Archive | Gender differences in Education RSS feed for this section

Harvard MBA men are brash, bold, confident, assertive and mad skilled at math. The only way women can compete with them is to squash all those qualities. Oh, okay. That seems both smart and fair.

10 Sep

All right everybody!  Stop thinking about Syria and gas attacks and Iowa issuing gun permits to the blind. WTF, Iowa?!?!?.  Hey, what can possibly go wrong?

blind

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130908/NEWS/309080061/?odyssey=nav%7Chead&nclick_check=1

We have a real problem to tackle today.

Harvard MBA ladies suck at competing with Harvard men.

race

The country’s premier business training ground was trying to solve a seemingly intractable problem. Year after year, women who had arrived with the same test scores and grades as men fell behind.

Oh dear.  Well, that’s not very good, is it?  What to do, what to do…

[The Harvard MBA class of 2013] have been unwitting guinea pigs in what would have once sounded like a far-fetched feminist fantasy: What if Harvard Business School gave itself a gender makeover, changing its curriculum, rules and social rituals to foster female success?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/education/harvard-case-study-gender-equity.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Look at that statement carefully.  You’ll note that Harvard isn’t interested in fostering the success of ALL their students.  Nope. They’re doing a gender makeover than only involves one gender.  Success is strictly on the basis of Lawful Possession of Labia. Feminist fantasy indeed.

I suppose Harvard might want to consider changing their motto from Veritas to Vaginatas?  Maybe add some teeth to the crest or something? Just a thought.

veritas

After reading the Times article, it looks to me like the program to engineer the girl’s success entails the following:

Teach women how to raise their hands.

 

hands

 

Ha!  You probably think I’m kidding, right?  Nope.  Not kidding. Some of the most accomplished, educated, ambitious business students in the country had to pay $100 000 to sit in a class and learn how to raise their hands, because the ladies quavered when confronted with hard thinky stuff like math and that’s not fair!

boo hoo

Nearly two years earlier, in the fall of 2011, Neda Navab sat in a class participation workshop, incredulous. The daughter of Iranian immigrants, Ms. Navab had been the president of her class at Columbia, advised chief executives as a McKinsey & Company consultant and trained women as entrepreneurs in Rwanda. Yet now that she had arrived at the business school at age 25, she was being taught how to raise her hand.

Every year the same hierarchy emerged early on: investment bank and hedge fund veterans, often men, sliced through equations while others — including many women — sat frozen or spoke tentatively.

Since 50% of the marks in courses come from class participation, stenographers were placed in each classroom so that women weren’t accidentally discounted in marks.

 

Okay, no real problem with this, but when you couple it with this, a problem suddenly appears.

New grading software tools let professors instantly check their calling and marking patterns by gender.

Hmmm.

So if professor’s call patterns are now being tracked on the basis of gender, who wants to bet that professors overlook male students whom they KNOW can contribute better, more nuanced and meaningful comments in favor of women who have less to offer, in order to make certain patterns fall into ideological lockstep? The Dean wants equality over quality, so screw both the male students and the whole class?

There’s some genius pedagogy right there.  Let’s gather all the best business minds in the country and then make sure half of them don’t get to speak because penis?  Very clever.

Had the professors rid themselves of unconscious biases? Were the women performing better because of the improved environment? Or was the faculty easing up in grading women because they knew the desired outcome?

 

Gee, I wonder.  What, exactly, is the value of a grade you only received because the true competitors are being crippled before the starting gun fires?  It’s like popping open the champagne to celebrate your gold medal in the 100 yard sprint, and neglecting to mention that you were racing 5 year olds on crutches.

crutches

Yeah, big accomplishment.

The case study method, which relied on cold-calling students about a firm’s predicament, was “rounded out” with a collaborative, time-consuming, cover your ass and spread the blame technique called “Field”.

Obviously, “Field” allows women to access all their male classmate’s strengths and then claim partial credit for them.  The “team” worked together to figure the case out.  Bullshit, the team did.  One guy took a leadership role and everyone else rode his coattails.

Been there.  Done that.

astronomer

True story: In my MBA, I was in a group with a man who had a PhD in Astronomy and another man who was a mechanical engineer.  They used to argue about what kind of mathematics to use to solve tricky problems in financial analysis.  “Trigonometry is for children”, huffed StarDoctor.  He worked at an observatory in South Africa that had amazing facilities but paid him shit money, so he used to run guns for the local guerillas on the side.   A very interesting guy. 

guns

The other member of my team was a Chinese woman with an undergrad degree in mathematics who barely spoke English, so she basically coasted and got the same marks as the rest of us while doing what amounted to jack shit.  I, of course, wrote up all our findings and was the keynote presenter for almost everything.

We played to our strengths.  Our team agreed from the get-go that “equality” was fucking dumb.  We were supposed to take turns doing analysis, writing, presenting, etc., so we would be well-rounded, but we decided fuck that nonsense.

We played to our strengths.

144 students. Six major case competitions.  We won five.  Actually, bullshit.  We won all six, but the awards committee couldn’t bear that one team would sweep the medals.  It was unprecedented.

And StarDoctor was unequivocally our leader.  Me and the engineer kept him on his toes, to be certain.  I once disagreed with StarDoctor so vehemently he stormed out of a meeting and got in his car and started driving away and I jumped on the hood of his moving car.  He got out of the car, physically removed me from the hood, threw me in the grass and drove away, and refused to make the changes I wanted.

Mr. JB took StarDoctor out for a drink and a chat after that episode.

Turns out StarDoctor’s conclusion was right, and we were offered positions at the organization we were analyzing.  StarDoctor was unwilling to bow to me to keep the peace and none of us were the slightest bit interested in towing some ideological line about fairness or equality.

We were in it to win.

