Saturday, 3 January 2015

An open letter to the Two Scotts | on Nerds and Entitlement

Not too long ago, in response to a murky sexual harassment scandal involving a professor at MIT, Scott Aaronson penned a blog post. In his post, he expressed a desire that MIT not penalize the thousands of online students who depend on that professor's uploaded lectures by pulling them down (perfectly reasonable), as well as some dissatisfaction as to the lack of transparency regarding what had actually transpired that was bad enough to see MIT strip a noted professor of his emeritus status. 

This is not an unreasonable request. Sexual harassment policies in universities and colleges are consistently vague as to what behaviors are in violation and where the line is between interacting with women and expulsion. Many such policies rely heavily words like "unwanted" or "unwelcome":

The definition of sexual harassment may differ slightly among educational institutions. The types of behavior constituting sexual harassment may vary in degree of severity. Its
definition always has one key element -- the behavior is uninvited, unwanted, and unwelcome.

His concern, which he went on to explain in the comments, and unlike that of a typical observing public, was not so much that he longed to enjoy the titillating and salacious nitty-gritties of the case, but that for many men, particularly nerdy ones, life is already fraught with the, to them, arbitrary, ephemeral and capricious rules of social and sexual interaction, and for those already living in constant anxiety about offending women, not KNOWING what offences had actually earned this man the complete annihilation being meted out... well, nerds across the globe were probably rushing to pharmacies to refill their anxiety meds. 

For a group of people high in IQ and low in social expertise, who were likely bullied in high school, who are frequently not conventionally physically attractive and know it (because they heard it, constantly, possibly amid the sound of flushing water while being held upside down, often by people who WERE conventionally attractive), the vagueness of these definitions, combined with the dubious competence of adjudication, the erosion of due process and the sometimes draconian punishments that accompany a finding of violation on a typical university campus, well, Aaronson's now famous Comment #171, posted under his blog post delves into the very heart of that particular darkness. 

And after exposing his vulnerability, fear and pain from a place and time where he has now worked past much of it, the response of the usual feminist suspects was typically brutal. 

The establishment feminists dubbed him privileged and misogynistic, accused him of viewing women as subhuman sex objects, and asserted that his entire heartfelt and heartbreaking post was merely an expression of thwarted male sexual entitlement to women's bodies, a projection of his bitterness at the women who rejected him (though he mentioned none) onto all women everywhere. He told them that feminism--an ideology he still mostly supports!--convinced him to loathe his own sexuality and consider himself simultaneously sexually unworthy and sexually privileged, convinced him that the mere biologically intractable fact of his desire for women posed a harm to women that he wanted to avoid at any cost to himself (even chemical castration), and they responded by saying, "it wasn't feminism that told you that, you entitled, unworthy, predacious, privileged, rapey oppressor, and daring to say it sucks to be male and shy and socially awkward and alone makes you even more of every one of those things feminism never told you about yourself. Signed - a feminist."

The level of overt cruelty displayed by bigots like Amanda Marcotte is breathtaking. And as this blog post (long but well worth the read) by another Scott demonstrates, even the most reasonable of all the feminist responses to Aaronson's pain is rife with plausible deniability and victim-blaming. "It wasn't feminism that told you you're a privileged, entitled, rapey creep, it was patriarchy. Also, women have it worse, so stop complaining, privileged man-baby. Also, your complaining oppresses women, so it's no wonder they don't like you, creep. Signed - a feminist."

As Scott Alexander points out in his delightfully extensive blog post:

The problem is that nerds are scared and confused and feel lonely and have no idea how to approach women. From this root problem blossoms both Aaronson’s problem – that sometimes all you can do is go to a psychiatrist and ask to be castrated – and Penny’s problem – that other times people go read pickup artistry books that promise to tell them how the secret is “negging” people.
But Aaronson’s solution to the problem is to talk about it. And feminism’s solution to the problem is to swarm anyone who talks about it, beat them into submission, and tell them, in the words of Marcotte, that they are “yalping entitlement combined with an aggressive unwillingness to accept that women are human beings just like men”
And while Alexander goes to extreme lengths to deconstruct and discredit virtually every feminist assertion on this particular issue (with links to research and studies and all kinds of goodies for people who operate on facts rather than emotion), and while he accurately identifies much of the problem to be binary zero-sum thinking on the part of feminists (that is, one class is privileged and the other oppressed, therefore the suffering of one is by default less bad than the suffering of the other, even when we are forced to acknowledge it), he does not seem to see Marcotte's final quoted sentence for the projection it is.

I mean, this proposition--that men do not consider women human--is the primary axiom of the feminist definition of "patriarchy", which has been the dominant social system for as long as anyone can confidently determine. According to feminists, the entirety of history is one where men arbitrarily, capriciously and unjustly oppressed and subjugated women, treated them as nothing more than objects of sexual enslavement and domestic drudgery, for the privilege and benefit of all men.

So let's unpack this. Men, all through history, were nursed by women as infants, had their boo-boos kissed by women, were cuddled to sleep by women, had their illnesses tended by women, formed their very first and most important (most important because an infant is entirely dependent on the woman who feeds and nurtures it) emotional attachments with women. And yet the men so overwhelmingly influenced by the care and nurturing of women for their formative years, indeed, the men who were molded in the cradle of female love, affection, care and forbearance, created a society that subjugates and oppresses all women for men's privilege and benefit. 

That is the real assertion Marcotte and other feminists have consistently been making since the Declaration of Sentiments of 1848: that men are so sociopathic and subhuman that they would, collectively, oppress and subjugate the very people they formed their most intimate and important emotional bonds with. That men are so universally beyond the pale that they consider the person who brought them into the world and was their sole tether to life for their formative years, and all others like her, as less than human, as a slave class, as undeserving of the smallest human decency or respect.

This is what feminism tells men about themselves (it's what feminism told you about you, Scott Aaronson), and it's what it tells women about men. Feminists like Amanda Marcotte (and the #yesallwomen and #notallmen hashtags, among others) just come right out and say it, and then pretend to be victims when men say, "we're not like that." And feminists like Laurie Penny, say, "well, men, you're kinda sorta almost human at this point, unlike all the other men throughout history, but you could still do better," all while portraying men as a class as uniquely capable of subhuman behavior and uniquely deserving of derision and scorn.

Alexander closes his blog post with this:

Once I see anyone, anywhere, publish an article that not only recognizes our pain, but doesn’t derail it into an explanation of why we’re definitely still terrible and there is no need whatsoever for them to change, then I will be more optimistic that progress is at hand.

This is one such article, but tellingly, it was written by an anti-feminist woman. And there lies the rub, and the kernel of the message I want you to hear.

You said that male nerds are not only more likely to be feminist than other men, but that the average nerdy man is more likely to be feminist than the average non-nerdy woman. The reason for this is not because non-nerdy women are less likely to consider themselves or other women human--it's because they are more likely than feminists to consider YOU to be human, and therefore capable of seeing your mothers, sisters, daughters and wives as human beings.

Feminism's most basic premises sees men and women as tribal adversaries when they never have been, not even prior to the emergence of homo sapiens sapiens, and they see men as the oppressors of women and women the slaves of men all through history when this has never remotely been the case. It is not men who see women as less than human--it is [female] feminists who see men as less than human, incapable of even the most rudimentary compassion for the very people in their lives they are closest to, and [male] feminists who are convinced to internalize this message not because it's true, but because it is the opposite of true. It is because you see women as human, even more human than yourselves and more deserving of human dignity and consideration, that you have always felt you could never treat them as human enough.

