The Real Problem With “Check Your Privilege”: It’s Too Generous

ninetymilesnrTbZ11rekkeio1_500Amanda Marcotte writes at the Raw Story:

In the comments of this post and on Twitter two days ago, I laid down a gauntlet: Since so many anti-feminist “skeptics” (I refuse to acknowledge the skepticism of someone who won’t apply it to gender roles and patriarchy, when these are major societal issues) were having multi-year meltdowns of tone policing feminists, I just wanted to know why. Over and over, I kept seeing the phrase: “You shouldn’t be able to call me privileged/misogynist/asshole/bigot just because I disagree with you!” This phrase is meant to force the conversation into more tone policing and rules-lawyering about how one is allowed to express disagreement, a debate that is set up so that progressives just give up and go home since any expression of displeasure at reactionary sentiments is considered “intolerant”, no matter how mild, as I noted yesterday.

So, I had one question. Okay, you “disagree”. About what, exactly?

After all, the answer to that question determines the validity of the whine. They know this, which is why they reference their disagreements ellipitcally. If you come right and say what your real problems with feminism are, you out yourself not as a reasonable person who has reasonable disagreements with those hysterical bitches, but someone who openly holds anti-woman positions that just so happen to conflict with what a rigorous examination of scientific fact and skepticism about appeals to tradition would lead one to believe. My belief was that the feminist detractors would not be, despite calling themselves “brave heroes”, brave enough to articulate the actual meat of their objections, but would fall back on the not-talking-about-the-thing-we’re-talking-about strategy of tone policing. I was correct. Almost no one produced a substantive complaint about the actual ideas feminism brings to the table.

I tried! I gave them a list of things that feminists support, so they could argue against them. Things like the right to choose, the right to live free of violence, equal pay, or hell, even the expansion of the social safety net. I pointed out that there were many feminists who spoke and brought actual arguments and evidence to the table at Women in Secularism, and they could argue with any of them! I got crickets. Just kidding! I got more tone policing, but no substantive arguments. It’s definitely not because of previous rounds of bans of people for harassing me and commenters drained the numbers, either, because this time around another dozen people got banned for inability to follow this most basic rule.

But one middle-aged gentleman on Twitter, a man who at his age should really know better, finally came up with something that he believes feminists are wrong about: sexual harassment. Of course, in the grand tradition of creepy dudes everywhere, he was still arguing in bad faith, and pretended that sexually harassing women is sincere, if clueless flirting. He stood up for the male….wait for it….privilege to say whatever you want to any woman and have it interpreted, no matter how obviously it was creepy, as generously as possible. The right to corner women in elevators to creep them out, which is apparently the most sacred right ever concocted by a non-existent god to show how much he loved men more than women, is and always will be about what this multi-year meltdown of misogynists in the skeptic movement will be about. That, and really nothing else.

Which puts into perspective how bananas all this is, because even those people who have more substantive disagreements with feminists on issues like violence, reproductive rights, equality in the workplace, etc. tend to think that it’s bad form to be rude to other conference-goers at conferences. I’ve been in conservative spaces and don’t generally feel they’re more or less safe than skeptic/geek spaces. Just on the grounds of politeness, this battle should have been decided in favor of the feminists a long time ago. Regardless of gender ideology, it’s considered bad form to use physical space and exploitative interpretations of social rules to make other people feel creeped out, to get the momentary thrill of power over them. Duh.

Of course, all this really exposes one fundamental thing that makes this entire shitstorm over the P-word (privilege) even more terrible. Like Ron Lindsay, I’m none too happy with the explosion of the word “privilege” all over progressive freethought blogs. However, my reasons are, I would argue, exactly the opposite of his. I don’t like the P-word because I think it’s far too generous to the opposition.

Read more here.

80 Comments on "The Real Problem With “Check Your Privilege”: It’s Too Generous"

  1. Ted Heistman | Jun 3, 2013 at 4:47 pm |

    Basically women, feminists included, want chivalry, they don’t want to be treated like one of the guys. Guys give each other brutal shit. So being treated as an equal translates for feminists into being singled out and harassed.