That’s what kills me about initiatives like Harvard’s that are trying to alter the landscape so that women can succeed.  In order to alter the landscape, you are destroying what makes the MEN such formidable competitors. Now, I’m not stupid.  I realize that the men who are in the Harvard MBA program are rich, connected and come into the program with advantages most of us can only dream of, but they cannot parlay those advantages into real world rewards without combining them with boldness, confidence, assertiveness and a total unwillingness to kowtow to political correctness.

What are we achieving when we take our best and brightest men and force them to squelch the attributes that ultimately benefit us all so that women can feel like they won the race? What exactly are the women going to do with their glorious credentials?

Ms. Upton decided to take a far lower-risk job managing a wealthy family’s investments in Pittsburgh, where her fiancé lived. “You can either be a frontier charger or have an easier, happier life,” she said.

The reality is that most of the women graduating from the Harvard Business School with MBAs will end up housewives, taking care of children in a luxurious lifestyle funded by the men they secured as a result of their fancy degrees.

newborn phootgrapher New York mother and child

A surprising number of highly educated MBAs are dropping out of the labor force. Associate Professor Catherine Wolfram, a member of the Haas Economic Analysis and Policy Group, studied surveys taken by nearly 1,000 Harvard undergraduate alumni and found, 15 years after graduation, business school graduates are more likely than doctors and lawyers to leave the workforce. The common factors: being married, being female, becoming a mother.

http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/news/faculty/Wolfram2.html

And you know what?  Yay!  Good for them!  I think those are some damn smart ladies.  The women in the 2013 class of Harvard MBAs don’t seem to be the slightest bit different.  The Dean cancelled the traditional Halloween costumes-in-class extravaganza to prevent the sexy ladies from taking a prime opportunity to market themselves as potential child bearers.

pirate

As Halloween approached, some students planned to wear costumes to class, but at the last minute Ms. Frei, who wanted to set a serious tone and head off the potential for sexy pirate costumes, sent a note out prohibiting it, provoking more eye rolls.

No matter.  The ladies still found time to deck themselves out in Playboy Bunny costumes, seeing no conflict with the institutional gender transformation designed to give them the leg up over their male classmates and their unapologetic pursuit of sexual market value.  The administration might think that’s a problem, but the women sure as hell didn’t.

Students were demanding more women on the faculty, a request the deans were struggling to fulfill. And they did not know what to do about developments like female students dressing as Playboy bunnies for parties and taking up the same sexual rating games as men.

Here’s the part that really, really made me giggle. One woman in particular was intimidated at the sexually charged climate that governed social interactions at Harvard.

“Someone made the decision for me that I’m not pretty or wealthy enough to be in Section X,” [Brooke Boyarsky} told her classmates, her voice breaking.

Actually, Brooke, you made that choice yourself when you decided “morbidly obese” was  good look for you.

I entered H.B.S. as a truly ‘untraditional applicant’: morbidly obese.

Owing to the new gender environment that promotes the interests of women over men, Brooke managed to graduate in the top of her class, earning a Bakers Scholar award.  But what was she really excited about?  What made her really happy?

She lost 100 lbs and she is dating now!

“I am super excited to go to my 30th reunion,”

So Harvard is basically Weight Watchers for the upwardly mobile?

Fantastic.  What a great way to mobilize our intelligentsia.  Men:  shut up.  Women:  lose weight and lock down that man.

It truly baffles me that THE single most prestigious university in the world can fall for this.

And it worries me.

When feminists have infiltrated the very best institutions of learning to the point that those institutions are willing to silence their male students so women can feel “good enough”, all the while ignoring the fact that most of the women are there on elaborate missions to nail down their own personal Mr. Darcy, the time for action has come.

I’m all for gender equality in higher education.  Any man, or any woman, should be able to pursue their interests and ambitions and passions without facing down socially constructed barriers based on antiquated ideas about how men and women “are”.

bloomberg

But it should also face reality.  Our antiquated ideas are based on centuries of lived experience.  Most women love babies, family and men far more than they will ever love a Bloomberg Terminal.  And most men love their families and babies and women so much they will spend hours chained to a Bloomberg Terminal to provide for them.

Telling men to sit down and shut up and teaching women how to raise their hands destroys the ability of both men and women to achieve their dreams.

And really, isn’t that the ultimate goal? We want all humans to be able to achieve their dreams.  Most people have dreams that are very simple.  Family, home, food, warm water for a bath at the end of the day.  Not that difficult.

family

The interesting thing about prioritizing the “feminist fantasy” of the world is just how little that fantasy represents the reality of what most people want.

The sadness of the women’s movement is that they don’t allow the necessity of love. See, I don’t personally trust any revolution where love is not allowed.

Maya Angelou

Me neither, Maya.

Why do women go to Harvard in the first place?

To find a husband.

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.

Jane Austen

Where to find a single man in possession of a good fortune?

Here’s a good place to start:

hbs

Raise your hand when you see one you like!

Lots of love,

JB

Men throw better than women, and that can’t be right. Here are fourteen ways women are “better” than men to make the ladies feel superior. Too bad they’re almost all wrong.

17 Jun

In the most astonishing news of the century, researchers at the University of North Texas have discovered that men’s bodies are different from women’s!  I sure hope that was a publicly funded study.  These physical differences mean that almost all men can throw better than almost all women.

throw

The power in an overhand throw — and in a golf swing, a tennis serve or a baseball swing — comes from the separate turning of hips and shoulders. The hips rotate forward and the body opens, and then the shoulders snap around. Women tend to rotate their hips and shoulders together, and even expert women throwers don’t get the differential that men get. “The one-piece rotation is the biggest difference,” says Thomas. “It keeps women from creating speed at the hand.” Even when women learn to rotate hips and shoulders separately, they don’t do it as fast as men.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/throw-like-a-girl-with-some-practice-you-can-do-better/2012/09/10/9ffc8bc8-dc09-11e1-9974-5c975ae4810f_story_1.html

Well, that’s complete bullshit, obviously, and there is no way ladies are going to admit that men are better than women, ever, under any circumstances.  Declaring that women are better than men?  Oh, that’s fine.  That’s called delusions of supremacy equality.

