Feminism in the 21st Century

Via orwellwasright:

I’ve never really looked into feminism until recently. I’m aware of the fundamental principles feminists adhere to – the liberation of women from an oppressive patriarchal society and the somewhat problematic expression “equality for women” (which seems something of an oxymoron to me, since surely equality should apply to everyone) – but, having never come across feminism beyond an awareness of its existence as an ideology, and personally knowing no women who call themselves feminists, it’s been something of an “unknown” to me.

That changed the other day when a friend sent me a link to the above video by girlwriteswhat, which makes a number of intriguing points which I wanted to raise with feminists. Thanks to an activist friend of mine I was able to pose a number of questions to a broad range of people who define themselves as feminists – or sympathetic to feminism – who shed some light on what feminism means to them in the modern day.

Most feminists seem to agree that the fundamental tenet is the pursuit of genuine gender equality; that men and women should have the same rights and privileges and feminism is about rectifying these imbalances. One self-labeled “radical feminist” defined feminists as anyone who fights inequalities between genders, sexualities, and orientations, which struck me as somewhat contradictory in the sense that the definition seems more indicative of humanism or egalitarianism than the gender-specific term “feminism”.

Some radical feminists seem to view women as exclusively oppressed over men, who, having created “patriarchy” to benefit themselves – and themselves alone – consequently impart all the privileges of society exclusively upon themselves while leaving women with nothing. This inevitably leads to a one-sided understanding of “equality” where only the suffering of women needs addressing since “men don’t suffer” but rather are driving agents of oppression.

Of course, there is no reason why a movement concerned with the inequalities faced by a specific gender should feel the need to address the suffering of the other, particularly if they perceive that suffering as being unique to their gender – it’s only natural that any ideology will focus on the issues defined by the parameters it establishes. Problems arise, however, when the group begins to perceive achieving its own goals as synonymous with wider, humanistic objectives. This statement, with its implication that, if only we can end the suffering of women then everything will be alright for the rest of us, seems to highlight this aptly: “When women stop being raped, beaten up, treated as objects – that’s when egalitarianism can begin.” It demonstrates a gender-bias towards women as the only people who’s suffering is valid or meaningful.

The question that should be asked is: how much of the suffering and oppression feminists believe women face is exclusively a female concern? Are they – as some feminists advocate – universal “victims” of a system which singles them out for oppression while the men escape from suffering and confer all the advantages upon themselves? An examination of some of the key concerns of feminism is necessary.

Objectification

“Women are very often objectified, turned into sex objects, felt humiliated because of things that naturally happen to their body, are deemed the less intelligent sex, called sluts in situations where men are not called that, made to feel we have to live a certain way to serve our gender roles, made to feel ugly because of some men’s views on ‘beauty’. How dare other humans make us feel this way?”

No one can deny that women are often sexually objectified by society and culture – you only have to turn on the TV or flick through magazines in the newsagents to see this occurring on a wide scale. But a fundamental flaw in the above statement is that this boils down to the male view of female beauty, as if women aren’t objectifying themselves when they wear low-cut tops and spend two hours in front of the mirror applying make-up. The idea that feminists propagate – that the women who do this are victims of male-dominated ideas of what women should be – only serves to perpetuate the notion of the woman as an object, not an agent acting in the world responsible for her own actions. And of course, a great number of the women’s magazines which portray women as a sexual stereotype are written and edited by women, something which some feminists seem unwilling to acknowledge.

I posted another video from girlwriteswhat on the subject of objectification and asked for the opinion of feminists:

The video raises some very significant points about objectification which I hoped feminists would be prepared to engage with. Unfortunately that wasn’t to be the case – one radical feminists dismissed it immediately as a “piece of shit” and described girlwriteswhat’s opinions as “twisted” – for some, any attempt to broaden the parameters towards a wider relevance is simply an attack on feminism and doesn’t warrant discussion (in this feminist’s view, girlwriteswhat is little more than a “handmaiden”. You can decide for yourself whether or not you agree with the idea that what she says is completely worthless).

The focus on female objectification tends to overlook the wider-ranging context of gender roles throughout society, something which should be essential if we are to have a full understanding of the issues. Just as little girls are encouraged to play with baby dolls and see themselves as princesses, so too are boys encouraged to play with toys which bolster masculine stereotypes – the negative impact this gender reinforcement has upon society cannot be fully grasped from the one-sided perspective of either gender, since we live in a complex world of interrelations.

Perhaps more fruitful would be the promotion of an awareness of the feminine and masculine qualities both genders possess. Carl Jung identified this as the anima and animus – the anthropomorphic archetypes which exist in the subconscious – the anima representing feminine principles in the male, the animus masculine principles in the female. It seems clear to me that gender stereotypes which exist on both sides can only be resolved by a thorough integration of masculine and feminine principles inherent in both the sexes, and in this sense, focusing exclusively on the objectification of women can only ever address part of the problem.

Rape

The most horrendous outcome of this perception of women as sex objects is undoubtedly rape – sexual violence is an abhorrent physical and emotional violation and no one would deny that those who experience it should receive all the support they can get in order to come to terms with such an ordeal. Statistically speaking, women make up the majority of rape victims and men the majority of the rapists, so it’s understandable why some feminists view women as perennial victims and men as some kind of monolithic perpetrator class and have consequently viewed rape solely through the prism of female suffering (which, of course, fits the definition of feminism’s aims).