    Its more of a blue collar thing though about guys busting each others balls and saying sexual insults to each other. But, I mean, at certain male dominated jobs that is the culture.

    Generally these are dangerous dirty jobs though, that most women don’t really want, but once in a while I have seen women work these jobs and think they are being singled out when they are being treated like everyone else. So really the expectation is to be treated as special.

    Also though, there are women who know how to handle these type of guys and they do it, without saying “check your privilege” and stupid shit like that. There have always been smart women, long before there was feminism.

    • mannyfurious | Jun 3, 2013 at 5:42 pm |

      I think you’ve nailed it. Women deserve and should demand “equality” with men (there are natural differences between the two sexes that we can’t really do anything about and should actually celebrate, much to the chagrin of some feminists, but women do have the right to not be discriminated against or otherwise oppressed by the male-dominant world).

      My personal feeling is that much of feminism is women wanting something more than equality. They want to switch places wholly. They want to dominate over men. This is why it gets a bad rap, even though most people can’t articulate it. There really are a lot of “man-haters” within the movement at large.

      • charlotte9 | Jun 6, 2013 at 11:49 pm |

        Have you seriously read any real feminist arguments? The comment section on a Jezebel article doesn’t count.

        • mannyfurious | Jun 7, 2013 at 11:43 am |

          No, there’s “good” feminism and there’s “bad” feminism. Perhaps unfairly, the “bad” feminism seems garner the male attention much more easily and distinctively.

          It would be easy to dismiss the commentors in Jezebel articles (I don’t even know what Jezebel is, but I think I get your general idea–that it’s a website with a large percentage of its readership consisting of intellectually questionable “feminists”), but if nothing else it shows that there is a fairly large and vocal population defending and/or promoting “bad” feminism.

          • charlotte9 | Jun 9, 2013 at 5:13 pm |

            Well…at one time I would have agreed with you that the group was “fairly large”, but I have come to the conclusion that in nearly all cases (not just feminism, but pick any group you’d like), it really is just “vocal”. For example, I used to think there were far more true misogynists than there really are…it’s disgusting that they are so loud, because they can easily corrupt young men hurt over their first rejection or break-up, or what-have-you, but the same could be said for any other group with a loud presence…

            The internet is heavily skewed to those who have the most time to “bitch”, so to speak.

            Hence why so many people believe that all Christians are fundamentalists, etc. In most groups, there truly is a silent majority…pity…wouldn’t the internet be a wonderful place if it were actually a reflection of true democracy? (Or at the very least, a useful tool in discovering the true intellectual positions of various groups…)

    • David Duke-Astin | Jun 4, 2013 at 7:11 am |

      maybe guys shouldn’t be brutal to each other. I know I don’t tolerate and I tell other guys to not speak to me that way. Frankly, it doesn’t happen that often since only jerks behave that way. Most of the people I know are not jerks.

      • Ted Heistman | Jun 4, 2013 at 8:51 am |

        maybe guys shouldn’t be guys. maybe everyone should have a different personality. Maybe all construction workers should act like office workers. I had a male manager tell me “shhhhh” in an office job.

        But really though, a lot of guys bust each others balls with affection. Its not always hostile it just entails hostile lingo.

        Rather than hope everyone was a different person, or maybe try to manipulate everyone, sometimes its good to learn what people are like and use some finesse to navigate through life. Generally taking a hard line approach to people creates countervailing forces. That is something to keep in mind.

        • Defending emasculation by calling for finesse… Interesting.

        • David Duke-Astin | Jun 4, 2013 at 7:11 pm |

          I don’t wish you were a different person, just a better one.

          • Ted Heistman | Jun 4, 2013 at 7:43 pm |

            Thanks, man. I will only say left wing politically correct things from now on instead of what i actually think. I wouldn’t want you to disapprove of me.

