A feminist questions feminism and almost gets there

13 Jul

The issues with modern feminism, and how to fix them.



Why it’s not about hating men and burning our bras

By Jamie Ballard



I feel awkward calling myself a feminist, though I know I shouldn’t. It’s because I don’t always fit into the popular interpretation of the word as a man-hating, sexually adventurous, perpetually pissed-off woman.

It’s refreshing to see the stereotype acknowledged, at least.  Man-hating, miserable sluts generally evokes the old “you don’t understand feminism” card, which is usually followed by zero evidence to refute the man-hating, miserable slut trope.



Jamie is pretty adorable though. There is hope here.  I know it!


The way my boyfriend (who does believe in gender equality) described it was “Feminism feels like being yelled at for something I didn’t personally do.” And he has a good point. Some people think about feminism in words like “patriarchal society” and “female oppression” and “rape culture.” These things all have validity, but too often they’re used to paint everyone with a broad brush. Are you a cis-gender man with a penis? Then you’re part of the oppressive patriarchal society and it’s your fault women suffer from economic, social, and political discrimination.


Men are not a monolith, they can not be held responsible for things they did not actually do or privileges they do not actually have or powers they do not actually wield?


Where have I heard that before?


Seems wrong, doesn’t it?


Sure does!


Another issue to be found with particular brands of feminism is that sometimes while it claims to be empowering women, it actually allows women to blame society for our issues, thusly playing the victim rather than actually forcing ourselves to make progress. When we complain about the wage gap or rape culture or not being able to have a career and a family, we brush off any personal responsibility. “Society” is not to blame for these flaws. If we’re supposed to be these strong and empowered people, then why aren’t we acting like it?


There is no wage gap, women are infantalized and treated as perpetual victims and encouraged to reject the concepts of personal responsibility and accountability and instead blame “society”, by which we mean “patriarchy”, by which we mean “men”?


I swear I have heard all this stuff somewhere before.  Where was it?


This isn’t to say we’ve achieved total gender equality – there are still problems that need to be solved. But let’s actually work towards solving them.

Great idea!  Let’s work towards solving problems instead of just whining about oppression that doesn’t exist for white, college-educated feminists.
Instead of complaining about the wage gap, work so hard that they have no choice but to pay you more. Instead of complaining about how we live in a world that says “don’t get raped” instead of “don’t rape,” start educating other people. Instead of fretting about your career and family coexisting, realize that millions of women do both without any significant damage to either aspect of their lives.


Work hard and erase the hours worked gap?  Educate both men and women about what is and is not rape and what sexual consent actually means and that everyone can be both victims and perpetrators?  Millions of women work and raise a family with no damage to either?


This is the absolute key lie that feminism has taught you, Jamie.


If you do choose to have children, and have the presence of mind to do that within the legal bonds of matrimony and you decide that those bonds cannot be broken by anything but the most intolerable abuse, then you are going to find out a very harsh truth:  leaving your baby to go sit in a cubicle is going to kill you.


Rip your heart out.



That is the reality for most women.  They hate going to work and paying someone else to raise their children but they have not set up their lives or marriages or relationships to give them an honest choice.  Most women who have small children would prefer to work part-time, if at all.  Most women who are working do so because they MUST.  They have not made choices that give them any choices.


But maybe that’s not you.  Okay. Maybe you are gonna sail out the door with a big smile totally glad to get away from that screaming kid for 8 hours!  Some women are like that.  You will have no problems.


But what if you’re not?  What if you are one of the woman who sit weeping at their desks sick to their souls at what they are doing?


I would think it through.  Very carefully.


Instead of acting like a victim, recognize that equal opportunity doesn’t mean equal outcome. Women and men, in nearly all cases, do have the same opportunities. It’s what we make of them that’s differing.

Men do not have a system of privileges that they use to keep women down?  Women make different choices.  This is feeling rather familiar, again.


Here’s what I think of feminism: neither men nor women are superior, and we need both genders to be empowered and cooperative. People are people, and while we differ in a lot of ways, everyone is a part of our social fabric. There are men in my life I love, and women in my life I love. So how can I say one of these groups is superior? How can I pit them against one another? And how can women expect respect from men if they don’t respect them as well?


Respect is mutual and must be earned?  Demonizing entire groups is counterproductive to society?
Are there issues with how women are treated? Absolutely. But writing this article, or a ranting tumblr post won’t really change that. What will change that is genuine action, be it by volunteering somewhere, educating people, or by just being so kickass at what you do that it doesn’t matter what’s between your legs.   


I has a little sad here.  You’re so close, Jamie.  Yes there are issues with how women are treated.  There are issues with how almost everyone except the very rich are treated but feminism has blinkered you to only focus on or care about women.  You just wrote that you have men you love.  Can you care about them and their issues too?
I want to get married and raise kids someday, and that doesn’t make me a bad feminist. Nor does my desire to have serious relationships, instead of numerous sexual escapades. But likewise, women who choose not to start a family, or who do have multiple partners aren’t bad feminists. Neither of us are holding back the cause.


Here’s a question though:  why should any man want to marry you?  What does marriage hold for men?  You may choose parenthood.  He may not.  You may break apart your marriage for the most spurious of reasons but you are extremely unlikely to be turned into a mommy the kids only see every other weekend. You can force a man to support children that are not even biologically his! You can choose to work or stay at home.


He is betting half his stuff and his kids that you won’t walk out.  Why would he do that?
I’m feminine in the conventional sense. And I’m proud of it. But I respect masculinity as well.


I love that you are feminine in the conventional sense, and that you respect masculinity and it gives me hope that you might just take the final leap and really get it!


I am a feminist.






You’re a Men’s Human Rights Activist.


Come to the dark side, Jamie.  We have cookies.  And tons of women just like you.


Lots of love,



118 Responses to “A feminist questions feminism and almost gets there”

  1. patriarchal landmine July 13, 2014 at 20:02 #

    yet another feminist telling us that feminism doesn’t represent feminism, and feminists don’t speak for the feminist movement.


  2. Spaniard July 13, 2014 at 20:36 #

    The problem is not feminism. The problem is women. Women and their clocks.

    Friday night: I met a 37 year old lady, no children, craving for children. A “biological clock” on legs.
    She lost a potential mate.

    A couple of hours ago, I went to see a courtesan (most of the time, the experiences with working girls are so good). This time things went a little wrong: she was a “clockwatcher”.
    She lost a client.


  3. Richard Cassalata July 13, 2014 at 21:02 #

    What a great article! Most women who I discuss men’s rights issues with oftem come off with this exact point of view. However, you really make the connections other women fail to see. Thanks


  4. dolf July 13, 2014 at 21:32 #

    I usually say that “rational feminist” is an unstable condition. You can be rational and you can be a feminist, but the two things are contradictory so the balance can’t be maintained indefinitely. The rational can not avoid the contradictions built into feminism forever. Sooner or later the conflict reaches a level where the rational has to reevaluate his/her position and take the leap away from feminism. If she or he doesn’t do that, the he or she is not really rational in the correct sense of the word.
    The process can be slow or fast, it can be painless or full of agony, but the rational will go through it, and will leave feminism.
    Seems the one who wrote the piece is a rational feminist. Anyone who wants to start betting on how long it will take before she’s changed sides completely?


  5. javaloco July 13, 2014 at 21:39 #

    “I’m feminine in the conventional sense. And I’m proud of it. But I respect masculinity as well.”


    I would think it would be ‘ergo’ rather than ‘but’.


  6. Alex July 13, 2014 at 22:18 #

    I find it strange that women still choose to associate with the feminist label even when they are aware that such an association comes with negative consequences. There’s a reason that feminism is known as being hateful towards men.

    I respect her opinion, I just can’t really give anyone that calls themselves a feminist any credibility.


  7. viredae July 13, 2014 at 23:37 #

    Well, the way she’s thinking (as in, actually doing some of it), she’s not long for the feminist world, she’ll eventually say the wrong thing, or piss off the right person, and she’ll get sick of all the unreasonableness.

    Then she’ll join the ranks, just wait on it.

    It’ll come.


  8. Tyler July 13, 2014 at 23:47 #

    As always, much respect JB, but I must pick a nit. I think ‘Human’s Rights Activist’ would be a better label for her than MHRA. She seems to be concerned for and care about both genders, in good faith. Prepending Men’s to it smells like the trap of myopically focusing on one gender to the exclusion of the other, something we regularly (and rightly) criticize feminism for. On balance, I think we have more fixing to do for men than women these days, but whenever possible, I think it’s better to avoid ‘us vs them’ when ‘them’ isn’t strictly defined as ‘feminists.’

    Minor thing, but it caught my eye.


  9. JShaft July 14, 2014 at 00:10 #

    pffft… Ever heard of a dialectic? Or the human condition? I understand and appreciate your position, but I was also raised by a genius feminist single mother, and none of those descriptors changed in the two decades I knew her…

    Why? Because there’s an out in these kinds of movements: Anything stupid you disagree with isn’t “The real thing”, only the stuff you like is. People cope through that alone, every day, from indoctrination to death…

    Still, I share your sentiment and your hope, but if that doesn’t further refute your position, well… :p


  10. Jim July 14, 2014 at 00:14 #

    “Why it’s not about hating men”

    Yes it is. Stop deluding yourselves women.


  11. JShaft July 14, 2014 at 00:15 #

    Yeah, because there’s never been a single association between MRA’s and angry men who say bitch a lot…

    *sigh* People all have a tendency towards in-group bias. Women may have it more, but that doesn’t even vaguely suggest we don’t. All humans do, except of course myself. I remain immune by refusing to associate with any group whatsoever, as that means I never have to fight against the stupid shit someone else said in my name.

