the first place, but the movement itself no longer does so. And yes, I have "educated" myself, thanks. A far higher proportion of feminsts are "like that" than men are rapists, but this doesn't stop feminists from tarring all men with a broad brush that asserts that all men are potential predators. Male rapists do not represent, act on behalf of, or even claim to act on behalf of all men any more than female rapists represent all women. These vocal, hate-filled feminists, on the other hand, do claim to represent Feminism as a whole (and by extension, claim to represent all women, everywhere, because they can't tell the difference between "Feminism", a political movement that includes both men and women, and "Women" a demographic containing, for the most part, the genetically female population) These are not just a few bad apples in the barrel who are useful for stereotyping and demonization, like the rapists you use to demonize all men. These are your spokespeople. These are your heroes. These are the people you rally around. So do not begin to talk to me about how "not all feminists are like that." Conceded. I'll admit that not all of you are, in fact, like that. My point is this: so the fuck what. When the radicals are the ones driving the bus, the radicals are the ones deciding which way you're going. And lady, they're taking you with them because you refuse to get off the damned bus.

The Breaking of a Myth

Common wisdom says that men commit the overwhelming majority of rapes.

Common wisdom is wrong.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2013 (figures for 2014 have not been tabulated yet) there were 1,270,000 reported rapes in the United States.  I say "reported rapes" because only 22% of them were actually determined to really be rapes.  The rest were either proven to not have been rapes or else were not proven one way or the other.


But here is where it gets interesting:  In 2013, in addition to the 1,270,000 reported rapes, there were 1,268,000 reported cases of "made to penetrate."


Don't know what "made to penetrate" means?  That's okay, you're not alone.  Most people don't know what "made to penetrate means."


Here's the deal:  "made to penetrate" is what the people at the Centers for Disease Control and the US Department of Justice call it when a woman rapes a man.


The reason they call it "made to penetrate" instead of "rape" is because the National Organization for Women spent close to $15,000,000 putting political pressure on the government to change the official definition of "rape" so that instead of just meaning "forced sex that occurs against the consent of one of the parties", it means specifically "penetration of the vagina or anus by a body part or foreign object."


Highly convenient, isn't it, that this immediately removed most of the occurrences of rape that women were responsible for?  Oh sure, women do still commit rape, but now its only "rape" when they use a body part (like a finger, I suppose) or a foreign object (like a vegetable, or a bottle, or a dildo) to penetrate someone else's vagina or anus.  And the other kind of female-instigated rape, the kind where a woman forces a man to penetrate her, is no longer considered rape.


When the government reports rape statistics, they don't include "made to penetrate" cases.  "Made to penetrate" is included under the category "other types of sexual assault."  This lets feminists say, with a straight face, that men commit the overwhelming number of rapes.


But the numbers do not lie.  In 2013, there were 2,538,000 reports of rape (a number arrived at by adding together both the official number of rapes and the official number of "made to penetrate" cases), and women were responsible for almost half of these rapes, which they committed against men.


Don't believe me?  Here... have a graphic.  This was taken from the US Justice Department's own website.

The difference between the number of rapes and the number of "made to penetrate" cases was only 3000 reports.

Of course, the last thing any feminist wants to admit is that women commit rape at the same rate as men.  Because that destroys the myth of rape culture and the myth of patriarchy.

The Tipping Point

As time has gone on its become more and more obvious that the word is out about the Feminist Movement, and no matter how much they want to , they will not be able to shove the genie back in the bottle.

More and more people are coming to be aware that modern Feminism is not the solution, it is the problem, and these people are talking about it, loudly and publicly, in greater and greater numbers. And trust me, these people are not pleased and they aren't afraid to say so. Granted, this trend has gone unnoticed by mainstream media, but the blind dedication to the “Feminist narrative” from the mainstream media is beginning to look suspiciously like the old-boys neighborhood covering their asses. Of course, Feminism is still a sacred cow for many people. That said, it is only a matter of time before the critical number of anti-Feminist dissidents find the nerve to desecrate that sacred cow with gusto, in public, and in broad daylight.

The organized Feminist movement is well aware of this, and are well aware of how much of a threat to their political and financial power, their Party Line, and their ability to manipulate other people for their own advantage. So they have reason to be afraid of the dissident movement, and what they fear the most is the number of dissidents reaching the tipping point. This tipping point is the moment in time when non-feminists are so numerous and no vocal and so informed that they are capable of making political and economic changes to the current narrative. Its when the dissidents have the strength in numbers to openly voice, en-mass, their disgust with the modern Feminist movement.

