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.

Breast Cancer Awareness

It's October, which means its Breast Cancer Awareness Month again.


With that in mind, I wanted to share something that most people just aren't aware of, and that never seems to get mentioned this time of year.


Namely, that men can and do get breast cancer too.


As one might expect, women make up the vast majority of breast cancer cases.  The American Cancer Society estimates that there are about 1000 new breast cancer diagnoses in men each year, and that's less than 1% of the 1.3 million new breast cancer diagnoses in women each year.


But...


And this is the whole point of my bringing it up...


A higher percentage of the men diagnosed with breast cancer will die of it than the women diagnosed with it.


Last year, out of nearly 1900 cases of breast cancer in men, 670 of ended in the death of the patient.  That's just around a 35% mortality rate.  Compare that to the following:  out of nearly 1.2 million cases of breast cancer in women last year, 40,000 ended in death.  That's just over 3%.  Simply put, the death rate for men who have breast cancer is 10 times the death rate for women.


According to the American Cancer Society, the primary reason is that, given all the attention put on female breast cancer patients, and in preventing breast cancer in women, most of society (men and women both) have been trained to think of breast cancer as a female-only disease.  Men don't even bother to check for lumps, much less know what to do if they find one.


Don't get me wrong here.  Breast cancer in women is a devastating national health problem, but thanks to extensive education programs, women are well aware of breast cancer. They know that they are supposed to examine their breasts monthly, undergo regular mammograms and report suspicious lumps to their physicians.


Men, on the other hand?  They don't bother.  After all, they don't have breasts, right?


Well, think about it.  When was the last time you ever heard of a man with breast cancer?


Back when it was on, the television show "Nip/Tuck" did a few episodes of that dealt with a male breast cancer patient... and FOX promptly got picketed because of it.  They were accused of "exploiting a deadly problem among women".  Except the problem, while much rarer, is much more deadly for men.


Just something to keep in mind during this month of pink ribbons and picture upon picture of smiling female breast cancer survivors.

Idiot Men and Wise Women

Consider your average commercial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

This Is Why I Make Such A Big Deal About Women Who Rape Men

On Facebook, I shared a link to a news story entitled "The Hard Truth About Girl-on-Guy Rape" that not only talked about how much more common it is than anyone believes, but how men who are raped by women have almost nowhere to turn for help without getting ridiculed, or having their masculinity questioned.

Almost immediately after, I received the following as a Private Message on Facebook.  I quote it in full, without editing, with the express permission of the person who sent it to me.  When I thanked him for sharing his story with me, he said, "You are welcome to use it anonymously if you wish."  I asked him if he was sure about it, and he once again said I could share the story with other people.

This is why I make such a big deal about this subject, folks.  I make a big deal about because there are men out there who have gone through this trauma (and yes, it is a trauma) but who feel they can't come forward for one reason or another, and who nevertheless who need to talk about it with someone if only so they know that they are not alone.  That there are other men who have gone through this, and that there are people who understand and who care.  That he isn't weak.  That he is still a human being and that he still matters.

And if I only reach one of them, if what I do only helps one such man, then my job here is done.

So here it is.  His story.

Thanks for posting the link to the article on The Hard Truth About Girl-on-Guy Rape.

About 23 years ago I was taken advantage of by 2 women at a party when I was too drunk to defend myself. There was a group of people around as I called out no, and no one did anything. I have never felt I could do anything about it. I was not interested in either girl, and one was underage. The next day I confronted two friends that hosted the party (a married couple), and the two girls denied knowing anything about it, saying they were too drunk to remember anything.  

It is something I don't think about generally, but seeing the article at least made me feel less like "the only guy" to have that happen.

I haven't discussed it with anyone over the years. And would not be comfortable in public (though knowing FB is not very secure format), I never even told my ex-wife during the 14 years we were together.  (I had myself thoroughly tested for STD's after incident just in case).

I was stunned by the numbers quoted in the article.

Thank you for your bravery.

Yes (but No) on Men's Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take is idea of a paper abortion, for example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question in response is this:  So what?

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

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

The Truth Regarding Institutional Discrimination Against Men

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

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

This, naturally, makes no sense at all.

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

In any case, the facts speak for themselves:

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

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

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

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

There's no choice involved here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.