    So, I’d suggest you either prove you’re somehow not doing the exact same thing as these Feminists (which is likely a provably false delusion of your own), or find some angles of attack from which your pot looks shinier than their kettle, Cuz it’s all looking just a little tarnished from over here in reason land…


  12. JShaft July 14, 2014 at 00:16 #

    Yeah, Laci Green and gay churches have proved that proposition time and again…

    /biting sarcasm


  13. JShaft July 14, 2014 at 00:17 #

    *Hugs* Glad to see I’m not the only one…


  14. MC July 14, 2014 at 03:42 #

    “But maybe that’s not you. Okay. Maybe you are gonna sail out the door with a big smile totally glad to get away from that screaming kid for 8 hours! Some women are like that. You will have no problems”

    As if somehow the children are completely unimportant in her decision and it’s all about what she wants? If you’d rather abandon your children at a daycare, you’re not somebody that should have children. I know feminism wants to spread the false message that women can abandon and neglect their infants while holding down a career without negative consequences to themselves, but the negative consequences happen to the children.

    If it were up to Simone de Beauvoir, we would have a nation of sociopaths.


  15. JShaft July 14, 2014 at 05:15 #

    *ahem* My wonderfully balanced child goes to daycare, entirely because I’m a predominantly stay-at-home dad, but I work wierd casual hours six moths of the year to top up our income. We also have no extended family where we live, so the choice is daycare so she can meet another child before primary school (or grade school, or whatever), or random, unreliable babysitters being booked for shifts from 2:20am till midday, and no chance to sleep before my 8 pm start.

    Also, look at the stats on daycare, the more reliable peer-reviewed psychological ones are showing more benefits and less of the preconceived drawbacks than older, less stable studies.

    Furthermore, we evolved for conditions that no-longer occur. Parents were always primary caregivers, but no-one in the tribe let kids come to harm, and many watched the kids, played with them, taught them, and let them play with each other. You know, like at daycare, as opposed to locked up in the house all day with one solitary parent.

    Not to say that that can’t work for some, or is the norm there either, but it’s a great way to show what judging an entire group of people and circumstances by one flawed, judgmental, ideological and scientifically unsupported viewpoint might feel like. Hope you enjoyed your lesson in why not to be a… Meh, I’ll let you think of a really hurtful thing to call me, then just imagine I called you that.


  16. Alex July 14, 2014 at 05:32 #

    i believe it’s MHRM until the problems concerning men stemming from feminism are fixed, at which point i hope the leaders of the movement have the humility to change it to HRM


  17. JShaft July 14, 2014 at 05:37 #

    Or, you know, we could admit that maybe everyone has problems, and that, while we may feel we have more right now, we’re about fixing problems, not divisive “ours first, yours if we get around to it” policy statements. I’m sure the old femmo’s had this discussion too, until the bulldykes and ptsd cases hijacked the naming rights… Now they spend all their time trying to get people to believe the bullshit line of “But Feminism = equality”… It sounds like bullshit from them, what makes your version somehow immune to misinterpretation 50 years from now?


  18. dolf July 14, 2014 at 06:46 #

    Well, a dialectic means that you resolve the conflict, not that you maintain it, right?
    And if you use the kind of selective out you describe, then you ain’t acting rational. It rather proves my point.


  19. Magnus July 14, 2014 at 07:38 #

    “I’m feminine in the conventional sense. And I’m proud of it. But I respect masculinity as well”

    Um why does “I’m feminine in the conventional sense” come with an asterix, in this case: “But I respect masculinity as well”

    To me conventional feminine can only be feminine because masculinity exist, to borrow a cliche: It’s the yin to the yang.

    Thats a huge issue with feminism, it has glorified the feminine to a point where we no longer know what the fuck it is… as long as men are more feminine than masculine, because “ew cooties”


  20. Spaniard July 14, 2014 at 08:16 #

    Thanks to feminism we, men, can shag with non professional women without getting married.
    Thanks to feminism we,men, just have to pay half of the bill. And that is good. It happens in Scandinavia (is not it. Dolf?), In UK, Germanyand France too. Even in Spain. Not so sure in Italy.

    In Russia and Latin America, men have to pay 100% of the bill. Maybe in U.S too. I do not know.

    Not everything so bad about feminsim. We have to take some adventages of it.


  21. dolf July 14, 2014 at 08:28 #

    Well, recently in Sweden was released a Handbook in Becoming Lesbian, where the authors (two lesbians) seriously argue for women to “re-program” themselves to lesbianism. So to me it looks more and more like no shagging at all. But the tax-system ensures we still foot the bills.


  22. JShaft July 14, 2014 at 09:34 #

    Hmmm… Sometimes I’m reminded why there are lecturers at universities. Not that I’ve been, mind you, but I’ve heard…

    A dialectic does not get “resolved” in any sort of normal conversational sense. One doesn’t take the classic “Freedom vs Security” dialectic, pick one and trash the other. One comes to a third point: Synthesis (which also doesn’t mean what you’ll think it means, hence the lecturer reference…). This is a third position, wherein the two contradictory positions coexist in one notion, so Black vs White doesn’t become gray, or black, or white, but simple Black and White. Still, individual aspects of Black and White (or in this case, to be more illustrative, Feminist Dogma and Rational thought) can be given primacy over individual aspects of the other. A simple metaphor for this, that I’ve held back from bringing up in this particular environment, is a good marriage, in which no one party dominates, but both come to accept the others needs, and work together towards that which is common.

    Another dialectic could be Hating Rigid, Dogmatic, Gendered and Ultimately Costly Movements and Being a Member of a Movement With A Gendered Title. Not the same things, and not conflating the two, but clearly you’ve had to resolve some conflicts without overriding either side. The human mind is capable of these things for a simple reason: We have both emotions and reason. There is always give and take between the two, and the healthier you are, the more balanced you are between the two. Right now there seems to be a zeitgeist-war between the “Shut up, FEELS!” and “Shut up, REASONS!” camps in all sorts of fields. Religion vs Atheism, Right Vs Left, Feminism Vs MHRM, The War On Drugs/Terror/Any other emotion based human response that is impossible to eradicate.

    Oh, and you completely missed my point re: that selective out you mentioned. I wasn’t suggesting I used it, nor was I suggesting anyone should, or at least should feel proud of such. Can you guess who I might have been referring to? Here’s a clue, based on the month or three I’ve spent obsessively combing through the MRA universe (or at least the parts that didn’t make me as ashamed of being male as Feminism used to):

    Feminism is evil, it shames men and is full of man-hating evil women going on rants about how we’re all evil. Oh, and they also take issue with us giving a voice to those so hurt by the current system, all they seem to do now is rant about how evil women are, how fucked femininity is, and how much better masculinity is… We don’t agree with what they’re saying, but it’s helpful to give them a voice, for healing purposes. But Feminists need to stop being mean about men, regardless of their personal experiences.

    If that isn’t an unhealthy dialectic that the MHRM is, for the most part, publicly comfortable with, then please, point me at the articles… That I can find more Feminist articles justifying man-hate doesn’t justify publishing “99% of all women” statements from people who, on average, probably don’t know 100 people well enough to tell you what 99% of them have in common, personality-trait wise…

    In the end, this movement is as much of a magnet for misogyny as Feminism is a shining beacon justifying misandry. Me, I don’t like either. I spent a lot of time loving JB, GWW, and the atheist youtube ranters who first turned me on to antifem and MRA causes. Then, I paused at one point, because they all kept making me ask the question “How do Feminists not see what they’re doing?”, and I thought, well, maybe they refuse to look. So to be safe, I looked. What happens in the “Manosphere” (dear god, the stereotype about us being shit at making things desirable is getting major reinforcement off that one “word”) is by no means as bad, as virulent, or as blatant as Feminism is and has been. But it could be on it’s way there, and no-one is serious enough about toning it down…

    Honestly, the Dialectic has an ugly cousin, and it’s called Hypocrisy, and it makes criticising others really, really hard.

    So, in conclusion, all I was saying is that people have the ability to hold two seemingly contradictory thoughts or ideals in their head at the same time, without any distress or tension. It’s a thing I’ve tried to teach myself not to do, with a small amount of success. I either try to practice what I preach, or quit preaching. And even for the modest gains I’ve made on that front, I had to get used to being wrong, and feeling it.

    Of all the emotions one can experience, accepting that one’s heartfelt, long-defended belief is absolute bullshit beats the hell out of almost any other negative experience I’ve ever had. One is forced to fundamentally acknowledge that, on said front, one’s entire existence and effort has been counterproductive. Some people manage to do that once, with one big thing in their life, and some just never do. Shit, regardless of any personal religious affiliation, you gotta know not every religious person can be right, but BILLIONS of people have gone from birth to death believing what must be, logically, completely false religions.

    Me, I don’t think I’m a thousandth towards my ideal of not being completely wrong about anything. Right now I think I’m right, and it might take a while for even overwhelming proof to sink in for me. But it is my stated intent to try to live by the scientific method, and disprove my own thoughts, wherever possible. Not many people ever try this, and I don’t blame them, it’s really not that fun, and rarely rewarding. So, expecting someone to jump away from Feminism, or even from gender-named binary views on equality, just because of overwhelming evidence of profound fraudulent conduct and inhumane pseudo-logic is, at best, certainly quite optimistic of you…

    And next time I’ll try and be more obvious when I make a tongue-in-cheek observation of others behaviors…

    Oh, and feel free to point out anything I’ve said that’s wrong, from typos on upward, I’ll be unhappy, but I’ll also feel duty bound to entertain said criticism, and take on board what I can, when I can.


  23. JShaft July 14, 2014 at 09:45 #

    I’ve never been a fan of people’s “My taxes go to the wrong things” arguments, personally, for many, many reasons, not least of which: If everyone agreed that no taxes could be spent on anything at least one taxpayer disagreed with, taxes wouldn’t go down, and politicians salaries would be truly repugnant. :/

    Seriously, if your taxes pay more for single mothers than they do for roads, schools, and police and military budgets, then for fucks sake, move…

    But man, Lesbian Feminist Separatists are a truly scary breed of hatemonger, and woebetide the society that treats them with anything other than the derisive scorn they deserve.


  24. Master Beta July 14, 2014 at 09:45 #

    It’s not “women”, it’s this weird idea that the age of the mother doesn’t matter for child bearing, when it matters a lot.