Let’s take a look at rah-rah you go gurl Cosmopolitan’s list of all the ways that men suck, shall we?

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/advice/tips/women-better-than-men-things#slide-1

1.  Women learn better than men

Especially really hard subjects like calculus and nuclear physics and writing programming languages that use C-like syntax and keywords to add interactivity to webpages.  One day men will be able to grasp these subjects and the entire STEM universe won’t be so dominated by women.

Oh, wait.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2012/06/20/stem-fields-and-the-gender-gap-where-are-the-women/

My bad.  Okay.  Aside from actual subjects that require real skills and knowledge, women learn better than men.  What does “learn” mean in this case?  Let’s keep in mind that boys get higher marks on standardized tests, but receive lower grades from teachers.

Why do girls get better grades in elementary school than boys, even when they perform worse on standardized tests?

http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/01/05/why-girls-do-better-in-school/50050.html

What we mean by “learn” in this proclamation of superiority is that girls are better able to meet the environmental conditions set by mostly male female teachers.

girls

The researchers say that “approaches to learning” is a rough measure of what a child’s attitude toward school is. It includes six items that rate the child’s attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning independence, flexibility and organization.

When it comes to testing knowledge via standardized tests, boys kick little girl’s asses, but when it comes to sucking up to teacher, girls rule.  Excellent.  And what do girls parlay that advantage in to? Oh right.  Secretarial work. Good job ladies!

http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/31/news/economy/secretary-women-jobs/index.html

chart

So basically girls have mastered the alphabet, how to tell time, the days of the week, the months of the year and the QWERTY keyboard.  Outstanding accomplishments! Good thing we’ve rigged the entire educational system to play to girls strengths.  What ever would we do without someone to fetch coffee and press “print”?

2.  Women are smarter than men

Yeah, no.  In a spectacular misinterpretation of James Flynn’s analysis of gender and IQ, Cosmo claims that women have higher IQs than men.

Flynn looked at IQ scores from ages 14-18 and found 5 modern states where he could get standardization samples with at least 500 people of each gender. The states he looked at were Australia, New Zealand, White South Africa, Estonia, and Argentina. It was important that he used standardization samples, because that means that the IQ researchers made an effort to get as representative a sample as possible.

Analyzing those 5 datasets and throwing away all of the older studies from the prior generation (prior to 1982), he compared men and women on the Raven’s Progressive Matrices test, a test of abstract, logical reasoning. Setting the male score at 100, Flynn found that women scored the lowest in Australia (99.5), but in the other 4 nations Raven’s scores varied from 100.5 to 101.5.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201207/men-women-and-iq-setting-the-record-straight

See that part about setting the male score at 100?  That means women have, at best, reached parity with men in terms of raw scores.  And what Cosmo conveniently ignores is the standard deviation.  Most women cluster around average.  Out in the far right tail, where genius lives, men outnumber women by a factor as high as 8:1.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspx

So no, cupcakes, women are not smarter than men.  At best, they’re equal, in terms of raw scores but not equal in ability. Flynn notes that if you try to intentionally create a gender neutral IQ test by throwing out items that favor one gender over the other, you find that you can’t eliminate a female verbal advantage and a male advantage for visual spatial items.

Sex differences Adult Raven Mensa Cutoff

And if you want to look at the population of individuals with IQ scores over 140, women are not even in the ballpark.  Which is probably a good thing, because girls can’t throw anyways.

3. Women are cleaner than men

Hahahahahah!  Guess the ladies have a little more time to take a break from the strenuous task of organizing a calendar to wipe down their desks with hand sanitizer.  Prissy little things.

cleaning

But seriously, men have 10-20% more bacteria on their work surfaces than women.  Could that be because men are 10-20% bigger than women?  Just a thought.

And why should we worry about all these icky germs?  Are they going to cause the next biblical plague?

Nope.  They’re perfectly normal.

“You shouldn’t be worried in your own office — it’s you; it’s just a reflection of who you are,” said study researcher Scott Kelley, an associate professor of biology at San Diego State University, referring to the bacteria you find on your typical desk or keyboard. These bacteria are “with us all the time, and they don’t make us sick,” he said.

http://www.livescience.com/36411-bacteria-offices-desk.html

So basically, women are better than men at fussing over pointless shit that won’t hurt you anyways?  Oh, okay.  Well, we can give the ladies that one, no?

4.  Women interview better than men

Now this study is actually very, very interesting.

nervous

That anxiety you have about interviewing for your next job may not be such a bad thing after all.  That is the finding of new research by three University of Western Ontario researchers who looked at how men and women handled the stresses of job interviews. Their findings showed that women, although typically more stressed about interviewing, performed better than their male counterparts in interviews thanks in large part to the way in which they coped with stress.

Women performed better in interviews than men, meaning that interviews are actually a pretty poor indicator of good job fit.  The take away from the research is that businesses end up making poor hiring decisions if they use anxiety as a measure of future performance.

You will actually end up making poor hiring decisions as a result of anxiety.

http://www.livescience.com/18495-interview-anxiety-differences.html

Look at what the researchers are saying.  If you hire the person demonstrating the LEAST amount of anxiety, you just might be making a poor hiring decision. In other words, if you hire the woman because she appears calmer, you might be missing out on the best employee.

The man.

So yeah, maybe women interview better than men, but the problem for business is that they don’t make the best employees.   The rationale for the research was to make sure employers aren’t missing out on the best candidates based on superficial appearances.

No much triumph in talking the talk if you can’t walk the walk, now is there?

5.  Women evolve hotter than men

beauty

That doesn’t make women better than men, it makes them more fit to compete FOR men.  Not with them.  For them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5912250/Women-getting-more-beautiful-say-scientists.html

6.  Women survive car accidents more often than men do

And that makes you better?  .

“Men take more risks behind the wheel than women, and so men are more likely to get into serious crashes,” says Anne McCartt. “We don’t have any way of comparing their driving abilities, but on the likelihood of getting into a serious crash in which someone dies, men win handily.”

