Please Stop the Gender-Baiting

Has anyone else noticed that whenever certain people – and by “certain people” I mean certain feminist internet “journalists”, bloggers, and YouTube celebrities – speak, they speak as if every single issue contains a component of male vs. female and then proceed to tell you how its all part of the “war on women?”

Am I the only person who has noticed this?

Its almost as if they are in a contest with each other to see who can generate the most inter-gender division. The goal seems to find the most outrageous way you can frame a narrative in order to make it absolutely about how the world is out to get women always, every time, regardless of what the specific issue actually happens to be. This seems to be a very popular method of talking to people, and I am constantly seeing more and more supposedly “mainstream” journalists, commenters, and talking heads beginning to follow this same route. Up to – and including – Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton engaging in this same tactic at one point.

Honestly, what does it take to honestly see every single issue, every single event, every single thing in the world as being a part of the so-called “war on women?” What kind of special type of stupid does it take to hold this attitude? But the attitude is held nevertheless. I've actually had one of these people tell me, with a straight face, that “everything is misogyny.”

In a world where – supposedly – everything is misogyny, is anything really misogyny? Do they really believe this horse shit? Even more important, are the various non-involved masses who hear them talking buying into it?

If a man disagrees with this sort of absolute stance on misogyny – if he believes that catcalling, just to pick one issue out of the air, is subjective and that what one person might consider offensive and/or threatening might not be seen as offensive or threatening to another person, for example – he will inevitably be met with comments like, “You're such a misogynyst! You're talking about something you know nothing about! How dare you think you should have an opinion! Stop mansplaining!” Even if he has real world examples with which to support and validate his perspective, the people pushing the “everything is misogyny” party line will paint the man's viewpoint and statements as just another part of the “war on women”. No matter how right he is, he is wrong because he's male. And how dare he disagree in the first place, because only misogynists would dare disagree.

I am proud to say that I have female friends who think objectively as opposed to blindly falling in line with “the Sisterhood” that demands all women adhere to the “everything is misogyny” party line just because they are female. They are willing to logically analyze the arguments as presented and quite honestly have often disagreed with this attitude on the basis of fact rather than adherence to dogma.

The fact that not all people – men or women – use this same logical, reasonable process in thinking when it comes to gender issues is a damned crying shame. Instead, every single day there seems to be a widening division occurring between men and women, as if we were each other's enemies.

Women are not the enemy of men. The very idea is stupid.

So why do we allow these people to continue perpetuating the constant division between the genders?

Why?

By allowing these people to get away with perpetuating such a lie, their message spreads. It begins to seep into the consciousness of our children, which is why you have so many young girls today believing that rape is an act that all men everywhere are rapists just waiting for the chance to attack and violate a woman. That women must be on guard against men 24 hours a day, seven days a week lest they become victims of violence.

There is an interesting fact that these gender-baiters fail to mention, because they know this will undermine the paranoid bullshit they are promoting, and ought to nullify their agenda of dividing men and women into armed camps opposed to one another.

Simply put, men are four to five times as likely to be victims of violence than women are.

This nonsense has to stop. It has to stop. We as a society cannot afford to allow it to continue. I genuinely believe this this sort of thing is a form of brainwashing. It does nothing to help when it comes to solving the honest problems facing men and women. All it does is get us at each other's throats, and that helps no one.

If you want to have a conversation about gender and gender-based discrimination – whether the victim of the discrimination is male or female – then by all means go for it. Such conversations need to happen. But gender-baiting puts a stop to the discussion before it begins, and does more harm than good.

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.

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.

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.

My Problem With Anita Sarkeesian and Feminist Frequency

Got into an argument with someone over Anita Sarkeesian and her blog, Feminist Frequency, and  was told that my real problem was just that I'm a gamer, and she's a woman, and thus I'm a huge misogynist.


As if.


No, its much more simple than that.

To put it bluntly, its because I cannot abide liars and con-artists.  I think people who manipulate other people by lying, especially when the goal is to con people out of their money, is the act of a despicable person.


And I think Anita Sarkeesian is a liar and a con-artist.  I openly make this accusation with a smile on my face.  She lied to get her funding, she lied about the nature of her research, and she lied about her intentions from the get-go.

Some specifics.  The largest and most important flaw in Anita Sarkeesian's "research" is the fact that she went into it with her conclusions in place up front, and analyzes game content (without the context) that validates those conclusions while ignoring game content (with or without the context) that invalidates those conclusions.  A researcher with any integrity would do the analysis first, and then draw conclusions.  She didn't do this, because she wasn't actually interested in analyzing things.  She was interested in proving her own assertions.

To this end, she intentionally misinterprets some of the evidence (for example, her analysis of the Mario franchise attributes sexist malice for a lack of female characters other than the "damsel in distress" when the real reasons are tied in with lazy storytelling and not wanting to spend a lot of money creating the programming to support new characters when all they have to do is recolor a bunch of game sprites that are already in use for a tenth the cost.

Sarkeesian is also guilty of creating her own evidence whole out of the cloth.  Her diatribe against the game Hitman goes into length about your character, the titular assassin, is sent out to murder these two women.  The truth is, these women are bystanders, and if you kill them, you are penalized.  The targets for assassination in the Hitman series are men.  Its a violent game.  But Sarkeesian goes on and on and on at length in her videos about murdering these two specific women, when they aren't even on the target list.


A quick analysis of most Let's Play recordings of this game reveals that successful accomplishment of this mission requires avoiding the women in question and never once coming in contact with them.  You actually have to go out of your way to have a face-to-face encounter with the two women in question, and then you have to go even further out of your way to kill them.

I already mentioned how all your targets in the Hitman games are male.  Sarkeesian doesn't comment on this, of course, because as everyone knows, killing hundreds of men =/= sexism, but killing two women, even when you're not supposed to and have to go out of your way in order to find them in the first place, does = sexism.

Now, am I saying there is no sexism in video games?  Absolutely not.

What I am saying is that the way Anita Sarkeesian went about demonstrating it was shoddy and dishonest and her conclusions are misleading.  Anita Sarkeesian implies in her assertions that the sexism that is present in video games is based in some all-encompassing agenda among video game producers to bring women down.  The truth is, the only real agenda held by video game producers is "make as much money as possible as quickly as possible for as little expense as possible."

Follow:  the overwhelming majority of video game buyers, and players, are male, between the ages of 18 and 35.  Video games are thus angled to appeal to the target demographic.  The companies aren't going to waste money trying to change their audience's minds; rather, they're going to utilize the same practices that worked for them in the past because they worked for them in the past.

Unfortunately, the video game industry is run on money, and the money isn't there to support sequels to games like "Mirror's Edge" or "Beyond Good and Evil" (both of which are "female-oriented" games and feature strong female protagonists).  Both of those games sold pretty well, but nowhere near as well as games like "Gears of War" or "Metal Gear Solid" did.  Promoting such games to the point that they do sell as well as male-oriented games would take too much money, in the opinion of the video game producers, spending too much money is a bad thing.  They are businesses, after all.

So, its not sexism that drives the video game industry, its profit-ism.  Or whatever you want to call it.

There's no anti-woman agenda.  The agenda is pro-"make as much money as possible."

So yeah, there is, I suppose, an undercurrent of sexism in the video game industry because these companies operate under the assumption that male fantasies sell better than female fantasies.  Problem is, its a correct assumption.  Most gamers are male.  Most game-buyers are male.  Therefore, the most successful games are going to be ones that appeal to men by featuring lots of guns, lots of explosions, lots of fast cars and lots of adventure.

Video games are supposed to be fantasy-filled.  They're a form of escapist entertainment, just as all entertainment media is escapist.  They're filled with sexy, physically superior characters doing outrageous things that real people would never be able to accomplish on their best days.

And something that Sarkeesian ignores is that video game companies are, finally, trying to appeal to women as much as men.  I can name an easy dozen games which contain shirtless men in beefcake poses for no other reason than to be there as shirtless men in beefcake poses.  Somehow the double standard that says cheesecake = anti-female sexism but beefcake = not anti-male sexism seems to make sense to other people.

Not to me, but other people.  I, apparently, am one of those freakish people who thinks all sexism is bad, not just the sexism that is directed at women.

I know.  Call me crazy.

My Thoughts on "Patriarchal Theory"

First, a definition.

According to the fine people at Princeton University, patriarchy is (and I quote) "a multi-dimensional condition of power and status."  Further, in 1978, a comprehensive study was undertaken that exemined fifty-two "indicators of patriarchy" that corresponded to ten relatively independent factors.

Those factors were:

• a lack of property control by women
• a lack of power of women in kinship contexts
• low value placed on the lives of women
• low value placed on the labor of women
• lack of domestic authority of women
• absence of ritualized female solidarity
• absence of control over women't marital and sexual lives
• absence of ritualized fear of women
• lack of male-female joint participation in warfare, work, and community decision making
• lack of women's indirect influence on decision making

There are, undeniably, some societies in the world today that are patriarchies.  The first that comes to mind is Saudi Arabia.  Also, there are patriarchal institutions like the Catholic Church in which women are not entirely excluded (i.e., nuns) but are kept from positions of real power (i.e., the priesthood and the papacy).

However, when you look at the United States, Canada, Great Britain, and most of the rest of the so-called "First World", what you find is that...

• women can and do easily gain control of property.  They can rent apartments, buy real estate own businesses, and inherit property from and/or will their own property to others.
• there are plent of stay-at-home moms out there, but in general women are expected to find a job outside of the house and work for a living in the same way men are expected to do, and there is no meaningful wage gap between male and female workers.
• women often have more domestic authority than men; for example, they have more control of their family’s disposable income and are far more likely to get custody of their children in case of a divorce.
• there is no lack of "absence of ritualized female solidarity", and in fact the entire reason why anyone's ever heard of so-called "patriarchy" is directly because of the statements and actions of organized groups based in female solidarity.
• while several states have made abortion difficult to obtain, even in these states women retain control their own bodies and sexuality, and aside from where it is an issue of LGBT+ equality, women have the power to marry (and divorce) whom they choose, when they choose.
• Many industries (and most corporate offices) are relatively evenly balanced between men and women. As for "community decision making," statistics show that women are actually more likely to vote than men, and thus have more of a say regarding who gets elected in the first place.

Now, I realize I only refuted six of the ten points, but the truth is, I don't have to refute all of them, and you all know it.

Women in the so-called "First World" have the choice to wear what they like, can vote for whomever they like, pursue whatever hobbies they choose, engage freely in political debate and (if they so choose) even run for public office, can live where and with whom they want, have children or not, get married or not, have sex with whomever they choose, and so on.

Now, occasionally a woman might get called out or criticized by other people who believe she is making incorrect, mistaken, or even immoral choices, no patriarchal authority is going to prevent her from making them, and as long as the choices she makes are legal, no one's going to try and punish her for making them either.

Simply put?

There is no patriarchy.  There is no patriarchy at all.

At least not here.

Are there vestiges of a patriarchal system here?  I don't know, maybe.  But are women here really victims of some tyrannical male overlordship seeking to punish them for making their own choices?

What are you, insane?  Of course not.

Seriously, those people (be they men or women) who cry "patriarchy" every time they get criticized for doing or saying something stupid should ask the older generation of women who were around prior to the birth control pill and Roe v. Wade and the ending of coverture laws what it was really like living under a patriarchy.

They should ask women living in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Indonesia what its really like living under a patriarchy.

Because then they might actually have something to complain about.

Then maybe they’ll have something worth actually complaining about.

You're Just a Misogynist

For those of you who haven't ever heard the phrase "shaming tactics" before, let me introduce you to one of the worst and most insidious "weapons" in the debate over men's issues.

In the context of the men's rights debate, a shaming tactic is an emotional device used by people (both men and women) who refuse to argue their points with logic, but rather try to force a debate to shut down.  They are meant to elicit sympathy for those who use them, and paint the target of the shaming tactic as unacceptable, outcast, and anathema.  They are cheap tricks used not to comment on the point that someone is making, but rather on the person making the point and how they are making it.

Basically, its just another form of Ad hominem attack.  The people who use shaming tactics cannot respond intelligently to the points of an argument, so they're going to convince everyone the person they are arguing against is a bad person so no one will listen to them.

Its cheap, to be honest.

Take this shaming tactic, for instance:  "You're just a misogynist!"

Yep.  You got me.

I'm not trying to raise awareness of men's issues because I want to try and help men who have been victimized.  I don't really want to stop discrimination against men.  I don't really want to stop unfair practices that put men at a disadvantage merely because they possess a Y chromosome.

What, are you kidding?  Why would I do that?

Nope.  It has to be that I hate women.

There's no other reason for it at all.

All that stuff I've written about how male rape victims are ignored, or how male domestic violence victims are treated as jokes was just written just because I'm blind to the rampant misogyny that makes up the very fabric of everything to do with modern society, because I'm a man, and therefore am a beneficiary and promoter of that misogyny.

Oh, and all those female friends I have who happen to agree with me about the problems involved in modern gender issues?

Yeah, they've internalized the misogyny so badly that they've been brainwashed into thinking that its okay to hate women.

Since the 1980s, and perhaps longer, the accusation of misogyny has been the most reliable shaming tactic available to those people who want to make sure that absolutely no attention at all is paid to men's issues.  It's the most common way to bully both male and female activists who support men's issues into silence.

Say something a they doesn't like, get called a misogynist.

Criticize one of their theories or actions?  Misogynist.

Disagree with their analysis of a problem, or object to their proposed solution?  You're a filthy rape-promoting misogynist.  You're only saying that because you hate women.  You're only being critical because you hate women.  You're only pointing out the holes in the their argument because you hate women.

It has nothing to do with you're having a better argument, or being more logical, or being more rational.  Its all about the hating women.  And this applies even if you are a woman.  Being female doesn't get you off the hook, because you obviously suffer from internalized misogyny!  You're so oppressed by misogyny that you've been brainwashed into thinking like a misogynist!

Believe it or not, up until really recently, this worked every time it was used.  This is changing, mostly because accusations of misogyny are being made for the most petty, ridiculous reasons.

To give you an example, the other day (I write this on December 27, 2014), I saw a man being accused of misogyny for the "crime" of saying that he thinks Miley Cyrus is a "bad influence" on young girls, and thus has forbidden his nine-year-old daughter from watching Cyrus's videos.  That's apparently what floats as misogyny to modern feminism.

And its happening so often, and in response to such silly nonsense, that regular folk not engaged in the gender-issue debate are developing a resistance to it.  And of course, there are more and more of us who, when someone tries to shame us into silence by accusing of of misogyny, are refusing to shut up.

Here's something to think about:  if, as we hear every day, we are living in a culture in which misogyny is so pervasive as to be normalized, why the hell would an accusation of misogyny hold any power?  Remember, our society hates women.  Right down to the very bones, our society is set up to oppress women, and the men in our society are raised from birth to hate women.  But if so, why would it ever be considered a threat to label someone a misogynist?

If misogyny really was that ever-present in our society as, say, brown-eyed people, then why would the accusation of misogyny be any more effective than being called brown-eyed?

And no, before you start, I am not saying that there are no misogynists out there.  I'm not saying that there really aren't people out there who despise and hate women just for being women.  No one with a working brain would ever say that.

However, the problem is a relatively small handful of complete and total assholes who, for reasons that I cannot and doubt I ever will be able to comprehend, despise and denigrate women, not the entire gender, no matter what these people say.

An accusation of misogyny could only have the power to shame someone into silence in a society that is not inherently misogynystic.  As Albert Camus said, "The power of an insult is the power to bring the weight of society's disapproval upon an individual."  In order for such an accusation to have any effect, it requires the culture in general to disapprove of the behavior, attitude, or attribute in question.  The fact that an accusation of misogyny works as a shaming tactic to silence and bully people, or to damage their lives and social status, reflects a society that is not actually misogynystic.  The fact that this shaming tactic is inordinately effective when used against men also demonstrates that people who say that our society is misogynystic are, to put it bluntly, full of shit.

To put it bluntly, if hating women were normal for our culture, if all men really are raised from birth to hate women, then calling a man a misogynist would be as useless as calling a person brown-eyed. 

Let's look at the reverse for a moment:  "You're just a misandrist!"

Call someone in today's society a misandrist, and the most common reaction you're going to receive back is a puzzled look because the person will likely not have the first damned clue as to what that word means.  And the most common reaction from the small handful of people who do know what it means will be a shrug and a dismissive "whatever."  Others will be puzzled because they can't figure out how their sexist, anti-male opinions and attitudes, supported as they are by "common wisdom" and popular culture, could be considered anti-male sexism.

And then you get my favorite reaction:  those people who laugh and then make jokes about men being butthurt and "manfeelz" and "drinking male tears."

You know, the shitheads who will blithely explain that misandry just don't exist, and that the only people who bring up misandry are the misogynistic asshole rape-promoters, so shut the fuck up already you fucking woman-hater!

Some of the more polite misandry-deniers will tell you, with a straight face, that "misandry" is nothing more than secondary misogyny.

No, really.  "Misandry", the hatred of men, is just a different type of misogyny.

These people will point out that its a proven fact that misogyny is the root cause of ALL sexism, regardless of the target, and because of this fact, misandry is just an unfortunate side effect that would not exist without misogyny.  The only reason, these idiots argue, that women denigrate men is because of a long history of suffering under the bootheels of those same men.

This implies that misandry will, as if by magic, disappear once we’ve exposed and rooted out all the misogyny in society and properly cleansed our filthy sexist souls of it.

And yet, you see hashtags and memes and entire facebook groups proudly proclaiming things like Men Are Pigs (the name of a real facebook group) and #killallmen.  There's a forum website out there called ihatemen.org that has a quarter million subscribed users, some of whom are national-level politicians, scientists, and teachers at major universities.  There is a series of children's books out there, along with associated merchandise, called "Boys Are Stupid, Throw Rocks At Them".

It's no wonder people aren't shamed into silence or into altering their behavior by an accusation of misandry.  Accusing someone of hating men doesn't have the power to shame them or make them stop what they are doing.  This is because society’s values are such that even if hating men is not exactly considered a good thing, its not considered a bad thing either, especially if the person who is doing the hating is a woman.

Here's another question I want you to think about:  if misogyny is supposed to be the ultimate cause of all sexism, and if misandry is just an unfortunate side effect of it, then why is misandry so much more socially acceptable than misogyny?

Just think about it for a second.