Fifteen Things Feminism Has Done For Men

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Katherine Klaus

Katherine Klaus is the creator of can be bitter, a weekly blog dedicated to feminist analysis of 'pop culture, the world in general and other stuff'. When not upsetting fans of various cultural touchstones, Katherine works full time in the seemingly-incongruous field of tax and buys too many comics. She is based in Melbourne, Australia and would love for you to send her an email or get in touch via Twitter.


  1. Could you define, what you mean by “feminism”?
    As I understand the common usage of this terms, it means something like:
    Movement for the advancement of “women’s rights”. With “women’s rights” not being universally defined, but be whatever this particular person believes it to be. Obviously my definition is very wide and allows many contradicting positions to claim the label feminist.

  2. Bay Area Guy says:

    Hate opening doors for people, or standing awkwardly at the front of the lift while you wait for the women from the back (always so slow in their high heels) to exit? Feminism says you don’t have to because we’re all generally able to handle the strength of a door. I open doors when it’s convenient for others, and I’m grateful when others hold it open for me. With feminism, courtesy can be a thing for both/all sexes.

    Honestly, I have a hard time assessing where feminists as a whole stand on this. On the one hand, some feminists such as yourself are happy to do away with chivalry.

    Other feminists, however, seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. I’ve heard various feminists (including certain female commenters on this blog) say that they want complete equality when it comes to work and power, but still want to be treated like a lady (ie. guys are chivalrous, pay for dinner, etc).

    So in other words, traditional gender roles are bad when they hurt them, but just fine when they like them. They only seem to want equality when it benefits them.

    And this could very well be on the first date/a one night stand, because (sex-positive) feminists understand that sex isn’t shameful, or a transaction, or somehow devalues them.

    Good thing you put sex-positive in parentheses, because I’ve noticed that many feminists seem to have an almost puritanical attitude towards male sexuality.

    One only has to look at various articles that shames men who express their sexual desires as “creeps” or accuses them of “only caring about sex/objectifying women.”

    Of course, there are sex-positive feminists such as yourself and Clarisse Thorn, but sadly, you seem to be few and far between.

    • The point of feminism’s take on traditional gender roles is not to abolish them completely. It is, instead, to prevent them from being the default or required way of life. So instead of saying every man needs to pay for dates or open doors and every woman must aspire to be a housewife, the culture would say do what you want regardless of your gender. So a feminist can be entirely without hypocrisy when he or she says I don’t want one gender to HAVE to pay for dates, but it would be nice if my date could sometimes offer to pay, just as friends sometimes offer to pay for shared meals. You know, cause they like each other.

  3. I think there’s a deeper thing that feminism has done for men; and I think it’s something that not all feminists have quite understood. There’s a long-standing tradition in feminism of reading patriarchy as a male conspiracy to control women. And I’ve no doubt that from women’s perspective it works out exactly as if there were a male conspiracy to control women. But men don’t, in fact, have any interest in men *as a class* dominating women *as a class*. What any violent, aggressive, or controlling man is trying to do is *monopolize* women’s bodies at the *expense* of other men (as well as of the women themselves). In other words, patriarchy is not just a war of men against women; it’s also an all-out war of men against each other. We can’t trust each other until we stop treating women as possessions. And feminism has allowed at least some men to stop treating women as possessions.

  4. Random_Stranger says:

    I think many anti-feminist criticism of the movement is its purely gynocentric social criticism of gender roles. Under feminism, the gender dichotomy is framed in terms more appropriate for racial apartheid, where a clear power group extracts wealth from a subjugated group. With the feminist framework, gender equity is narrowly examined by comparing the well-being of women with respect to the well-being of men. Because however, the gender binary is not like racial oppression and does not seek to offer one gender monotonic benefits at the expense of the other, feminism invariably reduces gender analysis to specific “issues” that fit its narrative of a ruling patriarchal gender class and a subjugated gender class. If the status and well-being of men are examined critically at all, it is usually in terms incidental to the change being enacted to women -which is certainly the bulk of your 15 points above.

    Nope, for many of us on the left, feminism is a completely inadequate tool for analyzing gender norms and gender roles and needs to be replaced with something more holistic -frankly, it can’t go away fast enough.

    • Well said!

    • Heisenberg says:

      That is a fantastic point. I wholeheartedly agree. Elsewhere, you can find some commentators stating that the worst thing about modern feminism, is men trying to be involved. This is even more of a sign that we need to reframe gender discourse. Let’s bring it!

  5. “#1. Did you know that the minimum wage for men was originally set with reference to the fact that he was expected to support a wife and three children? That sounds like a lot of responsibility and stress. With equal pay resulting from feminism, your partner can support herself, and together you could have six children, or, more likely, buy a plasma screen!”

    Minimum wage and average wages have actually decreased in today’s dollars compared to 40 years ago, as the rich got way richer, and the poor got poorer. The middle class got a bit poorer, not richer.

    Hence your guy who could support a wife and 3 kids on a 50 hours job, now needs 2x comparable 40 hour jobs for it.

    • Hence getting women into the workplace was a victory for capitalism, not feminism.

      • … and when you look at not just Capitalism but Consumerism … and how production costs are cut by shifting production oversees to developing countries, is it the men or the women… or rather is it the adults or the children who end up with the long working days and low wages?

        Some of course will puff up chests and proudly waffle on about child labour laws and protection. They do like doing that.

        I would just ask do they know the child labour law age in the country where their purchases were made – and exactly how would they react if they were told that they as adult ( father or mother ) could not have a job, but their 12 year old daughters could (Lower Wages) ….. and maybe the boy if he is very lucky (It’s fine intricate work and girls are seen as better and more capable)…. and you have to decide to live on your principles or drive your daughter to work…. and that is not drive in a car, it’s force her by any means.

        1st world feminism is all about emancipation and measured by so many by consumption – and not by global impact or global issues affecting women.

  6. Enoch Smith says:

    I’ve tended to only date liberal, pro-feminist women, and (though this is anecdotal) none of them were particularly pro-men. They fought for abortion, yes, they were concerned about domestic violence, yes, but they still viewed men as inherent sexual threats, expected me to pay for dates (and not just any place, but someplace “nice”), regarded most men’s issues as a result of our biological inferiority, had no problem saying things like “female sexuality is superior to men’s”, and so on. Even as they maintained that “feminism is for everybody”, they attacked men’s issues whenever they came up and steadfastly supported female privilege.

    In fact, according to one study, gender roles have changed very little in the past 60 years (source: Auster, Carol J., and Susan C. Ohm. “Masculinity and Femininity in Contemporary American Society: A Reevaluation Using the Bem Sex-Role Inventory.” Sex Roles 43, no. 7/8 (October 2000): 499-528. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed October 18, 2012).). The only thing that’s changed is that masculine traits are more acceptable in women than before. The facts just simply don’t bear out the argument that feminism has had broad positive changes for men.

  7. So positive generalizations of what feminism brought men is ok, does that mean it’s ok to negatively generalize about what negatives feminism has brought men?

  8. This was a good topic to actually look seriously at how gender stereotypes and gender discriminations hurt everyone, men and women, instead the one point that touched on this was lost in a barrage of naff ‘humour’ and shallow points.

    What was expected from writing/publishing this article? Are men supposed to click their heels with joy that they don’t have to open doors?

    And yeah, I agree with Archy, nothing like sending a movement back five years with a healthy dose of hypocrisy.