          • Because if someone calls something “politically correct,” that automatically proves it wrong.

          • Ted Heistman | Jun 5, 2013 at 2:50 pm |

            See detailed comment I left regarding my feelings on feminism.

        • Eric_D_Read | Jun 4, 2013 at 9:41 pm |

          Having worked on several crews of ball busting motherfuckers, I see it as an existing tribe testing the prospect, AKA new guy, for weakness. If you’re working in a situation where your life and/or limb may depend on the guy next to you keeping his cool in a stressful environment, busting his balls from day one is how you get a feel of how he’ll hold up if TSHTF.

          • Ted Heistman | Jun 4, 2013 at 9:50 pm |

            Right. Exactly.

          • i think its just about having a bit of fun while working. no one at my job takes the ball busting seriously, but we can say some mean shit to each other, touching sensitive nerves all the time. it often serves to make a stiff ego more flexible. I wouldn’t have it any other way, but if there were women on our crew, it’d honestly be less fun. I find most(not all) women don’t “get it”. There have been numerous instances where women got offended when hearing us bust each others balls. Granted, some men are pussies about it, too. 😉
            (hows that for p.c.)

        • charlotte9 | Jun 7, 2013 at 12:05 am |

          (I’m not necessarily responding to your comment, specifically; this is just where I was in the comments once I had the thought):

          Some chicks, they’re like, tough and shit. They like tough dudes, or some like dudes they can dominate and shit. They like talking shit and holding their own in their own bitchy way. A lot of these girls become strippers. (I was one). That’s cool for them.

          Some chicks, they like, want to read books and garden and maybe have a kid or at least a dog and like, think about deep shit and take up crocheting. These chicks, they like, usually don’t like rough shit. They want a gentleman.

          I want both. Because I am both. I can talk shit and be a bitch and I can be a polite lady and I can be intellectual and I can be completely low-brow, and I’m not really contradicting myself. Most interesting *people*, male or female, are not just one thing. Thank fucking god.

          I don’t fit in one box and I wouldn’t even know what to do with a man who did. I’ve tried dating intellectuals and rich boys and “self-made” men and kinksters and hippies and every last one of them was so fucking dull it made me want to rip my eyes out.

          Who the hell defines themselves as only one thing?? Boring people, that’s who.

          Any woman who is dissatisfied with how “men” are…maybe she should just consider that she’s a unique creature who will require a unique mate…(of course, first you have to actually be unique…you’re on your own for that one…)

      • Most guys don’t realize how much we oppress each other.

    • Tuna Ghost | Jun 4, 2013 at 7:12 am |

      I think what they want, which they’ve stated times too innumerable to count, is equality. Not to be treated like a man. The fact that you cannot distinguish between those two is rather telling.

      • Eric_D_Read | Jun 4, 2013 at 7:33 am |

        Feminists saying they want “equality” is about as factual as Republicans saying they want “small government.”

  2. The last person I know who tried to manipulate the situation with the privileged white male card, later went on about how whenever they have caviar they share it with their cats. This was a person online, who doesn’t know me, likely wouldn’t break bread with me, and was completely full of shit.

    This all started over me sharing a song from a group that performs Bon music rituals. Yet they are Russian. She wanted to show me, a person from the West coast, how sophisticated the East coasters are. What she ended up doing was hurting my feelings and showing me how much of a dismissive asshole she is.

    From my perspective, the use of buzz words in this is a sure sign it’s a trap. No thanks. As a preemptive, I accept everyone that accepts me, even people with gender issues. If you want to be an asshole, that’s your trip. Human rights yes, Feminism to each their own, but only if it’s honest and not manipulative.

    • $34266836 | Jun 4, 2013 at 8:02 am |

      “Feminism to each their own, but only if it’s honest and not manipulative.”
      That narrows it down to nearly no examples.

      • I will clear it up some more. If it’s about respect and empowering then I am all for it. If it’s about retaliation and a power play, then no.

  3. Anyone who is sympathetic of the narcissistic nutcase that is the lady from Elevatorgate is of an opinion worth dismissing.

  4. This whole scene has been beyond self-parody from day one.

  5. john doe | Jun 3, 2013 at 7:54 pm |

    the irony of feminists trying to regulate male behavior is that women dont respect men who follow all the rules girls lay down for them; they’re doormats. feminists are trying to create a new (*neutered) man that they would ultimately hate.

    • Tuna Ghost | Jun 4, 2013 at 7:06 am |

      this is one of the most powerfully stupid things I’ve seen on Disinfo. I…I literally do not know where to begin

      • $34266836 | Jun 4, 2013 at 8:03 am |

        Because it is true.

      • Kropotkin1936 | Jun 4, 2013 at 6:57 pm |

        It’s sad, because I generally like this site, but the amount of patriarchal bullshit is not surprising. I get the impression that the commentators here are a lot of embittered males who blame their lack of sexual fulfillment on some vague “evil feminism” that wants to “neuter” them. (And I’m a heterosexual male and a feminist, fyi) It’s really baffling to me how people with radical, anti-authoritarian mindsets cannot seem to grasp the idea of patriarchy and how so many other forms of oppression stem from it, INCLUDING the oppression of men

    • CosmicAmazing | Jun 4, 2013 at 11:11 am |

      It’s funny you say that. From experience I learned that if men behave within all the ‘rules’ women lay down, the women end up hating them. It seems like the only way to make a women stick around is to disagree with them, fight with them and dominate them from time to time. Like I said, this is just my experience with women. I’ve noticed that they really don’t want what they try so hard to mold us into. For men it’s easy; we generally just want sex, in most cases. **Disagreements Welcome**

      • A 2011 Kinsey Institute study concluded men like to cuddle more than women and women value sexual satisfaction more than men.

        “Everything you know is wrong.”

        • CosmicAmazing | Jun 4, 2013 at 12:00 pm |

          IDK about the cuddling part, but the sexual satisfaction part is understandable. For women it can be much harder to “get off” but it’s also more intense when they do. So it makes sense that they would value that experience much more than men.

        • Ted Heistman | Jun 4, 2013 at 4:56 pm |

          Makes sense to me.

  6. Fleck_of_Sand | Jun 3, 2013 at 8:17 pm |

    Try being a man in a female dominated field like children’s education(where prejudices sight any penis owning individual as a likely molester). Many of society’s corners are despotically matriarchal in disposition contrary to the exaggerated claims of whatever is calling itself feminism these days.

  7. i get the feeling when discussing feminism, that we’re really discussing some kind of cult of personality. That is to say, there were the 60’s feminists, (which I can’t really speak intelligently about, but they got the pill), the 70’s brought the angry , but probably better put as militant, the 80’s the capable and equal worker woman, the 90’s a kind of humanist perspective, and now – it seems to me – we’re back at the militant 70’s.

    What this post doesn’t discuss is what I think most people don’t discuss – sex roles. Lots of cliches, but – at least for me – there’s a lot to it. Insecurity, power, fear, hurt … you name it, it’s like a microscope on everything. She brings up being creepy in an elevator and the “privilege to say whatever you want to any woman and have it interpreted,
    no matter how obviously it was creepy, as generously as possible.” While that targets a specific behavior, it doesn’t understand the motivation. The motivation is to have sex. The residue around it makes it difficult for her and for her (apparent) assailant.

    Instead of dealing with what it is – there’s a guy who wants to have sex with you – it gets as warped as the “mens rights” freaks who are hurt and upset that they were rejected, unwanted, ugly … whatever, and turn around to blame women. But couch it in academic language and suddenly, there’s no rejection, no negative feelings – just a sterile explanation for the negative impact on one, or both of the two genders. And of course, this gets wrapped up in philosophical sourcing… “Steinem said this! So-And-So clearly described the patriarchy.”