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=788126

The fact that men are more willing to engage in risky undertakings is why we exist in a world filled with unparalleled luxuries. It’s why we have antibiotics and automatic braking systems and pictures of our planet taken from space.

earth

That comes with a price.  It’s rather ignorant to gloat over the bodies of men who have given you every extravagance because they have been willing to strive.  Women are inherently more cautious than men, and that’s fine.  It’s one of our key differences from men, but it doesn’t make us better.  It makes us different.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14713

7.  Women are better at seeking comfort than men

A Mind survey of 2,000 people revealed that women are far more likely than men to talk through their problems. Fifty-three percent of women talk to their friends about what’s stressing them out, as opposed to 29 percent of men.

chatting

I’m not sure if the writer knows what the word “comfort” means.  She appears to have it confused with “talking”.  Another case of women deciding that they alone get to define what the appropriate strategy is for dealing with stress.  Ladies talk to friends, therefore the only acceptable way to deal with problems is to talk to friends.

Except that is not how most men deal with stress.  The number one thing men do to cope with stress is isolate themselves and consider how to solve the problems.  They seek solutions.  They don’t want to chatter away over cappuccino.  They want to know what they can do about the problem.

http://socialmedialovestory.com/387/how-men-and-women-cope-with-stress-differently-dr-john-gray/

8.  Women are more recession proof than men

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 80 percent of those who have lost their jobs since December 2007 have been men.

Nice.  That doesn’t make you better, it just means you have better job protections.  Given that so many women are employed by the government, it’s not surprising they have managed to hang on to their jobs.

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/res/stats/demo11-eng.asp

We’ll see how long that lasts.  The money doesn’t grow on trees, ladies.  Those unemployed men paid taxes, and without those taxes, you have no job.  Don’t get too gleeful just yet. In the UK, men pay 60% of all the taxes remitted.  Destroy their jobs, and you destroy your own.

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/women_men_gender_gap_income_tax-28758

9.  Women graduate from college more often than men do.

Yeah, with degrees in what, exactly?  Oh, the humanities.  Excellent.  How that’s doctorate in a STEM field going?

stem

Oh dear.  Looks like it’s men who earn the most valuable college degrees and achieve the highest designations.  Don’t worry though.  There are plenty of Starbucks to go around.  Barista of Arts, summa cum latte.

10.  Women eat healthier than men

Again, the writer appears to have confused “healthy” with “vegetables”.  Men eat red meat and bacon?  Get outta here!

http://freetheanimal.com/

Based on national obesity rates, it doesn’t look like a whole lot of women are choosing “healthy” foods.  Women are better than men at being fat, apparently.  Congratulations.

obesity

http://www.voxeu.org/article/should-government-intervene-reduce-obesity

11.  Women have stronger immune systems than men

No wonder men act like such babies when they have a sniffle — women really do have stronger immune systems than men! If there are little battles going on in our bodies, women have a secret weapon: estrogen. A study done by McGill University indicated that estrogen gives women an edge when it comes to fighting off infections. That’s because estrogen confronts a certain enzyme that often hinders the body’s first line of defense against bacteria and viruses.

man sick

Okay, here’s my pet theory about “man sick”.  Thanks to menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding and childcare, women have evolved to pretty much ignore small physical discomforts.  They’re such a common feature of our lives, that our brains literally do not register any pain until it gets very severe.  And since we are primarily engaged in low-risk tasks, there is no reason for our brain to respond to a few little aches and pains.

Men, on the other hand, are typically involved in physically strenuous tasks that involve risk-taking and teamwork.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2335104/Is-muck-sweat-key-male-teamwork-Chemical-produced-men-perspire-linked-willingness-cooperate.html

Whether a man is hunting a woolly mammoth or helping his neighbor clean the gutters, there is a risk to failure.  A man who is injured,  even in a small way, endangers the whole team and project.  Men have evolved to respond to pain immediately, because if a man is weakened, the whole team is weakened.

Makes sense to me.  I’m very compassionate to men who have colds.  They really do feel it more than women do.  Again, that doesn’t make one of us better than the other.  It makes us different.

12.  Women live longer than men

Oh please.  We leave all the stressful, shitty, dangerous, demanding jobs to men.  No kidding we live longer.  That’s called being pampered.  The more women that take on stressful work, the smaller that gap will be.  We don’t live longer because we’re better than men.  We live longer because we let men do the dirty work.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21569362-rich-world-men-are-closing-longevity-gap-women-catching-up

13.  Women are better managers than men

“Women are community builders and consensus builders, which is important,” he explains. “So we have what I call the feminization of management.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/better-boss-men-women-experts-females-tops-today-economy-article-1.431291

We’ve covered this before, but it’s worth saying again.  Women are better at managing to avoid responsibility and they resist making really tough decisions.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/03/31/bitches-be-mean-ladies-be-crying-lets-give-them-more-responsibility-clearly-they-can-handle-it/

It’s all fine and well until your business hits a rough patch, and then you find the ladies boo-hooing their way out of having to make a call.  Fair weather managers may be nice to work with, but they won’t help you when the storm hits.

14.  Women make more on their investments than men

Annnnnd we’re right back at risk aversion.  Women don’t take risks.  They won’t fund that new biotech IPO.  They won’t ruck up seed money for a mining exploration.  They won’t put their money on the table for the next great leap forward in technology.

No way.

Women’s money funds the established, tried and true companies.  Men’s money funds the innovators, the risk-takers, the geniuses, the future.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4480862?uid=3739448&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21102329700701

Women’s money calms the waters.  Men’s money takes us to the stars.

shuttle

I’d say we need both.

So, in summary, we have found the material facts to be that women are better at men when it comes to fussing over germs that won’t hurt you, and better at being fat.

Well.

I think that deserves a round of applause, no?  Or a round of tequila shooters.  I’m so over this women are better, men are better blah blah blah.