    Hey Good Men Project, if you want to feature a female writer, there are plenty of good ones who are more knowledgeable about feminism and gender – Ariel Levy, Natasha Walter, Susan Faludi, Peggy Orenstein, Cordelia Fine (the genius) etc etc

  9. Mr Supertypo says:


  10. I saw the Picture chosen to illustrate this piece and was struck by how it makes so many assumptions that can be so very wrong.

    “Danger – Educated Woman Inside”

    Since when has eduction been a measure of insight, knowledge, lack of prejudice, humanitarian nature … etc?

    So Danger is a warning – and the educated woman is to be seen as dangerous? What happens if you take that educated women and put her in a Burkha? Will the magical educational status suddenly protect her from the Crass Stupidity of some who will start chunnering over 9/11 and Ground Zero?

    Eduction is not a valid measure of anything – nor is it a valid indicator of quality or qualities in the individual. And lets not forget how there is that New Trope that more females attain a certain level of eduction that males ( Please do start to make it clear that the stats are for the USA only – It’s not Global and Universal).

    It’s amazing how someone will become apoplectic over some study that has been dug up which will show that 99.9% of women are viewed or treated in a 100% negative way by “Men” … and then you did into the story and find that it’s only 0.1% of men who are involved. The Extremes get fascinating, as do the extreme misinterpretations of realities.

    It’s fascinating how so many people with supposed eduction have issues with some simple concepts such as Nouns and Mass Nouns – or maybe they do grasp the issues and have been educated into patterns, ideas and attitudes that are seen by many as negative.

    Using the term men to indicate all men can be correct, but when a person who is supposedly educated uses it incorrectly about a small subset is that because they are :

    1) Educated but Stupid and can’t use the English language with any degree of accuracy?
    2) Educated but Only to hold certain views and attitudes which are held in an almost Cult Like Dogma?
    3) Educated and fully aware that their use of language is not correct but continue anyway because they are of the view that either the Ends Justify the means or even the ends are that power and control is to be expressed by any means?

    Hell the word Educated is not as simple as people think – and in so many ways it’s a Black and White word – you either went to school or you didn’t – It’s Oh So Binary and some are Oh So Tied Up In Knots or Not. It’s so badly understood by them educated folks, the one’s who went to school and them educated folks keep on using it as if they have some God Given Educated Right to say I went to school so I am good and right.

    Now, If so many Educated folks are so ignorant about what the Word Educated means and have such odd attitudes about what it entitles them too and how they should be seen by others, is there any wonder that they have so much difficulty and so many issues with what other words mean, such as feminism?

    They say that if you don’t get educated you end up slinging burgers – but I wonder at the slinging of words which are half baked and which they have no idea of the ingredients that go into them! Yum Yum!

    Hands up all the Educated Folks?

  11. John Schtoll says:

    I didn’t realize till the end (damn, I am getting old) that this was poking fun at those that say Feminism is good for Men. I thought this was a serious article (of sorts)

  12. 16) Helped introduce misandrist implementations of domestic violence law which has harmed male victims, left them and female perpetrators without adequate support. Things like the Duluth model cause a huge problem with this I believe.

  13. 17) Has provided crowning theoretical jewels such as Patriarchy and Privilege theory and shown us how a thoroughly oppressive system such as Patriarchy can be utterly subverted, and not just that, can be made to fund and support another political system designed to destroy it. A Trojan horse like no other!

    18) Has alerted all to the fact that there is an epidemic of gay men sexually assaulting straight women.

    19) Has provided multiple canons of postmodern theory hijacked from male French philosophers.

    20) Has alerted all to the fact that “women are people too” and reshaped the thinking of many biologists.

    • Random_Stranger says:

      Do please elaborate on #17…in your view, how do you define patriarchy and privilege theory, who’s is being oppressed, how is it subverted, and what other political system is it funding?

      ..and #20 is a choice statement to…

      Do tell us more…

      • Yikes…need to use more emoticons

        Please re-read with your sarcasm device turned on

        • Yeah I wasn’t sure if you were being sarcastic or real.

        • Random_Stranger says:

          whoops sorry, given the topic -it can be hard to separate sarcasm from an actual assertion without the formal use of :)

          • I’m most worried about how one hijacks a canon – sarcastically or other wise. Give some folks Irony and they forge it into weapons – but what the hell happens with canon?

            • Random_Stranger says:

              Is this some kind of meta-irony, are are we genuinely confusing canon with cannon? This is the most confusing thread ever, -we need proper use of smiley faces people :)

            • Oh my – give um Irony they forge weapons – what the hell do you get with meta-irony? Poe’s Law – Proof of?

              As for confusing canon with cannon, it does depend on which one you view as most incendiary and most likely to provoke blasts and ballistics. … and if you cross the two it’s worse. You just get a well armed militant who uses scribbles to justify anything, except their own demise.

  14. I’d gladly forego those 15 things if you’ll take feminism with you.

  15. How much you want to bet that an article about 15 ways feminism has been detrimental to men would NEVER be published here. I’d consider writing it, but I wouldn’t want to waste the effort.

  16. Collin – I’m not sure that you need to make it about “…ways feminism has been detrimental to men..”.

    “…ways feminism has been detrimental.[PERIOD]” would be too hard for some to grasp – consider – deal with. For some Feminism is so 60′s it’s Teflon Coated – nothing is allowed to stick to it!

    Recently I was asked for an example of how Feminism had ever, ever could or ever could have had a negative effect upon anyone. I raised the issue of “Political Lesbianism” – how it promoted sexuality as a “”Choice”" – There was no such thing as Biology just Social Constructs that anyone could change* – and how since the 1960′s GAY people of all types (the None Hetro Normative) had been dealing with the gross muddle and mess that some Feminists and Feminism had left behind. Hell – the propaganda mess is still being thrown about by the religious types and even being used to promote Conversion Therapy and the Ex-Gay Ministries nearly 50 years later – that is 2 generations.

    Hell it even reared it’s head this year and even Jezebel started asking some pointed questions about the validity and history. … and they even hinted that there is not a 100% track record under the big F banner! P^)

    I was told it was not a real example or issue as feminism apparently supports gay people and gay rights. Apparently it’s fine to have a negative effect upon others provided they are oppressed and you support them in not being oppressed. Incidental damage is not counted – a bit like hitting a car in a parking lot and driving away quick cos no-one is about to see the damage you leave behind. !

    I even raised Slutwalk and how it was seen as negative and even pejorative by Black Women and Black Feminists … and to that I was told that Slutwalk was not about feminism or even organised by feminists – Just Students. (Where Is The Smilie For Face Palm when you really need it). I have wondered at how the students involved would react to being thrown out of the F group because they were not old enough or had not passed the requisite exams? I’m still unable to obtain an explanation as to why students are exclude from feminism – and if that is all feminism – some bits, such as the deep end – or is it only extremes of a spectrum.

    It is hard to have any form of rational dialogue on any subject when dealing with anyone who is so heavily defended that they can do no wrong. That Teflon is a real bugger! P^)

    * I have asked many people who bought into the Political Lesbian – No Biology – It’s all Construct ideology why they only promoted Lesbianism and not free sexuality for all? Still waiting for an answer on that one – 4 decades and counting. If any of the male guys want to experiment with being politically gay and see where it leads, I’m all ways open to interesting sociological experiments – 6’2″, swimmer build, brown hair …..

    • I even raised Slutwalk and how it was seen as negative and even pejorative by Black Women and Black Feminists … and to that I was told that Slutwalk was not about feminism or even organised by feminists – Just Students. (Where Is The Smilie For Face Palm when you really need it). I have wondered at how the students involved would react to being thrown out of the F group because they were not old enough or had not passed the requisite exams? I’m still unable to obtain an explanation as to why students are exclude from feminism – and if that is all feminism – some bits, such as the deep end – or is it only extremes of a spectrum.