  25. JShaft July 14, 2014 at 09:48 #

    I’d be with you completely, if I’d seen a single example of “Positive masculinity” in the “Manosphere” (seriously, that’s just a PR nightmare guys :p) that didn’t make me want to lock the author in a cage and feed him meat on a long pole, I’d be more into “traditional masculinity”. Quite frankly, they’re both such bullshit, loaded terms that judge everyone and find everyone wanting…


  26. Master Beta July 14, 2014 at 09:53 #

    It is interesting how “I respect masculinity” has to be preceded by a “But” isn’t it, and it’s not “And I respect masculinity”. Apparently the default state is not to respect masculinity. I guess that’s what will happen to you if you hang out with feminists too much.


  27. JShaft July 14, 2014 at 09:57 #

    It’s little things like that that make my day, nicely spotted…


  28. Spaniard July 14, 2014 at 13:00 #

    Oh! Scandinavian women!
    In the 90s I had a Swedish girlfriend from Goteborg, we were both in our 20s. When she reached 31 she dumped me for not being the provider type. She found a Swedish beta provider or an alpha provider, I don´t know. But PROVIDER.

    4 years ago I met a 46 year old Finnish woman.
    Very good looking but a little overweighted, single mother and heavy smoker. For a weekend-night stand she found I was OK, but what she was really was looking for was a “QUALITY man” (her own words) Well, she told me the whole description of that “quality man” and… it was PLUS QUAM perfection!!! 🙂
    Female deluded hypergamic fantasies never ends, Even in a middle aged, overweighted, heavy smoker single mom. But, of course, such a things happens in hyper developed countries like Finland. I doubt it could happen in a less developed societys.


  29. The Rigorist July 14, 2014 at 17:16 #

    Yes, they talk about this kind of Feminism and that kind and how we can’t say that all Feminists do or believe anything in particular.


    There is only ONE kind of Feminism that matters, and only ONE that is – in fact – Feminism: the Feminism that is enacted into law.

    If she is a Feminist, then she supports what has been enacted, either actively or by willful inaction against it.


  30. Goober July 14, 2014 at 17:36 #

    My Dad taught me something that has stuck with me for many years. It is a simple trope, and it has proven to be true so many times in my life that I can’t keep track.

    The advice went a little something like this:

    “Very few things that you do in life are harmful, as long as they are done in moderation.”

    The dose makes the poison, in almost everything that you do.

    The idea that a child who spends any time at all in a daycare is going to be damaged beyond repair, or become a member of a “nation of sociopaths” as a previous commenter put it, is fucking stupid.

    My wife and I, through years of trial and error and heartbreak, have only been able to conceive one beautiful, awesome child. We’re now both 34 years old. Our most recent miscarriage was last November. We’re still actively trying to conceive again, but I, at least, have resigned myself to the fact that our daughter will probably be an only child. I wonder sometimes if we should just stop trying so hard and just let nature take its course, but we’re getting older, and time is not on our side.

    I say all of this, because my daughter is now three and a half, with no siblings, and with cousins who live 300 miles away.

    My wife and I put her in daycare two to three days a week ON PURPOSE, with no need to do so at all, because we think it is very important that she is around other children and learns to socialize and play. She has fast friends in the daycare, and absolutely loves to go, on most days. Some days she isn’t into it, but changes her tune shortly after getting there. She has a blast every day, and comes home tired. The folks at the daycare love her, and say she does very well there (something I’ve confirmed by staying with her on several occasions and watching her play).

    Why, again, is that turning her into a sociopath?


  31. Scotty G. July 14, 2014 at 17:59 #

    Unless you are a hermit living hundreds of miles within the barren and lonely wilderness, you will always be part of some social group, whether you care to admit it or not.

    Although I do admire your attempt to eradicate in-group bias from your psyche, It is impossible to relate to your environment without at least a rudimentary world-view/reality map. You will never escape the necessity of belonging to a group or ideological camp, nor is it a bad thing to do so… so long as you understand that reality maps are only temporary representations of reality, thus not true reality, and that said maps will eventually have to be redrawn with greater sophistication in order to incorporate new information, complexity, and wisdom.


  32. dolf July 14, 2014 at 18:22 #

    To use an old trope, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If the daycare works for you and your daughter, then there of course is no problem. If I understand it right, you actively put her in daycare for a limited time to get her to socialize, well, is anyone really arguing against that. As virtually all kids today (at least here, I don’t know how it is in the US) are in daycare it more or less becomes necessary to put also kids that actually could be home in daycare, lest they’d be eremiteized. And after all, if it goes off the rails, you can pull her out.
    I don’t think though that governmental daycare where parents dump their kids for the major part of the day is a socially sound institution.


  33. Goober July 14, 2014 at 20:25 #

    Everything (or most things) in moderation.

    As I said before, it isn’t harmful if you do it in moderation. But taken to excess, anything can be harmful.

    Sex, porn, drinking, working out, watching TV, playing video games, having hobbies, having collections, having political beliefs, having religious beliefs, driving over the speed limit…

    I could go on.

    But my point was to respond to the absolutists in the MHRA who think that a woman’s place is in (his) home raising (his) kids, and that kids who see the inside of a daycare are going to end up being sociopaths.

    Moderation is the key.

    Yeah, it’s boring sometimes. Who doesn’t like to get blacked out drunk on occasion? Until the next morning… when they wish they’d have demonstrated a bit more moderation than they did, of course.

    It also doesn’t fit some things. There are certain black and white issues that are absolute, and moderation is not the key.

    Murder, for instance. Or adultery. Neither of those things are okay in moderation, in excess, or otherwise.

    Righteous violence committed in self defense would be another thing that I would advise against being moderate about.


  34. Goober July 14, 2014 at 20:31 #

    I love the entire premise behind this. As if a person could choose such a thing.

    Did you “choose” to not be gay?

    Could you “choose” tomorrow to suddenly become gay, i that benefitted you in some way?

    I certainly didn’t make a “decision” to be hetero, and I could no more “choose” to be gay than I could “choose” to be female, or a dolphin.

    It’s humorous to me that a gay person, who, if pressed, would almost certainly admit that htey never “chose” to be gay, would think that a hetero person could “choose” TO be…

    People are hilariously un-self-aware.


  35. Goober July 14, 2014 at 20:56 #

    Seriously, if your taxes pay more for single mothers than they do for roads, schools, and police and military budgets, then for fucks sake, move…

    To where may I find this utopia where I won’t foot the tax bill for a bunch of people that I’ve no interest in footing it for?

    Seriously. I’ll move there tomorrow. Just tell me where…

    Oh, wait, that place doesn’t exist in the western world anymore?

    Well fuck around.

    I guess I’ll just continue to reserve my right to bitch about it, then, m’kay?

    I’m tired of being told that if I don’t pay for Ray-Ray and Ice’s cell phones that I’ll eventually be murdered by the state for non-compliance. I don’t think Cletus’s need to have a big-screen TV in his taxpayer funded apartment outweighs my need to not fund that if I so choose, and to live my life unfettered by government agents that will put a bullet in my head for resisting ponying up for a single mother who is on her 5th baby daddy, 13th kid, and second fifth of val-u-rite vodka for the day.

    Paying for these people’s indolence and criminality is allowing them to be indolent and criminal. They say we do this in the interest of “humanity” but what type of humanity pays to keep people in poverty, crime, and hopelessness forever and ever?

    But the alternative doesn’t exist. There IS no other option.

    So if you don’t mind, I’ll continue to reserve my right to complain until it’s either fixed, or I die and it isn’t my problem anymore.


  36. LostSailor July 14, 2014 at 23:06 #

    Actually, it was the radical feminists (the bulldykes and pstd cases) that were the heart and core of the “Feminist Movement” in the late 60s and early 70s. It wasn’t till the mid-70s that more mainstream feminists realized they had a PR problem and were alienating more women than not. Around the time the Equal Rights Amendment was moving through Congress and then the states, feminists ditched the hardcore and adopted the “Feminism = equality” to widen their appeal. It wasn’t until the 80s and 90s with the rise of “Women’s Studies” as a widespread academic discipline that the hardcore slipped back in. Now, the cutting edge of feminist “theory” is “gender studies” which has a minor goal of diminishing the idea of “femininity” and the major goal of reclassifying “masculinity” as toxic and redefining what “masculinity” should mean. Essentially, the destruction and elimination of “masculine” men. Thus, the reemergence of the hardcore beginnings of feminism.

    The MHRM is in it’s earliest stages, and the initial anger is still being worked through. I’m generally not entirely comfortable with some of the harsher rhetoric against “women” just as I am with some of Warren Farrell’s talk of working to “change gender stereotypes of men” as it smacks of playing into the gender feminists playbook. But I recognize that this is a nascent movement and it’s only just starting to take its steps into the mainstream. There’s a learning curve…


  37. JShaft July 14, 2014 at 23:08 #

    It ws the last one you lost me with. I learn (when I can get it together) Jiu-Jitsu, simply because of the law. If someone tries to assault me in public, and I hit them back and knock them out, and the only witness missed the first punch, well, I’m fucked. Lying on top of someone who is screaming abuse at you while you calmly call the cops and/or calmly and repeatedly warn them about all the things you could do to them if they make you feel threatened, well…

    Plus, I’ve found, in this world, that the only benefits to punching when punched, or yelling when yelled at are purely internal, and usually short lived. Then again, I get off on not being a member of the herd, and doing “my own” thing, so doing stuff like not punching friends when they slept with my girlfriend, or not losing it when the boss unreasonably docks my pay, these things make me feel like I’m not some Feminist stereotype of masculinity, but a person with free will…

    So, I would say all things in moderation can be fine, I don’t advocate always going the full Gandhi, nor do I decry “Enthusiastic defense” when it’s relevant…

    Seriously, absolutism is what turned me off Feminism. That, and their “All men are X” points of view. The more I see both in this sphere, the more I shake my head, and wonder quis custodiet ipsos custodes genus?