We’re different.   And equal.  That does not mean identical.  Trying to measure women against men as interchangeable carbon copies of one another is not just irritating, it’s stupid.  Women will always lose.  And if we measured a man’s worth in terms of his ability to breastfeed and successfully gestate a baby, he would lose.  Notice that most men don’t go around thinking up ways to pretend they are “better” than women.

Cosmo, get over yourself.  And learn to throw a ball for Christ’s sake. It’s not that hard.

w-Girlthrow

You know, if you’re a man.

Lots of love,

JB

Men: stand up for yourselves and we WILL hate you. The new feminist war cry!

29 Mar

http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-into-a-self+fulfilling-prophecy

Okay, this is going to be a long one, but it’s an important one that needs to be taken apart. Let’s all hold hands and pray that Lindy West learns to be a little more concise in the future, but for now, we just gotta wade through the sewage filled swamp of her mind.

swamp

Ready? As always, Lindy is in italics.

If I Admit That ‘Hating Men’ Is a Thing, Will You Stop Turning It Into a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?

Lindy West

Okay, so maybe you are a man. Maybe you haven’t had the easiest ride in life—maybe you grew up in poverty; you’ve experienced death, neglect, and despair; you hate your job, your car, your body. Maybe somebody (or multiple somebodies) pulverized your heart, or maybe you’ve never even been loved enough to know what a broken heart feels like. Maybe shit started out unfair and became irreparable and you never deserved any of this. Maybe everything looks fine on paper, but you’re just unhappy and you don’t know why. These are human problems and other human beings feel for you very deeply. It is hard to be a human. I am so sorry.

Maybe? Maybe you haven’t had the easiest life? Maybe you grew up in poverty? Maybe you’ve experienced death, neglect, despair?

Almost certainly. That is the fucking reality for almost everybody alive. The vast majority of men and women, even in the wealthiest countries on the planet are a mass of disposable humanity.

#clueless

#whiteladyproblems

Table 2: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2010

Total Net Worth

Top 1 percent

Next 19 percent

Bottom 80 percent

1983

33.8%

47.5%

18.7%

1989

37.4%

46.2%

16.5%

1992

37.2%

46.6%

16.2%

1995

38.5%

45.4%

16.1%

1998

38.1%

45.3%

16.6%

2001

33.4%

51.0%

15.6%

2004

34.3%

50.3%

15.3%

2007

34.6%

50.5%

15.0%

2010

35.4%

53.5%

11.1%

Financial (Non-Home) Wealth

Top 1 percent

Next 19 percent

Bottom 80 percent

1983

42.9%

48.4%

8.7%

1989

46.9%

46.5%

6.6%

1992

45.6%

46.7%

7.7%

1995

47.2%

45.9%

7.0%

1998

47.3%

43.6%

9.1%

2001

39.7%

51.5%

8.7%

2004

42.2%

50.3%

7.5%

2007

42.7%

50.3%

7.0%

2010

42.1%

53.5%

4.7%

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

That top 1% of the population, comprised of both men and women? Yeah, that’s the ruling elite. Power and wealth and control is concentrated in the top, and the rest scrape by the best they can. The traditional word for that sort of social organization is aristocracy.

Patriarchy and aristocracy are not the same thing.  One is rule by men.  The other is rule by elite. Try to keep them straight.

However.

Here goes the hamster.

hamster

Though it is a seductive scapegoat (I understand why it attracts you), none of these terrible, painful problems in your life were caused by the spectre of “misandry.” You can rest easy about that, I promise! In fact, the most powerful proponent of misandry in modern internet discourse is you — specifically, your dogged insistence that misandry is a genuine, systemic, oppressive force on par with misogyny. This is specious, it hurts women, and it is hurting you. Most feminists don’t hate men, as a group (we hate the system that disproportionately favors men at the expense of women), but — congratulations! — we are starting to hate you. You, the person. Your obsession with misandry has turned misandry into a self-fulfilling prophecy. (I mean, sort of. Hating individual men is not the same as hating all men. But more on that in a minute.) Are you happy now? Is this what you wanted? Feminism is, in essence, a social justice movement—it wants to take the side of the alienated and the marginalized, and that includes alienated and marginalized men. Please stop turning us against you.

Quaking in your boots a bit, Lindy? You should be. Declaring openly that you hate an entire group of individuals for daring to speak is a dangerous precedent to set. The fact that you are starting to hate men (and women) for noting that there are actually are systemic forces that discriminate against men in favor of women is really just expressing that you fear them.

You should.

It is nearly impossible to address problems facing women—especially problems in which men are even tangentially culpable—without comments sections devolving into cries of “misandry!” from men and replies of “misandry isn’t real” from women. Feminists are tired of this endless, fruitless turd-pong: hollow “conversation” built on willful miscommunication, bouncing back and forth, back and forth, until both sides throw up their hands and bolt. Maybe you are tired of this too. We seem to be having some very deep misunderstandings on this point, so let’s unpack it. I promise not to yell.

Oh, but that’s the problem, isn’t it? We won’t throw up our hands and bolt. We’re here, and we intend to speak, and calling what we have to say “fruitless turd-pong” may satisfy some deeply immature, let’s chuck rocks at boys resentment down in the depths of your sour little heart, but it still won’t make us bolt.

boys

[Yeah, you can buy this shirt on Amazon. Keep calm and rape her shirts? Unacceptable. Throw rocks at boys? Okie-dokie. Nope, no misandry here. Move along. Nothing to see.]

Part One: Why Feminism Has “Fem” in the Name, or, Why Can’t We All Just Be Humanists?

I wish, more than anything, that I could just be a “humanist.” Oh, man, that would be amazing! Because that would mean that we lived in a magical world where all humans were born on equal footing, and maybe I could live in a house shaped like a big mushroom and birds would help me get dressed or something. Humanism is a gorgeous dream, and something to strive for. In fact, it is the exact thing that feminism is striving for right now (and has been working on for decades)! Yay, feminism!

We don’t live in a magical world where all humans are born on an equal footing. We live in a democracy where all humans have equal (theoretically) access to the power to control the state through the power of the vote, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. Both men and women have the power to vote.

The single greatest influence on how successful (or not) a person will be in their lifetime is how successful (or not) their parents are.

http://www.economist.com/node/15908469

That is true for BOTH men and women. There’s that aristocracy problem rearing its ugly little head again. Addressing the concentration of wealth and the restrictions on social mobility in what is supposed to be a meritocracy requires us to focus on human rights, and not just women’s rights.

Because those things affect humans, and not just women.

Unfortunately, the reason that “fem” is a part of the word “feminism” is that the world is not, currently, an equal, safe, and just place for women (and other groups as well—in its idealized form, intersectional feminism seeks to correct all those imbalances). To remove the gendered implications of the term is to deny that those imbalances exist, and you can’t make problems disappear just by changing “feminism” to “humanism” and declaring the world healed. That won’t work.

Nope. It won’t. But by using the term “humanism”, you explicitly acknowledge that the world isn’t an equal, safe or just place for some humans, who happen to be both men and women, and that the problems of ALL those individuals matter. Not just the women.

Think of it like this. Imagine you’re reading a Dr. Seuss book about a bunch of beasts living on an island. There are two kinds of beasts: Fleetches and Flootches. (Stick with me here! I love you!) Though the two are functionally identical in terms of intellect and general competence, Fleetches are in charge of pretty much everything.

If Fleetches are men and Flootches are women, then they are not functionally identical in terms of intellect and general competence.

The Fleetches are physically stronger than the Flootches.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683

The Fleetches are more likely to be of higher intelligence.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SexDifferences.aspx

The Fleetches have a greater tendency to take risks and pursue rewards.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14713

The Fleetches tend to cluster in occupations that invent, create and deliver tangible technologies and tools that collectively drive our entire society forward.

http://dpeaflcio.org/wp-content/uploads/The-STEM-workforce-2012.pdf

Stronger, smarter, more willing to take risks and occupied in technologically sophisticated pursuits. That is why the Fleetches are in charge of pretty much everything. Because they are qualified to do so.

I’m just going to cut the rest of Lindy’s stupid metaphor because there is no point pursuing an argument that is based on the idea that men and women are functionally identical. They’re not and no amount of screaming at the heavens is going to change that.

screaming

It’s a nice example of the contradictory logic of feminism: let’s observe that men are better than women in lots of ways, and then insist that there is some imaginary force that keeps women from being equal to men. As opposed to assuming that women are different from men and that our skills and abilities and contributions are equally valuable. Men set the bar at heights they can reach, and when women can’t quite reach that high, the bar gets lowered because equality? Reining in male accomplishment just so women can feel “equal” is stupid. It denies that women have a very specific contribution to make and it slows down our entire trajectory of progress and innovation.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/02/18/her-iq-is-higher-than-einsteins-what-does-she-care-about-her-nails-fake-tanning-and-her-hair-lady-genius-in-action/

http://judgybitch.com/2013/02/05/the-genius-of-women-or-the-capacity-to-love-others-more-than-you-love-yourself/

Back to Lindy.

Part Two: Why Claiming that Sexism Isn’t Real Is a Sexist Thing to Say

We live in a world of measurable, glaring inequalities. Look at politicians, CEOs, film directors, law enforcement officers, comedians, tech professionals, executive chefs, mathematicians, and on and on and on—these fields are dominated by men. (And, in many cases, white men.) To claim that there is no systemic inequality keeping women and minorities out of those jobs is to claim that men (people like you) are just naturally better. If there is no social structure favoring men, then it stands to reason that men simply work harder and/or are more skilled in nearly every high-level specialized field.

Correct. They are.

Men work longer hours.

http://www.oecd.org/els/family/43367847.pdf

Men acquire greater, and much more highly specialized skills.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0812.pdf

Even in traditionally female occupations, men acquire greater specializations, earn more money and work longer hours.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/03/01/there-are-more-male-nurses-than-ever-highly-specialized-technically-qualified-male-nurses-who-get-paid-more-than-female-nurses-because-sexism/

God, facts just suck, don’t they?

It’s fine (though discouraging) if you legitimately believe that, but you need to own up to the fact that that is a self-serving and bigoted point of view. If you do not consider yourself a bigot, then kindly get on board with those of us who are trying to proactively correct inequalities. It is not enough to be neutral and tacitly benefit from inequality while others are left behind through no fault of their own. Anti-sexism, anti-racism, anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia—that’s where we’re at now. Catch up or own your prejudice.

By others, we assume Lindy means women? Because choosing a college major is usually done with a gun to your head? The entire school system is rigged to benefit girls, specifically, and women enroll in college in much greater numbers than men, but they take utterly fucking useless degrees that confer no skills other than the ability to perpetually imagine oneself a victim in need of succor.

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2011/gender-gap-in-education.aspx

The demonization of little boys in the school system and the utter failure of society to address the needs of boys as they proceed through a system designed to benefit girls is an excellent example of sexism. You want to talk about being left behind through no fault of your own? Let’s talk little boys in public education.

http://judgybitch.com/2012/11/22/boys-are-stupid/

Part Three: Why People Being Shitty to You Is Not the Same as You Being Systematically Disenfranchised

There might be a lot of women in your life who are mean to you, but that’s just women not liking you personally. Women are allowed to not like you personally, just like you are allowed to not like us personally. It’s not misandry, it’s mis-Kevin-dry. Or, you know, whoever you are. It is not built into our culture or codified into law, and you can rest assured that most women you encounter are not harboring secret, latent, gendered prejudices against Kevins that could cost you a job or an apartment or your physical sanctity. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t isolated incidents wherein mean women hurt men on purpose. But it is not a systemic problem that results in the mass disenfranchisement of men.

I’m assuming that by “disenfranchised, Lindy means “downtrodden” and not “denied the right to vote”, but she opens a nice little can of revealing worms. Turns out there is a large group of people who are, in fact, disenfranchised: felons.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000287

91% of whom are male.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt

74% of whom were non-white males.

(same report)

And men are far more likely to receive a conviction for a felony than women.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/wo.pdf

Black men, in particular are sentenced more harshly.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01265.x/abstract

And even when women are convicted of crimes, they receive preferential sentencing.

http://works.bepress.com/gang_lee/5/

Yeah, no systemic problem here, and certainly not one that results in disenfranchisement.

angry

There are some really shitty things about being a man. You are 100% right on that. You are held up to unreasonable expectations about your body and your career and your ability/desire to conform to traditional modes of masculinity (just like women are with traditional femininity), and that is absolutely oppressive.

One of the unreasonable expectations, apparently, is to have intact genitals and to be protected from mutilation, just like girls are.

http://jezebel.com/5192599/the-anti+circumcision-movement-puts-their-skin-in-the-game

There are radical feminists and deeply wounded women and women who just don’t have the patience for diplomacy anymore who absolutely hate you because of your gender. (However, for whatever it’s worth, I do not personally know a single woman like that.) That is an unpleasant situation to be in—especially when you also feel like you’re being blamed for the seemingly distant problems of people you’ve never met and towards whom you feel no particular animus.

Deeply wounded women who openly hate men? Let’s offer the poor ducks some support, shall we? Create a safe space where they can express their rage and anger and sense of helplessness.

Deeply wounded men who openly hate women? Well fuck you, MRAs.

http://jezebel.com/5967923/fuck-you-mras

The difference is, though, that the radfem community on Tumblr does not currently hold the reins of power in every country on earth (even in nations with female heads of state, the political and economic power structures are still dominated by men). You do, abstractly. No, you don’t have the ability or the responsibility to fix those imbalances single-handedly, but refusing to acknowledge that power structure is a slap in the face to people actively disadvantaged by it every day of their lives. You might not benefit from patriarchy in any measurable way—on an individual level your life might actually be much, much worse than mine—but the fact is that certain disadvantages are absent from your experience (and, likely, invisible to you) because of your gender.

Why do men control the reins of power over political and economic structures? Because women don’t want them! When women DO express political ambition, they are MORE likely to be elected than their male counterparts.

http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/research/topics/documents/InitialDecisiontoRun.pdf

There is absolutely zero systemic bias against women in political power. Women are not elected to the senate and the congress and the Oval Office because they DO NOT RUN FOR THOSE OFFICES.

The same is true for the “glass ceiling”. Women do not run the corporations or organizations of the world because, for the most part, THEY AREN’T INTERESTED. In Australia, women who DO reach the top of the corporate ladder have almost universally suffered some deep trauma in their childhood, and their career ambitions are a reaction to that trauma.

http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/executive-women/gender-divide-in-cradle-of-ambition-20120526-1zbmj.html

Maybe you’re saying, “Hey, but my life wasn’t fair either. I’ve had to struggle.” I know it wasn’t. I know you have. But that’s not how fairness works. If you present fairness as the goal—that some day everything will be “fair” for everyone—you’re slipping into an unrealistic fantasy land. Life already isn’t fair, because of coincidence and circumstance and the DNA you were born with, and we all have to accept the hands we’re dealt and live within that reality. But life doesn’t have to be additionally unfair because of imposed systems of disenfranchisement that only affect certain groups. We can fight against that.

Oh, preach it, sister! That’s exactly right!

Oh wait. You mean only when life is additionally unfair to women.

Oops, my bad.

Feminism isn’t about striving for individual fairness, on a life-by-life basis—it’s about fighting against a systematic removal of opportunity that infringes on women’s basic freedoms. If a woman and a man have equal potential in a field, they should have an equal opportunity to achieve success in that field.

Agreed. And when men and women DO have equal potential in a field, they DO have an equal opportunity for success. Provided they work the same hours, acquire the same advanced training, dedicate the same resources, men and women achieve at equal measures of success.

Let’s look at medicine, for example. Women are now enrolled in medical school in equal numbers to men.

https://www.aamc.org/download/321532/data/2012factstable27-2.pdf

And what do they do with their qualifications? They decline advanced specializations and work as family physicians, mostly part time. Basically, they write prescriptions for painkillers and antibiotics and as soon as a perplexing problem crops up, they refer it on to a specialist man.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9549262/Part-time-women-doctors-are-a-risk-to-NHS.html

That’s why female doctors make less money than male ones: they work fewer hours in less technically qualified specializations.

It’s not that we want the least qualified women to be handed everything just because they’re women. It’s that we want all women to have the same opportunities as all men to fulfill (or fail to fulfill, on their own inherent merits) their potential. If a particular woman is underqualified for a particular job, fine. That isn’t sexism. But she shouldn’t have to be systematically set up, from birth, to be underqualified for all jobs (except for jobs that reinforce traditional femininity, obv).

That’s not sexism. It’s biology. And evolution. Women prefer caretaking jobs. They are naturally more nurturing than men. They have been designed by nature to be so.

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html

Men’s greater abilities at spatial orientation and women’s greater abilities at speech and communication are present at birth. There is no socialization aspect involved. It’s simple biology.

Part Four: A List of “Men’s Rights” Issues That Feminism Is Already Working On

Let’s go all the way back to this:

In fact, the most powerful proponent of misandry in modern internet discourse is you — specifically, your dogged insistence that misandry is a genuine, systemic, oppressive force on par with misogyny. This is specious, it hurts women, and it is hurting you.

The entire point of this article is that there is NO genuine, systemic, oppressive force working against men.

Now watch the hamster dance.

The next section claims exactly the opposite: there IS a genuine, systemic, oppressive force working against men, and that force is the PATRIARCHY! And what is the greatest foe of the PATRIARCHY? Why, that would be FEMINISM, of course.

So all you men who are NOT oppressed by any genuine, systemic force working against men, except all of you who ARE oppressed by a genuine, systemic force, come and join hands with FEMINISM.

We’re here to rescue you. Let’s see what that rescue will look like.

Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.

Widespread feminist support of single mother families and the insistence that the state offer generous benefits to single mothers is BY DEFINITION denying men custody of their children. If men were custodial parents, either solely, or in unison with the child’s mother SHE WOULDN’T BE A SINGLE MOTHER.

http://www.academia.edu/1490030/A_Feminist_Family_Agenda_Putting_the_mother_back_into_sole_parenting

Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.

They do, however, like ads that portray domestic violence as being something only men do to women. The assumption that men are violent and women are victims is totally understandable, right?

http://jezebel.com/5960402/frances-new-anti+domestic-violence-ads-are-pretty-jarring

Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their “traditional” marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.

But they will rail against divorce lawyers who specialize in making sure that men get treated fairly in divorce proceedings.

http://jezebel.com/5928162/bros-before-hos-a-new-breed-of-divorce-lawyer

Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

But they will demand that juvenile offenders be sentenced to adult facilities, where, hopefully, they will get raped.

http://jezebel.com/5991944/what-lies-ahead-for-the-steubenville-rapists

(read the comments, if you dare)

Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

They do, however, support the right of women to claim state benefits on the basis of rape without actually having to prove the accusation. There should be an automatic assumption of guilt. Against the man, of course.

http://jezebel.com/5954804/pennsylvania-bill-requires-low+income-women-to-prove-they-were-raped-in-order-to-qualify-for-welfare

Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate “nice guys.” The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.

Except for all the nice guys on OKCupid. Those guys suck and are worth hating.

http://jezebel.com/5969737/meet-the-so+called-nice-guys-of-okcupid

Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don’t is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.

But we fully expect you to offer to pay for dinner. That’s just being a gentleman. It’s up to us to decide how the check gets split, if at all. The person who proposes the date should be the one who pays.  And who is required to propose the date?  Oh yeah.  That would be men.

http://jezebel.com/man-pays-for-dinner/

Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.

But don’t ask us to lift any heavy bags when we’re pregnant, even if that is part of our job. That’s not fair! Get some guy to do it for us!

http://jezebel.com/5992775/pregnant-hospital-worker-forced-to-take-unpaid-leave-because-she-couldnt-lift-50+pound-bags-of-trash

Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of any gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.

Unless you’re a white man, of course. In that case, your depression is definitely worth mocking and deriding and ignoring.

http://jezebel.com/5970262/poor-pitiful-dudes-why-you-should-defer-to-men-with-post+patriarchal-depression

Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it’s unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.

But they will question your masculinity and declare a “creepy” factor should you happen to like My Little Pony.

http://jezebel.com/5923270/male-my-little-pony-fans-sparkle-at-bronycon-2012

Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.

But they’re not down with drafting the ladies. Mostly because rape.

http://jezebel.com/5986756/the-lady+draft-may-be-in-our-future

Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.

Except for all those times when women were naturally gentle and compliant and forgot to tell someone they were actually being raped.

http://jezebel.com/5964359/when-will-we-stop-pretending-that-college-athletes-cant-be-rapists

Probably the most ridiculous account of “rape” you will ever read. But it WAS rape, because gentle and compliant by nature, dontcha know?

Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you.

I’ll just quote from the opening paragraph:

we are starting to hate you. You, the person.

If you really care about those issues as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking feminists, because feminism is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them. The fact that you blame feminists—your allies—for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting men isn’t nearly as important to you as resenting women. We care about your problems a lot. Could you try caring about ours?

If you really care about those issues as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking men’s rights activists, because the men’s human rights movement is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them. The fact that you blame men —your allies—for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting women isn’t nearly as important to you as resenting men. We care about your problems a lot. Could you try caring about ours?

Part Five: I’m Sorry That You Are in Pain, But Please Stop Taking It Out on Women

It’s not easy to swallow your own privilege—to admit that you’re a Fleetch—but once you do, it’s addictive. It feels good to open up to perspectives that are foreign to you, accept your complicity in this shitty system, and work on making the world better for everyone instead of just defending your territory. It’s something I had to do as a privileged white woman, and something I still have to work on every day, because it’s right. That doesn’t make me (or you) a bad person—it makes me an extremely lucky person who was born into a white body in a great family in a vibrant, liberal city in a powerful, wealthy country that implicitly values white bodies over all other bodies. The least I can do is acknowledge the arbitrariness of that luck, and work to tear down the obstacles facing those who are disenfranchised by the insidious fetishization of whiteness. Blanket defensiveness isn’t going to get any of us anywhere.

Work on making the world better for everyone instead of just defending your territory.

Exactly, Lindy.

To all the men who have had shitty lives and mistake that pain for “misandry”: I totally get it. Humans are not such complicated creatures. All we want is to feel like we’re valued, like we deserve to exist. And I’m sorry if you haven’t found that so far in your life. But it’s not women’s fault, it’s not my fault, and it’s certainly not feminism’s fault. The thing is, you’re not really that different from the women you rail against so passionately in these comment threads—the women who are trying to carve out some space and assert their value in a world of powerful men. Plenty of women know exactly what it feels like to be pushed to the fringe of society, to be rejected so many times that you eventually reject yourself. That alienation is a big part of what feminism is fighting against. A lot of those women would be on your side, if you would just let them instead of insisting that they’re the villains. It’s better over here, and we have room for you. So stop trying to convince us that we hate you and I promise we’ll start liking you a whole lot more.

Nice try at sucking up, Lindy.

Newsflash, bitch: I don’t give a fuck whether you like me or not, and neither does anyone else fighting for men’s basic human rights. Because human rights are a goal worth pursuing whether you benefit directly from them or not.  And if you are human, then guess what?  YOU DO!

The fact that you even wrote this article means that the voices are beginning to penetrate. You hear us. And you’re afraid.

Good. You should be.

We’re coming. And we don’t care if you like it.

Lots of love,

JB

%d bloggers like this: