Don't Fool Yourself. Anyone Can Be a Racist.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines racism as "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to other races."  Seems pretty clear and easy to understand.  And using this definition, everyone and anyone can be a racist.  People with light-skin, people with dark skin, people in between.  Everyone and anyone.


This has been the definition of racism for centuries.


As time has gone on, however, people active in the Social Justice communities began to reject this definition.  Instead, they have put forth a new definition.  The traditional, long-held definition of racism was relabeled "prejudice", and racism was redefined as "prejudice + power."  Now, on the surface this new definition does make sense, as it does explain broader societal examples of racism.  But problems arise from the fact that most people who began with the idea that "racism = prejudice + power" have come to conclude that this ultimately means "only white people can be racist."  And some of the people who came to this conclusion were scholars who supposedly know better than that.


Over the last several years, I've read a lot of so-called "scholarly works" that are based on this assumption, and they all suffer the same problem:  circular reasoning.  They begin with the assumption they seek to prove -- only white people can be racist because only white people have power -- and then go on to manipulate the definition of "power" so that people who aren't white cannot ever be considered to have any.


Power, that is.


I'll give you a for instance.


In order to deny that even the most wealthy and politically connected black people in the US have any power, and thus could, conceivably, fall under the "racism = prejudice + power" definition, the people manipulating the definitions argue that, since white people established the system within which the wealthy, connected black people operate, its actually the white people and not the wealthy, connected black people who really have the power.  Thus, white people can be racist, but no black person can.


Not only is this completely contrary to common sense, but this automatic linking of "power" to "white people" is a flawed idea almost by definition.  Sure, admittedly the history and current state of white supremacy and white privilege should not be ignored, but we simply cannot and must not ignore inter-minority relations as either being powerless or as originating from the white power structure.  This is especially true when we talk about foreign countries.  Although it is true that the world is now linked in a complex web of influence and power, there was in fact a time not too long ago when there were entire continents of people who were not influenced by white society.  Non-white people were -- and still are -- at the helm of power in such countries.


Furthermore, while white people might have more power than minorities in the United States, its not like there aren't any non-white people in positions of power.  If I might point out the obvious, but as I write this, there is a black man in the Oval Office.  There are three members of the US Supreme Court (one third their total number) who are ethnic minorities.  Twenty percent of the US House of Representatives are minorities, while eighteen percent of the US Senate are minorities.  Roughly one fifth of all Fortune 500 CEOs are minorities.


So the idea that only white people can have power, and thus only white people can be racist, is simply false.


Let's look at it intelligently, shall we?  If we rightfully assume that racism is a bad thing, then we should ask ourselves this basic question:  which is worse.  a poor white homeless man living in a cardboard box and eating out of dumpsters, who hates non-whites, or the multi-millionaire black chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security with connections to big business, the press, and other politicians, who hates non-blacks?


If we accept "racism = prejudice + power" as true, then naturally will have to say that the white farmer has less power than the black congressman.  Except that's bullshit according to the SJWs.


By arguing that minorities have no power with which to be racist, we forget instances in which minorities clearly do have power.  I am called to mind an article I recently read about the Roe v. Wade decision which began with the line "So these nine white men walk into a courtroom."  The nine white men in question being the nine justices of the US Supreme Court who made the Roe v. Wade decision.  Except -- and this is important, I think -- wasn't one of the "nine white guys" who made that decision Thurgood Marshall?  And wasn't Thurgood Marshall a black man?


Clearly, the writer of the article has bought into the idea that only white people have ever been in positions of power to the point that the real and important achievements of non-white people are being lost in the political rhetoric.  We shouldn't ever forget the struggles that minorities have gone through to achieve equality in this country, but at the same time, we shouldn't be overlooking their important contributions, either, especially if we forget in the name of maintaining the propaganda narrative.

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. 

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.

I Did Check My Privilege... and You're Still Wrong!

I've spoken about this before, but I think its time to bring it up again.  The entire concept of privilege, as the word is used by the Social Justice Warriors, is bothersome, over-convenient, and, to be honest, a cop-out.


White privilege.  Male privilege.  Hetero-privilege.  The list just gets longer by the day.


These supposedly privileged groups of people are believed to have certain inherent advantages based on their ethnicity, their gender, their sexual orientation, and so on.  And because they supposedly all enjoy these bonuses in life, they have no right to hold opinions, or to express those opinions, when it comes to the issue-du-jour.


The truth is, the concept of privilege is just being used to stop meaningful discussion before it begins by shaming the so-called "privileged" person into silence.  The phrase "check your privilege" is an easy way to say, "I know more than you do, so shut the fuck up already."  Its a cheap attempt to make someone feel guilty about things they have no control over.


Not to mention, its utterly stupid.


Should women not have opinions on things that only affect men?  If I ever encounter a woman commenting on the Selective Service, or testicular cancer, or male disposability, should I tell her to "check her privilege" because, as a woman, she enjoys "female privilege" and thus isn't allowed to voice an opinion on these issues?


Seriously, guys... if we keep this sort of exclusionary bullshit up, we're never going to truly overcome racism and sexism.  The discussions about these problems have to include everyone's opinions, everyone's views.  Everyone's views.  Even the views of people we disagree with.  If they don't include everyone, then they aren't actually discussions.  They're lectures.  And lectures don't convince people who feel they are being attacked for something they do not and cannot control.  Like the fact that they are men.  Or are white.


I think the worst part of the entire idea of privilege as its used by the Social Justice Warriors is that it creates preconceived opinions about people you really do not know.  Seriously, saying that I (for example) benefit from "white male privilege" in response to something that I say assumes that I (as the white male in question) have it easier than you do; that I don't have to struggle just as hard (if not harder) than you do just to keep a roof over my head and food on the table.


Perhaps before accusing me of "white male privilege" you should check your own prejudices and acknowledge that you do not know me well enough to make those sorts of judgments.  Have you ever considered the fact that I might be unemployed and on the edge of poverty?  Have you considered that I might be blind, or deaf, or in a wheelchair, and thus suffer from some limiting disability?  Have you considered that I might have terminal cancer and am slowly dying?  Maybe I've got crushing depression and constantly battle suicidal thoughts all day.


Just because I have a penis and my skin is a pale shade of peach does not automatically mean my life is easy.  It doesn't mean that at all.


You remember that old joke about what assuming things makes out of you and me, right?


The concept of "privilege" as the Social Justice Warriors use it puts people in individual boxes that are carefully labeled, and it insists we see these people, all of whom are just as multi-faceted as you are, and all of whom have lives as complex as you do, as nothing more than the labels attached to the boxes.  Someone needs to explain to me how seeing people as labels is a desirable thing.


Sorry, guys, but life doesn't work that way.  People are not labels.  People are way too complicated for that.  Sure, I might have some shared experiences with other white men, but I'm sure that if you compared me to any other randomly selected white guy you'd find plenty about our lives that was utterly different.  Different personalities, different likes and dislikes, different incomes, different cultural background, differences in intelligence and education, different life struggles, differences in political opinion.


Different advantages.  Different disadvantages.


Some people have told me that privilege exists because "all else being equal," certain people are inherently more privileged than other people.  But this is nonsense.  When, I ask you, are any two random people exactly the same except for one specific characteristic?  When?  When the hell does that ever happen in the real world?  This argument fails spectacularly because the way someone is treated depends on the situation.  In some cases, yes, being a white male might work to my advantage, but it could just as easily be a liability in other cases.


And the same goes for any other ethnicity-gender combination.


We can and should empathize with others.  I have no idea what its like to live as a black man or a gay woman.  But here's the thing:  I have no idea what its like to live as the randomly selected white guy I used in one of my previous examples, either.  And here's something else:  they have no fucking clue how it is to live as me.


Because no one on the face of the Earth is living a life identical to mine.  No one.


So anyway... I guess what I am trying to say here is that I think the world would be a better place if we stopped making arrogant assumptions about other people based on superficial classifications like skin color or what sort of genitalia they're carrying around.  Every individual faces different problems in their life, and no one else is really able to understand what they are going through completely.


Your background differs from mine.  Hell, your background differs from that of your siblings and your parents and your children.  And because of this, you should keep an open mind and recognize that communication is a two-way street.

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.