      Are those the same Slutwalks that so many feminists had no problem joining in on and cheering on? Don’t get me wrong the premise of holding demonstrations to make a statement about how women shouldn’t be told how to dress is a very valide thing. On the other hand I find it quite interesting that the racial aspect you brought up here got nowhere near the amount of attention from feminists as the praising.

      • … I find it quite interesting that the racial aspect you brought up here got nowhere near the amount of attention from feminists as the praising.

        Danny – I don’t find it interesting just highly and even shamefully predictable. In many ways it is the most bizarrely back peddled issue I have ever seen.

        There was a great deal of confusion that anyone should say “Hold On There” – because there was an already defended and entrenched position that anyone objecting had to be male or not with the feminist program. Don’t forget how the Slutwalk meme was linked to the Rape Culture explosion – anyone who denies, does not accept etc is supporting Rape Culture, protorapist, anti feminism – stupid and does not get the issues – a friend of Constable Michael Sanguinetti – and someone with body odour issues and drinking soda from a month old pizza delivery box.

        It was a bizarrely spectacular own goal caused by a lack of insight from those agitating in Educational Institutions. Just cos it says educated don’t make it clever. It’s Ironic – “Danger – Educated Women Inside”. I do keep saying that Eduction aint what it used to be! P^)

        Take object – apply Feminist Label – accept that object is now magically endowed and protected – oh and it will also protect all feminists. Hell – it even works on rapists. If it could only be bottled it would be amazing.

        Most worrying with Slutwalk is how the long term teachings on how what a person wears is not relevant to being sexually assaulted – and also not relevant to the thinking, behaviour and actions of a person committing sexual assault – well making clothing the central issue just blew the message out of the water and shifted focus in all the wrong direction. Of course it’s very naughty and not PC to mention that – but I am not one for being trapped in other peoples dogmas as they try to gnaw on my shin bone so I do tend to ask awkward questions and even point out inconvenient snags and issues.

        That the objection to Slutwalk came from within their (Supposed) own camp was mind boggling….. but it could not be negative – or seen as having anything negative connected with it. QED – don’t respond – let it vanish – let it die – it does not exist – lend me an Ostrich and a bucket of sand.

        In many ways Slutwalk was just a social media phenomenon with many people running in to follow a banner and raise their own. It was event lead, not issue led. That limited any scope and longevity from the start. I have been saying for over a year that the whole issue around Slutwalk and Rape Culture had all the hallmarks of being media driven and not real.

        It’s also the reason why Slutwalk has died as a supposed global phenomenon and even a national or local one. Other more well considered and focused approaches to issues and not just events. If you look at things like I Hollaback you can see how it’s issue lead and reveals many individual incidents – and so it has a long term nature and not a short term notoriety.

        Worse still “Holla Back” pre-dates Slutwalk, so it’s a pity that the late comer overrode the first when it could have Screamed Back about the views of one police officer and promoted the ISSUES globally. Ignore issues – make it all about incident – run off in any direction as along as it looks good.

        It’s a pity that the people who are in there long term are not receiving the support that they could – and there is that odd racial dissonance issue too because Holla back is primarily operating outside of the USA in other countries-cultures such as India – and in India Slutwalk even had to be re-branded to Besharmi Morcha – and as one observant journalist said at the time – ” ..women aren’t marching for the right to walk down the street dressed in barely-there clothes, as critics suggest. They’re fighting for the right to walk down the street. Period.” – Christie Thompson, 6 Jul 2011, Ms Magazine.

        Some have observed that ongoing projects such as take back the night were too tame and not active enough – so it is a pity that Holla back missed out on support as screaming in an abusers face is pretty dynamic and active …. as well as On Brand. Holla Back Vs Slut Walk? It’s a hard one when it comes to staying on message.

        Basic Marketing and Product is not a feminist only issue – but some seem to dislike the need and that it even exists because they are no fans of “Mad Men”. P^)

        Do have a look at the racial issues around Rape Culture too – I find the published interviews with Loretta Ross fascinating – especially how Black Women who founded and built the DC Rape Crisis Centre were treated by White Late Coming Feminists. It does indicate that the concerns of Black Women over Slutwalk were no only valid, but came from a long standing history of how Black Women are seen and treated under the feminist banner. That the origins of Rape Culture and the work of More Or less Exclusively black women and men was basically pushed aside and made to vanish is both staggering and to be expected.

        Of course – so many simply don’t want to address that issue, because It’s more important to present a United Front than to deal with reality and how good intentions and supposed banners can cause issues and damage that no-one wants to acknowledge or address. There is something fundamentally wrong when you have to be either black or feminist, but being both requires you to compromise and self oppress irrespective of your sex, gender or sexuality.

        I’m still amazed at the attitudes and behaviours of people studying in supposed Educational Institutions at how they don’t like evidence that upsets their world view, expectations and demands. The worst part is that the educated one’s just assumed and never bothered to look at the basic texts – and when they had to start doing homework they just ignored all the issues and left the field. None so deaf as those who are driven by Farcebook and collect event long friends.

        So Feminism is positive for men and women and people of all colours, creeds, educational abilities and opportunities – and even endangered species … but it does depend on what you are looking at and from where and if some folks have even opened their eyes, cos there are so many examples of where it is has and no doubt will go wrong and cause damage – and using the well at least we are doing something defence is one that is supposed to get left in the school yard, where it belongs.

  17. I love this article! I agree with all fifteen points you made.

    But I think why so many men don’t like feminism is not because we feel threatened and afraid losing jobs. The reason sometimes I don’t like feminism is just because sometimes I don’t like the way they talk ( and generalizing ) about men. And they think the way they said “majority of men” not ” all of men” somehow will make it us feel less hurt. Its still generalization, and I still see many feminist generalizing men.

    Again, I’m not against feminism. Instead I like feminist like you who are actually talk about men. Really about our rights. From reading this article I could tell you really care about us and not demonized us for being men. But honestly I cannot said that for all feminist article I read.

    Again I love this article so much. I agree that feminism also benefits us.

  18. John Anderson says:

    “#11. Feminism means better relationships for all – as proven by science!”

    This just sounds weird.

    ” Among the findings:

    College-age women who reported having feminist male partners also reported higher quality relationships that were more stable than couples involving non-feminist male partners.
    College guys who were themselves feminists and had feminist partners reported more equality in their relationships. ”

    So college age women had better (quality) and more stable relationships, but college age men had more equality, but not necessarily better or more stable relationships. I guess that could mean guys benefited, but only if he used to get the short end of the stick. The benefits seem fairly lopsided at best.

  19. The problem is that feminist theory might research the destructive gender roles for men, but when this gets applied as feminist advocacy in a “boots on the ground” sense feminist advocacy actually dovetails with a very tradcon perspective.

    Tradcons seem to believe that help for women is okay because they believe women are weaker. Women only benefits are doled out in a condescending manner as a parent would to shutup a child.

    Feminists believe that help for women is necessary because women are more often disprivileged (but, the advocates ignore a lot of feminist theory and research to arrive at this conclusion).

    This double whammy puts men in bind in which no org is freeing him of his gender roles. In fact, much of feminist advocacy actually tighten the male straight jacket.

    Feminist advocacy turned law (i.e. VAWA) states that funds will not be made available for male victim services. Feminist political orgs like NOW fight against father parental rights. Feminist input into the Affordable Care Act has enacted a great deal of inequality (against men).