There are, however, some problems with this position which contradict the notion of equality feminists claim to seek. The first problem arises from the fact that, until very recently, most rape studies focused exclusively on male-female forms of rape, which inevitably leads to the false conclusion that it is a problem faced only by women. This in turn leads to another two-fold problem – the denial of the validity of men suffering from sexual violence (or the refusal to acknowledge that it even occurs – it wasn’t until January of 2012 that the FBI updated their definition of rape victims to include men) and the subsequent exclusivity of systems to assist all victims of sexual violence in preference for women only.

The case of the Democratic Republic of Congo and the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war outlines the negative impact that feminism’s focus solely on women has on the broader problem. Here we find – as we do in many warzones – a huge number of male rape victims, as outlined in this article from the Guardian. At the Refugee Law Project (RLP) in Uganda, Dr Angella Ntinda was interviewed about rape and had the following exchange:

“Eight out of 10 patients from RLP will be talking about some sort of sexual abuse.”

“Eight out of 10 men?” I clarify.

“No. Men and women,” she says.

“What about men?”

“I think all the men.”

I am aghast.

All of them?” I say.

“Yes,” she says. “All the men.”

Further studies reveal that, not only is male sexual violence in warzones barely acknowledged, these victims are being roundly failed by international aid agencies. Lara Stempl, who conducted research at the University of California, observed, “The organisations working on sexual and gender-based violence don’t talk about it. It’s systematically silenced. If you’re very, very lucky they’ll give it a tangential mention at the end of a report. You might get five seconds of: ‘Oh and men can also be the victims of sexual violence.’ But there’s no data, no discussion.”

This problem stems largely from feminist groups, many of whom have sought to define rape exclusively as something which only women are victims of. A report on sexual violence in East Africa by the UN in 2004, for example, was compiled by people who insisted the definition of rape was restricted to women only. The outcome is a massive disparity in funding for victims of sexual violence, where women are the primary – often only – benefactors of the systems put in place while men are left to suffer in silence. Far from symbolising equality of the sexes and the validity of all suffering, this represents entitlement for women and the wholesale rejection of men’s potential victimhood.

Rape is ultimately motivated by a thirst for power and control – sexual domination acts as a means towards this empowerment. Just as the victims are not exclusively women, neither are all rapists men – feminist movements are often unwilling to discuss the idea that women can also be perpetrators. For instance, research conducted in the US studying abuse in juvenile detention centers revealed that 95% of male victims are abused by women.

Just as it should be acknowledged that rape is a horrendous experience for any human being to endure and post-traumatic support should be provided for anyone who suffers it, so to should we recognize that the use of sexual violence and the desire to dominate another aren’t gender-specific traits. Making it solely about the suffering of women denies the humanity of all and denies realities. As director of RLP Chris Dolan says, “Part of the activism around women’s rights is: ‘Let’s prove that women are as good as men.’ But the other side is you should look at the fact that men can be weak and vulnerable.”

Domestic violence

Another oft-cited example of oppression which feminists believe women suffer from to a far greater extent than men is domestic violence. As with rape, many feminists tend to express the view that this is a problem almost exclusively faced by women as an extension of men’s patriarchal power over them; their advocacy and activism made the term “domestic violence” synonymous with violence against women.

But again, an examination of the facts paints a considerably more nuanced picture. Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, matched by a marked increase in the number of women prosecuted for domestic violence over the same period. Given that men are also far less likely to report abuse of this kind – partly on account of the misconception held that victim status is “feminine and weak” – the real numbers may never be known.

The view that women are just as capable of abusing men in the home as vice versa is nothing new: somewhat ironically, it was Erin Prizzey – one of the luminaries of the women’s rights movement – who first pointed this out. After establishing one of the first women’s refuges, Chiswick Women’s Aid, in 1971, extensive interviews revealed that, far from being one-sided, domestic violence was reciprocal in nature. She immediately found herself subjected to death threats and boycotts from more radical feminists and, after the killing of her dog, was forced to flee to America.

The radical feminist myth of woman’s exclusive status as the victim appears to have persisted amongst some feminists to this day, but what is perhaps more revealing about the radical feminists who attacked Prizzey and furthered the demonization of all men as oppressors is their relation to the Labour Party. As she lamented, the movement she started had moved from “the personal to the political”.

Politicized feminism and social engineering

The blinkered ideology of the politicized radical feminists associated with the Labour Party are as present today as they were when they were threatening to murder Erin Prizzey’s children. Harriet Harman, who claims to champion women’s rights and “equality”, displayed a truly absurd streak when asked about her chances of becoming the next prime minister. “It will not be possible, because there aren’t enough airports in the country for all the men who would want to flee.” Of course, much more disturbing was her desire to water down child pornography laws, lower the age of consent to 14 and decriminalize incest through her association with the Paedophile Information Exchange (a far more chilling topic of conversation for another occasion).

Harriet Harman isn’t alone when it comes to powerful women in politics pushing a divisive feminist agenda – Hillary Clinton is also a staunch supporter of “women’s rights” and had this to say about the deaths of males through warfare, speaking at the First Ladies’ Conference on Domestic Violence in San Salvador, El Salvador on Nov. 17, 1998: “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.” The idea that men losing their lives in horrifically violent ways (often tortured beforehand, a prevalent fact of war) makes them less of a victim than the female relatives they leave behind is patently absurd. That it comes from a politician with a track record of warmongering who has undoubtedly sent men to their deaths and killed thousands of women and children shouldn’t be overlooked.