  38. LostSailor July 14, 2014 at 23:22 #

    Come to the dark side, Jamie. We have cookies.

    Aww, JB, it’s a nice idea, but she still “identifies” as a feminist. And it is a core tenet of Feminist Theory that cookies are a social construct of Patriarchal oppression of all women through all time and place. And their fascist. And they’ll make you fat, unless you’re a fat-apologist Social Justice Warrior™ in which case fuck you, I’ll eat anything I want and remain beautiful, fuck off shitlord.

    Or something like that…


  39. Alex July 14, 2014 at 23:28 #

    Well, Jshaft, as it happens, I don’t associate myself with any ideology either. But good for you to make the assumption that you are unique in that way. Give yourself a pat on the back.

    As for in group bias’, of course they happen and that is why I don’t joint groups as it removes a certain level of objectivity. But where feminism is concerned I’ll use the good old Nazi example… The Nazi party started off as a fairly moderate, well intentioned party. And gradually it became a very dark and hateful party. At present, feminism has long gone over the line of being hateful. They are openly hateful in large numbers. So when a woman that the article is addressing speaks of gender equality in such a rational way, one would assume that she has the level of intelligence to understand that feminism has crossed that line, especially as they have indeed discussed the idea of male genocide.

    As for the MRA, sure there are some angry members in the group, but in such ridiculously low numbers that for you to use it as a comparison is a fallacious thing to do. When MRA’s become hateful towards women in the majority, the way feminists have towards men, then you might have a point. Until then, how about you keep your delusions and assumptions to yourself. And please don’t claim reason when you have blatantly failed to use it.

    Thanks for sharing your ignorance 🙂


  40. Alex July 14, 2014 at 23:31 #

    Another thing… I’ve just looked at your replies on other posts. Do you think it’s not obvious that you’re a feminist? No wonder you failed to use reason and logic. 😀


  41. JShaft July 14, 2014 at 23:31 #

    I really wish it were that simple, but the general human binary view of sexuality, gender and identity leads to a lot of confused people making all-or-nothing calls in relation to their own sexual identity.

    I know this for loads of reasons, but they’re mostly reasons I’ve learned not to bring up in public, because, for whatever reasons, these statements and observations tend to make everyone go very quiet, then eventually make heroic efforts to change the topic…


  42. JShaft July 14, 2014 at 23:47 #

    Heh, okay… Glad you went there with all that, you’ve now passed that wondrous, almost dehumanising threshold in mind, past which I only have pointing and laughing…

    I always find it funny that those who think that living in a country without a big “Tax and spend” evil government, life would be just peachy for them, cuz they could look after themselves… Yet they’re also the biggest whiners out there, constantly demanding everyone else fix their problems :p

    Interesting that you ask, rhetorically of course, just where outside of the developed world you could live, without being taxed and having those taxes spent on things you don’t approve of… Without asking: If ALL first-world democracies share this one particular feature, as opposed to dusty, fly-infested third world nations with “Small Government” like, say, Somalia, maybe that’s not so much a coincidence, but possibly a vital aspect? That without the taxes paying for infrastructure, you’d have no roads, no economy, no jobs, and no income to bitch about being taxed on?

    Seriously, it’s one of the few things that makes me sure you must live in the USA, because no-one else is having this debate outside your country, just like no-one argues against state owned “socialised” medicine. Because facts and reasons. You wanna know why, in a nutshell? Because the rest of the world either remembers what it was like before we had taxes for roads and schools and sewers and transportation and public hospitals and gun control and police forces and big governments, and while we know none of these things are perfect, we also know just how fucked everything was before them. Oh, and if we want to double check, we can always look at the stats on the US vs first-word countries, and notice that, without California and your entertainment industry, and without your massively over funded (yet strangely never complained about) military, you’d be, at best, a developing economy. If you developed anything anymore.

    So, dear Goober, this is what you win for your whining: After this post, I will henceforth stop being nice and polite to you. Sure, it may not seem like much to you, but it’s a big deal for me. So feel honored by my attentions 🙂


  43. JShaft July 15, 2014 at 00:00 #

    I’ll certainly agree there’s a learning curve, and seemingly inevitable potential stumbling blocks. But, and this is my pet issue here: We also have, right there on the wall, a big, neon roadmap of exactly where not to go, and what not to do, one that no-one can even get through the door without seeing, reading, and in some cases adding more to.

    In that one environment, where we see everything Feminism fucked, or could have done better, or failed miserably to enforce/control/remove or do at all, it’s particularly headdesk-inducing to see people do every one of those things, publicly, and defend it.

    “Feminism = equality is bullshit, just look at the name, there’s your first clue” says the guy in the Men’s Rights t-shirt, with no sense of the truly tragic irony involved…

    I won’t go on, I’m sure you can think of others, but also think on the sheer number of times this one has been brought up, then yelled back down with, at best, spurious logic that echoes Feminism’s statements on exactly the same issue.

    Seriously, things like that would be so funny to me if I didn’t care. I’m starting to wonder if I’d be better off stopping caring and just laughing, as opposed to caring deeply and ending up with “Wesley Willis”-forehead from all the headdesk…


  44. Goober July 15, 2014 at 00:05 #

    I’m speaking from my own personal bubble and experience on this one, true.

    My personal feelings on the situation are that it would be physically impossible for me to be gay. It would be totally repulsive to me. I’m thinking that things “wouldn’t work” no matter how hard I tried.

    I’m not even a little bit gay.

    Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I sure as hell didn’t “choose” my sexual preference, and could NOT “choose” to change it if I wanted to.

    Maybe others could. Maybe that’s where I’m falling down in this discussion, because I’m speaking from my bubble and my perspective.

    Maybe the world is chock-full of dudes who would totally choose to start sword fighting other dudes if it benefitted them in some way.

    I’m not that guy.

    If I had to guess, you were going to start talking aobut the “mutual” relationships in prisons and such?

    yeah, I could not do that…


  45. Goober July 15, 2014 at 00:15 #

    Yet they’re also the biggest whiners out there, constantly demanding everyone else fix their problems :p

    You’re not describing me, friend. Not at all.

    Also, love the straw man about how I was suddenly arguing against taxes paying for infrastructure and such.

    i don’t recall making that argument.

    In fact, what i DID do was state that it is inhumane and dehumanizing to fund the indolence of the perpetually criminal and lazy, because you are, in essence, simply paying them to stay that way. You think that’s a good idea? Support your thesis about why it is a good idea to fund a perpetually victimized and criminal underclass. Start by telling me how that is good for the people being funded, first. I can’t see how it is.

    As for “no one” arguing against socialized medicine, I might suggest that you’re speaking from inside a bubble or echo chamber, one or the other. There are plenty of folks living inside those utopias that are very unhappy with the service, very unhappy with the lack of choice, and can do nothing about it. I’ve got several very good friends from Canada that emphatically insist that that system is screwed up royally. And it’s not just Canada. Take a moment, open your eyes, do some looking into this instead of blundering into it blindly, and you’ll see that socialized medicine has many problems of it’s own. Is our system perfect? Far from it. But neither is anything else, contrary to what you’ve conviced yourself.

    As for “being nice” to me, I could care less. That’s your decision. If you find that you can’t be civil to me simply because I disagree with you, then perhaps some introspection may be in order?

    Peace out…


  46. Goober July 15, 2014 at 00:17 #

    You are right. Bad example. Restraint when committing violence is always the right thing, even if that restraint is to decide not to show restraint if the situation warrants it. I’ve actually made that point on this forum before, so my example was shitty, and in contradiction of what I’ve said before.



  47. JShaft July 15, 2014 at 00:18 #

    Well, that was interesting… Considering I got up JB for posting someone’s unfunny satire the other day, I probably deserve to be misinterpreted on my own unfunny satire. Turnabout is fair play, especially when one is hoist on one’s own retard…

    As to my profound lack of reasoning, or deluded assumptions, perhaps I do need to communicate better, as it seems almost none of my intent got through to you. All I was trying to point out is that I am someone that rejects Feminism and their attempts to colour anything they don’t like as somehow evil. I automatically go about using the scientific method to try to disprove their assertions, mostly because disproving stupidity is a fun thing to do, as I’m sure you’ll agree :p

    In this circumstance, with this “Movement”, I’m finding it really hard to disprove. It’s not proven, far from it, but it’s by no means as squeaky clean as you like to believe. Whether the voices of gender bias, hate, gender-role enforcement and general absolutism are “few” or not, they’re loud and ever present, using tactics and methods no different from the Feminists or the Nazis or any other absolutist movement. Attack your qualifications if you question, attack the person, shame them, etc.

    Internalised misogyny, meet “Beta Supplication”, cuz yeah, the only “real men” are “alpha males”… The amount of times I’ve had people try to shout me down with that sort of shaming bullshit for asking honest questions, but ones forbidden by dogma, is saddening.

    I can cope fine, because it’s stupid bullshit, and I never met an “Alpha male” who had to tell people he was one :p Others, however, fall into line, hate speaks to hate, and in 15 years where are you?

    All I know is: Kids called me stinky, arbitrarily in high school. Feminism (currently) arbitrarily calls MRA’s a “Hate group”. I showered a lot during high school. It didn’t stop the core of dickheads calling me stinky, but no-one else took them seriously, and I knew better. So, just proclaiming “We’re not a hate group” while apologising for, or diminishing the behaviors associated with self same, rather than actually dealing with them hardly strikes me as the best was forwards.

    “Whadda you mean you smell gas? What gas? Oh, that, it’s just a tiny leak, it’ll be fine…”. That’s how all this feels to me. And yes, I said feel, because, like I said, these are my impressions over a relatively short period, with no statistics or empirical data to back them up. And that’s what I wanted, to see if I, as a more reasonable, less emotionally-led, anti-feminist man could feel even a grain of truth in Feminism’s go-to characterisation of this movement. And I could.

    So, good luck with the masses, when they hold the high ground. Or, as Homer put it, “Enjoy your deathtrap, ladies!”


  48. JShaft July 15, 2014 at 00:20 #

    Oh, no, way more complicated and confusing than that. Most people do seem to have a hard time fitting me in their heads…


  49. JShaft July 15, 2014 at 00:52 #

    Damn you, then you have to go and be completely reasonable again, thus making me feel like a dick, but also reinforcing my statements about dialectics. I guess everyone can be a reasonable person AND a foaming freak at the same time….

    So I’m sorry too.


  50. MC July 15, 2014 at 02:40 #

    I’m not saying she’ll become a sociopath, I was quoting a feminist who believes that mothers should not be allowed to raise their own children, but from birth be put into some sort of community centres or daycare, which would have the same effect as maternal abandonment to that child. The child would have a lack of attachment in such places.

    This effect would more likely take place, if the child was consistently experiencing this in the first two years of life and brain development.

    There’s a video Stefan Molyneux did of some of the effects of daycare, you could read the book if you’re interested:


    He also has a good interview that discusses more here:



  51. bonkti July 15, 2014 at 03:09 #

    Doesn’t Human Rights as a synthesis require the articulation of Men’s Rights (e.g., the guy in the Men’s Rights t-shirt pointing out that “Feminism=equality” is bullshit)?

    Or are you simply declaring that the antithesis to Feminism is Human Rights?


  52. Bill C. July 15, 2014 at 04:05 #

    ” a dialectic means that you resolve the conflict”

    No. Not at all. All it does is present one.

    Now, dialectical materialism, that’s another matter altogether.


  53. JShaft July 15, 2014 at 05:39 #

    Hmmm…. Both viewpoints have validity :/

    Not sure I can state with any certainty which would qualify in this instance. I can certainly see, in principle, that the thesis of women’s rights + antithesis men’s rights = synthesis human rights. Buuuuut… From the angle I was viewing the problem from at that particular point, I was looking far more at the unfortunate similarities, wherein both decry the clear gender biases inherent in their names, whilst staunchly defending the validity of their own names. In that scenario (and only in a vacuum, because the real world is rarely that easy to encapsulate), I’d see “Gender-named movements for equality” as the thesis, and maybe focusing on fixing the (seemingly rare, but actually overlapping) common ground, sans gender names or references as the antithesis. The synthesis of those could well be human rights, wherein we acknowledge the common problems, but are also brave enough to deal with the disproportionate gender issues that both sides may face.

    I feel I may get some flak for intimating that Feminism may have some valid points, so allow me to make my position there clear also: I’ve been through, and still go through a lot of therapy. I have to regularly acknowledge that on a monday, I’ll have a reaction to an issue that isn’t even seen as an issue on friday, and the reaction was about something different anyway, and then next tuesday I’ll work out it wasn’t even the emotion I thought it was on wednesday OR saturday. It’s possible that the angst and feelings of persecution felt by Feminism that makes them jump at shadows could well be the gnawing sense of their own entitlement, and their easy ride through life having no justification, so they HAVE to make someone else the same thing, but worse in order to hang on to their ill-gotten privilege. I know I’ve done things vastly more convoluted for almost as long… So, mayhaps (and this is purely a hypothetical, I have no evidence, or even sincerely feel this example to be particularly true or likely) what would need to be reframed in order to reach synthesis wouldn’t be the validity of Feminism’s emotional reaction, but just its’ true nature, whereas on the MRA side, the acceptance that using “righteous” anger to combat “Irrational” anger just adds anger to anger, and possibly a third way might work. Seriously, when you’re defending your castle from a siege, you fight a shitload harder if you think they’ll slaughter you all if they get in. From all the anger we (understandably) show to Feminists, why would they want to admit they’re wrong? The people in the castle will keep pelting stones till there’s no more castle, and the louder you yell about what you’ll do when those walls fall, well…

    In any case, right and wrong are great concepts on some fronts, but thoroughly counterproductive in any place outside of deathmatches. I want Feminists to rethink their positions, not to protect hatemongers because they fear some Manocalypse in response.

    And now I’m just rambling again. I do that a lot…


  54. Magnus July 15, 2014 at 07:31 #

    Yeah, that was my point exactly.


  55. Magnus July 15, 2014 at 07:41 #

    Not sure what you are on about to be honest?
    My point was that we are losing grasp on what it means to be feminine and masculine.
    What’s even worse is that most people only associate masculinity with it’s negative aspects, and never ever seeing the good.
    Even you use words like “positive” and “traditional” without even defining it, saying one is wrong and the other is bad.

    So I’ll name some traits I view as masculine traits:
    Selflessness, loyalty, inquisitiveness, solution oriented, hard working, accountability…

    And before anyone goes screaming “wominz has that too” or “not all men have that” I will refer back to the Yin and the Yang, of course women have these traits to some degree, but I still define them as masculine traits. And as with everything we have them in different values. Some are more selfless, others less.

    And if you don’t see them in the manosphare (good lord I hate that term, it’s degrading imo) then I implore you to look again, or define what you would call “positive masculinity)


  56. Magnus July 15, 2014 at 07:42 #

    Oh forgot to add: That list is by no mean the whole list, just the ones that came to mind.


  57. Spaniard July 15, 2014 at 07:50 #

    Goober, go to Gibraltar. Very near where I am now.


  58. Magnus July 15, 2014 at 07:52 #

    “Thanks to feminism we, men, can shag with non professional women without getting married.”
    I am not sure that is purely thank to feminism, the sexual revolution was more than that. It would have happened with or without feminism I think.
    But thank to feminism, we can’t shag professionals in Norway at least;) (not saying that’s something I would do, but the fact is I can’t). In the UK they are cracking down on porn… so yeah no Feminism isn’t good.

    “Thanks to feminism we,men, just have to pay half of the bill.” I am again not sure this is purely thank to feminism. But yes it’s a result of equality, which is a train that the feminists drove for some time.

    But the changes are here, we no longer need feminism to drive those changes, so no need to glorify a corrupting ideology.


  59. Spaniard July 15, 2014 at 08:04 #

    JShaft, I can see you are a socialdemocrat. Just like me.
    I see, as well, that Dolf is not the typical Scandinavian socialdemocrat.
    Where are you from, by the way?

    I had this debate with Goober one year and a half ago. It seems that rightwingers only see “socialism” when it comes to “healthcare” or “education” or “pensions” or “housing”. They cannot see that “socialism” is, as well, about cops, firefighters, army, national parks, Historic heritage, Justice, border customes, etc.

    And, well, this debate that used to be totally absurd in Europe for ages (the European right wing used to be pro-state and kind of “socialist” Vg: De Gaulle, Churchill, Adenauer) now is becoming the norm, Why? because someone imported the Chicago School to Europe. But, my opinion, that is a model teh does not fit at all in European way of life.


  60. Spaniard July 15, 2014 at 09:28 #

    Oh! Another Norwegian.

    That is funny: in Norway prostitution is totally banned but I remember walking down the port of Oslo, by night, 3 years ago, and a car approcahed slowly to me.
    This time the rols were cahnged: the potential client (me) was walking and the hooker was driving the car.
    She asked for 200 euros or so. In her place. 🙂


  61. JShaft July 15, 2014 at 09:57 #

    I’m from Australia, where it’s centrist to be massively racist against anyone who isn’t white, but so is denouncing homophobia. We’re a strange, incredibly wealthy, sparsely populated continent with some of the best welfare and medicine, no national service, very few guns, but armed police, rampant alcoholism and the highest per capita marijuana usage in the world, but we’re nowhere near legalising it anywhere but the places it got decriminalised decades ago. We’re simultaneously egalitarian and elitist, and we invented our own wierd hybrid political system that’s somewhere on the British side of a balance between Westminster and Washington. We refer stupidly to this as the Washminster System, when we feel like pretending to take ourselves seriously…

    Truly, while most countries look like they’re wierd and arbitrarily cobbled together, my country takes the cake. Feminism and “the left” aren’t that strong here, and we’re generally a right-leaning country at heart (which yes, you got me right, it makes me a little sick to my stomach), and recently our new government has been doing its best to import Tea-Party esque right-wing nutjobbery, but it isn’t going all that well for them, and I can only hope that continues. Then again, our ostensibly left-wing former government was lead by a woman who tried, right at the end of her political lifespan, to play the gender card against the idiot we now have… And that, to my pride, backfired in the long run…

    Still, it’s a funny old world, and without US politics, I’d have to acknowledge just how retarded local issues get. But when we (however briefly) held the world record for deaths caused by a lone gunman on a rampage, our right wing, small-minded, fiscally “conservative”, pro-business, anti-immigration, anti-refugee, anti union Prime Minister banned pretty much every kind of semi-automatic gun, and bought them back and destroyed them, and we haven’t had a single worthwhile mass shooting since… So their mad will always trump our mad, which makes me comparatively happy…

    I take it from your name and your reference to Gibraltar that you’re from Espana, si? Que tal estas? And that’s almost the end of my vocab there, as I only did one year of Espanol, and that was before high school… Still, I can swear horribly in Espanol :p


  62. Magnus July 15, 2014 at 11:58 #

    Actually it’s not illegal to sell, only to buy… ironically.
    Sadly after the ban the whole market apparently went deeper underground as a lot of the prostitutes lost what little protection they once had.

    But yeah you can ban it all you want, it’s still there. Interestingly it’s also illegal for a man to buy sex outside of Norway, as long as (s)he is a Norwegian citizen.


  63. Spaniard July 15, 2014 at 12:19 #

    So, if you, Norwegian citizen, are in Spain for holidays, maybe in Alfaz del Pi (plenty of Norwegian people living there all year long) and you hire a hooker (legal here) and someone of your feminist countrywomen notices it and tells the police in Norway, can you be prosecuted once you are back in homeland?

    Jesus Christ!!!


  64. Spaniard July 15, 2014 at 12:20 #

    Hola, muy bien, gracias!

    Do you have public healthcare in Australia?


  65. LostSailor July 15, 2014 at 12:26 #

    it’s particularly headdesk-inducing to see people do every one of those things, publicly, and defend it.

    Yeah, well, every one of us has his own reasons for supporting this new movement. And getting everyone on the same page is like herding cats…


  66. dolf July 15, 2014 at 13:04 #

    We do not yet have that kind of legislation in sweden, but there are those that are pushing for it, so I would not be too surprised if we have the same here in a couple of years. Sweden are also pushing heavily in EU for making the swedish legislation being adopted in the rest of EU as well.


  67. Tyler July 15, 2014 at 13:43 #

    I like to use a nature/nurture model of sexuality. There’s a set of things you’re intrinsically into, and then there’s the things you actually choose to do, based on availability, cost/reward, social factors, etc. And the latter isn’t necessarily a subset of the former. Personally, I’ve never had any sexual interaction with a woman, beyond one time when one sat on my lap, got aroused, and I could feel the heat of her lady bits through two layers of jeans. That made me pretty uncomfortable. Though I do appreciate a good set of boobs. Based on this, I’d say there’s maybe a 5-10% capacity in me for hetero sex, but my awareness of the dangers of sex with women (pregnancy, crying rape, the massive strings attached with it and effort it takes, compared to men, etc.) pretty much squash that possibility.

    Now, pretty much unrelated to your comment, I’m gonna get on a soapbox. *ahem*

    When it comes to the subject of how people respond to gays, I usually see two separate things getting conflated into one: sexuality (what you like to do in the bedroom) and gender identity (whether you exhibit masculine or feminine characteristics). Note that I’m not really using ‘gender identity’ in the women’s studies meaning, but just as a useful term for which gender archetype you behave more as.

    Through fairly extensive experience, although it’s limited to our modern world (I’m young), I have observed that no one really gives two shits what anyone else does in the bedroom, as such. But people really, really care about which gender you behave as. If you’re a man that acts like a man, you’ll get along fine. In meeting thousands of people, I’ve only met a couple that had a problem specifically with my sexuality. The rest just cared that I acted like a man.

    By contrast, if you don’t act according to your sex, that’s when people get mean. Faggots, nancy boys, bull dykes; even a lot of the criticism lobbed at feminists is that they’ve totally lost their femininity. For better or worse, people want you to act like your sex a lot more than they care what kind of genitals you prefer in your mouth.

    So I roll my eyes when people talk about homophobia like it’s some plague, because it’s actually fairly rare. It doesn’t have a thing to do with buttsex; it has everything to do with people’s expectations about how you’ll behave, and whether they match your sex. Sure, a lot people wrongly assume ‘ball gargler’ = ‘prancing fairy,’ and I’d love to see that misconception die a fiery death, but it’s also easily corrected if they’re spending any amount of time around you. And if they’re not, then they don’t matter much, now do they?

    *steps off soapbox*


  68. Spaniard July 15, 2014 at 15:33 #

    Never in my country.
    Whorehouses are an institution here like Catholic Church or bullfighting.

    No pasarán!!!


  69. Joe July 15, 2014 at 16:55 #

    Could you not respond to EVERY point? You are just smothering any real conversations with your too long replies. Learn to edit!


  70. Goober July 15, 2014 at 19:02 #

    I’m slippery that way… You gotta watch me… 🙂


  71. Goober July 15, 2014 at 19:08 #

    Please indicate where I stated that I was unwilling to pay for infrastructure or parks. I’ll wait here.

    Also, indicate where I’ve made the claim that I’m a right-winger.

    I believe the proper term for me is libertarian, or maybe classic liberal.

    I’m way left on social issues, and way right on economic issues. Pretty much sums me up.

    I do not understand how you, JShaft, and others can take my belief that we should always be asking “does the government have to do this, and could someone else do it better?” and turning that into my agitating for anarchy.

    I’ve seen too much dishonesty, corruption, and evil come from the halls of the government to trust them, ever. FOr a tiny microcosm, just look at the VA scandal. Bureaucrats allowed men to DIE so that they could get their yearly bonus.

    I guess that makes me a bad guy.


    I’ll be a bad guy. But I still won’t trust the government any further than i can throw them.


  72. Goober July 15, 2014 at 19:13 #

    How many mass shootings did you have beffore they banned automatic weapons?

    Just the one?


    It is absolutely amazing to me how you’re able to create a trend off of just one data point. Pretty impressive, actually.

    But I’m just a stupid right winger, right?

    Let me ask you this:

    How many people, all told, have been killed in civilian mass shootings in the 20th century?

    500, maybe? Fuck it, let’s go nuts. I’ll give you 10,000.That’s a huge amount, and it never approached that, but let’s just give you that for the sake of argument.

    Now, how many were murdered by their government in the same time period?

    200 million? 250 million?

    I’ll keep my guns, and take my chances, thanks.

    It is my firm belief that the only thing – the ONLY thing – that has kept the federal government of the United States from going completely feral on several different occasions (the 1860’s, the 1920’s, for example) has been the fact that there were 200 million rifles in circulation.

    Tojo said it himself – he didn’t invade the mainland US after Pearl Harbor because, in his words, he feared that there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

    Freedom is not safe. Not by a long shot. But it’s proven time and again to be WAAAY safer than serfdom.


  73. Goober July 15, 2014 at 19:14 #

    Well, you’re just super special, then, aren’t you?

    Too bad you’re down in Oz, I think I’d like to have a beer with your weird ass some day.


  74. Tim July 15, 2014 at 19:43 #

    The unintended consequences of feminism cannot be undone. It’s too late. Cultural misandry is fully embedded in American, Asian and European thinking now. Feminism inadvertently led men to reject their traditional responsibilities as providers and protectors. Increasingly, men want nothing to do with marriage or family. Feminism also led women to have no or few children in exchange for a cubicle and heroic single motherhood, which many women are now finding to be extremely damaging in the long run. Increasingly, women view marriage as desirable. At the same time, more and more men view marriage and/or family as a death trap. Single mothers and adult single heads of households will soon be the majority. Married households are going extinct. Did women really think they could reject their traditional roles and that men wouldn’t do the same? What gives them the audacity to think that the outcome would have been otherwise? When one side walks away from the table – the other side has no choice but to do the same.

    In another few decades, feminism will lead to the extinction of entire cultures through mass immigration. Feminism is a form of national and cultural suicide. The only holdout so far is Japan, which will at some point be economically forced into mass immigration or face extinction as a culture. All other cultures that bought into the ideal of feminism are resorting to mass immigration to sustain their populations (France, UK, Sweden and the US to name a few). Global race wars will be the result. When minorities approach near parity in numbers with their perceived oppressors – the race wars will ensue. Multiculturalism is code for mass immigration, social upheaval and cultural ruin. Rape and pillaging by immigrant minorities will increasingly become the norm (this has already started). Cultures that embrace liberal ideals and feminism will eventually go extinct and will be replaced by more traditional and aggressive peoples (possibly Muslims and/or Hispanics). Nations turning to welfare to support single motherhood and mass immigration are finding this method of population sustainment unsustainable (as this only creates future generations of aggressive, addicted welfare dependents); hence, these cultures are rapidly going morally, culturally and financially bankrupt. America is well, well on its way down this path.

    Thanks to feminism, there were zero incentives for me to fulfill the oppressive patriarchal role of provider and protector. Feminists made me realize that that would have been a form of slavery to women. Feminism made it possible for me to reject traditional, patriarchal roles. Feminism allowed me to experience free love with zero commitments or responsibilities. Feminism allows for the rejection of oppressive patriarchal norms by men as well as women. Feminism removed the societal barriers and oppressive cultural responsibilities that once made it impossible to live the life I’ve lived. Feminism has inadvertently opened men’s eyes to culturally induced male disposability and deeply embedded but carefully disguised misandry.

    Feminism liberated me, a male, and opened my eyes to male disposability. I think men and women should be equal in every way and that women, like men, should sign up for selective service at age 18. Why is it that women supposedly want equality but abhor the idea of dying in war against foreign aggressors? I think there should be quotas for women to start taking on more traditionally male jobs (the manually laborious, low paying and dangerous jobs) and that men should focus solely on employment in the safer, less laborious, office jobs. After all, that’s equality, right? Why do women only want quotas for the best jobs, board room positions and positions of power? Isn’t that utterly hypocritical? Why is it that men are still expected to do the vast majority of the dangerous, life-threatening, laborious jobs? Isn’t that an example of blatant double-standards and male disposability in disguise? Why when I drive down the road is everything I see still built solely by the sweat and toil of men? If men and women are equal, why aren’t women out there demanding positions in building the bridges, buildings and infrastructure – dying early deaths as a result of bodily breakdown and industrial accidents like men? I think everyone knows why but no one wants to admit it. Men are viewed as disposable, third class citizens. It’s so obvious – but not PC to talk about.

    It’ll take a couple more decades for the race riots, infrastructure collapse and fatal economic depression to fully kick in. We’ve only seen a small taste of what’s to come. It’s future generations that will have to deal with the massive debt, third world like living conditions and race wars. The rejection of traditional roles and patriarchal rule will be the ruin of many a nation. Overtly geocentric, misandric cultures are doomed to collapse and eventual extinction.

    –Man Going His Own Way


  75. JShaft July 15, 2014 at 21:45 #

    That last one’s gotta be tricky to enforce…


  76. JShaft July 15, 2014 at 21:51 #

    Yup, pretty much everything bar dentistry, which got added recently, but the conservative government (Who came to power by claiming our economy is in crisis… Wondering how someone in Spain feels about Australia being in a fiscal crisis right now?) is trying to get rid of it, and trying to make people have to pay a surcharge to see a doctor. It’s not looking good for them though 🙂

    Yeah, seeing a GP or going to hospital is free, though you might have to pay for an ambulance… Oh, and you get wierd rebates for private medical insurance, but that’s another conservative bit of idiocy, wherein they tried to get enough people to pay for their own healthcare so they wouldn’t lose too many votes trying to get rid of the public system…

    Oh, and it’s extra funny, because our mostly working public system is called “Medicare”, just like the American system it looks nothing like…


  77. JShaft July 15, 2014 at 21:53 #

    Oh, look, I agree… It’s why I’m pointing out missteps. Some people can’t separate criticism from contempt. Hell, I used to be those people, and I sometimes still am… But yeah, please try to see all my efforts through the lens of my intention, but also, do feel free to point out where I’m fucking up…


  78. JShaft July 15, 2014 at 21:56 #

    Almost every guy who ever hit on me was “Manly”, for want of a better term. Which was really fucking annoying, as I’m only about 5% that way inclined, and that 5% had better be the prancingest of fairies :p


  79. JShaft July 15, 2014 at 22:02 #

    Well, if you’re a one of those “I wanna deal with/argue on a purely point-by-point basis, and never look at the big picture” people, along with being the boss of the interwebs, then I disrespectfully tender my resignation… I’m now resigned to having to ignore you…


  80. Tyler July 15, 2014 at 23:40 #

    Amen, brother.