    So, if I were responding to her (which I’m afraid to, I confess), here’s my gripe with her brand of feminism: You hurt my feelings, then ignore my hurt feelings with the broad brush of Patriarchy, and then get upset when I don’t want to tell you how you hurt my feelings so you can ignore them some more, minimize and trivialize the sexual power of choice that women (usually) enjoy.

    And I’m really bothered by the new slogan of “girls are called bossy / boys are called leaders” – bs. dick boys are called dicks, bossy girls are called bossy. The 80’s woman who is now the CEO of whatever, may be a good leader, in which case, she’s not bossy – but some are. Stop ignoring the power play in sexual relationships and stop ignoring the meaning of words. Some kids are bossy little dicks.

    • Tuna Ghost | Jun 4, 2013 at 7:01 am |

      She brings up being creepy in an elevator and the “privilege to say whatever you want to any woman and have it interpreted,
      no matter how obviously it was creepy, as generously as possible.” While that targets a specific behavior, it doesn’t understand the motivation.

      I think everyone involved in this kind of situation understands the motivation. It doesn’t need to be addressed. What needs to be addressed is what you call “the residue”, and the subtle power play that is occurring when this happens.

      You hurt my feelings, then ignore my hurt feelings with the broad brush of Patriarchy, and then get upset when I don’t want to tell you how you hurt my feelings so you can ignore them some more, minimize and trivialize the sexual power of choice that women (usually) enjoy.

      A discussion about what needs to be done to fix an imbalance that has existed for…for just so effing long and causes suffering is not a place for you to discuss how your feelings are hurt. That is completely immaterial and deserves to be ignored.

      Also, I’d wager that you can’t provide a definition of “the sexual power of choice” that doesn’t sound ridiculous.

      • $34266836 | Jun 4, 2013 at 8:08 am |

        The result that is surfacing is going to be a resounding silence from men. Men cannot win, no matter what action they take, so they are dropping out completely, and hookup culture is making this easier.
        Women will get what they want, but may not want what they get.
        The imbalance has been there, but not the one you have been programmed to accept.

        • charlotte9 | Jun 6, 2013 at 11:44 pm |

          “Women will get what they want, but may not want what they get.”


          I’m engaged to a feminist, artistic, well-read man who is in a band with a lesbian singer.

          I love my life; he’s my best friend. Also, he has a big dick! Nope, I’m definitely not feeling the hurt on holding out for the man of my dreams! 😀

          (Probably has something to do with the fact that he respects his mother and father equally. Do you even talk to your mother?)

    • charlotte9 | Jun 6, 2013 at 11:32 pm |

      “it gets as warped as the “mens rights” freaks who are hurt and upset that they were rejected, unwanted, ugly … whatever, and turn around to blame women.”

      Do you know what women do when they are hurt and upset over feeling “rejected, unwanted, ugly…whatever”?

      They: 1.) cut their bodies / vomit / stop eating to fit “beauty” expectations, 2.) lower their standards, 3.) try out lesbianism, or 4.) forget about it and find a hobby.

      Not too many “rejected” women start hating men based *solely* on their rejection. There is usually an additional reason for true misandry.

      Not so for misogynistic men, many of whom are mainly just pissed that they didn’t get what they feel they “deserved”–this is about certain men believing women are objects. That’s what “objectification” means.

  8. Wait, I’m confused: if you object to someone calling you an “asshole,” then you’re guilty of “tone-policing” and “rules-lawyering?”

    It sounds like someone is off her meds.

  9. emperorreagan | Jun 3, 2013 at 11:38 pm |

    I think it probably is far too generous in many discussions.

    There’s unexamined/ignorance of privilege. There’s a shallow understanding of privilege where people get sidetracked by specific examples and can’t quite make the jump to the broader issues. And there there’s awareness combined with indifference or malice.

    It’s certainly fair just to call someone in the latter category an asshole. The owner of the Washington Redskins, for instance, is a racist asshole. He’s been told again and again that American Indians find the team name offensive, but insists the team name doesn’t really mean what they think it means – it really just stands for a winning tradition and the offended parties can fuck right off.

    • Monkey See Monkey Do | Jun 4, 2013 at 7:38 am |

      Until they change the redskins name there should be a basketball team called the honkies.

  10. Noah_Nine | Jun 4, 2013 at 1:34 am |

    This is a quagmire I learned long ago to avoid…

    • Tuna Ghost | Jun 4, 2013 at 6:50 am |

      It is great that you’re able to do that. Others do not have that choice.

  11. The Well Dressed Man | Jun 4, 2013 at 3:50 am |

    Well hot damn! This forum is the closest thing to an old boy’s club I’ve seen in a while! Identity politics is such an endless maze. I do my best to be open minded and respectful of others, and expect the same from them. Beyond that, it’s factions struggling for power. I’m so glad to be a science student, in that I’m largely spared the modern liberal arts academic culture of fragmented genders and ethnicities. My school has an engineering department, physics department, science department, and your traditional language, history, art and so on….all of which are outnumbered by the dozens of departments of various identity groups, each with their own dean and admin staff. Does race matter? Does gender matter? Does sexual orientation matter? Does the individual matter? Either we learn how to be cool with others, or we gang up into special interest groups to scrap with those who are not like us.

    • $34266836 | Jun 4, 2013 at 12:46 pm |

      Or we wake up, see who is actually taking advantage of us, and think for ourselves. This is true subterfuge.

  12. David Duke-Astin | Jun 4, 2013 at 7:15 am |

    All I’m seeing in this forum is a bunch of men protecting their privilege with paranoid fantasies about women and feminists. Appalling.

    • $34266836 | Jun 4, 2013 at 8:10 am |

      That’s a pretty bigoted response.

    • From my perspective, you did exactly what the woman who wrote the article did. Completely shut off any chance of equal communication.

      I’ve worked at stockyards, where I had to scoop up ground up guts because it was the highest paying job. I’ve worked under women ten years my junior and watched them sit on their asses, come in late, act belligerent, etc because I needed the money.

      The privilege argument is an excuse and a crutch that will keep people static in a fluid world. I speak from experience, without paranoid fantasies. If you are not trolling, considering your name which includes one of the most incendiary words I can think of, then you are being extremely narrow minded.

    • Cyprus Mulch | Jun 4, 2013 at 1:30 pm |

      Some but not all of the comments seem to fit that description.

      Sweeping generalizations: “women want _____,” “feminists want ______,” etc.

      This being the Disinfo comments section, let’s remember our patron saint RAW, and his coinage “sumbunall,” and the principles of General Semantics. More clarity and specificity, please.

      • David Duke-Astin | Jun 4, 2013 at 7:09 pm |

        I think you’ll see what I mean when you read the comments. If not, I can’t help you.

        • charlotte9 | Jun 7, 2013 at 12:24 am |

          Dude…Cyprus was agreeing with you…sort of.

          (Then again, I’m a RAW fan and well aware of his opinions on feminism, which I totally forgive because it was the 70’s/80’s/90’s and post-feminism and all that shite hadn’t happened and no one knew what the word kyriarchy was…)

  13. Eric_D_Read | Jun 4, 2013 at 7:36 am |

    Feminism. Because how else could rich, college educated white women with a laundry list of special legal privileges whine incessantly about being oppressed and marginalized without being laughed out of the room?

    • $34266836 | Jun 4, 2013 at 8:20 am |

      Gotta keep the victimhood karma train on track.

      Smells like desperation.

    • charlotte9 | Jun 7, 2013 at 12:11 am |

      I’m really disappointed with how anti-woman this “progressive” site is showing itself to be…

      I’m not rich. I’m not college educated. I do happen to be white, but I don’t know my parents (either of them), so I’m technically an orphan (I was adopted by a middle class family, but that’s a long story I’d rather not explain here).

      Almost every feminist I know is either queer or non-white, or multi-ethnic, or was previously homeless, or came from an extremely abusive family background, or was raped or molested.