They are using your compassion for women to convince you that all men (including you) hate women and so much they designed an entire form of social organization that dehumanizes women. It is because you have so much compassion for women, and so little for men, or even yourselves, that you are able to believe it.

You have seen these feminists retreat to their motte when such allegations are levied against them, but they live their lives in the bailey, Scott(s). In the bailey, men are universally privileged subhuman monsters who oppress, exploit and subjugate the very people they love, on a macroscale. And because you are so incredibly compassionate toward women, in your own minds, you could never consider women to be as human as they deserve, you could never treat women compassionately enough, while in the mind of a feminist, you, as a male, are entirely undeserving of anyone's compassion because you're a subhuman monster, as was every man who came before you all the way back to the cave.

So my message to you Scotts and all the other shy, nerdy males out there, just let it go. Not your pain. Not your suffering. Not your anger. Not the injury you feel when your disclosure of your most deep and intimate pain earns you little more than a more vicious public ass-kicking by the very people you have begged for understanding, feminists like Marcotte.

Let FEMINISM go. In its entirety. There's nothing just or compassionate in it, and there never has been when it comes to mainstream feminism, not even as far back as the 1850s. There's nothing real in it, only boogeymen designed to terrorize women and teach them to live in a state of heightened fear and learned helplessness, and the encouragement of scab-picking and the nursing and expanding of female grudges until they contaminate every facet of the relationship between men and women, and to whip men into guilt, shame and submission as the subhuman beasts they are.

Yes, sexism is real (against both men and women), and yes, gender roles are too rigid (for both men and women), but feminism provides no insight into the actual causes of any of it, and can therefore never provide an effective cure. All it provides for women is a sense of perpetual victimization and undeserved entitlement, neither of which will ever help women succeed, and all it provides for men is shame and self-loathing.

This is an intervention, gentlemen. I'm a bisexual, gender-queer, divorced mother of two sons and a daughter. I want them to inherit a world where the humanity of all people is respected and where all people's pain can find a compassionate ear and some form of redress. Where even men are considered to be human beings, and where the content of a woman's character rather than her pants defines what she is and can be.

An ideology that sees men and women as warring tribes, with men cast as the bourgeoisie and women as the proletariat, cannot and will not bring that world into reality. An ideology that sees men as subhuman and women as beyond human cannot and will not bring that world into reality.

So please, I beg of you, and of all the sensitive, wonderful, sweet, considerate, compassionate yet awkward men like you:

Let it go.


  1. >The level of overt cruelty displayed by bigots like Amanda Marcotte is breathtaking.

    Out of this whole post this statement and Marcotte's post struck a chord with me. I unfortunately know too well what Aaronson's pain feels like. I didn't start this post as a confession but it's spilling from me fast so here it is.

    I have a memory from when I was around the age of thirteen. It was telling myself that I would never be like those other guys. The bad guys on TV. The kind of guy that focused heavily on breasts. They were the lecherous ones, the sexual ones, they liked breasts, and not doing nice things like respecting girls. It's tough to describe exactly, but it was a kind of suppression of what I liked for the comfort of girls in order to be good. It is these snowballing suppressions that I feel ultimately robbed me of my sexuality. In the absence of any positive physical messages as a teenage boy I felt vastly physically less valuable as the girls around me (in traditional ways), yet simultaneously 'progressively' indebted to them in social situations. Unable to fill what seemed like a giant distance between myself and the opposite sex I merely slugged on fulfilling all the 'NiceGuy' stereotypes without any of the entitlement that I so routinely hear about. I firmly believed (as several girls told me) that eventually someone would like me.

    I was the quintessential virtuous young man, perhaps needlessly walked girls home safe at night, scolded guys making women uncomfortable, would have told you no thanks was needed at any point. I still would in maybe different ways. But as much as I liked myself for it the pain still mounted because it was all in conjunction with the total suppression of my desires. One brutally painful confession is that when eventually I found a partner (of which belligerent alcohol consumption had a hand in making me more attractive) I stayed in a sexless relationship for over 3 years. I felt that making too many moves myself would be pushing her boundaries, and that naturally things should be reciprocal and escalating (I touch x, you touch y, I touch z etc.). Consent is sexy stuff. But I also felt that leaving the relationship was just another way to exert pressure on women to be sex objects. If I said 'I'm breaking up with you because you don't have sex with me' in my head I was the bad guy in every show I'd watched as a 13 year old boy. She never made any moves, and I never went much further than some light '3rd base'.

    When one day she came to my room and finally met me in the middle ground, I was impotent. Crushed under the weight of having to take charge of someone I felt was above me, crushed under insecurity, crushed under the feeling that I was utterly worthless and didn't deserve to have sex with her, I couldn't perform and our relationship didn't last much longer.

    I hope one day I can reach a point where I can stand out of the cover of anonymity and protect younger men like he did. But I have no shield against the bile of people like Marcotte, it goes straight to my skin. To hear calls of entitlement makes me feel like I'm on a completely alien planet, where the colours are reversed and up is down, down is up, and the air is made of fire.

    I hung a poster of a topless girl in my room the other day; sounds very stupid doesn't it. But it's a small part piecing my life together as I approach 30 and tried to take back lost years. Amanda Marcotte has made me realize that if she cannot stem her (as you put it) breathtaking cruelty even for this very lovely man Scott Aaronson, feminists like her and even those less alike can never form anything but an intrinsically antimale movement. She is not so much human like I once thought, rather an alien living on the planet of the reverse. Somewhere we all get to choose to reside in or to not.

    So thanks Amanda Marcotte. And thank you Karen. My wrists still ache yet my shackles are no longer there.

    1. Hello everyone, My name is Courtney Bieneman and i am talking as the happiest person in the whole wide world today and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will tell the name to the whole wild world and i am so happy to say that my family is back for good because i was in need of $186,000.00 USD loan to start my life all over as i am a single mum with 3 kids and the whole world seemed like it was hanging on me until i met this GOD sent loan lender that changed my life and that of my family, a GOD fearing lender, Mr Mason Diego, he was the Savior GOD sent to rescue my family and at first i thought it was not going to be possible until i received my loan of $186,000.00 USD on the 26th/Feb/2015 and i will advise anyone who is in genuine need of a loan to contact Mr. Mason Diego via email at: because he is the most understanding and kind hearten lender. thanks..

    2. Karen has trouble keeping track of all her BULLSHIT. Here's proof:

      time to stop lying Karen!

  2. You have outdone yourself. That the prompt for this note was the confessed suffering of another speaks volumes for your compassion. You ruthlessly dissected the feminist rants that provoked the young man's disclosure and the cruelly aimed darts thrown afterword. Perhaps I see things too simply. The feminist attacks I saw (and I followed all the links and read every line) were the kind of pathology that is displayed in female crime stats. When women kill, they kill mostly children: things small and weak. Here substitute nerd for small and weak. There was a similar mobbing over the "Shirtgate" contoversy. Keep doing what you're doing. Keep the conversation alive.

    Also smart people come here. Its pleasure to visit.

  3. I actually accept several of Marcotte's points. But the derision she shows for such an earnest attempt to explain the point of view of a non-alpha male stands in such contrast to the objectives of a movement that wants to dismantle gender norms that I cannot see any justification. I made some comments, as a feminist, calling for moderation. Watch them tear me to pieces.

  4. I think we should call this very typical behavior by Amanda and Laurie "femsplaining"

  5. There's nothing substantive I could add to this, so I'll just sit here slow-clapping.

  6. I was just called an MRA asshole for agreeing with Marcotte, but pointing out that we should encourage men talking about their vulnerabilities as part of our effort to dismantle harmful gender roles.

    What kind of a site is that???

    1. It's a feminist website. You failed the ideological purity test by not agreeing with something a feminist said. You earned enemy status by actually disagreeing with something a feminist thinks.

      What did you think was going to happen?

    2. I framed the intervention carefully, making sure to highlight that I bought into the victim paradigm in general before, ever so gently, pointing out that, although Marcotte was completely right, perhaps we should discourage men that show the vulnerability their roles prohibit - all, of course, so all that pent up anger would not be channeled into rape as usual. Hell, I even inserted a dig at the misogynists in the MRM that fail to see that feminism already has the answers.

      Read the comment (same, real name). Seriously. I am dying to find out how I could fail so miserably to come across as a feminist, in particular in a movement famously unwilling to condemn the missteps of its radical offshoots.

    3. I read some of your comments. You showed compassion toward men, including yourself. In that act, you failed to demonstrate the purity required, and identified yourself as the enemy.

      Did you not read this blog post? At best, to feminists you are kindasorta conditionally human, but could still conform to women's/feminism's wishes better and you damn well better not complain about mixed messages or hurt feelings, you entitled asshole. At worst, you're just as subhuman as every other man throughout the entirety of human history.

      Have you ever watched a newborn baby interacting with its mother? Breastfeeding, cuddling, babbling, cooing? I have experienced this firsthand three times. Do you have any idea how tight that emotional attachment is? So tight that a baby would rather sleep with its mother in a foxhole than alone in the most lavishly appointed nursery ever built. So tight that a baby who's cranky might think a layer of pajamas is too much space between it and its mother in the dark of the night. So tight that just the sound of mom's voice is enough to comfort it when it's scared or sick. So tight that it LIKES the sound of its mom snoring.

      Feminism is the idea that if that baby, that precious, helpless person who depends entirely on its mother for every last thing, has a penis, it will grow into an adult that is perfectly happy to violate and shit on that bond in order to oppress its mother and all others like her. Not because its mother violated or betrayed that bond through neglect or abuse, but just because it benefits him and others like him.

      You don't have to go out of your way to teach a child to love and value its mother. In fact, you have to go out of your way to teach a child to NOT love and value its mother, and it usually takes a lot of trauma and betrayal to do it (such as extreme child abuse or neglect).

      But feminism is the idea that male children, somehow and with no justification or motive other than malice and selfishness, have for millennia grown into adults who are willing to oppress and subjugate their mothers, sisters, daughters and wives just because they can do it and it benefits men.

      They don't consider men to be human. At the very least, they consider men to be less human than women. And they have engaged in acts of suppression and even terrorism to protect the aspects of their ideology that portray men as uniquely capable of monstrosity.

      By defending men's right to express their pain and suffering, you are defending the right of sociopaths to justify their ongoing victimization of women. That is literally all you are doing in their minds. You're protecting monsters from the punishment they deserve.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    6. Karen,
      Your post here was amazing on several levels.

      I grew up a moderate-to-liberal Democrat. I am, in many ways, very similar to Scott Aaronson: I'm a die-hard advocate for gender equality. For many years, I considered myself a feminist, and in many ways, my teenaged years were similar to those related by Prof. Aaronson, thanks in part to a lot of hardcore feminist sentiment I'd read. Like him, professional success (and, in my case, the good fortune of a wider social circle) helped me lead a fairly normal life afterwards (though you never recover fully from that sort of self-loathing in your formative years). And like him, notions that I was somehow privileged by definition ring silly. In fact, some of the worst bullies I encountered growing up were girls--and that's quite apart from the sometimes brutal and cruel rejection I received from other young women in the teenaged romance arena.

      But I am a liberal, a progressive, primarily because I value truth and rational thinking. And the more I've learned and observed, the less I am able to back what amounts to the modern feminist movement.

      I don't know if the movement has been hijacked, or if it was simply always only concerned that women not have less rights than men (which perhaps made sense back when women really did have less rights, but in today's society, it leaves out half the equation) and has simply gotten more militant and vicious about it. It doesn't really matter to me; the end result is the same: unjust policy proposals and actions based upon dogma, barely grounded in data and studies (poorly done and methodologically flawed, at that).

      The irony is, the loudest part of the movement as it stands is NOT helping the cause of equality, for men OR women. Rather, I think it's a vehicle for what seem to be damaged, bitter people (harboring either their own grudges or carrying water for others) to deal with their own shortcomings and emotional needs through black-and-white ideology and, sometimes, by hurting others. And even where it could do some good, the hardcore advocates don't seem to be politically savvy about it, and shoot not just themselves but all efforts towards equality in the foot.

      At any rate, I think we need to be clear that many modern radical feminists (the loudest voices, it seems) are NOT on the side of the angels, do NOT represent the progressive value of being "reality-based", and seem to be motivated by personal and emotional issues far more than any sense of responsibility toward others. Marcotte's unfeeling, un-empathetic response to Prof. Aaronson's comment -- I agree, it was really vicious -- is archetypal and emblematic of what I've seen so frequently, and feminists scratching their collective heads over why so many young women don't seem to be jumping on the bandwagon might put a little thought into that.

      For some of us, at least, the current situation leaves one a bit adrift. One can agree with pretty much everything posted on or Thinkprogress, then come across the frequent hateful, illogical stuff pushed so powerfully by radical feminists in the same venues (and agreed-to by otherwise rational writers there) and come away feeling like one doesn't really have a home. The situation isn't helped by some of the genuinely sexist crap that comes out of some corners of the men's rights movement.

      Anyway, it's easy to paint with too broad a brush: I'm sure there are people who call themselves feminists not because they believe more than half the voting population is "oppressed", but because they support true equality -- and actually walk the walk. But they sure don't seem to make themselves heard much.

      So I appreciate what you've written here, and hope you keep up the good work.

      (sorry about the multiple deleted posts: an edit function would be helpful here)

  7. "So let's unpack this. Men, all through history, were [cared for by women and then] created a society that subjugates and oppresses all women for men's privilege and benefit."

    Yup, we sure did. I'm surprised this is even considered debatable; the evidence isn't hard to find.

    1. None of those things are evidence for men creating a society that subjugates and oppresses women. All they are is things that you believe can be blamed on men, that you assign a negative emotional affect to.

    2. corey, did you read this post? you linked to a bunch of advertisements from roughly the same time period from 1 country. the earth is a big place & civilization has been around a long time. you need to read more world history. you also need to stop being a male feminist or you will end up like me. & that's something you don't want.

    3. Huitzil, I'm curious as to what definitions of subjugation and oppression you're using, since they seem to exclude denying women the franchise and propagandizing against suffragettes with vile caricatures -- acts I'd definitely call subjugation and oppression.

      PhantomZodak, those are from two countries at two different time periods, and were just what I could lay hands on in three minutes of Googling. Let's be clear that girlwriteswhat is making a more-or-less universal claim -- that because women are the primary caregivers for boys, it is ridiculous to suppose that when those boys grow up they will create/participate in/perpetuate the subjugation and oppression of women. To show that this line of argument is flawed, all I have to do is demonstrate a small number of counter-examples.

    4. Hi Corey, I'm quoting here from your later point:
      "To show that this line of argument is flawed, all I have to do is demonstrate a small number of counter-examples."

      This is the flaw in your reasoning, I'm afraid. The feminists' argument is that "a patriarchy exists", in which men *in general* contribute to the subjugation of women. They don't say "most men are ok but a few bad apples ruin it", and GWW never argued that "no man anywhere has ever subjugated a woman". If that was what she had argued, then MAYBE one of your links might have had a point. But damn, even that is tenuous.

      I mean, just what were you trying to prove? That you can type "historical oppression of women" into google and spit out some links? Hardly impressive nowadays.

      Why not type "white feather" and "suffragettes" in there as well?, (bearing in mind that for Brits at least, the right to vote was tied in with the fighting and dying that so many men did in WWI)

    5. You can't say that because you assign a connotation to something, then that is objectively what it means.

      You linked a flyer that casts suffragettes as ugly -- this is meaningless, as "my opponents are ugly" is a rhetorical tactic used by literally and not figuratively every cause that has ever existed.

      You linked a flyer outlining reasons to oppose the vote for women -- none of which are "women do not deserve it", "women must remain oppressed", "women are bad and we hate them", or anything like that. The arguments are that women do not want it and it would not be productive so men should not impose it on women. The fact that you don't agree with their reasoning or conclusion does not mean you can just make up motivations behind it.

      "Something negative affected women, therefore men hate women and are trying to hurt them" is obviously ridiculous but it's exactly the logic you are using. Attempting to serve women and not doing so perfectly is not the same thing as hating and oppressing women.

    6. I'm arguing that there's lots of evidence for the proposition, "the fact that men (considered individually or as a group) were nurtured into adulthood by women does not preclude the idea that they could -- and did -- turn around and subjugate and oppress women (again, considered individually or as a group) who did not have a hand in raising them."

      I mean, clearly there's little chance of a meeting of minds on the broader question of the value of modern feminism, so I'm not even going there. Basically I'm just trying to figure out if GWW is amenable to evidence. (And really, the commentariat here isn't who I'd like to be querying; I was hoping for a response from GWW herself (although I am, of course, not *entitled* to one) since she seemed pretty responsive above.)

      (As to white feather feminism -- not gonna defend it. WWI was a horror show; shaming men into subjecting themselves to trench warfare was vile, as was the nationalistic fervor that prompted and justified the tactic.)

    7. Huitzil,

      '"my opponents are ugly" is a rhetorical tactic used by literally and not figuratively every cause that has ever existed.'

      Fair point. The "The House that Man Built" more directly supports my contention. And I can't agree with you that the message of the pamphlet is not, indeed, that women do not deserve a vote (which after all, could only double or annul the vote worth considering, i.e., that of a man). The "men should not impose it on women" interpretation you give doesn't seem in line with the quite clearly expressed fear of Petticoat government nor the fear that women will start to compete with men instead of cooperate with them.

    8. "I'm arguing that there's lots of evidence for the proposition, "

      First up, I don't agree that your examples are all valid. I suspect we won't get agreement on that either. I don't see women working in the home while her husband works a job, and her doing housework and getting hot and grumpy and being offered a relaxing bath, as oppression. Similarly a failed political movement, by virtue of it's failure, suggests the opposite of your claim of oppression. I don't think caricaturing sufragettes is a bad thing, as you do. They deserve it for the aforementioned white feather stuff. Plus they were against the vote for poorer women.

      A few examples certainly do not prove your point, especially when there are so many examples of women being offered privilege and their safety and wellbeing being prioritised, over men.

      If anything throughout the history of civilisation it is poor men and women, who were oppressed by rich men and women.

    9. You don't see anything belittling about the soap ad? Care to comment on the sweater ad?

    10. corey being a male feminist isn't going to get you a girlfriend & neither is arguing about old advertisements. you need to read my blog i linked to, where feminists don't want you in their movement.

    11. PhantomZodak,will it break your brain to know that I'm not motivated by a need to get a girlfriend? I have already not ended up like you; I'm more like the dad on Medium.

    12. Women competing with men instead of cooperating with them is not stated to only be bad because men are good and women will impede them, somehow. You have to come into it already very biased to conclude "they must be saying this to keep women oppressed" instead of "they think cooperating is better than competing." Because, you know, cooperation helps both people, that's kind of the definition.

      "A man's vote is the only one worth considering" is, again, entirely a product of you seeing what you already wanted to. There's no indication this was the argument (in this flyer or anywhere else) -- the argument was that the people of the day saw the household as a single unit that cast the vote and made decisions. "It can only double or annul the vote of the only person worth counting" is one hundred percent your projection of what you want to believe onto people who had dissimilar belief systems to you.

      Like, imagine for a moment someone proposed that each hemisphere of a person's brain cast its vote independently. That would be insane, right? Your opposition to such a measure wouldn't be because you thought all it could do was double or annul the vote of the only brain half that MATTERS, it would be because obviously the two halves of the brain function together to make decisions and interpret data, and cutting off that process so that some people get two votes and some people get a cancelled vote based on the vagaries of their corpus callosum is totally goddamned bonkers. That sounds as insane to you, as the proposition to let both halves of a household vote independently would sound to someone who viewed the household as the single decision-making unit.

      You can make anything sound bad if you insert baseless accusations of being motivated by hatred of women. Doing that doesn't prove anything. You have to actually show that was the motivation, rather than saying "Here is something I am able to claim was motivated by hatred of women, isn't it horrible how women are hated?" And it certainly doesn't help you that your arguments are based on what the anti-suffragists thought, while obviously putting in no effort to determine what they thought.

    13. "And it certainly doesn't help you that your arguments are based on what the anti-suffragists thought, while obviously putting in no effort to determine what they thought."

      Ouch. This does sting a bit, I gotta say -- I don't know for a fact that your "household" notion is not how people did indeed think of it. I will note (1) that you offer this as a hypothetical and offer no historical support yourself; as far as I know, you've put in no effort either; and (2) that it's curious that this notion of household assigns one household per voting age man and included unmarried men but not unmarried women.

      Anyway, I thought it fair to put in at least a minimal amount of work to see position anti-suffragists were taking when it was a live issue. What I found makes no mention of households, but does lean heavily on a desire to enforce gender roles that restrict women to doing what is traditionally considered women's work in the home and not, say, expressing political thought.

      I posit that this insistence on a politically disempowered and household-labor-intensive role for women is the correct lens through which to view the "co-operation vs competition" point.

    14. "The men are able to run the government and take care of the women. Do women have to vote in order to receive the protection of man? Why, men have gone to war, endured every privation and death itself in defense of woman. To man, woman is the dearest creature on earth, and there is no extreme to which he would not go for his mother or sister. By keeping woman in her exalted position man can be induced to do more for her than he could by having her mix up in affairs that will cause him to lose respect and regard for her. Woman does not have to vote to secure her rights. Man will go to any extreme to protect and elevate her now. As long as woman is woman and keeps her place she will get more protection and more consideration than man gets. When she abdicates her throne she throws down the scepter of her power and loses her influence."

      This... this is RIGHT THERE in your link, and it certainly doesn't sound like the argument of someone who is fighting to keep women oppressed, or to hurt women, or who is motivated by hatred of women.

      It leans heavily on a desire to enforce traditional gender roles. That is not synonymous with "hates women and wants to hurt women". That is what YOU associate with it. You are, once again, making the argument that because something was negative toward women, it was motivated by hatred of women. The argument you posted here makes it very, very, very clear that the motivation is to serve women and keep them happy. You can't just ascribe negative motivations to things, then say their negative motivations prove that men hate women and oppress them.

    15. (So I guess this is a good time to point out that "hatred" was introduced into the conversation by you, not me; "oppression" and "subjugation" are my terms.)

      Yeah, that's in there, all right. Perhaps you've taken phrases like "exalted position", "elevate", "throne", and "scepter of power" at face value -- this in an era where a husband did not legally need his wife's consent to have sex with her. A shining pedestal upon which I can be raped and have no legal recourse doesn't sound so great to me. But even disregarding that, can you not see the attempt at coercion in this passage? It states outright that men's respect and regard for women and men's willingness to 'protect and elevate' women shall last just as long as women stick to house and hearth. It makes no allowance for the idea that some women would gladly traded the (dubious!) protection on offer for the chance at some real influence.

      Now I'll address the notion that an insistence on traditional gender roles does not oppress women. A woman who chooses freely, from among many options, to arrange her life around her household, and is fulfilled by that choice? That's great; I fully support that. But a free choice is necessary here, or else, yes, we're talking oppression by definition. It is no service to women to insist that they be housewives and not lawyers, doctors, politicians, scientists, etc., if that's what they want to do.

      So yeah, to me that passage sounds exactly like someone who is fighting to keep women oppressed.

    16. "Hatred" was in the piece you were responding to, and the premise you are defending.

      And, ONCE AGAIN, the only thing you are doing is saying that because it had a negative consequence, it was driven by a negative motivation. You throwing marital rape into the issue is meaningless pocket-sand attempting to cloud the issue by adding more words with negative emotional affect.

      Men of the era wanted to protect women, to serve women, and keep them happy. You saw a piece where a man says that giving women the vote was not the way to protect them, serve them, and keep them happy, and from this you concluded it was an example of a man who wanted to keep women oppressed and rapeable. That is completely psychotic.

      Some women, like you, would have traded the (not at all dubious because women are much much much safer than men and have been for all of human history) protection for the chance at some real influence. These men would not have allowed you to make that decision, because they think it is a terrible, self-destructive decision that would have only harmed yourself. Not because they wanted to keep women oppressed. Because they wanted to keep them happy.

      Men treted women like children. How selfish and detached from reality do you have to be to believe that we hate and oppress our children? Men had power over women in order to keep them safe and happy, just like parents have power over children. Parents love and cherish their children and use that power over them to keep them safe and happy. Men were expected by all of society, man and women alike, to love and cherish women and use the power over them to keep them safe and happy. If someone over whom you have responsibility wants to make a bad, self-destructive decision, you don't let them, because you don't want them harmed. If you can't do that, then you cannot protect the person.

      Were they correct? No. That doesn't change their motivation. Being served inefficiently or imperfectly is not the same thing as being oppressed.

    17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    18. Dude. Seriously. Do a Ctrl-F for "hate" and "hatred". It occurs once in the OP -- not in the part I'm criticizing -- and the rest is all you. Ironic, really, that you think I'm detached from reality; you're the one failing to distinguish between positions I've actually put forth and positions you've made up and imputed to me. (Also, I'm not a woman, not that it really matters. As I wrote to PhantomZodak, his linked description of the dad on the TV show Medium is a pretty good description of my life. Sorry; didn't mean to mislead you by writing "I" when talking about rape, but you know, men do get raped too -- sometimes even by women.)

      Let me be perfectly clear : I don't care about what motivated attempts to restrict women's choices; you will not be able to quote me writing anything of significance on the topic of what motivated the subjugation of women. Seriously, go back and check. I dare you.

      And speaking of subjugation of women, let's have a look at the definition of subjugation: to bring under control; to make subordinate or subject to the dominion of something else. (Oppression is a near-synonym, it adds the notion of unjust control.) You will note that the definition does not concern motivation. When you write "men had power over women" and agree that men used that power to restrict women's choices, you're conceding (whether you realize it or not) part of the argument to me (again, the argument I was actually making, not the argument you imagined I was making).
      "You throwing marital rape into the issue is meaningless pocket-sand attempting to cloud the issue by adding more words with negative emotional affect."

      Really. You don't see how the legality of marital rape -- explicitly codified in rape statutes up until the mid-70s! -- might count a little bit as evidence that men's power over women was exercised not for men's privilege and benefit and not to serve, protect, and gladden women. It's just, what, totally irrelevant to the question?

    19. I meant to write "...exercised for men's privilege and benefit and not to serve..."

      I'm having a bad night with the copy-editing.

    20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    21. It's irrelevant because it has no bearing on the topic at hand and only appears to, to you, because of all the existing biases you brought into it.

      Non-criminalization of marital rape meant that people could rape their spouses, not that men could rape women. You didn't perceive this because you automatically see women as victims and men as victimizers. You will claim that it really only matters for women because they are the ones raped, and you believe this because you see women as victims and men as victimizers!

      And the proposition you are defending is such: "They are using your compassion for women to convince you that all men (including you) hate women and so much they designed an entire form of social organization that dehumanizes women."

      GWW said "feminists claim that men hate women so much, they created a social organization that oppresses them, and this is not true."

      You say "Yes it is, they totally did that!"

      You cannot claim hate is not involved when hate is the explicit reasoning and central unifying premise of the idea you are defending.

      Furthermore, if your argument has never been about intention, YOUR ARGUMENT HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT ANYTHING THAT IS RELEVANT.

    22. Oh wow. Okay, to sum up:

      Even though I explicitly quote the passage in the OP that I'm discussing, and even though I restate the proposition I'm defending and explicitly limit my argument to that one point of contention, you insist I'm actually arguing about a different passage in the OP, or possibly against the entirety of the OP. My topic is the evidence for historical oppression/subjugation of women by men and the benefits that flowed from it; you assert that only motivation is relevant to the topic at hand, even though the definitions of the words 'oppression' and 'subjugation' don't mention motivation. Even though I point out that women have raped men (to make sense of why I placed myself in the "shining pedestal" scenario), you assert that I "automatically see women as victims and men as victimizers".

      I don't know if this is unwillingness to argue in good faith (which requires a willingness to concede indefensible points, as I did here and here) or a simple lack of reading comprehension, but I must admit it has utterly defeated me. I'm out.

    23. "the quite clearly expressed fear of Petticoat government nor the fear that women will start to compete with men instead of cooperate with them."

      Given the evidence of history since then, can you honestly say those expressed fears were unreasonable?

    24. Near as I can tell, the contention was simply that permitting women the vote would lead to women in the legislature. Since that did indeed follow, I would say that the expressed fears were accurate predictions. (The term "reasonable" carries connotations that I do not grant.)

    25. Hello everyone, My name is Courtney Bieneman and i am talking as the happiest person in the whole wide world today and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will tell the name to the whole wild world and i am so happy to say that my family is back for good because i was in need of $186,000.00 USD loan to start my life all over as i am a single mum with 3 kids and the whole world seemed like it was hanging on me until i met this GOD sent loan lender that changed my life and that of my family, a GOD fearing lender, Mr Mason Diego, he was the Savior GOD sent to rescue my family and at first i thought it was not going to be possible until i received my loan of $186,000.00 USD on the 26th/Feb/2015 and i will advise anyone who is in genuine need of a loan to contact Mr. Mason Diego via email at: because he is the most understanding and kind hearten lender. thanks..

  8. Are you a troll or just stupid?

    1. If by "troll" you mean someone who has expressed views inimical to your own in an online space where your views are the commonly accepted ones, then yes, I am that. As to "stupid", well, I'm posting using my real name, and I have a web presence, so I'll leave it to others to decide whether I qualify.

      The link style here isn't very obvious, so you may have missed the five links hiding under the five words "evidence isn't hard to find". Do you have any thoughts on how the linked images bear on the point under contention?

    2. Unknown, I think he admitted to being stupid. And maybe 14 years old. And has a tumblr. And really really cares about things. And reblog!

    3. Care to offer odds on any of those claims? (I'll cop to really really caring about things, but then, who doesn't?)

  9. and, thus, you see the fascination of feminism for non-Alpha males.

    they believe the lie that they are told, that women can't stand aggressive manipulative men. mostly, because they themselves are unsuited to compete with those aggressive men.

    therefore, their primary mating 'chance' is that women are telling the truth when they claim that, really, what they want is "nice guys who treat women well".

    and so the Feminist Male pretends to believe the absurd bullshit spouted by the Feminist Female ... who doesn't believe it any more than he does.

    1. Considering the utterly derisive way they treat me when styling myself as a "beta" male feminist and admitting that my concerns are secondary to those of women and only deserve to be addressed BECAUSE addressing them helps women at least as much (which, by the way, I think is true of most reasonable measures for gender equality), why would any non-Alpha male feel attracted? Even more, how can a non-Alpha male find the narrative that he is immensely privilege attractive at all? How can he make it square with his own experiences? I can understand how feminism rings true to attractive, successful men, but ugly, short, effeminate guys????

      Is it not considerably less Alpha to whine about how hard it is to be a man like a true MRA?

  10. Dear readers, my good thrashing on the site is continuing - read for your sadistic entertainment.

    There are several generalisations that appear to be part of standard discourse, but that I cannot figure out:

    - Tone trolling: This is a widespread misogynist tactic. What does it mean, and how do we use it to express hatred of women?

    - MRAs consistently claim that all men are rapists and that men can rape by accident, whereas feminists believe that men are better than that - or can be taught to be. Where did MRAs make that claim? To me as an untrained observer, was it not feminism that stood for claims like all men are rapists, and that heterosexual sex is rape (Elfriede Jelinek)?

    Help, please.

    1. "- Tone trolling: This is a widespread misogynist tactic. What does it mean, and how do we use it to express hatred of women?"

      Tone trolling is where you try to derail the drive of a thread etc by pretending to agree with the point made whilst expressing concern about the "tone" in which the argument was presented.

      "- MRAs consistently claim that all men are rapists and that men can rape by accident, whereas feminists believe that men are better than that - or can be taught to be. Where did MRAs make that claim?"

      This sounds like an offshoot from when feminist campaigning made it so that a man having sex with a drunk woman is legally rape (it shouldn't be, IMO, but that's another story). Anyway, if sex with a drunk woman is suddenly "rape", then you can actually "rape" somebody "by accident" if you don't realise they are drunk. I think this is a valid argument but hey. Maybe that's where they got it from? Who knows.

    2. And these two phenomena are, in all seriousness, considered tactics that MRAs, not feminists, use regularly?

    3. Does the argument that MRAs hate women not rest on interpretations of the tone, rather than actual quotes (excepting those Elamesque attempts at satire that manage to offend women, men, and the English language simultaneously - sorry for the dig)?

      I am not at all outraged, simply astonished that they would use exactly those accusations against me that a five-year-old would recognise in their own rhetoric??

      I know I must be missing something.

    4. I think that their logic goes like this

      Marcotte (eg) produces diatribe
      People complain about the tone (because it is awful)
      feminists take this as disagreement
      therefore misogyny
      therefore probably MRA
      (who can't get laid)

      So yeah tone-trolling-->MRA. Who knew?

      The rape thing I don't understand.

      MRAs say that *feminists* say that all men are rapists.
      I think MRAs humour goes over feminists heads sometimes; they don't deal with irony very well. If an MRA was to dryly say "well all men are rapists, remember?" to a feminist, I could see them taking it as his literal point of view, maybe.

    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    6. Ahh, I understand the "tone trolling" thing.

      I witnessed it on the Atheism+ boards, back when that was a thing. (It was an awful SJW offshoot of atheism for a while).

      There was a thread (safe space) where people could talk about sexual abuse that had happened to them should they want to.

      A girl was on their talking about how she was raped once and how it had affected her.

      A guy on the board offered sympathy and said "I'm so sorry that happened to you".

      The girl went nuts, screaming all CAPS with
      "IT DIDN'T FUCKING HAPPEN TO ME IT WAS FUCKING DONE TO ME BY MY RAPIST ASSHOLE!" <-- not exact but pretty close. Way, way over the top.

      The guy responds like most would with something like "sorry to offend you, you don't have to be so aggressive though".
      He got banned for that comment for "tone trolling".

      That's where it comes from, I'll bet.

    7. One thing you wrote above is especially interesting to me.

      Yes, I have seen feminists claim that the policies they promote will not lead to men being accused of raping by "accident", in part because it's not rape unless the victim believes it was rape (an argument I saw used to support the California "yes means yes" law).

      Yet, when it comes to the few studies that have been used to claim a campus rape epidemic is happening, feminists argue that just because a respondent doesn't think he or she was raped doesn't mean that's not what actually happened.

      It seems to me you need to pick one or the other.

  11. Well to be honest, I find MRA humour often to be unfortunate at best, and actually misogynist at worst - but more to the point, I hate to see the movement make EXACTLY the same mistake we accuse feminism of. It not only endangers our moral right to complain, but entrenches polarisation and alienates people.

    Call it pragmatism, call it opportunism: we live in a society that is programmed to protect women - an instinct that may appear antiquated, but that explains close to ALL the things we complain about. Such instincts cannot be removed in a generation, nor should they be completely: women are physically more vulnerable.

    Humour going over their heads? I doubt it. Feminism has some of the best and the brightest on their side, and I cannot imagine that such a misunderstanding is not deliberate opportunism, just like the egregious quote mining against Warren Farrell (Elam is fair game, but Farrell - by far the sweetest, most conciliatory advocate for men's rights, who has never questioned any basic dogma of feminism, only seeks to expand its horizon). That is, indeed, insidious, but also so blaringly obvious that I fail to see how anyone, after reading discussions like the one on RS, can find the feminist side even mildly appealing.

    What am I missing here???

    1. "It not only endangers our moral right to complain, but entrenches polarisation and alienates people. "

      We've had the "moral right to complain" for over a decade now at the very least, probably the last 50 years. I think MRAs sometimes appear strident to others as they have realised that being nice just wasn't working. It just wasn't. And all the time men and boys suffering was going unnoticed. Sometimes you've gotta be the squeaky wheel.

      "but entrenches polarisation and alienates people. "
      There's never going to be a big group hug between feminists and MRAs, you know. Our very beliefs and the differences between them, is what polarises us.

  12. My GOD this is keeping me from work. Ok. Last comment for today.

    Tell me where in this logic I go astray:

    For me, gender roles are at least as constraining for men as for women. But I do not need to win any kind of victim argument; what is important is loosening gender roles, freeing up people to be what they want to be, and get the protection that they need. This is what feminism is fighting for, but a narrow oppression paradigm often prevents them from seeing the whole picture - leading to policies that are counterproductive and at times destructive.

    MRM is nothing but feminism with a male perspective, an important complement that, just as is the case with feminism, risks degenerating into myopia and extremism in its quest to counterbalance the enormous advance feminism has on understanding the female perspective.

    With MRM tending towards liberalism, and feminism towards progressivism, discourse tends to mimic that of other social justice areas. But that is, at best, a digression. Not only do gender relations in the least compare to race relations (an issue Karen explained as good as anyone), there is no inherent reason MRM should be liberal, and they are, as they put into question the male role of silent protector, the antithesis of social conservatism. In fact, I submit, many feminist policies such as obligatory parental leave for the father and default split custody after divorce, has done much more for men than for women - despite constituting state meddling in private affairs on a scale unimaginable on the other side of the pond.

    So, beneath the vitriol of RS, explain to me like you would a five-year-old what exactly prevents the big group hug? I honestly fail to nail it down, but how can we be effective if we do not even fully understand the problem?

    1. I'll probably go into more detail tomorrow, I gotta sleep too! But:

      "So, beneath the vitriol of RS, explain to me like you would a five-year-old what exactly prevents the big group hug?"

      I can only speak for my own idea of MRA aims.

      In a nutshell

      MRAs think women are different but should be treated equally.
      Feminists think women are equal but should be treated differently.

      I think the two are mutually exclusive.

    2. "This is what feminism is fighting for,"

      It is what they say they are fighting for, but if an intelligent, well-educated woman says that her highest ambition is to be a wife and mother...?

      No. What ever they say, the are not fighting for "freeing people to be what they want to be". They are fighting for freeing people to be what feminists want them to be.

      and get the protection that they need.
      Unless that protection is a hand gun and the training to use it... which is a whole other bucket of worms.

    3. explain to me like you would a five-year-old what exactly prevents the big group hug?

      Some people just enjoy fighting for its own sake. They think it gives their lives a greater significance than the lives of other people. Then they let it consume their lives until nothing but the fight is left.

      Take away the fight and they have nothing left.

  13. Anders5 January 2015 at 10:32
    Even more, how can a non-Alpha male find the narrative that he is immensely privilege attractive at all? How can he make it square with his own experiences?

    you can't. but that was my point.

    Feminism and the way Feminists treat all who fail to submit utterly to them are in direct contradiction to everything Feminists claim about the world.

    and yet, here you are. still presenting yourself as a 'Feminist Beta male'.

    because in spite of the FACT that Feminists have demonstrated directly to you that EVERYTHING that they have said is a lie ... you still can't abandon the ideology.

    understand this: Feminists are spoiled children throwing temper tantrums til they get their way.

    the problem being, children don't have a cavalry of white knights eagerly waiting to charge over the crest of the hill to their rescue.

    Anders5 January 2015 at 10:32
    Is it not considerably less Alpha to whine about how hard it is to be a man like a true MRA?

    you are conflating two different things here. the vast majority of MRAs are not Alpha, never were and do not pretend to be.

    for the most part, Alpha / Game Boys have little interest in Men's Rights. they're too busy pumping and dumping dumbass bimbos. they're living the high life and do not give a fuck that your life is filled with pain and misery. you see, you are ONE LESS COMPETITOR. and the longer you are no competition to them, the more the Alphas like it. is one of the very few Gameboy sites that has any interest in the wider societal implications.

    Anders5 January 2015 at 10:23
    - MRAs consistently claim that all men are rapists and that men can rape by accident, whereas feminists believe that men are better than that - or can be taught to be. Where did MRAs make that claim?

    MRAs have never said that. this is another example of Female Projection.

    you can only get to "All men are rapists" if your starting point is "All Penis-In-Vagina sex is rape". considering that the elimination of all PiV sex means the extinction of the race AND that almost all of these Feminists would claim to believe in Evolution ...

    Anders5 January 2015 at 11:24
    And these two phenomena are, in all seriousness, considered tactics that MRAs, not feminists, use regularly?

    no, these are tactics that Feminists accuse everyone else of constantly ( how dare you call me Bitchy! ) while actually practicing it themselves.

    Anders5 January 2015 at 11:28
    I know I must be missing something.

    yes. you're missing that they are knowingly, willfully and intentionally lying to your face. they expect you to eat this bowl of shit, because how dare you disagree with them?

    there are men who do this as well, but it's endemic in feminist circles.

    open up a DSM and research "sociopath", "Borderline" and "narcissist".

    Anders5 January 2015 at 13:44
    and default split custody after divorc

    that wasn't Feminism. Karen has been over this. in the "bad old days", the children went with the father ( the far more effective care giver, as proven by feminist researchers ). it was Feminism that changed the law to presume that the mother should be given primary custody in a divorce. further, this change ( maternal preference ) didn't even eventuate until the early 1900s.

    to the extent that 'shared custody' is now the default principal in SOME jurisdictions, that's push back from early versions of men's rights.

  14. Bob, I am not a feminist. I was just pretending to be. And I tried hard, but still failed miserably - if you read the comment section, I published under the same name as here (incidentally my own...). I fail to see exactly what tipped them off. Honestly...

    I also fail to see how any of the "good" feminists out there can read the article and the comments and not feel disgusted. There is not even a veneer of logical consistency.

  15. you assert a lot of things that are straight feminist theory for someone who thinks he's not a feminist.

    also, non-feminists have known for a long time that failure to adhere strictly to the orthodoxy du jour was bad for your professional health no matter what your liberal bonafides might be.

    it wouldn't matter if you were female with a long history within the feminist movement.

    see Larry Summers for making an off hand comment about men seeming to do better at certain college courses or Richard Dawkins daring to be baffled that asking a woman out for coffee now constitutes 'harassment' if the woman chooses to call it that.

  16. Wow, now I am even more confused. I utterly fail to convince RS commenters despite parroting all the tropes that come to mind, and now a non-feminist does not believe I am not a feminist? So I managed to be unconvincing and overconvincing at once????

    Ich verstehe die Welt nicht mehr...

  17. Scott is a brave man, but not that brave.

  18. Karen you won a debate.... AGAINST YOURSELF lolololol!

    Bitch you seriously have the IQ of a door knob lol!

    1. Whoever wrote that post is just relentlessly stupid. Karen's old video was referring to the Youtube process which allows someone to respond to DMCA claims by revealing personal information (including address). Information that would allow the accuser to stalk the person, or worse. It's not just about the name.

      The guy that challenged is clearly too pathetic and cowardly to reveal his name. Maybe because he's afraid of being publicly humiliated? He should be.

    2. Except you're the pathetic little sissy bitch who is too cowardly to live debate lolol! now go run home to your mommy and tell her your panties are all wet again you pathetic piece of shit coward LOLOL! :)


  19. "All comments are welcome here. I refuse to censor points of view that differ from my own."
    EXCEPT when you CENSOR manhood academy who challenged you to a debate and you ran off like a pathetic little bitch coward! LOL! on and then you censored them from your honey badger radio youtube channel. You pathetic cowardice is duly noted :)

  20. "EXCEPT when you CENSOR manhood academy who challenged you to a debate and you ran off like a pathetic little bitch coward!"

    Manhood Academy can't challenge anyone to a debate because none of them can debate anything. they are all as incoherent as radfems, and about as worthless to discuss anything with

    1. Jim you pathetic little bitch keyboard warrior why are you hiding behind your keyboard? go prove them wrong in a live debate? OH WAIT YOU CAN'T HAHAHA! BECAUSE YOUR PANTIES ARE ALL WET LIKE A SCARED LITTLE SISSYBITCH COWARD LOLOL!

      Now go run home to your mommy you scared little girl and tell her what a brave little keyboard warrior you are hahahah! :)

    2. Oh the irony, calling someone else a keyboard warrior. You Manhood Academy pussies are vicious in packs, aren't you?

      And caps? Only high school girls writes in all caps. So maybe you're not really from Manhood Academy at all. Go change your rag and run along back to SRS or Against Mens Rights. They love you there. It's a safe space for you.

  21. Karen: Here's a new find, an 1869 article, or particular interest:
    The Heart Balm Racket & Feminist Rhetoric in 1869

  22. As a die hard liberal I do often visit Raw Story. And very often, Amanda Marcotte never fails to piss me off. She is very condescending and can be downright nasty and vile. Don't you dare say anything contrary to what her beliefs are. You will be attacked from every single angle.

    1. I had read a few of her writings, and had no real problems with them. Then I came across her part in attempting to lynch the Duke Lacrosse team, and anyone who defended them, after the charges had been thrown out. That level of extremism, inability to admit a mistake, and lackadaisical attitude toward the truth in the service of dogma left me highly unimpressed. I've read little since that has redeemed her in my eyes.

    2. You can tell when something touches a real deep nerve with her, and a few of the regular people who comment that I've clashed with over there. And that deep nerve is usually male/female sexual relations. What makes it all bad comedy, is the disdain that oozes from her pores for men who who complain about not being able to get a girl, actually speaks to the red pill truths she would say are bullshit.

  23. Thank you Karen. I needed to read this. Scott's comment #171 should be written on parchment and framed somewhere.
    Based on the summarised responses, I won't be reading them.

    I offer this as a general suggestion to everyone who is tempted to NAFALT:
    (Please read carefully before invoking Godwin.)

    I'm not brave enough to "be Charlie" as everyone pretends to be these days, but I can say I'm the Lite version of Scott.

    I have almost let go. I only wish someone with a crystal ball had told me this a few decades ago. Oh, well. I can tell my son.


  24. I posting this comment for those who have not met with Prophet.chasus to contact him now for he solves all relationship problem between couples.I want to thank Prophet.chasus for Break Them Up and Reunite Us lover spell he did for me last week. I'm so grateful for the effort have put into my relationship case. I will always be grateful. i can see the love spell working out perfectly.

  25. Hey there Honey (condescending patriarchal oppressive bourgeois capitalist tone), here is another article of interest.

    Trigger warning: Get out your smelling salts and hold tight to the bolster of your fainting couch, delicate creature, for there are indelicate things in there that should never be discussed in correct company.

    “Epidemic of Cruelty”: Violence by Women in Global History (discussed in 1893)

  26. I have to disagree with you a little bit here. Rather than letting feminism go, these guys need to reject it completely. Men are not rape waiting to happen and the fact that feminism is implanting that thought is frightening. Honestly, I can't even comprehend how he felt because his thought process was just so foreign to me that my mind rejects it.

    And then the reaction, that his confession of fear, not fear of rejection as some of the responses characterized it as but his fear of being the rapist feminists told him he was was actually a further sign of some kind of male privilege? That is a special kind of stupidity there that deserves open mockery and scorn. This poor guy deserves a medal for sharing such personal thoughts, as well as a slap for believing that stupid shit, and he got beaten down even more by the very women he was so worried he'd accidentally rape as we men are prone to do.

    Letting it go isn't enough and frankly probably not possible given the way it destroyed Scott's psyche. Rejecting that nonsense and all that comes with it is the only cure. Embrace true equality and reject all the other crap.

  27. Hello everyone, My name is Courtney Bieneman and i am talking as the happiest person in the whole wide world today and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will tell the name to the whole wild world and i am so happy to say that my family is back for good because i was in need of $186,000.00 USD loan to start my life all over as i am a single mum with 3 kids and the whole world seemed like it was hanging on me until i met this GOD sent loan lender that changed my life and that of my family, a GOD fearing lender, Mr Mason Diego, he was the Savior GOD sent to rescue my family and at first i thought it was not going to be possible until i received my loan of $186,000.00 USD on the 26th/Feb/2015 and i will advise anyone who is in genuine need of a loan to contact Mr. Mason Diego via email at: because he is the most understanding and kind hearten lender. thanks..


  28. Finding a true love spell was like a nightmare to me,I have paid over $7650 to different spell caster that never work,Until l I meet MAMA ANITA.please if you are looking for a real and fast result love spell then mama anita is the answer,you can contact her now (


  29. i will love to share my testimony to you all the people in world i got married to my husband about 2 year ago we start having problems at home like we stop sleeping on the same bed,fighting about little things he always comes home late at night,drinking too much and sleeping with other women out side i have never love any man in my life except him. he is the father of my child and i don't want to loose him because we have worked so hard together to become what we are and have today .few month ago he now decided to live me and the kid,being a single mother can be hard sometimes and so i have nobody to turn to and i was heart broken.i called my mom and explain every thing to her,my mother told me about dr.azen how he helped her solve the problem between her and my dad i was surprise about it because they have been without each other for three and a half years and it was like a miracle how they came back to each other. i was directed to DR. azen on his email: and explain everything to him,so he promise me not to worry that he will cast a spell and make things come back to how we where so much in love again and that it was another female spirit that was controlling my husband he told me that my problem will be solved within two days if i believe i said OK So he cast a spell for me and after two days my love came back asking me to forgive him i Am so happy now. so that why i decided to share my experience with every body that have such problem contact Dr.azen the great spell caster on his email addresses

  30. "When a child is subjected to intolerable, overwhelming pain, he conceptualizes mother as both participatory and responsible regardless of mother's intent. . . . The consequences for impaired bonding are significant. . . . Circumcision is an enormous obstacle to the development of basic trust between mother and child." - Dr. Rima Laibow.

    And I might further opine that boys never get over it. They spend the rest of their lives openly resenting all females or pretending to love them while slowly dying inside. Leave your boys' sex organs alone, people. They are normal as born.


Commenting policy:

All comments are welcome here. I refuse to censor points of view that differ from my own.

I recognize that I may be challenging the deep-seated beliefs of some people, and perhaps stirring up emotions in others. However, I would ask:

- if you care to respond to anything that I have said, please do not simply link to or quote some statistic. Do not simply regurgitate things you have been told are true. Think about what I am saying. Respond with an argument. Offer something from your personal observations, and explain to me how you feel your statistic is connected to your experience.

- If you wish to be part of a discussion, try not to dismiss what I or a another commenter says out of hand. Yes, that means that some lines of thought or ideologies may not stand up to scrutiny (perhaps even my own).

- Remember, ad hominem attacks diminish everyone involved. If you want to criticize anything, do so passionately and directly - but debate is about attacking ideas, not people.

Have at you!