    NOW and 80 other feminist orgs created WEAVE to derail 42% of Obama’s $800B stimulus package from male heavy sectors like manufacturing and construction to female heavy sectors like medicine and education (and they were successful). These fem orgs did this at a time when male unemployment was twice that of male unemployment.

    Feminism is not a movement for equality because the radicals are not on the fringe but at the center of directorships and executive roles in the biggest feminist political orgs. Millions of equality-minded men-loving feminists remain quiet and refuse to broom the haters out of leadership positions and let the radicals at the center of feminist power institutions advocate, write, and pass very anti-father and very anti-male laws.

    Radfem DV advocates have staggered the rules so that male victims of DV (or researchers who show DV is a human problem, not a female problem) ARE BANNED from testifying at VAWA reauthorization hearings.

    Look to this article:
    ht tp://

    In which Daddy Justice is assaulted in the halls of congress (waiting to ask Phil McGraw “Dr Phil” why he gave demonstrably false testimony that DV is largely a female victim problem).

    Lisolyn Jacobs is a director for a women’s shelter org. Why do her motivations appear so strong that men can’t talk about victimhood at the hands of women (to govmt orgs) that she feels the need to attack others who want to speak about male victimhood?

    The why is because the hateful radical feminists are not the movements radical fringe, but rather it’s radical CORE.

    When the feminists who keep stating feminism = equality start brooming out the haters (who have done a lot of harm to men and fathers) then this will be up for review.

    Until then, clearly feminism =//=equality.

    • @ John. – You make some interesting points , which I fear some will simply see as strident. It is a limitation of language in written form that using Jargon requires people to understand the meaning exactly or they are too often mislead – and they go off in their own direction.

      Jargon that gets people thinking they know the meaning, but which needs study and careful consideration to understand – a few examples:

      1) Prison Reform – does that mean making it easier on the cons, or making it tougher and paying a financial dividend? It’s that often deliberately used ambiguity that causes so much trouble. People will fill in the gaps with their own beliefs, prejudices and even desires.

      2) Emotional Intelligence – we are all emotional and everyone thinks they are intelligent – so QED we are all emotionally intelligent people – and if you are more emotional and even have a higher IQ that makes you better – doesn’t it? It’s So Simple anyone can get it! But there is a problem, because that is not Emotional Intelligence or how it’s measured or defined. The main focus is being able to recognise and use other people’s emotions to you own ends – and when you put it that way many people think psychopath and abuser. Emotions are about expressing things not controlling other people – Controlling other people by their emotions…. Hmmmm? That sounds Icky… but people hear emotional intelligence and by default go to a positive idea and even a positive view of how it applies to them.

      3) Feminism – people hear it and apparently known all about it. It’s about good things such as making people equal – it’s about stopping nasty things like domestic violence and abuse – in the US it’s about meeting ideals and aspirations such as The Constitution and the Declared Independence thing of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. It does shift from the measurable into the abstract and poorly defined.

      There is also no Monolithic Feminism – there is no central feminist council or an entity that own and controls the Brand or Trademark. When that label of feminist is applied is it Ist wave, 2nd wave – 3rd wave – rad, as in radical, fem – even red, as in communist socialist, fem?

      Ask for a definition of feminism and you open up an endless definition and open-ended expansion … but people like limits and being able to grasp, so they make it simple and then frame everything as simple, no matter what is presented.

      I see serious issues in the USA with that feminism label, but if you are critical of the label people get antsy and view you as mad, bad and evidently an abuser – rapist – misogynist. It does not matter that I’m a Single Queer Crippled lover of women who fights for Human Rights …. the Label and idea of feminism is so heavily engrained in the national psyche it’s inviolate. Nature abhors a vacuum – so create a leader figure and people will start to follow – have no leader and people will just sit under the banner and treat it almost as a comfort zone. The only equivalent I can call upon rapidly to contrast with is the Mind set that empowered slavery. Of course now I will have to be labelled as some nutcase who is saying that Feminism is attempting to enslave men, or all feminists are secret closet racists. The defended position is automatic and entrenched. It resonates very closely with Cult Thinking In Religious Groups.

      Control comes from

      B. Behaviour
      I. Information
      T. Thinking
      E. Emotions.

      In so many people, male or female, Feminism and how it is being presented in literally all areas of life tells people how they are to behave, from social interactions to employment to relationships – and this is done through the information which people are provided, received and made to receive – that controls thinking about the self and others, and even has people self analysing to see if they are getting it right, because once the Feminist label is seen as 100% positive, anything less than 100% is seen as fail and has to be addressed – that causes Emotions to be affected and even open to manipulation by others. It literally opens the door to people emotionally abusing themselves – they want to be seen as part of the group, they disagree with one aspect – that gets repressed – once self repression begins it can get very nasty and open up a slippery slope. Conforming to a group or ideal is al too often as seen as being only subjected to External Influence and even power. When you do it to yourself it becomes hard for the person to recognise it in them selves and almost impossible for anyone external to see it.

      There seems to be an issue with human behaviour where B.I.T.E. seems to be built in. It seems to be almost genetic and socially universal. The same pattern is seen across all continents, all races, creeds colours … it would seem that all humans have a desire to be bitten. … you see it in Politics, social activities such as sports … even the Shopping Culture and Recreational Retail follow the same patterns.

      Where it’s deliberately manipulated you end up with cult behaviour, but where there is no direction you have a filling in of gaps which is all too often just as bad – especially when you end up with individuals who have personalities that are controlling and they fill the gaps their way. When you consider that, Emotional Intelligence takes on a whole new meaning.

      I also do have to make very clear that I keep seeing the same patterns in people, both male and female, who are coming under that banner of men’s rights. In fact I often steer clear of such people because in particular on the net you find the loudest voices are the most troubling – they can appear very rational but they are often hiding irrational thinking, and dangerous views under a veneer that is highly polished. And I wish to make very clear – that is not just men, I have also come across women advocating to men’s rights who were way too toxic to stay near – but that toxicity due to intellectual failure and even self fraud was well hidden and not apparent to many. Nature abhors a vacuum – so create a leader figure and people will start to follow – once that has happened it is hard to get people to consider any other possible reality – there is great inertia against people being wrong.

      It is often said that the empty bottle makes the loudest noise. I see that occurring with a great many people entrenched in gender politics, and I also see people who are very cunning and deliberately controlling … and that is also on both sides.

      The most interesting dialogues and advances come from people who are issue focused and not event reactive.

      I’ve seen the same issues arise over the years with both Queer Politics and Cripple Politics. There is a big umbrella but no-one has overall control of the brand. You get individuals and groups which set up their won Brand and the Big Banner. Anyone seen to be questioning the rights of the group to exists, their ethos and what they say gets hit with The Big Banner and smothered in it.

      Under the Gay Rights banner I have seen everything from Lesbian Groups claiming that only Lesbianism is true sexuality and all women are to be treated as lesbian – men do not count and are not even gay – or sexual. Duh! I’ve even seen The queer banner used to justify paedophile and pederast activity by both men and women – and when that was questioned the attack and defence was amazing. Again that Big Queer Banner was used and It was amazing to be dealing with child victims – supporting them in reporting to police – I was being told by Police I was Homophobic … and it was only when I was able to “prove” to police that I was a Pouf, Liked the Boys ( Or rather Men ) and was not a self hating Homosexual that they actually started to look at reality and crawled out from under the abused banner and into the light. I’ve seen that Gay Rights Banner abused by Gay People, and it’s a bugger to cut the wind and get the banner tied back down to solid foundations and looking straight.

      To illustrate a contrast to feminism – In the UK there is massive anger by disabled people against what is know as the Big 5 – a groups of charities that presume to speak for all disabled people on all subject and to Government. These 5 charities have been about for a long time and on average over 100 years. Most people are completely ignorant of the power these five are wielding – because they have no effect upon the person’s life, or if they do social pressure and don’t rock the boat thinking encourages disabled to be to agree to be controlled and oppressed.

      The Big 5 deal with beneficiaries who have highly visible physical impairments and highly visible mental impairments – and they use their clients as the Poster Kids for ALL Disabled People. This dynamic has lead to ongoing Patronising, Abusive, Discriminatory, Stereotypical behaviours and attitudes against all disabled people – and has even encouraged and entrenched it within Government, despite legislation that says it’s illegal.

      WOW – who would have though that some 6 million people in the UK would be subjected to such levels of endemic prejudice – and all of it coming from Charity! It’s very hard to both publicise and get out from under that level of social inertia.

      Some find this idea impossible to grasp – Disabled people being discriminated against – seen negatively – treated negatively by …. The Big Disability Charities which do nothing but support them… Does Not Compute – Clear Buffers and label input as Crack Pot – madness – Ah Ha the person is disabled so they are mentally defective… poor unfortunate.

      I have found it personally amusing to be outside the Palace Of Westminster – Houses Of Parliament, campaigning on Disability Equality and being told by a certain MP that I was a sad case and needed to be taken care of due to being disabled and evidently mentally defective ! What a pity that at the last election I went to so many Stump Speeches by Her and how she lost her place in parliament – and the most shocking thing is how she claimed to be feminist and so incapable of prejudice, and yet every-time she spoke on disability she was shown to be a fraud and biased beyond belief . P^)

      The BBC have a track record of commissioning interesting programs and one was called “”Beyond Boundaries”. It took groups of disabled people with differing levels of disability and did a trip. They didn’t go a a local theme park or have a picnic or go bowling – nope – the first time they went on a 1500 mile walk from Zambia to The Atlantic coast/Skeleton Coast of Namibia – the next trip was crossing and Andes.

      Dead easy – except for the wheel chairs – crutches – being blind – agoraphobic – only having 1 leg or 1 arm … or no legs .. or no arms.. oh and they had no preparation.

      It was fascinating to watch – Reality TV Cripple Style and it made Big Brother and ilk look so tame! Some Video Footage does get the idea across – and the Shooting the rapids on the Zambezi River Gorge with the raft flipping and trapping the crips underneath… well It speaks volumes.

      But the most fascinating thing – the most shocking – the most amazing was when the Chief Executive of the Biggest of the Big Five Charities was asked about the program. They said it was amazing because they had clients on TV doing things that were supposed to be impossible and it was so nice for them to get a chance and have a good time. It was the first time his Charity had considered clients as capable and not just recipients of “Charity”.

      It was Patronising and Shocking, because for a few minutes it revealed the truth of how The Supposed Bastions and Leaders of Disability Rights and Disabled People in the UK are in fact just about the most prejudiced and oppressive groups that exist.

      When pressed by the interviewer, he reluctantly admitted that it may now be necessary for the charity to re-evaluate the charity’s view of the people they represent. … and this was not some Fusty Grandee Board member, it was the CEO with everyday legal responsibility for a Multi Million Charity and it was his job to make sure they did not illegally discriminate on grounds of Disability. It was so shocking it beggared belief.

      Worse still – if that is possible – through out they were smiling, thinking they were being so helpful and nice and should be getting a pat on the back! The Visual and Cognitive Dissonance was staggering and left literally everyone confused – so many just retreated to a default position – Charity = Good = He Is Good – we must be mistaken.

      People are still having big issues with that cracked mirror – the broken edifice – the revealed reality. Where people have unwittingly supported all that has gone before and see it as damaged and even damaging, it takes a long time for them to deal with the emotions – alter their thinking – process the new information and alter their behaviour.

      When folks are inoculated with B.I.T.E – reversing matters is hard and the deconstruction of E.T.I.B is very hard. If it’s a cult, you can focus upon what the cult leaders have said and got people to do – when it’s just a massive banner there are big issues with boundaries and the defensive positions linked to emotions get so hard to deal with.

      I keep observing these exact same patterns in US based Feminism – and also that influence spreading out even globally. So many are still unable to comprehend the idea of genocide – or war rape. Yet in the Congo (DRC) it is a reality for both men and women. If you rape a woman you steal her tribal identity and make her worthless and cast out. If you rape a man you steel his Mojo and make him less than an animal, he is cast out and not allowed to marry. So many see genocide as instant – they miss the subtlety of long term consequences where because individuals are made not part of their own social and tribal group they do not marry they do not have children and they and their tribe die.

      That is why the international Tribunals and Courts dealing with events accept rape as an Act Of Genocide – the person may not be dead, but they are as good as – the rape was done to prevent their tribe surviving and the intent was extermination – genocide.

      But the shock factor comes in how rape victims are treated. Women? Support – Access to medical treatment – housing… it’s all there being provided by Charities many funded by US organisations – and set up to meet the needs of Women and only Women. Then you have supposed white female experts dealing with Rape In DRC Congo – Rwanda – Uganda and they say that men are not being raped – and when they hold public meeting and men stand up and say they have been raped it’s false – the men are just attention seeking – when they say women are raping us it’s because men are supposed to have financial control and they are unhappy that women get support.

      The racism is horrific – because in many tribal groups the most genocidal thing is for a women to rape a man – and you have groups of men capturing a man from the targeted group and facilitating rape by women. It’s not some new fangled event either – UN peace keepers have been reporting the issue for 20 years since the First Rwandan Genocide, and the history and practice gets traced back even further to the 1960′s … and earlier. When you ignore different racial groups lived experience because you impose your racial reality upon them that is by definition racist .. and yet supposed aide groups, charities and government funded bodies operating in Central Africa are denying racial reality and male rape and making themselves party to genocide – and the motivation is US and Eurocentric Feminist Ideology and views of women and men. Male Perp – female Victim… and yet International Courts don’t agree!

      How Odd – Deny the event – Trivialise – Make false presentations as to the victims motives – explain it all away …. and that is supposed to be the Lead Advocate on the issue of sexual assault in a War Torn region – being funded by American Charities and even American Government Aide ….. Victim Blaming and showing the worst possible aspects of Rape Culture.

      But it does not matter – because she is a feminist – supporting feminism in Africa – helping feminists in a War Zone … and she has the largest media profile on the subject of Rape – War Rape – Genocide in the area, so what she says has to be true! It was only last November due to reports being published in the UK media that the issue got out onto the public domain.

      I still wonder why so few people are even mentioning the work of Lara Stemple – University of California and her expert and in depth analysis of how there is even an international systemic failure simply caused by the wording of international treaties – conventions – protocols that deal with sexual violence. It’s not hard to see how if legal documents fail to mention men or males as victims of sexual assault – well incidents won;t be recognised and recorded – you end up with some highly distorted stats! Basic Introduction via Al-jazeera The silent male victims of rape – Jul 2011.

      Worse still, funding provided for addressing the gender deficit gets made moot as Organisations assisting men are told they must also assist women to meet human rights requirements and equality requirements – but funding made specifically for women is not subjected to this rule.

      Of course – when you lay out information like this people will often get angry. People are also used to structure so they want to know who is responsible for dealing with such inequality – which person or body has done it – who is at fault – where can my finger point. This is when you are faced with another factor of human behaviour – the focus upon structure – the pointing finger blame syndrome.

      If Human’s can see something wrong and see a figure or group that is clearly responsible they will target that group. But where there is no target the concern and anger dissipates, and people even believe that injustice can’t exists without structure – without an individual to blame – so no clear target gets turned into can’t be true – can’t be real. It ends up getting ignored…. again.

      UN treaties get drafted and forget to mention men as victims – so who do you blame – the poor secretary on the 4th floor who typed it all up? Why would the wording ignore men? Well if the received Trope and supposed wisdom is that Only women are affected – men just get ignored. It’s not even deliberate it’s just Institutional Blindness – Deafness – Ignorance… and it’s not just in the UN – the US Government is awash with the same Institutional failures. The FBI change how rape is defined and fail to include rape by envelopment?

      I’m not saying that Feminism is Good or bad – or that Feminists are good or bad – but just as a knife is not good or bad, it’s what a person does with it that makes it good or bad. I’ll been seen a monster for saying this but if you are mindless and unthinking in your use of the term, ideas and even philosophies that underpin feminism you end up with mindless feminist – just the same as if you place a gun in the hands of certain people you will have that cliché “The Mindless Gunman”.

      Now of course I will be reported as saying all feminists are mindless gun toting killers who plan to shoot all opposition on sight. I’m such a bad man and hate so many! I’ve already booked a first class ticket to hell to save time! P^)

      The problem is how the big banner is out there and how it’s seen as 100% good – and anyone who says it could be less than 100% is immediately 100% bad. Most interesting is how that 100% bad view is not even gendered – because Women who have questioned the use of that 100% banner ideal have also been treated as 100% negative.

      Even making language gender neutral is seen as denying Women and you have to deal with that “Overwhelming Trope”, and should you show that such a trope is false wow the back lash is massive!

      That dynamic of extremes shows that there is a fundamental issue with what feminism is and how it’s defined, and worst of all it seems no-one is able to solve that issue and reduce the matter to a positive issue. It’s literally entered a generational pattern where it requires major social change – just as slavery did. It’s no longer a philosophical issue it has moved into a full sociological issue with inertia against change coming from The Economic, Psychological, Political, Legal and even The Media.

      Of course so many only want manageable chunks and even only chunks that are of interest to them – so it’s made all about Point issues – pay – groping – Clothes I Will Wear. The Defence is also made simplistic – you support 100% or you are 100% against. If you question what we say you become the opposite = if you question our definitions, we define you as 100% oppositional to out ideas – if we say rape and you say not sure you are a rapists – rape supporter – victim blamer – you induce PTSD …. It’s amazing the barge of 100% negative that comes from questioning 1% of what is claimed.

      Every-time I see it being put forward that all women should be tarted as potential rape survivors with PTSD, I question why anyone would wish to have all women treated as disabled? I’m told I am being silly and making stupid points – and I’m the cripple and questioning the misappropriation of Disability to make it subservient to some people’s vie2ws of Gender Politics? Who is on topic and who is off the edge of the page?

      Some see Tropes – I see Traps, and it’s disturbing to see how some have become trapped in their own thinking and how lack of structure under a massive banner allows that Trap to become limitless and then called a Trope.

      Also there is that subtlety issue of how people fall into Tropes and Traps. A few months ago I was asked to look a set of student responses from a course on Relationship Counselling. part of the course dealt with sex and sexuality and could be quite explicit. In one task the student were asked to respond to a woman seeking advice on sexual issue in a relationship. I spotted an interesting Quirk in all of the responses.

      All had been frank and open about sex – all had made comment about the need for autonomy in sexuality, and all had made reference to the male partner masturbating alone. The issue of masturbation together had been raised and how mutual masturbation could add spice and interest in the bedroom … and all had made reference to how it may be best for the male to not masturbate alone, or at the very least reduce frequency, as this would improve matters in the mutual bedroom zone and improver her experience and satisfaction.

      The Quirk – not one response addressed the woman’s solo masturbation practices and how their reduced solo play may improve matters mutually and even for him. There was a gross assumption that only the male was responsible for any negative aspect – and only the male had to alter behaviour for improvements to occur.

      It’s so subtle – it’s the play of assumptions across reality – and worse still when I was asked to look at the same student responses to male request for help, guess what was the focus and guess who was presumed to be deficient, responsible for any deficit and guess where the balance was in gender role in mutual sexual activity and pleasure?

      There are such subtle and deeply penetrating ideas involved with Monolithic Gender Politics with no one in charge of the brand identity – it’s shocking how the gaps are getting filled in and how it’s creating imbalances that people find so hard to grasp and recognise.

      But as I said – from where I’m sitting it has become so fixed and monolithic in US society it’s like slavery. It won’t vanish over night – the positions will be supported by ideas and views that will even range into the biazzer and quackery – ignorance will fuel a great deal of difficulty… and ultimately even when it’s resolved by Civil War, it may enforce some laws and ideals, but many will find ways for their personal grievances, views and ideas to be enforced upon others.

      Of course the biggest issue fuelling Slavery was economic – and in so many ways that is true of gender politics. Each time more money is added to the gender divide and each time one group is found to loose out economically the danger increases – especially in the USA. Where social position and value is measured in personal income and worth, each time a groups is subjected to economic damage it just fuels the underlying social driver and increases danger and discord … and that is not just equal pay – it’s equal economic precedence in all areas where economics and economic power have any influence.

      • Wow, long response mediahound.

        Very insightful, thanks for your response.

        My question to you is this:
        Your statement that very vocal pundits often mask underlying issues I accept at face value. I’m assuming you’re tying this to my linked story of the assault of Daddy Justice by Ms. Jacobs.

        However, mixed in with this is going to be people who have faced oppression and are justifiably angry and upset at the double-standards they are laboring under. I would say this was the position of a lot of feminists in the 60′s.

        It is now the position of a lot of MRA’s today. Some of these men have faced true oppression (at the hands of family court or other sources).

        These men are being written off as angry, when what they are is angry & oppressed. I agree there are manhaters within the feminist orgs, and there are women haters within the MRM. There is no doubt of that, as these movements will tend to draw these people.

        However, when you look to the orgs, rather than random people (at least from what I have seen) the MRA orgs (like and and save) snip this in the bud. The MRM is so tiny, and there is so much consciousness raising to be done about male oppression (most men oppose help for men) that they can’t afford any slipups or issues of skeletons in the closet.

        MRM is the proverbial equivalent of a women in a men’s industry: MRM has to be EVEN BETTER than the feminist movement (orgs at least) or they will be written off: “this is EXACTLY what we expected”.

        NOW paid the legal defense fund of Lorrena Bobbit.

        If had paid for the legal defense of a man having sexually mutilated his wife it would be their death knell. Part of this is because the feminist media machine is so adept. But, a part of this is that men are the last demographic it is okay to laugh at their pain. Men are the last PC approved group to hate. In actuality F&F paid for the legal defense of a soldier mom who’s husband had used her deployment as an excuse to amend the parenting schedule (upon her return) against the law (a law that F&F wrote to protect the parenting rights of men and women in the armed forces).

        In contrast, the haters in the feminist movement seem to be AT THE HELM of the the largest multi-million (billion?) dollar orgs that are heavily invested in spreading ideas of female victimhood and male perfidy to enable writing very anti-male and anti-father legislation.

        I agree that there are haters on both sides. But, if you want to make a point they are equivalent, then I would like you to point me to a director of a MRM org who has assaulted a woman over men’s & women’s issues, or any other equivalent action deemed as hateful against women.

        • Your statement that very vocal pundits often mask underlying issues I accept at face value. I’m assuming you’re tying this to my linked story of the assault of Daddy Justice by Ms. Jacobs.

          One aspect can be seen in the Daddy Justice case, but far more worrying and fare more significant is how Wild Uncontrolled Tropes flapping about on banners cause people to go to the uncritical default position of knowing all about the subject and reacting accordingly.

          A rather good example has been about for over 20 years – a UK advert for the Guardian Newspaper. Have a look.

          Now who owns the brand and banner that all Skin Heads are fascist Animals/Scum/Beast etc that need to be put out of everyone else’s misery?

          Who owns the Fragile female banner and tropes?

          What about the business men carry brief cases banner and trope?

          Looking at the big picture means looking not at just one banner but “ALL” the banners that are being flown.

          You make a number of points about individuals and groups which may or may not be valid. You do miss a rather important issue and that is where and how the banners are being displayed. That shows where either people want you focusing or where the battles are being fought.

          There has been an interesting shift of focus of issues from The First World to Third World. Banners being flown in front of the Capital Building signify victory in a battle. The same banners being flow in Third world countries and demanding that international aide only be spent in certain ways … any idea of battles being fought.

          Sorry but, I see so many in the Men’s Rights Movement as foolish flag followers, and they are also appalling;y short sighted and lack even Basic Stategic Grasp.

          It’s funny when a group can’t even organise a basic literacy campaign and stick with it. Lara Stemple has been championing it for years, and yet her name hardly features so people pick it up? That shows me a bunch of people gathering under a banner and being stupid. What’s worse is that the supposed intelligent one’s can’t be bothered to herd the cats and move forward.

          I’m amused when people go to extremes – Lorna Bobbit – Sexual Mutilation – when there is so much ground to be had in the centre – for free – and the only people who can claim it and build upon it are Men!

          I love the idea that men are unemotional and unthinking clunks because what I keep seeing here is that men are being terribly emotional – loosing focus and running off after banners. It’s a perfect rebuttal to the accusations and tropes of men are less emotional than women. P^)

          The biggest issue here is that so many men are seeking to be emotional and not interested in going to low Drama Areas such as Lara Stemple’s Work and using it to build understanding. So many want to be on the battle front they just miss the value of Intelligence being used to show tactics and how to counter them.

          If some had brains and a willingness to comprehend – they wouldn’t be dangerosue just being good men and addressing the issues and not chasing banners. Of course those who control dialogue are just as likely to choke off reality and balance as those who can show a different way. I see far too much abuse and control being foisted by so many with banners of Feminist – Masculist – Intelligent!

          The only example of intelligence I have seen is a poster campaign in Canada, but even there the intelligence got lost because it became an exercise in attacking one individual for her conduct. If you want to raise issues there is a very old rule. Ask Why 3 times and if they can’t give a straight forward answer it;s because there is a whole lot of politics and mess being covered up.

          Why do so many international treaties deliberately exclude men and boys?

          Why do treaties on landmines say that boys and men don’t get blown up?

          Why do so many international laws make men and boys vanish by only using the words women and girls?

          Why is there so much magic in missing words?

          Some Why Questions which if you keep asking break down resistance to the idea that the world is prefect. Some just need to not live in an expectation of Instant Gratification. P^)

          • You have to remember that the MRM is still in it’s infancy. The idea that men are vulnerable and/or victims is VERY counter-intuitive.

            A lot of what the MRM is going to need to do is consciousness raising. The overwhelming majority of men (and women) don’t know, don’t care, or don’t care to know that many more men suffer from certain societal ills than do women.

            Radical feminists have a 40 year jump on setting the frame of the debate. And there message is that “men have all the power”. They’ve been pointing to the 80-90% lock of politicians and power brokers being men to show that men are doing great–which of course is a magicians trick of misdirection.

            Give it time, we’ll get there. The key is that the MRM’s heart is in the right place. I don’t see it being derailed into an area of hate as (a large chunk) of feminist orgs have been lead astray and that is a good thing.

            F&F fight for the right of *both* parents to be a part of children’s lives, not to boost father custody over mother custody to reverse feminism boosting mother custody to be the law of the land. MRM DV advocacy groups like SAVE only try to have recognized male victims of violence, not hide or dismiss female victims the way Ms. Jacobs tried hide male victims in her assault of daddy justice.

            We’re getting there one torturous step at a time. The important thing is that so far, I have not seen the mrm banner reflect any sentiment but true and pure equality.

  20. 15 Reasons Feminism is actually good for men too – A response from an Equalist.

    At work

    1. Did you know that the minimum wage for men was originally set with reference to the fact that he was expected to support a wife and three children? That sounds like a lot of responsibility and stress. With equal pay resulting from feminism, your partner can support herself, and together you could have six children, or, more likely, buy a plasma screen!

    False: We are all actually getting paid less because both parents are expected to work and support 2.5 kids without asking for public support. Except they still have to ask for public support because now they have to pay for a baby sitter that cost at least the same amount in wages as the second parent working.

    2. Hate opening doors for people, or standing awkwardly at the front of the lift while you wait for the women from the back (always so slow in their high heels) to exit? Feminism says you don’t have to because we’re all generally able to handle the strength of a door. I open doors when it’s convenient for others, and I’m grateful when others hold it open for me. With feminism, courtesy can be a thing for both/all sexes.

    While chivalry exists it is still normally a one way street. When is the last time you’ve seen a woman open a door for a man who wasn’t carrying something for that woman?

    3. With feminism, you earned that promotion by being the best person for the job, not because of societal oppression of others. Hello to a clear conscience! And getting the best people for the job is better for business, which is ultimately better for keeping you employed, or so the capitalists tell me.

    False: I’ve gone to interviews and they were surprised I was white and a man when I don’t put my demographic information onto the application. Additionally, I’ve been laughed out of minority owned businesses when asking for an application, told by employers that I was not going to receive a position because they needed to meet their diversity obligations and they would be hiring a woman of a ‘minority’, so as a man believing in equality why do these things still happen in our world?

    4. More women in the workplace means more of them to check out, while being treated as equals means the ladies may be checking you out too, instead of worrying that a lecherous boss is going to feel them up in the lift.

    Really? Why would you checkout a coworker? Office romance never goes well and frankly shouldn’t be considered an option, especially if you are trying to suppress sexual harassment which women seem to feel just from a mans presence half the time. You can mind your business and just do your job and women feel sexually harassed, and you didn’t even look at them or speak to them about anything.

    5. Don’t want to work? Feminism says that your partner can be the breadwinner while you embrace your inner domestic god.

    I’ve been a stay at home spouse and father. For this I was thrown out and disregarded as unwanted and unneeded since I had no resources, assets, or money.

    In the world at large

    6. Feminism doesn’t buy into the silly gender stereotyping of alcoholic drinks, so go ahead and buy that pink cocktail with an umbrella that you have always secretly wanted to try.

    I have no problem drinking a pink squirrel at my local bi-bar or any other drink. This is the first I’ve heard that drinks were supposed to have gender stereotyping, so how is this a benefit for me a man?

    7. Sick of men being normalised as nonstop horndogs (oh god, how dated does that sound) who will sleep with anything in a skirt? In an equal society, your sexuality has no bearing on your perceived “manliness”, whether you are gay, straight, bi, questioning, lacking libido or any combination of the above.

    Are you sure? Being an ex man whore myself there is nothing manly about preforming over and over and getting no physical, emotional, or romantic pleasure because it turns into a chore. So I think the stigma is wrong from your ideal and from current norms and expectations.

    8. Ever been denied entry to a bar because they “need” more women, even though you’re just trying to have a drink with your friends? When women aren’t used as a tool to sell more drinks, bouncers won’t be tools to you.

    You must be making this up because I’ve never heard of this. It’s called a cover charge or drink minimum that’s how you sell more drinks and keep up your bottom line.

    9. As friend of the blog Jacky puts it, “The patriarchy is bad for EVERYONE – men, women and children. It robs women of their autonomy and humanity; devalues the lives and wellbeing of men; and places unnecessary stress on everyone in the process.” With feminism, it’s cool for you to be whoever you want to be, without having to try and perform your gender “correctly” 100% of the time. (That sound you can hear is a collective sigh of relief from every dude who doesn’t know how to change a tyre.)

    Is it really that hard to change a tire? I know children that know how to change a tire. Also why is this what FEMINISM is? Why is it called FEMINISM if it promotes equality? Why isn’t it called EQUALISM? I think the PATRIARCHY and FEMINISM are both bad for everyone.

    In sex & relationships & everything in between

    10. Women who don’t believe in feminism can be so frustrating to date, amirite? While they may make the effort to look stunning on dates, they also have this idea that they need to be treated like princesses, which largely translates to “spend a lot of money on me and you might get laid”. Given, pre-marriage, these women often earn much the same as you, this might seem unfair. Feminists, on the other hand, will split the bill with you (or take turns paying) and will sleep with you when they god damn feels like it, not because you’ve approached some magical monetary figure. And this could very well be on the first date/a one night stand, because (sex-positive) feminists understand that sex isn’t shameful, or a transaction, or somehow devalues them.

    LMAO really? You’re not right. Those princesses you’re talking about, I know women who consider themselves feminists and do and act exactly as those princesses you’re complaining about, and they still take sexual liberties. What rock are you under man? Maybe that’s how things are across the pond but not here in the states.

    11. Feminism means better relationships for all – as proven by science!

    Link the published study not a bias news article if you want to prove anything. Then link 3 separate independent studies that draw the same conclusions, then I might believe it’s better for relationships. My experience contradicts your ‘science’.

    12. Do you find your girlfriend sexy as hell, but find your mates are dicks about it because she doesn’t look like (Google’s “sexiest woman on earth”) Miranda Kerr? Maybe she complains about her looks, too, and whines that no one could ever find her attractive. Not only does that make you seem like a terrible judge of partner, but it means you have to have sex with the lights off. With feminism, your mates and your girlfriend would be exposed to a more diverse range of shapes and colours and levels of hairiness and even, god forbid, personality traits that are portrayed as “attractive”, giving your woman lights-on confidence, and stopping your mates from trying to make you feel as if your attraction to non-Miranda Kerrs is abnormal.

    I’ve never heard of this Miranda Kerrs you’re talking about (and no I don’t plan on plugging her name into Google), but I’ve dated and been with every type of woman out there. Fat, skinny, fit, unfit, bitch, princess, subservient, overbearing. All in all, all women are the same regardless of body type and personality traits. In fact I’m going to go as far to say that all men are the same as well. This is my experience the last 4 years of my life and I’ve met people from all over the world. I’m at the point of discussed with how humans are that I don’t even want to have sex with the lights off.

    13. A feminist girlfriend will go buy beers for both of you at a soccer match (see above re: not needing to be treated like a princess) and you will be the envy of other soccer-goers. (This has actually happened.)

    Has actually happened to you? Because I don’t see this anywhere.

    14. She will also teach herself the offside rule while you get to concentrate on the game.

    Again really? The only reason I learned how sports were played was because then you have something to discuss with the sapien next to you.

    15. Finally, even if you’re a more traditional guy who wants his wife to stay at home, and have dinner on the table when you get there, you can still have that. It’s just with feminism, you’ll be able to find a woman who actually wants to do it, instead of one who resentfully does so because she wasn’t allowed to be an astronaut.

    Really? I feel like I should be on weekend update from SNL right now. With EQUALISM I’ll find a woman like that, with FEMINISM its my understanding that all women resent the stay at home role. And before you start with the hate talking, I’ve done the stay at home position willingly and got shit on. So I don’t blame women who don’t want to do this role, but would respect any woman who can honestly tell me they willingly and wantingly do these things.


    So there you have it, a bunch of little reasons why feminism can make men’s lives more awesome. Sure, none of them are as groundbreaking as the movement can be for women, but I hope you will take away that feminism doesn’t hate you and won’t actually bring about the end of your sex life/career advancement/bro-ness as you know it. Turns out, when everyone gets treated like people, everyone wins.
    RESULT: Come over to the dark side. Actually, we’re definitely the Jedi, but regardless, you should come over because this side has drinks and I’m buying.

    Even your last paragraph says that it’s a women movement. It should be a human movement for equality, not just focusing on women.

  21. Very funny list. I’ll take a serious reason as to why I’m a feminist though. It is because of my 6 year old daughter. I want her to have the same opportunities that my boys have. Also, right or wrong I want her to make her own decisions that impact her life.

    • You realize your boys are in more danger of violence right, and if they live in the U.S have to sign up for selective service? Many may cough at that idea thinking there won’t be another conscription but the one constant thing in the world’s history is war, big, bad, brutal war which has forced many men into conflict. Your daughter has some areas where her life is better than that of a man, your boys don’t share the same opportunities she is afforded.

      • Well said. Violence is always touted as a ‘woman’s issue’. Fact remains if you are a male and young, you will be kicked to sh*t several times in your life.

        • I refused to buy a drink for a person in a club and he decided to punch me in the stomach a few times when I was 18. I was scared shit-less even though I was twice his size and could easily put him in hospital or the morgue, yet because I am so big people expect me to be far less afraid. A punch still fucking hurts, I still had fear of whether he had a weapon, still had fear that I’d get my ass kicked. I’ve seen plenty of big fellas like me taken down by smaller people. Thing is women are more likely to have a white-knight come in to defend them vs me, so the size-difference between men n women doesn’t always mean women are more vulnerable since they at times do have others step in. I have cousins who have knocked guys out cold in 1 hit, seeing violence from a gendered view is fraught with errors…..Violence is a human issue, not limited to one gender.

  22. These supposed perks of feminism are just plain awful. I do believe in the premise—that feminism (or certain brands of it anyway) are or can be good for men—but this serves mostly to disprove that. It tears down roles for men and women which, believe it or not, are important, not because one gender is better than the other but because men *do* need a place in society. Men feel threatened because they feel their role has been usurped. This brand of feminism on display here does do that. Men *are* needed in society, but not in the brand of feminism advocated here.

    I should also add that using sexist language—namely “being a dick about it”—is really poor form if one is writing on equality between the sexes.

  23. Well this is what happens when you write having a giggling audience in mind. Many points are just too damn boring common places that we’ve heard a bazillion times, some reflections are OK, but in general this is a crowd pleaser article. A bit chauvinistic a bit hipster a bit nice a bit dumb, appealing to everyone, right? Not me. Well I’m neither a hard core feminist not a Stepford wife wannabe, I just appreciate good writing and smart thinking, this makes an OK reading while queuing for the loo.

  24. “To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” -– Valerie Solanas. ‘Inspirational’ feminist. BEWARE guys.

  25. Feminism is great in Theory just like Marxism/Communism.
    Sadly, it is biased in practical.


  1. [...] An edited version of this post was later reprinted at The Good Men Project. Sweet! Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailStumbleUponTumblrGoogle +1PinterestRedditDiggPrintLike [...]

Speak Your Mind