When the non-feminist tipping point is reached, a counter-feminist culture that constantly questions and criticizes the modern, anti-male sexist narrative promoted by the modern Feminist movement will spread across public awareness to the point that it merges with the culture at large.

On that day, Feminism loses the power of self-definition and it loses this power forever. The world will be telling Feminism what Feminism is all about. They will no longer be able to hide behind a bogus dictionary definition. They will no longer be able to make bullshit claims that they are all about “gender equality” and will be exposed as the misandrists that they really are.

Quite understandably, the Feminist movement want to keep this from happening.

They are, in fact, terrified of it happening to the point that they'd basically do anything to prevent it. And we can summarize their primary method of preventing it with one word.

Isolation.

By which I mean that Feminism is trying to cast itself in the role of “the only gender equality movement anyone ever needs”, and as such, it is somehow empowered by a “manifest destiny” to take the reins of any discussion on gender-based issues. To prevent the inevitable loss of political and economic power, organized Feminism will brook no resistance to its dogma or its actions, regardless of how repulsive those actions and dogma happen to be. Everything outside of feminism is thus treated as either a space to be filled up with Feminism, or else a resource to be exploited by Feminism in some way or another.

It is thus the opinion of Feminism that everything that is not Feminism must be redefined so that they are only thought of in Feminist terms.

The non-vocal anti-feminists, those who agree that there are huge problems with the movement but who do not take steps to share their disagreement with it, they pose no current danger and thus are ignored. It is those people like me, those know-it-all, uppity, vocal anti-feminists, the ones who are already speaking out and damn the consequences, armed with facts and figures and statements that show that the modern Feminist movement is nothing but an anti-male hate machine, this means containment.

The challenge for Feminism being just how to go about this.

For years now, its been pretty easy. All the Feminists needed to do was weld the idea of anti-feminism (an opposition to a political movement) to misogyny (an opposition to a human demographic). Now, anyone with half a brain knows that a political movement is not the same as a human demographic, but what the fuck does organized feminism care about the truth. Hence, the idea of resistance to feminism became equivalent to misogyny in the minds of the naive and uneducated.

For instance, note the constant use of the term MRA (for “Men's Rights Activist”, someone who is concerned with male-oriented gender issues) as a coded substitute for the word “misogynist”. The implication being that no one can really give a shit about men, the rights of men, or the issues men face that women just do not face without hating and despising women. Its a subtle sort of brain-washing. You repeat a huge lie often enough, and people start to believe it, after all. As the Nazi's proved, humanity as a whole is prone to such mental conditioning.

Let's talk about Feminism and misogyny, shall we?

The modern Feminism movement does not actually give a shit about ending misogyny, or really doing anything about it. It just doesn't. It is of interest to them only because they can use the term as a weapon against their political enemies, and the only reason they continually talk about misogyny is because they are desperately trying to convince everyone that misogyny is the equivalent of anti-feminism.

Misogyny, you see, is of no threat to Feminism. Anti-feminism, on the other hand, absolutely is a threat to them and thus must be dealt with and dealt with in as definitive and final a manner as possible. Feminist containment strategy is to label all active anti-feminists (along with everything they say and do) as misogynist. However, only the anti-feminists are treated this way. The actual misogyny poses no threat to Feminism, and thus is never addressed. Its included in the Feminist reaction only in order to taint the anti-feminists.


The reaction from the naive public is thus to regard anything critical of feminism as “misogyny”, no matter how well-established, how factually based, or how TRUE. This is the reaction that organized Feminism is banking on, and they work very hard to encourage it.

Feminists thus group their legitimate critics with such actual misogynists as Marc Lepine, Rush Limbaugh, Darren Mack, greasy pick-up artists, random commenters, “manly-men,” teenage boys angry at teenage girls for breaking up with them, and online “harassment” by trolls who are just looking to stir the shit and really don't have any interest in hating women.

The legitimate anti-feminists, people like Warren Farrell, Janice Fiamengo, Carnell Smith, Monica Ebeling, Glenn Sacks, Erin Pizzey, Nadine Cross, Samantha Weissner, Trudy Schuett, Karen Straughan, Nick Reading, Sage Gerard, Adam Kostakis, and of course myself are all painted as misogynists by association because we threaten the feminist power structure. At the same time, sources of information like A Voice for Men, Misandry Awareness, and Help Male Victims are listed as “hate-groups.”

As I said earlier, they use the term MRA as code, meaning “misogynist”. They bleat on about “Patriarchy” and the “manosphere” and “rape culture”, knowing full well that none of those things really exist in this country. In the mouths of Feminists, these words are all code. They are figures of speech used to push the Big Lie.


The reality is more complex.


To a Feminist, the world is colored either black or white. To a Feminist, there is absolutely no difference between simply lacking a Feminist outlook and actively opposing it because both get in Feminism's way. To declare that you are merely not a Feminist is, in the eyes of Feminism, the same as actively working against the Feminist movement.


Against such people, the Feminist movement uses both direct and indirect aggression. With the direct aggression, such people know that they are under fire. They are publicly insulted and attacked. Even worse, they are threatened indirectly. “Keep your mouth shut or we will target you the same as any rapist woman-hater.” Because, in accordance with Feminist dogma, if you're not a Feminist you're a bigot. This intimidates most passive anti-feminists into remaining silent because they fear being tarred with the misogynist brush.

According to Feminist propaganda, by simply saying “I am not a feminist” you are mystically lumped into the same immoral grouping as real misogynists like Lepine or Limbaugh. Such is the libel which Feminism propagates in its drive to contain the anti-feminist tipping point.

The fact that Feminism has to resort to such cheap and criminal methods ought to make people think twice about Feminism as a matter of course. I mean, do we really need such bullies?

Reaching the tipping point is inevitable, but its not going to be easy. Many people who, at this point, still identify themselves as Feminists, will have a hard time accepting that the Feminist movement is essentially rotten to the core and utterly irrecoverable. They still believe in the ideals of Feminism – Hell, I still believe in the ideals of Feminism – and thus will have a hard time accepting that the movement that supposedly supports those ideas has gone bad.

But it has.

The ideals are all very laudible and worthy of preservation, but the movement itself has gone off the rails. And its way past time that we all start talking about it.

Jumping on the Bandwagon

So I've been watching the continual, ongoing manufactured outrage over Women Against Feminism.  If you don't know what this group is, its just what it says:  a group of women (of all ages, walks of life, backgrounds, ethnicities, and so on) who have basically said "I've had enough of the Feminist Movement's bullshit" and are making public statements to that effect.

For those who are unfamiliar, these women regularly produce selfies where they are holding up signs that declare that they don't need Feminism, followed by a variable-length list of reasons why.  (One of the most popular reasons being "Because I think both genders are worthy of respect, not just the one that has all the uteruses".)

The signs have all been polite, and have stated these women's public disagreement with the accepted dogma of modern feminism (that is, the don't believe all men are rapists, they don't believe we live in a rape culture, and they don't believe that not getting your way all the time equates to being oppressed).

The reactions from feminists has really tweaked my appreciation for irony.

Seriously.

The fury displayed at the thought that there might be some woman, somewhere, who thinks Feminism might be a bad thing has been hilarious to watch.  These women have been called whores, traitors, and brain-washed self-hating misogynists.  They've been threatened with death, and even more amusingly, threatened with rape by feminists who otherwise are busily accusing every man who even looks at a woman funny as being a rapist.

What's truly remarkable, though, is that, amid the the cat-calls and insults and rape threats and the statements that these poor deluded women who are committing the crime of not marching in lockstep with the Feminism Sisterhood just do not understand what Feminism really means and thus need to educate themselves, there has been an upswelling of support from older, more established, professional women who apparently have been harboring bad-feelings about "the movement" and how its been actively and intentionally hurting men for years, but who have never had the courage to say anything in support of men's issues before now.


I find it very, very interesting that it took a bunch of women vocally rebelling against the usual Feminist ideology to get prominent (and not so prominent) Feminists all over the world to finally start paying attention -- if only for a moment -- to the very same issues that men in the Humanist community have been talking about for decades now.  Apparently when these issues were brought up by men, they weren't actually worthy of consideration.  Men who complained about the problems with modern Feminism and how it is hurting both men and women were brushed off and ignored, or worse yet slapped with the insidious "Misogynist" label simply because they were men.  Feminism was thus able to refuse to engage in any sort of meaningful debate with men about these problems.  But now that it is women making these comments, its a bit harder to dismiss men's issues as the product of misogyny.  No one is buying the idea that the women making the comments are all brainwashed.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Modern Feminism.

Not that the Feminists aren't trying.  The utter outright bloodthirsty rage displayed at these women who have broken with the official party line by Feminists is, in a word, disgusting.  These women, whose only crime is to hold a dissenting opinion, are treated as air-headed bimbos, know-nothing uneducated, stupid, brain-washed, sluts who are only disagreeing with Feminism because they desperately seek a man who will take control of their lives and return them to the status of chattel.  Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.  Most of the women involved in #WomenAgainstFeminism are highly-educated college graduates who've simply made decisions based on the evidence provided.