      What WAS your fucking point, again?

    • charlotte9 | Jun 7, 2013 at 2:08 am |

      What’s most disturbing about your logic is that I bet it applies to other groups, as well. I bet you think that MOST Christians, for example, are loud-mouthed fundamentalists, etc.

      • Eric_D_Read | Jun 7, 2013 at 5:09 pm |

        MOST christians? I wouldn’t say that. But I would say that the more moderate christians provide cover for the nutbags and that the founding beliefs of their religion have no footing in reality, just like feminism.

        • charlotte9 | Jun 9, 2013 at 5:26 pm |

          I can’t help but notice that you didn’t reply to my other response, which had far more to say in response to your comment.

          “Because how else could rich, college educated white women with a laundry list of special legal privileges…”

          I am not rich, college-educated, or particularly privileged (though I will make an exception for white privilege, simply because I can “pass” as higher-class than I really am, through self-taught mannerisms, possibly more difficult to attain for other ethnic groups; I wouldn’t know)…

          Every feminist I personally know IN REAL LIFE also does not fit your profile. I don’t talk to girls like you describe and they wouldn’t talk to me, unless I play along with their bullshit, which I don’t unless there are extraordinary circumstances…

          As for those “legal privileges”? They realistically do not apply to women who live in poverty. My mother lost custody of my sister and I mostly because my adopted-father could afford a better lawyer (It’s a long story, like I said…)

          So it goes, but she was certainly not “privileged”, in that case…

  14. Mike Notlisted | Jun 4, 2013 at 8:14 am |

    I agree with the definition of feminism being “the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.” The problem is that this culture teaches women that the only way to be powerful is to find power in acting masculine as opposed to finding power within their femininity. Men an women are different and should navigate the world differently. Once you throw political correctness into the mix you are walking into a minefield.

    • $34266836 | Jun 4, 2013 at 12:48 pm |

      The biggest problem is the White Knight men who do their dirty work expecting to get a sexual crumb. Chivalry is treason.

      • Treason is an end in itself.

      • Kropotkin1936 | Jun 4, 2013 at 7:00 pm |

        So basically, you’re mad that no one will fuck you, even though you’re a chivalrous white knight? And this is somehow the fault of women wanting equality?

  15. the questionizer | Jun 4, 2013 at 5:07 pm |

    is see three possible issues with arguably negative effects entwined with feminism.

    1) being subjected to the cycle of jobs and taxes has turned out as horrible for women’s health as it has for men’s health, right? The stresses are harsher at work, especially with all those men around :-0 Taxes is what that whole range of feminism accomplished, women with three jobs, on the verge of a breakdown, all paying taxes for our frugal white house.

    2) having kids in gov’t approved preschool so much earlier because of working moms and dads equality leads to all kinds of weirdo kids.

    3) sometimes the feminist sentiment slips into the notion that women are superior. As easy as i can understand how it can happen after all the shit us guys over the eons etc. Nevertheless it is a touch unbecoming.

    • 1) You’re blaming taxes for what low wages and inhuman job environments are doing.

      2) Weirdo kids are a good thing.

      3) I agree.

  16. the other day there was a woman on the radio talmbout women get 17% less than men for the same position etc.. This led me to wonder wether she’d be in the studio arguing for mens equality if it was the other way round and women were the ones gettin 17% more. Cause if not, then this reveals her motives as being only concerned for the interests of her sex (and not equality for humanity) which is, er, not as easy to sympathise with…

    • thejynxed | Jun 9, 2013 at 10:35 am |

      The wage gap myth has been dispelled repeatedly in studies, including one by the Swedish government, THE bastion of Progressive Liberalism. There is a total of 5% difference, and that difference was explained when women take off for maternity leave. So, that woman was lying out of her ass.

  17. EastAsianNationalist | Jun 10, 2013 at 10:37 am |

    Raw Story is just a far-left echo chamber, why take anything there seriously?

Comments are closed.