In addition to the large number of feminist groups who receive funding from the government (both in the US and UK), a great many have been established and supported by the large foundations. The Ford, Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations have pumped millions of dollars into such groups over the years, while the rank and file feminists remain oblivious to the fact that their funding derives from male-dominated institutions. But it would be a mistake to view this in the ironic sense of patriarchy shooting itself in the foot by supporting movements which seek to undermine it – the real dynamics at work are plutocracy and social engineering.

Getting women into the workplace was a key goal of the early feminist movement and offers a prime example of how feminist organizations served the interests of the power elite. The first benefit to the wealthy industrialists and bankers who ran the foundations is obvious: extra tax revenue.

The second benefit is perhaps less obvious and more insidious – with women in the workplace as well as men, their children would have to go into state-run schools, where the education system indoctrinates them with state propaganda (nowhere is this more obvious than in the history curriculum) and trains them for a role within the corporate-capitalism consumer-driven world. As Ralph Waldo Emerson observed, political leaders called for popular education because they feared that “This country is filling up with thousands and millions of voters, and you must educate them to keep them from our throats.” Or, as Noam Chomsky observed more recently, the fundamental maxim of state education is to “Limit their perspectives and understanding, discourage free and independent thought, and train them for obedience.”

The feminist movement, with its apparent antipathy towards the role of women in the home as nurturing mothers, played directly into this dynamic. Some feminists openly advocated for denying women the right to stay at home and raise their families. Simone de Beauvoir stated in an interview with Saturday Review in 1975, “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” Further attacks on the family unit came from Alison Jaggar, author of Feminist Politics and Human Nature, who said, “[The nuclear family is] a cornerstone of woman’s oppression: it enforces women’s dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation.”

Stefan Molyneux highlights here how radical feminism became a crucial tool in the break-up of the mother-child bond and how this was “great for the state”:

Of course, a distinction should be made between the radical politicized feminists who characterize much of the “feminist movement” and individual women who address some of the issues raised by feminism today (who may or may not consider themselves to be “feminists”), but are able to do so in a broader context of the interplay between the genders. While there may be radical feminists who call men who mention their suffering “mansplainers” (beware derogatory catchphrases and thinly veiled ad hominem) there are women who identify with feminism who “do not conform with a feminism that holds women higher than men, or one that negates to look at male issues or excludes them from society all together … I think we are basically the same, same emotions, capable of the same range of thoughts etc…, there is no reason for women and men to be segregated in this way other than for monetary gain. While we’re fighting amongst ourselves they’re getting away with it. We’re all just people. The sooner we see that the better. But with all this dressing up and division who knows how soon, if ever.”

The sense of “otherness” built upon the masculine-feminine binary inherent in feminist ideology seems to me to be a fundamental flaw in that it reinforces a separateness even as it seeks equality. Perhaps only a sense of “oneness” built upon the compassion and respect for the uniqueness of all human beings will truly bring about an equal world.

, , , , ,

  • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

    I think its bogus in some ways. For example, if you are LGBT friendly, and supportive, you would be supportive of transgendered persons. Which are basically people on a journey of, you know, embodying a gender that is different than the sex they were born with.

    So a lot of the 1970′s feminism that is still hanging around, involves the idea that “gender is completely socially constructed with no objective basis in reality” but to a transgendered person its obviously not just bullshit.

    So the way I have come to look at it is that sex is related to two principles of the Universe, yin and yang and people embody different combinations of this. Yin is not bad, yang is not bad. Yin is more associated with femininity, and there is no reason to suppress that. It really can’t be suppressed long term and has negative consequences.

  • Hadrian999

    many of the self identifying feminists I know seem to only want the good kinds of equality.you want to be equal you have to let go of the benefits conferred by the old unequal status.

    • ManWithPlan

      Feminism says women are strong and independent and weak and powerful and self-sufficient and in need of constant chivalry and completely helpless and goddesses of the universe and should only have billions of dollars worth of social spending go only to them and superior to men in every way.

    • ManWithPlan

      Feminism says women are strong and independent and weak and powerful and self-sufficient and in need of constant chivalry and completely helpless and goddesses of the universe and should only have billions of dollars worth of social spending go only to them and superior to men in every way.

  • echar

    I have learned through experience that this can be dangerous territory, mostly because many may take a beeline to the emotional as well as play the victim. I imagine many feminists may dislike girlwriteswhat vehemently.

    My honest reaction to watching the first video is that this has to be a trick. My eyes are not matching up with my ears. I think she hit the nail on the head with talk about manipulation, however I am discouraged by the tendency to speak in absolutes.

    • http://www.facebook.com/guffy.xux Steve Smith

      Many feminists do not like what GirlWritesWhat. As she doesn’t go for emotional appeal but logical and one on facts.

    • fidelbogen

      There is nothing wrong with speaking in absolutes. What discourages me is when people speak in wishy-washy “maybes” and “perhapses” — e.g. “We have long noticed a tendency for smoke to pour out of the windows, and a growing number of people are wondering if maybe the house is on fire. The recent appearance of flames shooting out of those same windows has inspired even more people to speculate that perhaps this is true.”

      • echar

        I say, many a fight and isms may have occurred because of absolutes.

    • Eric_D_Read

      As far as I know, no major feminist website, even the ones like Jezebel that rant about the “evil white misogynist basement dwellers” that they like to claim make up the MRA membership, will even acknowledge that GWW exists.

      • echar

        That’s understandable.

  • bobbiethejean

    I’ve noticed a very recent trend in feminism away from the “disposable male” and towards something more reasonable, compassionate, considerate, open, honest, and most importantly perhaps, more self-aware. I hope to see this trend continue.

    • Matt Staggs

      Love the downvotes lately: “…reasonable, compassionate, considerate, open, honest, and most importantly perhaps, more self-aware.” = THIS MUST BE DOWNVOTED AT ONCE!!!

    • Matt Staggs

      Love the downvotes lately: “…reasonable, compassionate, considerate, open, honest, and most importantly perhaps, more self-aware.” = THIS MUST BE DOWNVOTED AT ONCE!!!

    • Matt Staggs

      Love the downvotes lately: “…reasonable, compassionate, considerate, open, honest, and most importantly perhaps, more self-aware.” = THIS MUST BE DOWNVOTED AT ONCE!!!

      • echar

        How dare you speak out against down votes. Just to be clear it wasn’t me that down voted bobbie. I just wanted to make the down voter feel awkward in their petty passive aggressiveness.

      • echar

        How dare you speak out against down votes. Just to be clear it wasn’t me that down voted bobbie. I just wanted to make the down voter feel awkward in their petty passive aggressiveness.

      • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

        downvoted

      • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

        downvoted

        • Matt Staggs

          As I would only expect! :)

      • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

        Even though I didn’t downvote Bobbie’s comment here, I must admit that sometimes I “secretly” downvote a person when they complain about people “secretly” downvoting them without bothering to leave a comment as to why.

        There’s something irresistibly amusing about dickishly piling on…

        In fact, I think I did that to Kevin Leonard just a day or two ago.

        Of course, my most recent downvote probably isn’t much of a secret.

        • Matt Staggs

          They make me laugh, for the most part.

      • Andrew

        Yeah, fuck whoever downvoted her comment and yours.

      • Anarchy Pony

        Okay, now the question is: Are the downvotes that Matt received serious, or in jest?

        • Matt Staggs

          I think they’re hilarious.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            Careful or you might get a running gag that in the bizarro world of disinfo, downvotes are good.

          • lazy_friend

            I down voted all the comments first beside the jeans, she got the coveted thumbs up :) a true troll can’t resist. Seems like I started a trend. Plus its all about the ratio of votes if there is enough data. A down vote against a zero means noting but an up vote against a zero means more.

          • Matt Staggs

            Can I get 25 downvotes, please?

          • Matt Staggs

            Can I get 25 downvotes, please?

        • echar

          Jest on my part.

        • echar

          Jest on my part.

      • ManWithPlan

        I am really curious where said Feminists are, because if you actually look at what Feminists are doing it has nothing to do with equality. They’re definitely hurting men and not helping women, except for women who happen to be white liberal professionals.

        • http://skadhitheravernerblog.wordpress.com/ Skadhi_the_Raverner

          Yep but not in the long term.

        • http://skadhitheravernerblog.wordpress.com/ Skadhi_the_Raverner

          Yep but not in the long term.

        • YoungZer0

          Yep, just spend a second on a feminist website, tell them that you’re a ‘cis’ white male and that alone is reason for them to dismiss anything you say.

          Yeah, “reasonable, compassionate, considerate, open, honest” … downright bullshit.

        • Jin The Ninja

          whatever you’re referring to is not feminism. feminism is about
          intersectionality and the parallel strands of oppression (labour/economic critique/analysis,queer theory,
          critical theory, and area/ethnic studies). yes, some women who work in
          ‘high-powered’ jobs call themselves feminists, but that isn’t feminism.
          that is assimilation. and as for hilary clinton, when has bombing a
          people EVER in the history of mankind ever LIBERATED a population? i
          think historically, never. the situation in iraq, afghanistan is WORSE for women now, than before.

          • fidelbogen

            The authority to define feminism is “open source”. You don’t even need to be a feminist any more, to say what feminism “is”.

          • Jin The Ninja

            however, the agency to direct where feminism is going rests solely with feminists.

            as well, the ‘authority’ of non-feminist non-ally men to define feminism, is limited by their preconceptions and misunderstanding, fundamentally, of feminist critique- including not having read any feminist texts.

            you have to understand the theory in order to properly critique it.

            and defining something as ‘open source’ simply because one has the keyboard on which to type an opinion, does not make said opinion factual. and most radical ‘isms’ defy attempts to plainly and easily reduce them, even from their own members within. feminism in that regard is no different, it is also better to utilise an accepted and therefore somewhat more accurate definition if one is laying groundwork for critique.

        • fidelbogen

          Well, the idea is that feminism no longer defines feminism. Basically, this means that a non-feminist has as much authority to say what feminism *IS*, as a feminist does.

          • Jin The Ninja

            that’s pretty bullshit and basically defies all of critical theory and the concept of agency which is considered so paramount.

    • TennesseeCyberian

      They call it “third wave feminism.” Much more pleasant than the “second wave,” which the author calls “radical feminism.”

      I work with women in a profession known for macho posturing and busted knuckles. They do well, and because they are under the microscope, they generally out-perform most of the men because they feel they have to. Which is great for me. Most women can’t do the job, but if they can, by all means let them do it!

      For the most part, even the most butch among them don’t spout ridiculous “radical feminist” ideology. Not because they are afraid to bust men’s balls, but because “radical feminism” is so fucking tacky. And men rarely talk down to them or disparage their femininity, pretty much for the same reason.

      Great article. Disinfo could use more writers like Andrew Dilks.

    • ManWithPlan

      Where?

    • ManWithPlan

      Where?

      • bobbiethejean

        Same places the uglier side of feminism tends to rear its ugly head; Tumblr, various blogs (all liberal of course) sometimes Facebook.

        • Jin The Ninja

          tumblr also has a large and vocal community of new wave, 3rd wave and fourth wave feminists, who for the most part are a providing a positive, on the ground analysis of contemporary culture- which is desperately needed.

          • bobbiethejean

            Yes indeed. :)

    • http://www.facebook.com/guffy.xux Steve Smith

      Feminism still very much promotes the “disposable male” and that wants to emasculate men. Feminism wants very much to kill masculinity in short as they think everything with it is wrong and that men should be more feminine all around and least amount masculinity as possible.

      • bobbiethejean

        You’re just flatly wrong. I’m not going to bother arguing with you because you’re going to believe what you’re going to believe regardless of what I say or what evidence I put forward and that’s sad for you.

        • YoungZer0

          You’re just flatly wrong. I’m not going to bother arguing with you because you’re going to believe what you’re going to believe regardless of what I say or what evidence I put forward and that’s sad for you.

          • bobbiethejean

            Actually no. Unlike you, if someone puts forth compelling evidence, I will change my mind. You just go on believing whatever makes you happy, little man.

        • http://www.facebook.com/guffy.xux Steve Smith

          Ditto to you as well.

      • Jin The Ninja

        bullshit. the entire paradigm of masculine-feminine is bullshit as well.

    • fidelbogen

      This recent “trend” which you have noticed in feminism is an attempt at a public image makeover.

      In fact it is a “trend” away from feminism altogether, because it is distancing itself from what is quintessentially feminist. So this trend, if it is really happening and continues happening, would mean that feminism is evolving into non-feminism.

      • bobbiethejean

        Do you really find it so hard to believe that women around the world might be waking up to the reality that equality is important, worth fighting for, and doesn’t need to come at the expense, or denigration of other people? I don’t find it hard to believe because I’ve seen it happening. If you haven’t, maybe you need to broaden your gaze.

  • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

    Girlwriteswhat is crazy smart. I wonder if she could argue just as persuasively from the other side. I bet she could and that is probably why her arguments are so persuasive.

    That is true about being a little boy and being raised to be stoic. I think its good in some ways. But when I was sexually assaulted at age 8 by my female baby sitter, I just, for some reason, thought it was just another thing I had to deal with on my own.

    • Anarchy Pony

      You should write an autobiography. I’d buy it.

    • Anarchy Pony

      You should write an autobiography. I’d buy it.

      • Matt Staggs

        Ted’s a genuinely interesting guy.

        • Anarchy Pony

          He seems to have a billion different stories.

          • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

            That’s actually the reason I recently moved to Madison WI and got a day job. So stay tuned!

          • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

            That’s actually the reason I recently moved to Madison WI and got a day job. So stay tuned!

      • Snoozeri Lostio

        The most important video for men to watch to get their balls back: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4zSRkBMPng

        • Andrew

          No covert misandry there.

          • Andrew

            No covert misandry there either.

          • Andrew

            Wow… I hope you’re not expecting anyone to take you seriously now. You’re making yourself look pretty bad.

          • Andrew

            No, but you obviously are.

          • Jin The Ninja

            breeders throwing shade. can’t kill my swag.

  • jnana

    Everyone wants to be the member of a persecuted minority, it alleviates white guilt, or the guilt of privilege. Feminism is largely a psychological reaction, a result of complexes. Most “isms” are.
    But I would agree that men should learn to integrate their Anima, they would treat the women they know w/ a higher degree of respect if they did.

    • mannyfurious

      Yeah, I suppose I would consider myself “pro-feminism” as opposed to “anti-feminism” if forced to. However, I agree, while feminism raises many a fine point, it also makes certain assumptions that aren’t necessarily true. They automatically assume that the lives of males in this country are something to be striven for. I personally think most men are losers who live pathetic lives where all they do is chase after money and fame and “success” because they’re too insecure to actually live a life worth living. But if that’s what some women want, I’m not going to stop them. Personally I find being a stay-at-home parent much more admirable, desirable and honorable job than, I don’t know, working at a bank or in advertising or in some other job that promotes the rot of our culture.

    • mannyfurious

      Yeah, I suppose I would consider myself “pro-feminism” as opposed to “anti-feminism” if forced to. However, I agree, while feminism raises many a fine point, it also makes certain assumptions that aren’t necessarily true. They automatically assume that the lives of males in this country are something to be striven for. I personally think most men are losers who live pathetic lives where all they do is chase after money and fame and “success” because they’re too insecure to actually live a life worth living. But if that’s what some women want, I’m not going to stop them. Personally I find being a stay-at-home parent much more admirable, desirable and honorable job than, I don’t know, working at a bank or in advertising or in some other job that promotes the rot of our culture.

      • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

        I prefer to see feminism as a shattered term that means different things to different people, so saying you’re pro- or con- to this -ism without conditions is the wrong way of looking at it.

        but i definitely agree with you on the shitty life of the “successful” man.

      • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

        I prefer to see feminism as a shattered term that means different things to different people, so saying you’re pro- or con- to this -ism without conditions is the wrong way of looking at it.

        but i definitely agree with you on the shitty life of the “successful” man.

        • mannyfurious

          Oh, yeah, I definitely agree. But do you know how long a post that would be to discuss the conditions under which I am using any particular word? I’d rather be misinterpreted and then get into a war of words with some other anonymous message board poster.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            To WAR!!

        • Jin The Ninja

          feminism really is an ‘ism’ that is more of an umbrella term like socialism, than any definitive ideology in and of itself. which is what most people seem not to realise.

          and for what it’s worth, radical feminism rejects capitalism and ‘capitalist’ work value.

  • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

    Andrew,

    I just want to give you a big kudos! you have put together a lot of mind blowing paradigm shattering thinking in one article. These two people are amazing thinkers. This is really some new thinking on these subjects. So much stuff is a rehash.

  • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

    Andrew,

    I just want to give you a big kudos! you have put together a lot of mind blowing paradigm shattering thinking in one article. These two people are amazing thinkers. This is really some new thinking on these subjects. So much stuff is a rehash.

    • ManWithPlan

      Welcome to the red pill. Now you will see how deep it goes.

    • http://www.facebook.com/andy.dilks.1 Andy Dilks

      Thanks Ted that’s much appreciated – when i shared the article with the feminists I’d been discussing it with none of them challenged the content (although apparently behind my back not very nice things were said) – GWW seems on the money with her challenges to certain aspects of feminism, isn’t she?

    • http://www.facebook.com/andy.dilks.1 Andy Dilks

      Thanks Ted that’s much appreciated – when i shared the article with the feminists I’d been discussing it with none of them challenged the content (although apparently behind my back not very nice things were said) – GWW seems on the money with her challenges to certain aspects of feminism, isn’t she?

      • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

        She is what a Feminist should be, just a smart strong, independent minded woman, that “owns her shit!”

        • Matt Staggs

          Those were the qualities that I find most attractive in my wife. She’s very much of the “You people don’t speak for me, and I can fend for myself” school of thought.

          • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

            Yeah, that is how I would want to be if I were a woman. On another podcast Girlwrites what talks about some anthropological stuff I hadn’t heard about about why women identify with each other more than men identify with each other.

            Women tend to be more like “Oh, that is a woman, I am on her side” whereas dudes are more like “Who is that dude? Is he on my team or some other team?” Because going back historically men would be fighting the Men from the other tribes. So it takes men longer to bond with each other.

  • Anarchy Pony

    This is a really fantastic article.

  • Anarchy Pony

    This is a really fantastic article.

  • twotonetwo

    ‘The sense of “otherness” built upon the masculine-feminine binary inherent in feminist ideology seems to me to be a fundamental flaw in that it reinforces a separateness even as it seeks equality. Perhaps only a sense of “oneness” built upon the compassion and respect for the uniqueness of all human beings will truly bring about an equal world.’

    Feminism isn’t about excluding other people but instead fighting for equality and not letting anyone tell one what it means to be feminine or to be ashamed to embrace it. You’re sort of indirectly blaming feminism for creating the masculine-feminine binary and its problems. Most “problems” that arise from feminism are because of poor and improper education of feminists about what it means and what’s viable. There is also a lot to be said for the way our society demonizes feminists and a demand of equality from anyone and how difficult that can make to get proper information and arguments out there (society at large – or at least the people in charge – seem to think giving women more rights somehow takes away from everyone else?).

  • twotonetwo

    ‘The sense of “otherness” built upon the masculine-feminine binary inherent in feminist ideology seems to me to be a fundamental flaw in that it reinforces a separateness even as it seeks equality. Perhaps only a sense of “oneness” built upon the compassion and respect for the uniqueness of all human beings will truly bring about an equal world.’

    Feminism isn’t about excluding other people but instead fighting for equality and not letting anyone tell one what it means to be feminine or to be ashamed to embrace it. You’re sort of indirectly blaming feminism for creating the masculine-feminine binary and its problems. Most “problems” that arise from feminism are because of poor and improper education of feminists about what it means and what’s viable. There is also a lot to be said for the way our society demonizes feminists and a demand of equality from anyone and how difficult that can make to get proper information and arguments out there (society at large – or at least the people in charge – seem to think giving women more rights somehow takes away from everyone else?).

    • ManWithPlan

      Nope, Feminism aggressively lobbies against equal rights in several areas of society and doesn’t really help women unless the woman happens to be a white liberal professional.

      • Guesty

        MRA with a plan, I take it? Not snidely snark like, but that’s the vibe I’m getting.

  • ghebert

    For those interested, another good youtube channel to check out when you’re done with Girlwriteswhat is ManWomanMyth…a lot of documentary style videos dealing with everything from feminism, to domestic violence, pay gap and more.

  • ghebert

    For those interested, another good youtube channel to check out when you’re done with Girlwriteswhat is ManWomanMyth…a lot of documentary style videos dealing with everything from feminism, to domestic violence, pay gap and more.

  • ManWithPlan

    Men and women all over the world who genuinely desire equality are starting to notice a distinctive stench coming from gender ideologues in the feminist movement, and it doesn’t smell like egalitarianism. I have great hope that men and women can come together and realize that human rights isn’t a zero-sum game- we don’t help women by stepping on men, and vice-versa.

  • ManWithPlan

    Men and women all over the world who genuinely desire equality are starting to notice a distinctive stench coming from gender ideologues in the feminist movement, and it doesn’t smell like egalitarianism. I have great hope that men and women can come together and realize that human rights isn’t a zero-sum game- we don’t help women by stepping on men, and vice-versa.

    • fidelbogen

      As I mentioned earlier, that “stench” has been overwhelming for many years now. But it’s good that some people are finally starting to notice it. Better late than never.

      By the way, the feminist buzzword “equality” is a product of those very same “gender ideologues” whose stench you have so rightly scented. And if we are to isolate the feminist narrative and end its grip upon our lives, we need to reclaim the language. So we need to become aware of such things.

  • lazy_friend

    Humans as ornaments.

    • Dr. Mudgett

      Or slaves, depending on the gender.

    • Dr. Mudgett

      Or slaves, depending on the gender.

      • Don Piano

        It’s a Mars Volta lyric.

        • Matt Staggs

          Love your Discus handle. That cat video cracks me up every time I see it.

          • Guest

            I’m new to this site but I’ve been on Graham Hancock’s forum for over 10 years and was pleasantly surprised to see his TED conundrum a focus over here. Surprisingly enough though I came here through a feminism watch link. OH LONG JOHN

          • Don Piano

            I’m new to this site but I’ve been on Graham Hancock’s forum for over 10 years and was pleasantly surprised to see his TED conundrum a focus over here. Surprisingly enough though I came here through a feminism watch link. OH LONG JOHN

  • http://skadhitheravernerblog.wordpress.com/ Skadhi_the_Raverner

    By and large feminism is toxic. However this part deserves clarification.

    “Of course, much more disturbing was her desire to water down child pornography laws, lower the age of consent to 14 and decriminalize incest through her association with the Paedophile Information Exchange (a far more chilling topic of conversation for another occasion).”

    The last bit is indeed very interesting and deserves a follow up.

    However the age of consent is ridiculously high when people have sex at 12 and this would have been normal throughout most of our history, and across cultures. At the very least once someone isold enough to be having sex consensually (as in a personal decision, and not legal scribble), there should be the rule that less than ten years age difference is normal.

    this is not to say promiscuity should be encouraged but also to ie. lower the age of marriage, remove risk of prosecution to any older partner who provides social and financial support to the younger partner in case of pregnancy.

    Lastly it would solve a lot of social problems for both men and women if males had automatic child custody as it was in ancient Ireland.

  • http://skadhitheravernerblog.wordpress.com/ Skadhi_the_Raverner

    By and large feminism is toxic. However this part deserves clarification.

    “Of course, much more disturbing was her desire to water down child pornography laws, lower the age of consent to 14 and decriminalize incest through her association with the Paedophile Information Exchange (a far more chilling topic of conversation for another occasion).”

    The last bit is indeed very interesting and deserves a follow up.

    However the age of consent is ridiculously high when people have sex at 12 and this would have been normal throughout most of our history, and across cultures. At the very least once someone isold enough to be having sex consensually (as in a personal decision, and not legal scribble), there should be the rule that less than ten years age difference is normal.

    this is not to say promiscuity should be encouraged but also to ie. lower the age of marriage, remove risk of prosecution to any older partner who provides social and financial support to the younger partner in case of pregnancy.

    Lastly it would solve a lot of social problems for both men and women if males had automatic child custody as it was in ancient Ireland.

    • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

      I don’t really see how sex between a 12 year old and say, a 30 year old is really consensual. The power relations are just not equal. Maybe two 12 year olds it would be consensual.

    • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

      I don’t really see how sex between a 12 year old and say, a 30 year old is really consensual. The power relations are just not equal. Maybe two 12 year olds it would be consensual.

      • Daenerys_Targaryen

        The concept of ‘power relations’ is meaningless, unless one already suscribes to a political or social philosophy based upon power relations, then the concept is below the radar.

        In real life, whether or not inexperienced partners are potentially vulnerable, its also true that individuals seek status through their conscious mating choices. Appeal to ‘power relations’ as a justification of legislation therefore ignores human nature.

        Besides in most cases of paedophilia the older partner is no older than their early twenties and the younger partner no younger than their early teens.

        • Matt Staggs

          According to Parents for Megan’s Law, The average age for first incidence of sexual abuse is 9.9 years for boys and 9.6 years for girls. http://www.parentsformeganslaw.org/public/statistics_childSexualAbuse.html

          • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

            wow, that is really sad.

          • Daenerys_Targaryen

            Oh well if it came from a pressure group it must be true lol.

            I know of people who lost their virginity at 9 or 10 to people in their own year or the one above, but no ‘abuse’.

        • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

          I don’t think its right for adults to fuck children. I don’t know what else to say. I am not saying 16 is always rape neccesarily, but much more likely than 18 or 21 and I think age 12 is too young. That’s 6th grade, dude. That is too young.

          Early teens=child. Even the book Lolita, that is so famous, if you actually read it it basically explains why its a wrong and messed up thing to do. Why its abuse

          • Daenerys_Targaryen

            Well in my culture there’s no middle school and your in high school at age 11-12 (our year 7) and by year 8 (age 12-13) you’re expected to behave as an adult with no babying from older kids. And the age of consent is actually 16 with a partner of any age.

            If a lad isn’t having sex at 16, there’s something wrong with him.

          • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

            I dunno about that.

  • nacatak

    I just had a few comments to make about your section on rape:

    1) You say: “it wasn’t until January of 2012 that the FBI updated their definition of rape victims to include men) and the subsequent exclusivity of systems to assist all victims of sexual violence in preference for women only.”

    Well, not really. They updated their definition to include rape victims of men… but only IF the man is penetrated by something. If I, or you, as males, were drugged, tied down to a bed, beaten and a woman jumped on top and forced us to penetrate her, that would NOT qualify as rape under this new definition because we were not penetrated. Clearly this is still forced sex without consent, yet it is not classified as rape. Basically, the new updated definition of rape is still MASSIVELY lacking in covering male victims of rape.

    2) (this is kind of relevant to my first point) You say: ” Statistically speaking, women make up the majority of rape victims and men the majority of the rapists”

    Again, that’s not really the case… at least if you include “forced to penetrate” as rape. If you look at the NISVS done by the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf), you can actually see them conclude that the majority of rape victims are in fact female. But as I said, that is because they do not define “forced to penetrate” as rape.

    Let’s actually look at the numbers (pages 18-19):

    The 12 month rates of rape victimization for WOMEN is 1.27 million.

    The 12 month rates of rape victimization for MEN is…. is, not reported or too small to report. HOWEVER, if we scroll down just a tiny bit and include “forced to penetrate” (which they put in the same category as “non-contact unwanted sexual experiences”), we see that in the exact same 12 months that 1.27 million were raped… that 1.27 million men were forced to penetrate (aka raped).

    So hopefully you can see how damaging these sexist definitions of rape are, even if we use the updated one. The government does these studies and sees a conclusion “oh, 90% or more rape victims are female”, and then pours all this funding to exclusively female victims. This then allows them to have an easier time reporting and being believed because so much more support is there, which then further inflates the numbers relative to men, which then further tips the funding in their favour… and so on and so forth. Not to mention that this directly funds the people (through VAWA) who are in charge of making definitions of rape that don’t include the form of rape that males are primarily victims of (forced to penetrate).

    Now you might also look at the difference in lifetime rates, and see that even with including “forced to penetrate” that women outnumber men as rape victims. Well, seeing as the last 12 months is more recent… you can make a few conclusions from this.

    1) That men didn’t report as much in the past and now in recent times the number of male victims reporting (or just in general) is increased to match the yearly rate of women… which means going forward the lifetime rates will converge.

    2) That the victimization rate for women was higher in the past (or the reported victimization rate), but is not going down so that the yearly rate matches men… again, going forward 20-40 years will have the lifetime rates converge.

    Basically the lifetime rates are almost irrelevant when trying to decide policy/affect change going forward, because they are in the past. If we look at the most recent annual rate, we see that they are equal, and that is what we should focus on when making decisions in this area.

    Anyway, I hope you update your article to reflect what are IMO, two pretty big oversights.

    Thanks.

  • Jamie Lee

    Thank you for pointing out some of the issues that I’ve been trying to raise which get lost along the peripheries of this topic.

    Some more http://www.modernmythology.net/2013/03/queer-ugly-hetero-white-male-american.html

  • warwitheastasia

    This is pretty good… for a girl

  • Jin The Ninja

    i am just going to leave this here:

    “Black and Third World people are expected to educate white people as to
    our humanity. Women are expected to educate men. Lesbians and gay men
    are expected to educate the heterosexual world. The oppressors maintain
    their position and evade their responsibility for their own actions.
    There is a constant drain of energy which might be better used in
    redefining ourselves and devising realistic scenarios for altering the
    present and constructing the future.” ~Audre Lorde

    and perhaps before you downvote, seriously THINK about the demographics of this forum, is it
    overwhelmingly white, male and hetrosexual? and if so perhaps the above is not untrue…

  • fidelbogen

    To the author of this article: Welcome to Red Pill Awareness. May you complete your transition swiftly. Here is some more excellent reading to boost you along the path:

    http://gynotheory.blogspot.com

    By the way, I notice that you used the word “genders” at one point in the article. Just a heads-up: That’s feminist lingo. Better to say “the sexes” if you don’t wish to be drawn into femthink.

  • fidelbogen

    It is hard to understand how anybody could miss the stench of feminism in the cultural atmosphere, which has been overpoweringly present since the 1990s. That is, for at least 20 years. But then, the culture as a whole becomes inured to these things, which makes awareness difficult. You know, the way that a fish is unaware of the water?

  • http://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/ polfilmblog

    You guys are buying these generalizations?

    Vid 1 sort of reveals that she’s never worked in the real corporate world… a boy’s club. The people running the world and corrupting society are mostly male. Sorry to burst your bubbles. The rapists and murderers also mostly male. Hollywood producers and directors, ditto. At times her mishmosh of generalizations are more fantasy than reality. Women aren’t treated shitty enough and their suffering neglected? Take a short trip to the third world, dear (where they made your clothes) and get back to us. I find her the victim of another strange ideology gone awry, and not some oracle of wisdom. Pu-leeez.

  • http://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/ polfilmblog

    The man’s video has some very erroneous modern economic history. Wages are under assault by the reich wing who made deals with the corporate whore Dems to ship all the manufacturing out of the country, post NAFTA. That part’s pretty obvious. The national debt is the “radical feminist’s” fault? That is too asinine to bother with. Reagan started the debt skyrocketing to outspend the Soviets, under threat of nuclear annihilation. Then the banksters got on board to game the system, after the Savings and Loan bailouts and pillage of the late Reagain era. This bankster paradise has continued with the bipartisan repeal of Glass Steagall, and casino capitalism was back in force. This rampant speculation was what brought on the great depression, and what Glass Steagall had prevented for 70 years until the government was turned over to Wall Street. Is it too obvious to point out that “radical feminism” has zero to do with any of that?

  • Darlene S. Esser

    If you think Frances`s story is flabbergasting…, last pay
    cheque my girl friends mom also made $4541 putting in a ninteen hour week from
    their apartment and their buddy’s mom`s neighbour has done this for seven
    months and earned over $4541 part time from a mac. applie the guidelines from this
    web-site… jump15.comCHECK IT OUT

  • anon

    Girlwriteswhat strikes me as the Dawkins of anti-feminism. I’d love to see her get into professional live debates and get more popular. She definitely deserves it.

21