If I could be excused for a moment, I'd like to "mansplain" something to all those Feminists who go into a red-eyed rage over these women, because they are clearly missing the point.  Over and over and over in the Feminist-generated critiques of these young women, I kept reading accusation after accusation of how these women apparently did not understand what Feminism was "all about".  I saw dozens of complaints that these young women simply "did not get it."  Feminism wasn't about the things these women were complaining about, whatever that happened to be, it was about EQUALITY.  These feminist critics would quote the dictionary definition of the word "Feminism".  They'd quote great feminist minds of the past.  They'd cite actions done back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s that led women to the positions and rights they now enjoy.


Except not everybody is buying what the feminist critics are selling, and apparently that's not only angering feminists, its enraging them.

I'm not going to lie to you.  Among the small community of people who give a damn about men's issues, there's quite a bit of gloating and sarcastic laughter going on about how Feminism is now being devoured from within over this.  A lot of us predicted this sort of thing, and damned if we weren't proven right.  But we're not really gloating.  We're just basking in our collective vindication.

The reason why Women Against Feminism is truly getting under the skin of Feminists about all this is because while Feminism is a political ideology, in a lot of ways its become very similar to a religious cult.  Sure, the inner circle, the great minds, have been preaching equality and tolerance and balance and all that good stuff.  But in the mean time, the more aggressive, antagonistic, utterly misandrist wing of the Feminist movement has effectively become the public face of it.  The public image of Feminism has been tarnished by women whose agenda isn't "equality" but really, truly is "hurt the men because they're men."

Not all feminists are like that?  Conceded.  So the fuck what?  When the loudest and most politically active feminists are like that, I don't care what you say, they are the ones driving the bus.  Let me be blunt for a second:  what has happened to the Feminist movement is the same thing that has happened to the Republican party at the hands of the Tea Party.  In an effort to appease the loudest voices and to maintain the appearance of unity, the Feminist movement has allowed those loudest voices, the ones belonging to the real man-haters out there, to dictate the direction in which the entire movement would move forward.

Or at least that's how it looks like, and perception is everything.

There's a reason why less than half of all adult women in America now identify themselves as Feminists.  Its because Feminism has become so associated with man-hate that even those Feminists who want no part of that particular kind of poison end up painted with it.  And even worse, three decades of systematically demonizing men and masculinity has managed to drive nearly all men away from the banner of organized Feminism.  There was a time when I would have proudly declared myself as a Feminist, because I believed (and still believe) in equality for all.  But I believe in full equality, which means that you have to take the good with the bad:  if women want to enjoy all the benefits of society that men do, then they have to allow men to enjoy all the benefits of society that women do.  That means we have to end the practice of giving women lesser criminal sentences for the same crime; we have to give men an equal footing with women in family courts; we have to give equal respect to male victims of sexual violence; we have to spend just as much time and money researching men's health issues as women's health issues, and so on


You know... all those "imaginary" men's issues that most Feminists brush off with a casual dismissal, when they acknowledge they exist at all, because the Feminists don't see them as unimportant.


Yeah, well, they're important to me, and to a lot of other people.  Which is why we don't want anything to do with Feminism.

Since the 80s, individual Feminists and organized Feminist organizations have made it quite clear that they don't want men along for their ride.  After all, we were the problem, and as the problem we could not be part of the solution.  The more men tried to not be part of the problem, the more men were demonized for merely being men.  Whether they intended to do this or not, organized Feminism, as a movement, became associated with the callous disregard of all things masculine, and with a deep disrespect for men in general.

And let me tell you, it has grown so bad that men cannot get together in a public forum and discuss issues like the epidemic of male homelessness (over 80% of all homeless people are men), or male suicide (over 75% of all suicides are men), or work place deaths (over 90% of all victims of workplace deaths are men) without having Feminists organize protests, make death threats and bomb threats, and threaten boycotts against the venue that dared let these meeting happen within their halls.


I mean, think about it.  Apparently, the very idea of men getting having the temerity, the utter gall, to get together to discuss male health issues was seen by organized Feminists as some sort of attack on women, and thus organized Feminists decided right then and there that such a meeting had to be stopped by any means necessary.


And by "any means" I mean death threats against the organizers, bomb threats against the venue, false reports to the police regarding criminal activity, physically blocking the entrances of the conference (and physically attacking anyone, male or female, who tried to run this blockade), and other criminal and border-line criminal means to disrupt the conference.

All because someone decided that a discussion regarding men's health issues, and how they are basically ignored in the United States, was necessary.  Classy behavior on the part of Feminism, don't you think?

You know, once upon a time, men were a lot more supportive of Feminism than most of us are today; but what did that support buy us?  Accusations that we're oppressors.  Taunts based on our perceived status as "privileged" that utterly ignored the disadvantages we suffer.  We were made the butt of jokes and casually hateful attitudes so often and so pervasively that these days many of these jokes have become common wisdom.  No effort was spared to heap shame and guilt on our gender merely for existing.  We supported the quest for reproductive freedom and the right of women to own their own bodies, and in return we were painted as closet rapists that needed constant supervision lest we suddenly attack someone.   Feminists savage so-called "male feminists" with particular delight because despite being supportive, they still insist on being male.

And when we realized that there was absolutely nothing we could do, when there was absolutely nothing we could say, that would show Feminists that we weren't the monsters they were accusing us of being, when we realized that there was no use in trying to make Feminists happy with us, and threw the towel in and stopped trying to appease them, we were labeled "misogynist".  So we left the table in disgust.  We're no longer interested in jumping through Feminism's hoops, because there's always one more hoop to jump through with no reward for it at the end.


It is no longer in the best interests of men to support Feminism at all.

Congratulations, ladies.  You've turned a population of willing supporters into people who are indifferent, or even hostile, to your political ideology.  Not because they hate women, but because they are tired of being your punching bags.

Like with the Republicans and the Tea Party, you played to your base and alienated the mainstream.  You have treated men like shit for decades, and some of us take it personally.  A lot of us carry scars from our treatment at the hands of Feminists.

And we're tired of it. 

So Sorry, But No.

"fem-i-nism"  the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.  Which means, ever so politely, you are incorrect.  Your strong belief in the right to political, social, and economic equality between men and women makes you a feminist.  Deal with it.
~ Mark Curlee

Mark Curlee, who is a friend of mine, hit me with this today over on Facebook.

No.  Sorry, still not a feminist.

Just because I believe in gender equality does not mean I have some sort of automatic membership in a divisive and harmful political doctrine whose actions do not live up to its own dogma.

I find too much about modern organized feminism -- the so-called "third wave" feminism -- offensive to want to associate myself with them.  I dislike how they cherry-pick the obvious outrages, like workplace harassment and rape, and then imply that we, men that is, are in favor of such things if we do not immediately fall into complete lockstep with them in every single particular.  Or if we don't start waving the feminist flag and cheering on the women who are loudly denigrating all men, everywhere, every chance they get.  Or, in this case, refuse to have a label imposed on us by others.

I have been wary of both the word feminism and the movement it is attached to.  Not because I am anti-woman, but because I am anti-hysteria.  I am opposed to overbearing, extremist fanatics.

The loudest, most visible, and most influential feminists today are the ones who make public statements that all men are predators.  That we, as a gender, are dangerous animals that need to be leashed and controlled because otherwise, no one would be safe from us.  I'm sorry, but why would I ever want to wear a label that said those sorts of things about me?

And its not just how they treat men.  I object to how feminism treats women who choose to take on the "traditional" woman's role of raising a family full time, or who take secretarial jobs.  Or any of a hundred other "traditional roles" that can be just as fulfilling as other jobs.  These women are called traitors and sell-outs and closeted self-haters.

I thought part of the point of feminism was to allow women more choices.  Apparently its only to allow them choices the third-wave feminists approve of.  Who'd have guessed.

And this is not just me talking.  This is why you seldom see accomplished women rushing to declare themselves feminist anymore.  Several high profile women who are at the top of their profession have refused the label because they don't want to be associated with the fanatics either.

For a long time, feminism has been one-sided.  Despite the dictionary definition Mark is so proud of, feminism ignores -- BLATANTLY IGNORES -- the way gender bias harms men, too.

You never hear feminists talk about the fact that our schools are punishing our male children for the crime of acting like boys.  Or how college enrollment among men is only 30% what it is for women.  Or how men commit suicide more often, or suffer more workplace deaths, or are homeless to the tune of 485% of the female homeless population.

Worst of all, feminism is hypocritically guilty of prejudice itself.  Men are stereotyped as the problem.  We are violent sex-crazed predators who are a potential harm to society as a whole.  Do you really want your sons growing up being told that all the time?  That just because of their gender, they are a menace to society?

I sure don't.

Most men oppose gender bias and the abuse of women.  I certainly do.  But to say I have to go about calling myself a "feminist" because of it strikes me as horribly self-righteous and judgmental.

Sort of like feminism itself.  Self-righteous and judgmental, I mean.

So sorry, but no.  I am not a feminist.  And I won't ever be one.

ADDENDUM

And less than 24 hours afterward, and in response to my explaining why I refuse to wear the feminist label, I get this sort of response:

Thank you for making it abundantly clear to anyone reading that you're just an woman-hating MRA who has absolutely no qualms about propagating the Big Lie technique.

So once again, you cannot criticize feminism without being declared a huge misogynist.  Quelle surprise.

Yes (but No) on Men's Issues

I've been pretty obvious in my campaign to raise awareness of men's issues, and I have to admit that I am pretty happy with what I've seen in reaction.  A lot of my friends tell me that they've never considered the points I bring up, and agree with me that something needs done.  And its not just with me and my friends.

In general, an awareness of men's issues is rising.  The unique problems faced by men and boys are being, at the very least, talked about more and more often in the public square without having someone start shouting about how men don't have issues and the only real issues are with women.  In addition, more and more people are realizing that there is something seriously wrong with modern feminism and that its time to try a different direction than what has been tried (and what has been failing) for the past 30 years or so.  This growth in awareness of men's issues isn't really surprising when you realize that there is a clear and logical basis for complaint about most of these issues, that "men's rights" isn't just code-word slang for "misogyny" no matter what the Tumblr feminists want you to believe, and that something really, really should be done about these problems.

Of course divorced fathers should get as much time with their children as the mothers get.  Of course men's health issues are just as important as women's health issues.  Of course male rape victims and male domestic violence victims should be treated with the same awareness and compassion as female victims.  Of course boys should be encouraged to pursue an education at least as much and as often as girls are.  Of course men should have equal access to birth control options as women.

But... unfortunately...  that's just about as far as it goes when it comes to actually doing anything about these issues.  Acknowledging that they exist.

When you stop talking about how these issues are problems, and start asking people what they are willing to do to correct these issues, a silence arises that is almost chilling.  Such discussions are invariably met with disappointing evasiveness from the rank and file.

You see, after that initial, vocal show of support, things get a little... problematic.

Nobody can argue with the logic that shows, clearly, that a particular men's issue is a problem.  Even those people who don't normally even consider that a campaign for men's rights is needed will agree, once the problem is explained, that yes, something definitely needs to be done about it.  People agree with this even if only so they don't look as foolish as someone who denies evolution or climate change.

So instead of openly disagreeing, these problem-deniers begin tacking on clauses and conditions to their agreement.  These pseudo-supporters will begin to add buts and ifs to their agreement.  Sure, they'll say, something needs to be done, but only in very specific ways.  In very specific, pro-feminist ways.

Take is idea of a paper abortion, for example.

A paper abortion would give a man the same right to knowingly terminate parental rights and responsibilities as women currently enjoy.  It would allow a man to disavow anything to do with an undesired child, just like the right to abortion does for a woman.  That's all.  It gives men the same freedom of choice in regards to becoming a parent that is currently enjoyed by all women in America.

When this issue is raised, most fair-minded people will agree that men shouldn't be forced into parenthood against their will.  What inevitably follows, though, is usually some variation of "... as long as it wouldn't allow men to duck out on their responsibilities."

And at that point, all meaningful conversation about the issue ends.  Reasonable discussion stops on a dime.

Most people, especially self-identified feminists, will politely agree that, yes, something needs to be done, and then will shut down the conversation with a tagged on condition that serves only to throw the issue into confusion and require finer and finer parsing of the legal details of just how such reform will be implemented.  Its a stalling tactic used solely to derail anything actually being done about an issue into an endless side argument on how something should be done.

This bureaucratic nonsense has left Family Law Reform languishing in stasis for years.  Most fair-minded people will agree that in today's court system, fathers get a raw deal in divorce and custody proceedings, and they will vocally agree that Family Law must be reformed, but they always agree with the addendum that the changes "shouldn't give custody to abusive fathers," even though its been pretty conclusively proven that less than 3% of all divorces involve domestic abuse, and that when it comes to child abuse, it is mothers who commit the majority of all child abuse in the United States (almost four times as many child abuse cases involve the mother as perpetrator as the fathers).

Whenever a reform of Family Law is broached in the public square, activists are cautioned to slow down and move carefully lest they overstep and put children at risk.  Again, this is a bureaucratic tactic meant to divert attention from a real problem and onto phantom problems like the dangers of giving children to illusory "abusive" fathers who do not truly exist.

For the record, the "real problem" is the fact that men are being treated unfairly by family courts, remember?

Its fear-mongering, and that's all.  But then, fear-mongering is the traditional defense feminism uses against men's rights.  They don't provide actual counter-arguments.  Just boogeymen hiding under the bed.  As in, "If you change this law, which everyone knows is unfair and discriminatory, the boogeyman will get you!"

If this is the best counter-argument to reform that organized feminism can come up with, then organized feminism's position is obviously paper thin.  There is no viable counter-argument, and so organized feminism has to resort to stalling tactics, and shaming tactics, and to slowing down progress with needless objections.  Its little more than the social reform version of filibustering.

Would a poorly written Paper Abortion law occasionally allow deadbeats to abuse the system?  It is possible.

Would a badly implemented Family Law system occasionally reward abusive fathers?  That is also possible.

My question in response is this:  So what?

The existence of the occasional asshole is no reason to refuse to install a Paper Abortion law that would assist those millions of men who aren't deadbeats, or to reform Family Law in such a way that it makes things fair for all those fathers who aren't abusive jackasses.  Repeatedly raising these false concerns does nothing but harm men who have done nothing to earn being harmed other than being born male.

Blocking social reform with cries of concern over the fallout of that reform is the traditional weapon of those too entrenched in their own privilege.  People who raise such quibbles may not openly oppose men’s rights, but they are not true supporters and will continue to drag their feet every step of the way.

The Truth Regarding Institutional Discrimination Against Men

The truth is, here in the United States, men are oppressed on an equal, if not in some areas greater, basis than women

Yeah, I know... the "common wisdom" is, of course, that men are the great beneficiaries of "Patriarchy" and women are just victims.  This "common wisdom" is so pervasive that even when the oppression of men is recognized (and usually it is only recognized in a dismissive and off-hand manner), it too is blamed on "Patriarchy."

This, naturally, makes no sense at all.

I mean, why would men set up a system that victimizes men, if the point of it is to allow men to be superior to women?

In any case, the facts speak for themselves:

1. In the United States, women are treated better is every single aspect of the legal system.  For example, Women receive lighter criminal sentences and enjoy a higher chance of acquittal simply for being women.  Likewise, when it comes to rulings on child custody after divorce, men have to prove to the court that they are fit parents, while women are assumed to be so, merely because they are women.
2. In the United States, men are the overwhelming majority (82%) when it comes to victims of violence.
3. Despite it being established that women are just as equally likely to instigate domestic violence, and that men are equally likely to be the victim of domestic violence, there has never been any public service message campaign that seriously discusses female abusers or male victims.  Male victims are ignored, marginalized, and are rendered the objects of comedy rather than being treated as the victims they are.  In addition, while male perpetrators are regularly arrested, tried, and jailed, female perpetrators are rarely arrested, even more rarely convicted, and even when convicted benefit from the fact that women receive lighter sentences (as noted in point 1).  And lastly, there are still many areas in this country where, when it comes to domestic violence calls, policy is to arrest the man and cart him off to jail, even when it is obvious that he is the victim.
4. Certain Feminist political groups and lobbying concerns have taken active steps to ensure that laws that seek to change Point 3 never reach a vote, much less leave committee, in the various legislative bodies around the country, including the US Congress itself.  When laws are passed that are detrimental to women and only women, or laws that are beneficial to women killed, complaints are raised, petitions are passed around, and counter-campaigns are begun immediately.  When such things happen to laws that affect men and only men, such public outcry is rarely if ever heard, and if it is, counter-protests filled with accusations of misogyny occur in response.
5. It is legal in all parts of this country to circumcise male babies.  In fact, in some areas, laws have been passed which forbid any attempt to make male circumcision illegal, based on religious practices.  Meanwhile, female circumcision is illegal everywhere in the United States, even when the "circumcision" is a ceremonial pinprick used to draw blood.
6. 95% of all workplace deaths (including not only fatal accidents but heart attacks caused by job-related stress) are men.  Nothing has ever been done about this.
7. 75% of all suicides are men.  Nothing has ever been done about this.
8. The vast majority of prisoners are men.  This relates to Point 1 above.
9. The educational system in the United States has become so skewed toward "help girls achieve" that boys are being left behind.  Boys do not receive anywhere near the level of encouragement as girls do when it comes to educational performance.  Instead, they are generally seen as potential troublemakers.  This lack of support for male educational endeavors continues all the way up to the university level.  Women enter college 160% more often than men do, and graduate from college 320% more often.  Nothing has ever been done about this.
10. Men who are falsely accused of rape can have their names, faces, and home addresses published in news sources and have no recourse to stop it and no recourse for relieving the consequences of it.  They have no right to sue their accuser, the media, or the government for the destruction the false accusation has inflicted on their lives.  Their accuser is protected from public scrutiny, and is very likely to never face punishment, and when punishment on the false accuser is leveled, it is invariably a light one (see Point 1, above).
11. Men have no reproductive rights in this country.  None.  Women can force a man to become a father regardless of his wishes.
12. Men have virtually no parental rights in this country.  A woman can name any man she likes as the father of her child, and is not required to notify him that she is doing so.  If he does not actively prove that he is not the father within 30 days (and remember, she is not required to notify him that he has been named), he is now the father of the child and must pay child support.  He is not legally entitled to challenge this in court once the determination is made.
13. In the United States, men who are raped by women can be forced to financially support the children who are the product of said rapes, thus forcing them to associate with their rapists against their will.  In addition, law enforcement agencies have intentionally redefined "rape" to specifically exclude rapes perpetrated against men by women, thus lessening the priority with which such cases are handled.
14. In some areas of the United States, a man who fathers a child with a woman who then puts the child up for adoption has no recourse and may be forced to stand by and watch as his child is essentially kidnapped through the adoption process.
15. 82% of homeless people are men.
16. Despite the factual nature of Point 15, government spending when it comes to social relief (so-called "welfare services") is overwhelmingly keyed to assist homeless women.   For example, in 2009/2010, the State of New York alone spent $3,740,800 in assistance for homeless men.  The amount of social welfare money directed specifically and solely toward homeless women in New York during that same year was $98,983,236.
17. Female entrepreneurs receive free government subsidization for no reason other than they are female.  That is, when all other factors (size of business, projected income, number of employees, and so on) are equal, and the only difference is the gender of the business owner, the government will offer the female business owner subsidization loans while denying same to the male business owner.
18. Up until 2010, all the major airlines manipulated their seating so that no men would be seated next to children.  Why?  Because men are seen as potential pedophiles, obviously.  In 2010, this practice was discontinued by most major airlines after a study was released that demonstrated that female pedophiles outnumber male pedophiles 4 to 1.  However, several major international airlines still follow the practice (Virgin Atlantic is the biggest offender, as I write this).
19. Due to a federal directive, men who are expelled from federally funded colleges and universities (which is a fancy way of saying every single university and college in the United States) after being falsely accused of rape cannot be reinstated, despite their accusation being proven false.
20. Men are required to register with the US Selective Service, and are thus subject to the draft, as a requirement of their being able to register to vote.  Women are not held to any requirement in order to register to vote.

I could go on, but I think 20 points is a good start.

Also, you might notice that at no time did I once mention social discrimination, like when a group of women on a popular talk show laugh about and cheer on a woman who has cut off and destroyed her husband's penis simply because he was divorcing her.  Or enforced gender stereotypes that force a man to work himself to death, or that treat all men as ravenous predators who are an inch away from being rapists.

I didn't bring those points up because ultimately, men still have a choice in such situations.  People can mock a man who lists flower arrangement and sewing as a hobby, but ultimately its his choice to pursue such things.  The points I brought up above aren't "social discrimination", but are distinct and very real differences in the way the government and the law treat men vs. women.

There's no choice involved here.

There is literally nothing a man can do about these things without trying to change the law.

And as noted in Point 4, its damned hard to get the law changed, because there are certain groups who don't want the law to be changed.  This is government-enforced institutionalized discrimination against men.  It is involuntary, inescapable, and non-consensual.

If you are a man and a victim of domestic violence, you cannot simply walk into a government-funded men's shelter.  They do not exist.  And when you call the police for help, not only is your female batterer going to be treated more fairly that you will be, there's even a good chance you're going to end up in handcuffs, just because you called the police for help.

Compared to all of this, the discrimination against women that gets discussed a lot is social discrimination.  Has nothing to do with the legal system, is not an enforced and inescapable part of life.  Its bad, and improper, and needs to be stopped, but the weight of the government is not keeping it in place.

I once saw a woman complain about how she did more unpaid housework than her husband, and that her situation was enforced by "societal norms".  Even if that's true, she is choosing to do more housework.  She is choosing to be involved with a man who does less housework than she does.  She is choosing to tolerate such a life without coercion and without a legal penalty should she choose otherwise.

Men have no choice when it comes to the 20 points I've listed above.