  81. JShaft July 16, 2014 at 02:49 #

    If by super special you mean “Incredibly unlucky enough to have the combination of requiring outside validation to justify my own existence and being just wierd enough to rule that out as an option”, then yeah… Special, special me… Yaaaaaay…


  82. JShaft July 16, 2014 at 03:04 #

    Look, I’m fine with mistrusting government as much as one mistrusts anyone else… Membership is irrelevant to a persons “goodness”… I’ve just noticed that when most “Libertarians” say they mistrust government, they somehow trust someone else more, like corporations, or “The Free Market”, or some other mob that automatically get marks for just being better than government.

    Not saying you think this way, but others under that banner do, and since we’re all okay with doing that to Feminists… :p

    In any case, the problems with all institutions revolve around humans being predictably human. No one group, system, club, or movement is likely to have too many more fuckups than any other.

    So yeah, I distrust politicians, but I also distrust police, doctors, streetsweepers, and even myself in certain situations (shit, I work in entertainment, and while I may well have the smallest collection of stolen band merch, equipment, and decorations of anyone I know, that hardly makes me innocent, now does it?)…

    Oh, and I was intentionally pulling out a sort of tongue-in-cheek strawman/reductio ad absurdum on you with the parks and schools, if only to illustrate that, while your personal taxation expenditure preferences may well be reasonable, they don’t have to be, and neither does anyone elses, so fighting for the right to remove expenditures you disagree with would (if you’re into this whole “Democracy” thing) extend that right to the stupid and their pet hates, and there’d be enough out there who think reading is for fags…

    Me, I’m down with any system of government that limits my ability to be a complete cunt to others, because there are times I would be. Granted, I’d eventually notice, stop and apologise, but still… I’m reasonably not monstrously mentally challenged, and at least a shitload better at understanding coping with and controlling my emotions. If I could see the same levels of both factors in even 40% of humanity, say 50% of the time, I’d think it was worth the risk to let them do whatever they wanted…

    Sure, the ability to draw big lines and say “Do not cross” from a legislative position has massive downsides, like when it gets hijacked by dickheads (ala Feminism), but I rejected Anarchism long ago for the same reasons I reject “Libertarianism” personally: For all the “I know what’s right or wrong, government should stop nannying me” that’s accurate, there’s a hundred drooling fucktards screaming “BUT ME WANT EAT DIRT, MAKE YOU DO SAME AUAUAUUAUGH!”…



  83. JShaft July 16, 2014 at 03:16 #

    Heh, using fear of a possible thing to force people to accept something that actually threatens harm, where have I seen that before?

    Oh yeah, those Feminists who wanna have their liecake and eat it too: “Sure, those statistics have issues, but they serve the purpose of highlighting our blah blah fuckin’ blah”…

    It’s a bizarro circular argument, doubly bizarre when you consider your government has taken so many rights from you, almost daily, yet none of you have organised a revolution, nor could you, with the NSA spying on you all to “Protect” you from those evil terrorists, who’ve killed less Americans than Americans have… Oh, and we’ve had mass shootings before… Despite it being hard/nigh impossible to legally obtain and hang on to handguns, we’re a big, outback-y country with farmers and feral animals, so we used to have shitloads of semi-auto rifles about, and funnily enough, we had about the same per-capita rate of killing sprees as you guys, up till we trumped your record and called it quits…

    Y’see, we add one thing to the “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” worldview, by having these armed, vetted (to a degree) trained (to a degree) and legally authorised “good guys” with guns… Maybe you guys could get some too, they’re kinda helpful for this sort of thing…


  84. Spaniard July 16, 2014 at 08:11 #

    Your info about Australian public healthcare is very interesting. As I gussed Australia HAS a good public healthcare.

    Neoliberals in Spain they say tha Australia is a neoliberal paradise. Ok, could be… but with public healthcare.

    Changing subject…

    Prostitution here is legal like in Australia.
    I would like to ask you a question if you do not mind:

    Would you date a serial “john”? I say this because I have no problem at all to date a promiscuous woman. In fact, I feel very atractted to promiscuous women. Bad girls are more fun.


  85. Magnus July 16, 2014 at 09:09 #

    “an you be prosecuted once you are back in homeland?”

    As far as I understand the law: Yes.

    They want to crack down on “Sex tourism”, which ‘upholds the market for prostitution’.

    But either way it does jack shit for the market, and I think most organization that work to support prostitutes are against the current laws.


  86. Magnus July 16, 2014 at 09:11 #

    Sure, but it’s still there in the law.


  87. LostSailor July 16, 2014 at 15:54 #

    In a nascent movement, it takes time for a dominant narrative and message to emerge. Pointing out what you see as “missteps” is fine, but it’s likely to fall on deaf ears.

    That said, I certainly don’t see the same “missteps” that you do. I agree that some of the harsher language will eventually have to be moderated if the MHRM is to have broad appeal, but in the meantime, much good can be done as the movement grows.

    I don’t agree that the feminist movement is the roadmap to follow, correcting for their “missteps” as necessary. I don’t see where feminism “could have done better” since they’ve largely already achieved their original goals and are moving on to the next phase envisioned by their radical founders: the diminishment and eventual control of men. Feminism = equality is bullshit, not because “just look at the name” but because it’s a fundamental lie. Feminism was never about just equality.

    The idea that there can be some kind of synthesis between the MRHM and feminism is vastly premature and in essence plays into feminist hands. One of the primary responses to the MHRM and MRAs, once they got past the stage of outright mocking dismissal (which many are still stuck in), was the idea that “If men were really interested in solving men’s problems, they’d join us and become feminists because the solution to men’s issues is more feminism!” This is a rather transparent argument, because the feminist “solution” to men’s issues is to fundamentally change the nature of men, eliminating men’s “artificial gender roles” and “toxic masculinity” (i.e., the idea of masculinity at all). Eliminate men = eliminate “men’s” issues.

    There can be no accommodation at this point, since you can’t have synthesis until the conflict between thesis and antithesis is complete, and that process is, as I noted, in it’s infancy.

    And, on the Intertubes, one can’t see your posts “through the lens of [your] intention.” That’s like saying “read what I meant, not what I wrote.”

    That doesn’t mean I’m holding your views in “contempt.” I just disagree. It’s a feminist concept that criticism equals contempt or hatred. But it does sometime seem that your criticism is saying “u r dooin it rong, do it my way.” And, as I pointed out that’s not likely to find a receptive audience.


  88. Jim July 16, 2014 at 19:15 #

    “women are infantalized”

    I don’t know why people keep saying this. Women are NOT infantilized. They are in fact treated the OPPOSITE. They are treated like they are a cop or royalty. Both of those groups are almost never held accountable yet I don’t see anyone saying they’re treated like children. Cops and especially politicians can kill, torture, and destroy almost at will! Funny how women are pretty close to being treated like that, eh? So no, women are NOT being infantilized. They are being treated as complete and total superiors.

    And yes Jamie, feminism IS about man hating. Always has been.


  89. Jim July 16, 2014 at 19:19 #

    Yeah. It’s so fucking eye rolling. They STILL want to hold onto that label with insane desperation. They have this narcissistic obsession with “empowerment”. That’s the last thing they need. Discipline is what they need.


  90. Jim July 16, 2014 at 19:24 #

    ” but I was also raised by a genius feminist single mother, and none of those descriptors changed in the two decades I knew her…”

    So what? Exception prove the rule. Not the other way around.


  91. Jim July 16, 2014 at 19:25 #

    ” I remain immune”

    LOL. Yeah, right.


  92. Jim July 16, 2014 at 19:31 #

    Oh JShaft is a lefty. That explains his posts.


  93. Jim July 16, 2014 at 19:33 #

    He’s just another dumbass leftist. You’ll NEVER get it through to his THICK head. They’re thick as a brick.


  94. Jim July 16, 2014 at 19:34 #

    No pal. You’re simple minded and confused. Not complicated and confusing.

    “Most people do seem to have a hard time fitting me in their heads…”

    LOL! What arrogance. Spare us you’re insanity please.


  95. JShaft July 16, 2014 at 21:41 #

    You’d be better off asking my girlfriend that :p

    Though she’s happy I got presumed to be a woman, and me, I couldn’t care, my identity is tied to things other than my junk.

    But yeah, sluts fuckin’ RULE!!!


  96. JShaft July 16, 2014 at 21:49 #

    I kinda disagree with everything you’re saying, but at least now I’ve got some kind of idea why you think/feel the way you do…

    I think now, for me at least, I can see that any “logic” that appeals to me doesn’t fit with your “logic”. At these times, I think back to every person who’s ever suggested that rational debate is the only way forwards and shake my head. Not because it’s not, but because it’s by no means foolproof, and all humans are at least partly fool…


  97. JShaft July 16, 2014 at 21:54 #

    While that’s a reasonable place to go with a single example of personal experience, I’d like to see your empirical study with a significant sample size and rigorous selection criteria, which “proves” that it’s this woman currently, and my mother as an example that are the outliers, not your clearly self-serving, hope filled conjectures…

    You know, or we could both admit we don’t know what every human’s internal workings are, like I intended to demonstrate in the first place…


  98. JShaft July 16, 2014 at 22:01 #

    Heh, so a while ago, I was criticising the posting of a satirical but, in my opinion, easily misinterpreted article, right here. The chorus was “If you don’t get the joke/satire/sarcasm, even in print form, then it’s your fault.

    Well, how are you feeling about that proposition now, sir?

    Having now caught two people with the same offhand sarcastic satire of human psychology (there’s a constant observation that all people can completely accept cognitive flaws in all of humanity, but simultaneously believe they don’t apply to themselves), done while watching people behave like a pack that backs it’s own, while decrying the other pack for the same behavior, well…

    I got you on at least four fronts sir. Still, feel free to prove I’m wrong about you here… By admitting I got you sir.

    I got you.


  99. JShaft July 16, 2014 at 22:10 #


    Sad little man, sad little labels… Outside the US, no-one has this debate. We’ve been missing our guns here for fucking ages, and the NWO is surprisingly slow to have their black helicopters swoop in and steal our freedoms with a UN flag and a burning hatred for Jeebuz…


  100. JShaft July 16, 2014 at 22:14 #

    Ah, so simple minded, so pathetically blatant in attempts to piss me off… Like I haven’t shared my space with simplistic folk such as yourself and learned to cope by now…

    You, sir, are dumb. Your posts prove it, you prove it. I wouldn’t trust you to light a barbecue without burning your own sack off. Your most profound and reasoned arguments so far have been “He’s different! HAH!”, followed by “NUH-UH!”.

    What are you gonna do for a follow up? Me, I think you overshot with that difference = wrong bit, and now you’ve set the bar too high for yourself…


  101. JShaft July 16, 2014 at 22:21 #

    Ah, kk…

    Lemme help you here, Jim, old son…

    I’m not “A Leftist”. I’m not a card carrying member of anything. But you sir, are sounding like someone with rigid ideology, who has tried and failed to use the same oversimplistic, fact-light arguments you accept to convince others who aren’t predisposed to your position and found they’re horribly resistant to them. Ergo, Lefties = DUMB…

    You just go on thinking that. You are that kind of person who honestly has a hard time fitting all of me in your head, which is precisely why you go to simplified signifiers like “Leftist”, rather than deal with and examine the whole.

    Also, if you got Leftist from everything I said, maybe it’s because the Right tends to go out of it’s way to talk like retards, in simple, bite-sized “logic”, even when discussing truly complex issues… Maybe it has something to do with their target audience…


  102. JShaft July 16, 2014 at 22:24 #

    Wow, another well-reasoned zinger from our own Wildean wordsmith, Jim!


  103. LostSailor July 17, 2014 at 01:57 #

    There is no “my logic” or “your logic” there is only logic. But logic depends on clear understanding and a rejection of rhetoric. And feminism absolutely relies on obscuring understanding and a reliance on rhetoric.

    I understand why you disagree. You’re into what I call the second level of feminism. You are convinced that all we have to do is just all get along and we’ll all see that we have the same goals, and conflict is just an impediment to a universal understanding where we can all shed “social” constrictures and somehow, sometime, achieve an equalitarian society.

    Most non-casual feminists believe this. The third level of activist feminists don’t. Over the last 5 years of so, I’ve made a study of feminism. I’ve read the books, the journal articles, have looked at the “women’s studies” (now, essentially “gender studies”) curricula in the most influential universities, and the future painted there isn’t an equalitarian one.

    I haven’t made my judgments in a vacuum. You may disagree with “everything” I’m saying, but that just tells me that your copious comments here, your supposed profession of support for men’s rights, and concern for the activist approach and language of the message is another, perhaps well-meaning—attempt to derail the movement.

    You think there are different “logics” because you’re still satiated by the Kool-Aid. Rational debate is the only way forward besides a knock-down, drag-out fight. Unfortunately, feminists place much more emphasis on feelings, and rational debate is either not on the table or a trick of “Patriarchy.”

    I’ll assume for the moment that you’re sincere, rather than just a verbose concern-troll. But your responding to every comment at length isn’t a good sign.


  104. Jim July 17, 2014 at 05:17 #


    You’re a sad little fuck. Got it. Now go play with your crayons little boy. Bye.


  105. Jim July 17, 2014 at 05:19 #

    Wow, another well-reasoned zinger from the Resident Idiot JShit!


  106. Jim July 17, 2014 at 05:23 #

    You have got to be the most arrogant fuck I’ve yet encountered on the net. You’re so full of yourself you misinterpreted my statement. LOL! Looks like I got you big boy on every front “sir”.


  107. Jim July 17, 2014 at 05:24 #

    You might want to direct that at yourself. Good day Mr. Know It All.


  108. Spaniard July 17, 2014 at 08:03 #

    Thought you were a gal.

    Yes, sluts rock. I think the best thing about feminism is the massive slutification of women.


  109. Spaniard July 17, 2014 at 21:55 #

    Let´s feminist fight each other.
    Very soon, the prudish marxist feminists in an aliance with the conservafeminists, the manginas, the pussybegars, the nice guys and the beta providers will fight to death the sluttie sex-positive feminists and the professional hoes.

    In this critical point, this Armaggedon,I think the alpha fuckers and the “john” males, in aliance with the good intentioned old school male feminists (“we pay half of the bill, honey”, Tom Leykis is a good example of this kind of male feminism) we have to make an aliance in favour of the sluttie sex-positive feminists and the prosfesional hoes.


  110. Tyler July 17, 2014 at 23:59 #

    *heavy sigh* The internet gods look on me with shame as I violate the golden rule: don’t feed the trolls.

    Libertarians dislike a large, powerful government not because government workers are inherently less trustworthy than corporate workers, not because politicians are shadier than executives, but for one gigantic, flaming reason: governmental agents and agencies are not held accountable for criminal harm as often or as stringently as private citizens and private organizations.

    Libertarians favor a distribution of power, so that no single organization can have enough to dominate and do whatever it wants. It’s not about the label ‘government’. It’s about there existing an increasingly unaccountable group of agencies that have the power and will to cause great, sometimes fatal harm to innocent people. That’s a bad thing. Libertarians agree with the philosophy that guided the founding of this country, that everyone would be better off without an omnipotent central authority. Is that view correct? I think so, but it’s at least debatable. But characterizing us as some kneejerk ‘dur-hur I don’t like the tax man’ idiots is stupid and a shit thing to do.


  111. Jim July 18, 2014 at 01:36 #

    Good points señor. Better to let them bloody themselves so to speak.



  112. JShaft July 18, 2014 at 04:20 #

    Heh, fair call… My guess id I’ve never come across anyone who bears such a philosophy and doesn’t descend into Randian ranting about corporate people = win, govermint = fail… Probably on a par with Feminism’s view of MRA’s, and MRA’s view of Femininsm.

    Oh, and the difference between a troll and somebody who’s personal philosophy doesn’ fit exclusively in any one bucket is: We admit we’re wrong or off… In this case, I judged you by my interactions with several others who profess to having the same brand of political philosophy. My bad…


  113. Spaniard July 18, 2014 at 07:25 #

    Muchas gracias, hombre!


  114. onlyonepinman July 18, 2014 at 11:36 #

    As Shakespeare said, A Rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.

    She may be calling herself a feminist, but she’s carrying the right message.


  115. Spaniard July 18, 2014 at 15:04 #

    This lady is a an old school feminist, which I support.


  116. Guin Campbell September 26, 2014 at 12:13 #

    I’m sure you have heard men bad mouth women, but I have never seen one advocate removing their sex organs or putting women in prison camps to produce Children, like I’ve seen women do. But it’s not just Women themselves, it’s also the entire media, I mean when was the last time you watched a show on TV were the man was not a bumbling idiot that was stupid while the women are all angels that know it all ?.
    I, like yourself was raised by a very hardcore Feminist, along with two sisters, and all I heard growing up was how evil men were and how good women are. Well the end result is this, I have not seen or spoke to my Mom in 20 years, my 2 Sisters are so afraid of men, that they run every time they see one and the sad thing is both of them wanted to get married and have kids but they couldn’t and now they are pass the age of being able to have kids.. Oh and one last thing. I was married for 20 years and I was so afraid of my wife that she beat the hell out of me almost daily and all I could do was stand there and take it, I spent time in the hospital, I almost as kicked out of the military. Well I finally retired and I packed my truck and never looked back and I have never been more happy.


  117. JShaft September 26, 2014 at 22:27 #


    I feel for ya mate…

    Still, it’s kind of impossible to form a movement about/for any one group that may have suffered at the hands of any other group without attracting some who’s feelings overcome their ability to be reasonable and civil. Hell, there’s a couple of guys who comment in here who regularly break into BLOCK CAPITALS in MID SENTENCE (sorry, it’s too fun to send up), and rant about how “99% of all women are…” etc etc…

    Thing is, what little I know of MGTOW, they don’t advocate turning gay. Whereas your classic lesbian feminist separatist does. Only one of the two can think in such ridiculous terms as removing 90% of the other gender, and keeping the rest for breeding purposes, because the other side still needs them, and acknowledges the fact, even while they may dislike it…

    In the end, any ideology or viewpoint that elevates one group and demonises another will be used by some to justify being totally horrible people. If society adopts (as it has in the west with feminism) these ideologies, them we get institutionalised evil, as those who willingly commit horrible acts are state sanctioned. My worry, as always, is what happens when the needle swings, and how hard it swings. “First wave” feminism achieved all its’ objectives. All of them, as far as I can tell. But once you have convinced enough people of your cause, and have them looking askance at half the population, achieving your goals just leads to the creation of more goals. MRA’s tend to have a pretty clear-cut set of goals. What terrifies me is that humans invented second wave feminism, and what could any of us possibly do to stop someone inventing second wave MRA?

    Note: Not saying I even agree with first wave feminism btw, more making the point that if first wave feminists met second wave feminists in a car park, it’d be on…



  1. A feminist questions feminism and almost gets there | Manosphere.com - July 13, 2014

    […] A feminist questions feminism and almost gets there […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: