The Solution to MRA Problems? More Feminism

When you believe that we live in a female-dominated world where straight men are the most oppressed class, it tends to make you wrong about pretty much everything.

Men’s rights activists—a loose coalition mostly comprised of men embittered that they’re not getting as much tail as they believe they’re due and men embittered after having their wives up and leave against their wishes—irritate feminist bloggers for many reasons, from blaming feminists for problems they clearly brought on themselves, to the Russian bride weirdness, to their dogged trolling and grudge-holding of feminists that criticize them.

But, honestly, all that pales in comparison to the most irritating thing of all about MRAs: they’re just so wrong.

When you believe that we live in a female-dominated world where straight men are the most oppressed class, it tends to make you wrong about pretty much everything. Wrong about the little things, like labeling every woman who displeases them a “feminist,” even if she does something highly traditional, like demands that men pay for every date. And wrong about big things, like writing off high rates of domestic violence and rape as matters of women lying, when all reputable sources agree that there’s simply a lot of violence against women.

They’re so wrong about everything, they’re wrong even when they’re right. Some of their observations of the world correspond with reality, but when they attempt to analyze it through the “blame feminism” lens, they get all turned around. Usually what annoys them stems not from feminism, but from sexism, especially when it comes to inflexible gender roles. Ironically, then, the solution to the problems they manage to correctly identify is … more feminism. I pulled together a sampling of examples to show how this works.

♦◊♦

Problem: Men are more often the primary or even sole breadwinners of nuclear-family households.

MRA explanation: A matriarchy of spoiled women have managed to get men to pay for it while they sit around on their butts eating bon bons all day, while the children scamper angelically past them, requiring little to no work.

Reality-based explanation: Women still make less than men in the workplace, but still do more free labor at home, even when they work full time. Plus, many men feel scaling back or quitting their jobs is emasculating. So, when someone in a couple decides to scale back or quit a job to maintain the household, it’s usually the wife. But, for many families, women just simply do more for less pay. Being at home is no picnic for women, since it reduces future earning potential. Plus, being around kids all day can be a little maddening.

MRA solution: Women en masse should demonstrate our gratitude for this financial support of some of us by giving up on fighting for equality, especially equal pay. Also, no more child support.

Reality-based solution: More feminism. Women should get paid the same as men, men should do as much housework as women, and men should treat domestic labor as real work, instead of as emasculating. Workplaces should be more flexible for parents of both genders. If that happened, more women would work outside the home, and more men would cut back work hours for family.

♦◊♦

Problem: Men have to do all the work asking women out, and women are often hostile to men’s overtures, which hurts men’s feelings.

MRA explanation: Women are lazy princesses, who enjoy forcing men to dance for the pussy, and then enjoy shutting them down, because it strokes petty female egos.

Reality-based explanation: These are two separate issues. Women reject men forcefully because 1) a lot of overtures are actually just harassment, and 2) even men who are sincerely hitting on you sometimes are really rude and entitled about it, requiring a forceful response. (Plus, some MRAs experience all rejections as women being too big for their britches, making it impossible for a woman to say no without being labeled a bitch.) Women don’t approach men very often, because doing so often gets you labeled slutty, bitchy, or desperate, or sometimes all three.

MRA solution: Pay a lot of money to creepy men who label themselves “pickup artists” and who promise to teach you how to get any woman you want in bed. The method usually involves taking an abusive posture to women, and learning to identify insecure women, extracting sex from them through bullying. You know, instead of doing something as quaint as sleeping with women who actually want to have sex with you.

Reality-based solution: More feminism. A world where rape victims weren’t denounced because they were overly flirty, where women weren’t mocked because they acted “like men,” and where the word “slut” had no meaning is one where women would feel freer to hit on men. Plus, a world where women weren’t harassed on the street, or where they could tell men “no” and be heard the first time, would be one where women weren’t immediately suspicious of every man who approached them.

Next: Workplace Inequality, Ladies Night

Pages: 1 2

About Amanda Marcotte

Amanda Marcotte hails from Texas, but resides in Brooklyn, New York, according to the laws governing the proper placement of freelance writers and feminist gadflies. She blogs regularly for Pandagon and Double X, and writes and podcasts for RH Reality Check. She's written two books on politics, It's A Jungle Out There and Get Opinionated.

Comments

  1. The whole men make more money than women is not true. How did get that number? All the wages were added up and the median number was used. Factors like hours worked, profession. Also if women have children they would take time off work so course they would make less.

    Women do work around the house? The only women I know do work around the house is my step mother and aunts. Not that too many women in my generation does a lot of free work around the house.

    My best friend worked, cooked, cleaned, fix the car, lawn care, laundry, cooked majority of the time and did house renovations. My other friend did the same thing pretty much while his wife went to therapy and cried how awful he was treating her.

    • The problem with the “women do more housework” claim is it roots its specificity to an erroneous purpose.

      Pertaining to work done in the home, it is true, however, it’s extremely misleading because men do the majority of outside work and garage work.

      When you leave out gardening, raking leaves, taking garbage out, mowing lawns, trimming hedges, cleaning gutters, water blasting the house, cleaning the BBQ, fixing, repairing and maintaining broken household equipment, changing lightbulbs, heavy lifting,home improvement (which accounts for hundreds of undertaken hours) and car maintenance.

      These things certainly balance out the equation, but then you’d have to ask yourself why and ideology would choose to omit such a huge contribution?

      Another interesting point is that men work longer hours and have the larger pressure to procure income, so in relationships where one earns more, it would be more than fair to assume less household responsibility.

      The real problem is, when a housewife cooks herself a meal, eats it, does the dishes and washes the dish towel, that all counts as unpaid work, when the reality is, it’s clearly self serving, much like the studies. The problem with the unpaid work argument is that for non working housewives, the fact that their rent is paid, their food is recompensed and their goods are paid for would seriously damage the idea that what they do is unpaid.

      They are compensated, bearing in mind that they on average bring less money into a relationship at the start and they spend more on average on personal items and luxury goods.

      One might begin to think that certain ideologies have vested interests.

  2. For the last 40 years, men have been told by Feminists that we are all potential rapists, pedophiles and wife beaters, so the “solution” is more of the same? Then you have White Knights and “Uncle Tims” like Dr Phil who reinforce this message to gain favor with women. Two books I would recommend are The Manipulated Man by Esther Vilar and Men On Strike by Helen Smith.

  3. Do you really think a female President would not send kids off to war, or a female CEO would not lay off workers or outsource jobs for more profits? If you really
    accept that men and women are equal then you accept that women are just as capable of bad
    behavior. The “patriarchy” is actually a very small group of politicians, CEOs and lawyers, and now
    women are part of the same system. When you add up heart attacks, work related accidents, suicides
    and wars, men have always been considered expendable. Your only measure of worth is what you
    can provide for others. Some of us don’t want to be appliances, ATMs or cannon fodder.

  4. FlyingKal says:

    Personally I would like to see some substance supporting the claim that [women] still do more free labor at home, even when they work full time.

    Becuase this is a recurring theme in feminist arguments in Sweden as well, despite the fact that it has been repeatedly debunked in nationwide surveys for at least 30 years.
    The last one was conducted in 2010/2011, and corrected for age and life/family situation it concluded the “There is no significant difference between men and women in the total working time “.

  5. Alex Reynard says:

    “When you believe that we live in a female-dominated world where straight men are the most oppressed class, it tends to make you wrong about pretty much everything.”

    Well, when literally the first sentence of your article contains a blatant misrepresentation of your opponent’s position, that doesn’t bode well for you. If the root of all your arguments is a fallacy, I guess that makes you wrong about pretty much everything, eh?

    For starters, gay men are just as much a part of the MRM as straights. Why add that?

    And as a man, I don’t think my group is the most oppressed: I just don’t like seeing people lie dismissively to hide it when it does happen.

  6. It’s always hilarious to see a feminist/MRA bash an MRA/Feminist because feminism and the MRM are two (gender) sides of the same coin. I’ve seen overwhelming numbers of brain dead bigots on both sides but when they post articles like this they show their true colors.

    To the true good and decent feminists and Mens rights activists: I support you.
    To the idiots going on about privilege while sitting in their western ivory tower and telling ghost stories about some creature called a “Patriarchy” or throwing out poorly researched statistics: Grow the hell up and understand that true oppression knows no sex or skin color or age or religion.

  7. Magolor's son says:

    Umm… okay, where do I start? I would like to say that I am both a feminist, and an MRA (see what I did there) and as a man, I’ve seen firsthand victims of misogyny and misandry, as well as having experienced misandry for myself. But I want to tell you that both men AND women have gender specific issues. I can also tell you that REAL women and men care about those issues for both sexes. There are more, a lot more, nice men and women out there than mean, it’s just that the jerks are so loud, that we have to strain to hear the people who actually have something meaningful to say. (And let me tell ya’, Ms Marcotte had just about nothing meaningful to say.) Sorry, but I wasn’t trying to sound mean, that’s just how it seems to me.

  8. Christopher Hülsbeck says:

    This is a strawman article. Bar the point about workplace deaths (where Marcotte misses the proposed MRA solution plus proposes athoroughly unrealistic feminist solution), ever alleged MRA gripe she addresses ia an invention. Hey, Amanda, why not address a few real MRA issues?

    1.) Violence in society and the perpetuation of violence in society.

    Domestic violence in western societies is a huge problem. The violence that exists in virtually every western family will almost invariably transfer from the privacy of an abusive home and result in random violence in the streets and in war. Most violence in the home is initiated by women, and the main victims are the children. What do feminists have to say about this problem? Would feminists have violent mothers gaoled and have young girls undergo anti-violence therapy programmes?

    2.) Paternity fraud

    Everyone knows women are promiscuous and illoyal. Around 10 percent of all British children are brought up by fathers who do not know they are raising children that are not theirs. Paternity fraud is a sadistic hate crime. The woman enslaves a man and dupes him into paying for a child that isn’this.Many men never find out, and those that do, often do so when it is too late for them to try again. Tell me, Amanda: would a feminist such as yourself support the MRA position that DNA tests should be conducted right after every baby is born? Would you support the MRA position that men should not be made to pay for children that aren’t theirs?

    3.) Equality

    No resonable person will contest that men are the pillars of every civilised society. The board directors of Volkswagen can collectively die from heart attacks and Germany will carry on functioning easily. If the sewage workers of Germany collectively quit their jobs tomorrow, Germany will drown in its own shit. Men do all the important work that keeps civilsation running. They are firemen, sewage workers, electricians, engineers, plumbers, builders. Women incessantly demand to be accepted into top-ranking position. Only when enough women do their share of the dirty work, will they be accepted as contributing members of society. For as long as that isn’t the case, women will simply be seen as quota team leaders and managers. Amanda, would you as a feminist insist on a female quota for sewage workers and rubbish collectors?

    4.) False rape accusation epidemic

    What do feminists propose? Do they view it as a problem? Or is it seen as an opportunity? A tool that bbbbone can wield, as it were?

    Theee are just four. There are many more. I’d be curious to read your suggestions. Oh, and by the way, screw you for trying to trivialise men’s rights issues. We aren’t interested in girls nights. We are interested in men’s issues and how female privileges undermine male human rights.

    Best wishes

    Christopher

    • You’re getting excited about things that aren’t as big as you think they are. False rape accusations are terrible, and I believe the woman should be forced to go to jail for the same number of years as the man was supposed to serve, and be civilly responsible to the man (sued).

      That said, my nephew almost became the father of a girl’s child when she lied and said it was his. DNA proved it was not, he made her leave his house.

    • Cecilia M. says:

      “2.) Paternity fraud
      Everyone knows women are promiscuous and illoyal.”

      I was actually with you up until this outrageously sexist and hyperbolic claim. This is as insane and ill-thought a concept as “all men are rapists”. Thanks for letting me know your bias against women is so high that you are incapable of thinking rationally on this subject. I can now stop wasting my time reading your comment.

  9. I disagree with this post almost completely. I currently identify as an MRA because feminism minimizes or ignores abuses against men if they are not out and out supporting them. I don’t agree that these are the main issues or even representative among MRAs, but I’ll address them.

    Men are the primary bread winners in nuclear families.

    A family that can survive on one income has a high earner. Look up two things in psychology. the relation between money and time, how money is more important than time until you reach a certain income level then it shifts. A person making $100/hour can make more in 30 hours than a person making $20/hour can make in 80 hours (2 full time jobs). The second thing to look up is the matching principle, which essentially means that people date in their own league. That seems to suggest that the women in these relationships are high achievers also, but have made the choice to stay at home because they don’t need the money.

    Reality based solution: The gender based wage (really earnings) gap doesn’t exist. There is a earning gap between whites and ethnic minorities, but if you look at employment statistics, white females make up a smaller proportion of the workforce to their minority counterparts when compared to white males and their minority counterparts. I’ve seen no studies account for race. I’ve also seen no studies that account for income transfer. Child support doesn’t count as income at least while they parties are divorcing. I’m not sure if it does after, but in at least these cases it lowers the earnings of the men and increases the earnings of women, while hiding this within the results. It also doesn’t factor in any non taxable income, like public assistance. The real solution is the one recognized by MRAs and that is to change the gender stereo type that equates a man’s worth with his income level.

    Men have to do all the work asking women out

    I don’t see this as a major MRA issue. I personally find aggressive women a turn off even if I would have been attracted to them otherwise. I admit it’s probably an issue related to control, but I also have concerns that I’m reading a woman’s interest wrong and get falsely charged with rape or sexual harassment.

    Reality based solution: My first instinct is to suggest expanded porn or prostitution, but I think that pressure can be removed from men by correcting the imbalance in the law concerning false rape claims. That would force women to ne clear in their intentions and not lead men on reducing the “work” needed to find a date. I agree that removing negative stereo types from aggressive women is a goal of feminism and is important, but it only addresses part of the problem. Allowing men to be vulnerable by changing gender stereotypes, while supporting men who are victims of female perpetrated rape or domestic violence, would also alleviate some obstacles. It’s not more feminism that is the solution, but more men’s rights activism.

    Workplace inequity

    Many of the more dangerous jobs require greater physical strength. Women are not barred from being fire fighter, but few can carry 200 pounds down a ladder. In many combat positions like the infantry, you need to be able to carry a backpack and weapons. I believe that the backpack is about 60 pounds.

    Reality based solution: There isn’t one. Relaxing standards will result in more male deaths as well as female deaths. This is where men just need to man up.

    Ladies nights

    The solution is to make gender based pricing illegal. More men coming to bars benefits straight men how? I find it telling that feminists are neutral on this. I’ve gotten more tail when I’ve gone out with the intention of having fun at sports bars and such than I ever got looking for tail in a night club. If night clubs go out of business, who cares? A lot of guys don’t like dancing anyway. I think it would affect women more.

    Reality based solution: Ban ladies nights.

    P.S. You never said how more feminism would fix this.

  10. Mens Rights types can be idiotic and lacking an ounce of empathy, but this writing is equally so.

    > “Men’s rights activists—a loose coalition mostly comprised of men embittered that they’re not getting as much tail as they believe they’re due and men embittered after having their wives up and leave against their wishes”

    Wow, that’s going to be a tough strawman to destroy. Maybe you could equate pick up artists with rapists to do it? Seriously, stop being so hateful for a minute, and actually listen to their arguments and actually address their arguments when you write. Perhaps you might even quote an actual Mens Rights Actvist instead of tearing at strawmen.

  11. CheckMatt says:

    Dumb article. Whoever wrote should be executed at a second’s notice. No explanation needed.
    I mean, all Fems should be executed. Enough talk, heard enough.

  12. ZimbaZumba says:

    Wow Good Men project, really good way to mobilise thoughtful discussion amongst men about gender issues, inviting the like of Amanda Marcotte and Hugo Schwyer to write articles for you site. For heavens sake, I think you might be a litle out of touch with your constituency.

  13. dungone says:

    Amanda, the irony is that when a feminist writes a dissembling hit piece on men’s issues, it demonstrates that “more feminism” is not the answer.

    Men’s activists are just at the early stage where men from all walks of life are struggling to put a finger on something that just doesn’t feel right. Modern feminism began with “a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning.” And that is what you choose to mock now. But that yearning is why men are starting to organize and want to do things such as establish male studies programs, so that over time, just as with feminism, men can come to grips with the way society treats them.

    It would be laughable for a feminist to try to say that men don’t have a right to decide for themselves what course of action to pursue. You say that they don’t understand feminism, just as you mock them and cherry pick and misrepresent their issues to make light of it all. So is that what feminism has to offer to men? The Good Men Project and Amanda Marcotte, here to say that men are stupid and don’t know what’s best for them, but feminists have it all figured out? Amanda, if you’re really a feminist, and I’m not sure you are a “real” one, then you are your own worst enemy.

  14. Marcotte: I find that your article engages in name-calling (“weirdness” “trolling”) and loosely supported judgements (flatly stating that these men are wrong).

    Is this intended to be an opinion column? Or simply venting frustration? I ask, because I work to support equal rights between the sexes, and your article doesn’t help me.

    What I need from the feminism and gender equality front is information on what inequalities have been identified, and how they’re being addressed. Success stories from both men and women on achieving equality are also very helpful.

    Thanks.

  15. Frank411 says:

    Before I conclude that TGMP is now removing questions and comments that raise uncomfortable subjects, let me say this (again) since TGMP has decided to repost this, alone, of all the MRM pieces:

    Amanda, perhaps you could explain to us all how Reginald Daye was helped by feminism. Especially as you personally contributed so much to the feminist assistance afforded the late Mr. Daye.

  16. Johnny Kaje says:

    I think it’s funny that MRAs complain about “echo chambers,” and then flood a comment section and vote to hide all opposing viewpoints. A lot of which contain actual bonafide ad hominum arguments. I come in looking for an interesting discussion, I get a bunch of asswipes offering rebuttals that would make a creationist blush.

    Projectiooooooon

    • I think it’s funny that MRAs complain about “echo chambers,” and then flood a comment section and vote to hide all opposing viewpoints.
      If you find it so funny then wouldn’t the comment you made have been downvoted too? As we can see its not…

  17. I think both the feminist and mens’ rights movements have the same problem – those who are the loudest, angriest and craziest get a disproportionate amount of attention. There are people in both groups saying stupid things (such as thinking ladies’ night is a feminist conspiracy) and then there are people in both groups who can’t stop themselves from pouncing on those stupid ideas, when really we should be ignoring the idiocy, and working together to really look at the facts, find inequalities and injustice, and work to make our society better for everyone and every gender.

  18. Same old red-neck ranting misandry from Marcotte. Excuse the alliteration, but she has become very predictable – the Jerry Falwell of the intransigent left.

    Presumably, more feminism in the divorce courts would mean men would have no inconvenient contact with their children at any time. We are, after all, potential rapists and child abusers just waiting for a chance to pounce. The disastrous consequences for children can always be explained away by Capitalism, perhaps.

    Marcotte’s instinctive antipathy towards men hasn’t moved the debate on an inch since the Society for Cutting Up Men. In any other context we would recognize her for what she is; an implacably racist bigot with no interest in debate. Plus ça change.

  19. Not all feminists are lesbians, so not all feminists hate men but feminism is anti-male, so feminists end up being attracted to men but still end up with anti-male viewpoints and outlooks.

    • I disagree. I am feminist and pro-male.

    • Arielle says:

      “Not all feminists are lesbians, so not all feminists hate men”

      Chris, it seems as if you’re implying that lesbians hate men.

      “but feminism is anti-male,”

      Typical believer of conspiracy theories. Believe it or not, feminists are not out to get you or the male sex. And if feminism is anti-male, does that make the men’s rights movement anti-female? Because judging by the MRA community, there sure seems to be a hell of a lot of misogyny.

      “so feminists end up being attracted to men but still end up with anti-male viewpoints and outlooks.”

      Uh, no. Maybe you should experience the real world before subscribing to such stereotyping.

      • I look at what feminism has actually done. Feminism has created a situation where women can walk away from a marriage for no reason and still take everything, including 90 percent of their husbands’ earnings. Feminism has created a condition where colleges expel male students based on nothing but a false accusation of rape. Feminism has created a situation where a woman can attack her husband with a knife and the HUSBAND goes to jail.

        The actions of feminism do not correspond to what it says it is about. Feminism’s actions show a strong anti-male bias. As for MRAs, they have not yet been able to do anything substantial. We don’t know yet if it is anti-female. If it comes to pass that the MRM changes divorce law so that men can walk away and take everything, including 90 percent of the wife’s income, then you will be correct in saying it is anti-female. I don’t see that happening, though.

        • IndigoLamprey says:

          “Typical believer of conspiracy theories. ”

          It’s terrible to believe in those, I mean otherwise you’d believe something like some shadowy group of men had been controlling the world forever for the sole purpose of keeping women down…

  20. Some assertions are fact.

    Like George Sodini… he was in the PUA and MRA internet communities.

    He hated women because they weren’t giving up the tail.

    He shot up a fitness center.

    Granted, he is an extreme example… but where did he go to seethe and bathe in woman-hatred? Yep. The internets. Main sites he went to were PUA/MRA sites.

    • “Granted, he is an extreme example… but where did he go to seethe and bathe in woman-hatred? Yep. The internets. Main sites he went to were PUA/MRA sites.”

      Sources, please.

  21. Looks like I got a comment eaten. I’ll have to try & type it again tomorrow.

  22. B) Breaking gender roles
    The primary battle-cry of feminists in pushing no-fault divorce was that women should be able to leave stagnant loveless marriages (of course they could do that under the old system, but boredom wasn’t a contract breaker, so mothers COULD divorce under the old system–but if the father had not broken his end of the deal by adultery, abuse, addiction, abandonment then he would win the lions share of assets, house, custody).

    Of course without the contractual severance clauses to divorce, custody had to be decided a new way. In came the tender years doctrine, and “best interests of the child” standard.
    These basically stated A) that the sole custody (i.e. “winner takes all”) standard was to applied and B) the person with the most care-giving time should have sole custody.
    This is a very bad situation for all, but especially for kids. This winner takes all standard increases divisiveness and resentment (gee I wonder why?) making the parents angry and the kids subjected to this bad environment. Studies show that having ample contact with both parents post-divorce is the best for kids.

    [Sub-point, this means that mothers (and only mothers) could A) commit adultery and/or B) have a serious addiction and/or C) be violent and STILL be relatively sure that she would get custody. In other words SHE could end the marriage through her own sh***y actions and be rewarded for it! It’s like driving drunk crashing into a parked car injuring/killing every1 in it, then suing them and WINNING! end sub-point]

    The secondary battle-cry of feminists was that women needed to divorce so they could break their gender roles!

    I seriously doubt that these women divorcing were actually breaking gender roles, but I’ll go over that later.

    What about the men of this wave of new no-fault divorces. Did they have their gender roles broken?
    After all, feminism is about equality and breaking gender roles *for women* should free men from them too right? Trickle-down economics for sexual liberation! If women can be mechanics, then men can be nurses or some crap right?

    Well, let’s put on our thinking caps.
    A divorced man would have to pay: the mortgage on a house he no longer resides in, alimony, child support and would additionally have to start paying for a second home, and bring more money to the table for dating. Simple logic dictates that he would have to do MORE of the male gender role–working over-time, whining & dining clients, trying to make partner, etc..

    If he succeeds in finding a new wife and builds a new family he will now have to pay for: two houses (1 of which he does not reside in), alimony, child support and his new family. Again, the father would have to perform even more work for money/promotions. Does that sound like “breaking” the gender role of provider?

    What we see here is that breaking gender roles only *for women* actually causes a TIGHTENING and MAGNIFYING of gender roles for women.

    Why?

    • That 2nd to last sentence should say: “MAGNIFYING of gender roles for men.

      • Jon Stevens says:

        Once again the solution is, of course, more feminism. If women got equal pay in the workplace and had less societal pressure to be homemakers, and if neither party were hedged into ill-planned marriages in the first place by social obligations to suppress their sexuality for the sake of conformity, there would be little to no reason for Alimony.

        In a truly equal scenario, things like child support and alimony would be gender-blind. They would be based around creating a transitional period to individual life such that a non-breadwinning partner would not be forced to remain in a relationship for financial stability. Child support, of course, is about the child, and not the parents, and the idea of resenting continued financial responsibility for one’s own offspring strikes me as repugnant, so that of course would stay– structured in a similarly gender-blind way, of course.

        • Jon Stevens says:

          (I apparently like to say the phrase ‘of course’ after I’ve had a few scotches.)

        • Women do get equal pay in the workplace. Companies don’t care about workers. They just want X amount of work done for the cheapest possible cost. But society believes (and feminism agrees) that men should pay for everything. This gives women the luxury of not having to put in as many hours. That is, they have the privilege of working less but having their needs taken care of. No-fault divorce meant that only the man is committed in a marriage. She can walk for no reason at all and take the house, the car, the kids, and 90 percent of his earnings. Feminism likes it that way. The answer is not more feminism.

          You see. Women aren’t under pressure to be housewives. Men are under pressure to support the household financially. Feminism only increases that pressure.

  23. Ignoring Amanda Marcotte’s stupid strawmen arguments that have nothing to do with the MRA stance, following are some off-the-cuff views on why feminism is NOT the solution to MRA problems.

    A) The onus of parenthood.
    Do women get “knocked up” by evil men or are they 50% the guilty party? In other words are women EQUAL or just equal when feminists want them to be?
    I saw a post up earlier in which a person (assuming it’s a woman) states:
    If you don’t want an unwanted child, then don’t have unprotected sex–it’s that easy.
    I’m 44. I lived in a run-down rustbelt city as a kid. My mom had 7 brothers and sisters and I was privy to some interesting conversations. The interesting part is when I was a child is when divorce law in many areas was unfair to women (a man w/a child support debt could simply jump a state to avoid it, etc..).
    You know what the saying was then (when single mothers were getting effed over by deadbeat fathers)? “I guess she should have kept her legs crossed!”
    How is that any different from “If you didn’t want child support, you should have kept it in your pants!”

    All feminist changes to family law (i.e. no-fault divorce) accomplished was moving the onus of the pregnancy from the women to the man! If feminists were concerned about *EQUALITY* they would have pushed lawmakers to move more to something like shared parenting like Glenn Sacks is fighting for.

    • True. Its funny to see people scream bloody murder over remarks like, “She should have kept it out of her pants!” and follow up with remarks like, “He should have kept it in his pants!”

    • courage the cowardly dog says:

      With equality comes responsibility and feminism has not prepared women for the responsibilities that come with equality. And women are pissed off about it.

  24. I’m a little late to the party, but I thought some might enjoy this link:

    http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/04/09/sexist-beatdown-manly-masculine-male-edition/

    This is a feminist article (supposedly) bashing the new emerging Male Studies.
    If you peruse the comments starting at about 118 or so they get very interesting very quickly.
    Most MRA’s will not be surprised.
    The two main peeps worth following are Left Side Positive ( I actually think the name is clever, but that’s where my admiration of this person ends) and Arbitrary.

    In the comments LSP consistently denies that men are oppressed in any way. Then when the net of proof and logic tightens to a harsh degree she gives a fairly standard feminist one two punch:
    A) she says that if we’re so convinced that men are oppressed why don’t we take it up with the male leaders oppressing us.
    B) she makes a clarion call for us to learn some empathy and see outside ourselves a little bit and try to understand what other people are going through!
    GOD you can’t make this stuff up! This woman spent mountains of time and energy specifically dedicated to denying male disposability, then when proven wrong makes a battle cry that WE need to learn to empathize.
    Just unbelievable.
    It’s truly amazing how most feminists think (just as LSP in the attached article’s comments):
    A) women’s rights are EVERYBODY’S business, but men’s rights certainly aren’t THEIR business
    B) they stand for equality (and everybody who disagrees stands for inequality)
    C) THEY are the enlightened ones
    D) only THEY have the answers
    E) anybody who disagrees must be put-down, silenced and mocked.

    This is a movement built upon a mountain of bullshit, and it has nowhere to go. Feminist organizations have (through their actions & members actions) proved themselves to be nothing more than a women’s advocacy group. Same as big pharma / big tobacco / big oil / military ind complex advocates for what benefits themselves.

    They are no more about equality than is the KKK. My apologies to the kkk for comparing them to feminists.

    • courage the cowardly dog says:

      From the article John D. cited:

      SADY: You could run over my foot with a shopping cart at the Costco, and I’d write this very ideological post that was like, “SHOPPING CART PRIVILEGE: Does It Lead You To Run Over My Foot, and Are You A Monster? Yes.”

      To feminists men are the shopping carts of the world and that has to stop for there to be gender harmony again.

    • Jon Stevens says:

      See, the problem is that we’re talking about Men’s rights and Women’s rights like they’re separate things. Any prejudice against any gender degrades us all, so it is entirely impossible to win this fight in any tangible form if we continue to bicker amongst ourselves like this is some kind of sociological messy divorce.

      • Eagle33 says:

        Yeah, they aren’t. If you’re a decent human being, both sides shouldn’t be seperate things.

        However, it seems like 90% of society believes that one is more important than the other. Can you guess which one?

        I’d love for this fight to be over. Unfortunatly, there will be no end in sight so long as the mentatlity that “Women’s Rights” count more than “Men’s Rights” continues to propagate amongst the masses.

      • Well said! I believe in equality, but that seems to be the hardest concept of all to represent.

      • I completely agree. Our aim should be to provide equality of opportunity; the most talented people should therefore end up with the best jobs. Technically, “feminism” refers to equality (not ‘more rights for women that for men’) and therefore a ‘man-hating’ feminist is an oxymoron…just an interesting thought for the day. I’m not denying that misandry exists, and it is utterly contemptible, but one is not guilty of it simply by virtue of being a “feminist”.

        • Agreed. Now can MRAs get the same consideration in return and quit all this bullshit where one is presumed guilty of hating women by virtue of being an MRA?

          This article is just more of Marcotte’s intentional bad faith in talking to and about MRAs.

  25. Why I am not an MRA and why their tactics sicken me, and obscure their good points:

    Men’s rights movements reflect the tactics of domestic abusers themselves, minimizing existing violence, calling it mutual, and discrediting victims. MRA groups downplay national abuse rates, just as abusers downplay their personal battery; they wage campaigns dismissing most allegations as false, as abusers claim partners are lying about being hit; and they depict the violence as mutual—part of an epidemic of wife-on-husband abuse—as individual batterers rationalize their behavior by saying that the violence was reciprocal.

    • Thaddeus G. Blanchette says:

      Dear David,

      There seems to be a fair amount of evidence out there that female-instigated domestic violence is indeed at significant levels, if not “epidemic”. Male-instigated violence has greater consequences and male post-divorce violence – which accounts for much battery – seems to be much higher than female, granted. But the argument of many feminists seems to be that there is no female-instigated violence whatsoever and this argument has pretty much been conclusively trashed by the evidence.

      I agree that there seem to be plenty of MRAs out there who think that every case of battering or what have you is a lie. But there also seem to be an equal number of feminists who think that any instance of female-on-male violence, no matter how well-documented, is also a lie.

      So this is my question to you: why I should I believe EITHER side, given that the radicals on the fringes of both groups downplay violence?

      It doesn’t seem to me logical that I should ignore all MRAs simply because of the lunatic fringe, but that I shouldn’t be judge feminism by the violence-denying comments of its more ethusiastic proponents.

      I’d be interested in hearing why you think two weights and two measures are necessary in this case.

  26. Ok, I’m going to tell women the truth: the feminist movement is a pro-male conspiracy to liberate men from being providers, protectors. and having a duty of chivalry for women. Single, we can live on lower paying jobs, the discrimination, etc much easier than before since we used to sacrifice so much for you, your home, and the kids. BTW, equality now means you go to fight wars for us. Thanks!

  27. Even women are standing up against the blatant hypocrisy of feminism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plkeKMTDM9g

  28. Henry Vandenburgh says:

    Hey guys. I don’t appreciate having my comments removed. Maybe I’m missing something,

    • MRM posts with links are usually disallowed. Just describe how to get to the link, like what to google for. That is how I get around the prohibition.

      • Dave Ribbons says:

        Wow! A website started with the express purpose and agenda of helping men become ‘good’ (if not best); DOES NOT allow links to MRM posts!? Hypocrisy, thy name is the Good Men Project. And Ms. Marcotte does not surely speak for any man. Why can’t the good fraus over at Ms. Magazine giver her an agony aunt column to dispense wisdom on OB-GYN issues? Huh?

  29. Revemupman says:

    This piece was utter garbage. How can these feminist sit here and not see the inequalities of men? This is really a battle for the superior flag.

    This is not anything new, humans are selfish by nature

    My sister was just saying yesterday that women have taken the task of provider and caregiver. They screwed themselves without even knowing it.

    When will feminist learn that you need men more than you think?
    In fact, we need each other for the survival of our species…..

  30. Finally men are standing up the hypocrisy of feminism and the intellectual cowardice of the MRAs

  31. Patrick Grady says:

    Is this a serious attempt to address MRA “issues” ? This is embarrassing for the Good Men Project. When compared to the post by zeta male for “Top 10 Men’s Rights Issues” it becomes clear, Amanda Marcotte either is completely misinformed on MRA issues…..or is purposely being obtuse.

  32. courage the cowardly dog says:

    Men are more often the primary or even sole breadwinners of nuclear-family households.

    Well, since this is a rapidly disappearing phenomena, I don’t know too many men complaining about it. What I do hear at a much greater frequency is the complaints about the more rapidly growing frequency of women as the primary or sole breadwinners of nuclear family households and the people complaining about that phenomena the most are WRA’s. Now why is it ok to be a WRA and not an MRA? I smell double standard. I also hear men complaining abou the marginalization of men.

  33. These responses are making me postal. Thank you, Amanda, for an excellent and refreshing piece. Enjoy your whiny circle jerk, gentlemen.

    • “These responses are making me postal. ”

      Well, as a man, feminism does define you as a violent lout who can’t control your emotions and desires. It is understandable then that you could go “postal” because some people happen to disagree with the tripe this woman is shoveling.

  34. Yeah! How dare you say something good about men and ask for equal rights. Equal rights are for wimps. Real men don’t mind sucking up to women and giving them more rights. So get over it you whining losers and take it like a man.

  35. At the centre of feminism lies a fallacy. Namely that there ever was a patriarchy in which men oppressed women. Why is that a fallacy? Because, if there had been such a patriarchy, then it must have also been those oppressive men who decided to change the laws and give women the rights they have today (which are more than men’s rights incidentally). Why would they have done this if they didn’t want to enable women to accomplish whatever they wanted.

    Now, if you say that they didn’t change the laws by their own choice and give women those rights, then they must have been forced to change (by womens activists?) but this means that they could not have had the power that feminism keeps ascribing to them. There was no violent revolution, no coup and no attempt to move against demonstrators by force.

    So either the old patriarchs actually did whatever women wanted, or they didn’t have any means to stop women from getting what they wanted (collectively). In any case, it fails to be a patriarchy as feminists describe it.

    • Another problem with patriarchy theory is that is fails miserably to explain the existential micro-reality of everyday life. Essentially, it falsifies the essence of everything it comes into contact with. It is pure, deracinated, decontextualized abstraction, forced upon the world from 500 miles up by pointy-headed academics who “know more than you do.”

      And so we end up with such abominations as, for example, VAWA, or the Duluth Power and Control wheel, or the anti-male criminal justice system as it presently exists.

      • Actually – and speaking as a pointy-headed academic – most academics I know have severe doubts about patriarchy theory. Note that this doesn’t mean we don’t think that patriarchy exists: it does. But it’s not an overriding key to human existence and history the way certain marxist feminists of the 1970s tried to portray it. Academia, in general, thinks patriarchy theory to be reductionist, simplistic, too abstract and unable to account for much of observable human reality.

        • That’s good to hear. And it pretty much mesh’s with my opinions on the matter.

          • Thaddeus G. Blanchette says:

            That said, Kratch, this alpha/beta/omega male stuff that I hear many MRAs spouting would likewise be considered a gross simplification of human social dynamics by most academics. In fact, having slogged through a lot of MRA stuff over the past few days, I’m almost ready to say that the “alphabet soup” ideology of masculine dominance is the MRM’s version of patriarchy: a nice, mythological just-so story that offers a convenient launching pad for all ideological excesses.

            • While I don’t generally use those terms myself (I personally don’t fel they help my arguments any), I do feel they have more basis in scientific study (as they are used in the same manner in which they are used when studying animal behaviour) then anything in patriarchy theory. That said, I wouldn’t disagree that they somewhat simplify things too much into basic animalistic urges.

              • Thaddeus G. Blanchette says:

                They have a basis in a few studies regarding pack animals. Canines, IIRC. And we are not simply pack animals. Furthermore, even among other pack animals, social heirarchies are shifting and contextual and not written in stone. Alphabet theory is about 40 years behind the times on this point, because most of its proponents assume that an “alpha” is some sort of permanent and inflexible category.

            • be aware though, that I believe being overly simplistic is far less of a crime (if a crime at all), by many degree’s, then falsely attributing something altogether.

              • Thaddeus G. Blanchette says:

                Well, patriarchical theory is overly-simplistic, not falsely attributing. Yeah, women have been treated as if they were a polluting factor in most human societies and there are plenty of anthropological theories about this (Sherry Ortner’s “Is woman to man as nature is to culture?” being the best of the lot, IMHO). Based on this, one can indeed squint one’s eyes, simplify, and say “Men have historically dominated social power structures to a much greater degree than women”. Often to a degree that the term “patriarchy” might indeed have some validity.

                But what patriarchy isn’t is a historical stage of socio-cultural development that all human societies go through when they hit agriculture. Again, according to Ortner, there does seem to be some correlation between hypergamy and state development and, in that sense, virgin women become privileged as objects of prestigious exchange right about the time agriculture and the state coalesce. This, however, is a generalization, an ideal typification which should be used to help us think about reality, not a hard-and-fast socio-historical rule which allows us to determine reality. Many anthros since Ortner have showed a number of situations in which her general rule doesn’t seem to apply or, at the very least, must be heavily modified.

            • As an MRA type myself, I would advise to steer clear of gross simplifications of MRA theory — which has a number of distinct branches.

              Speaking for myself, I am more of a pragmatic political thinker. I don’t feel the need to “theorize” all those alphabet soup ideas at all. They are merely superfluous to my system; I can get along without them. In fact, quite honestly, they get in my way.

  36. I am surprised at one thing Marcotte did not add one thing to the list of feminist ideas that would benefit men and MRAs: intersectional analysis.

    When MRAs talk about “alphas” and “betas” they are talking about the fact that not all men have equal access to power in our culture. Men who are poor, gay, trans, minority, disabled, etc., may have less power than men who are not. So, (for example) a minority man may in fact have less social power than a white woman. This does not mean that (historically and currently) men overall have had more power than women overall.

    The answer? More feminism. Modern feminism is highly focused on the ways that an “intersection” of oppressions affect people’s lives. Understanding this makes this not about men vs. women but about social justice for all.

    • This does not mean that (historically and currently) men overall have NOT had more power than women overall.

      • And that is irrelevant. Both genders have had restrictions based on gender roles. Both genders seek to surpass those restrictions. Feminism has claimed to be about breaking down those gender roles, but has only broken down the roles women wanted broken down, and only for women. The male as provider gender role was broken down so that women could provide for themselves, but it was still left intact for men who are forced to provide for children they do not want, and wives they are no longer married to. Feminism was supposed to be everyones salvation, but it was a fraud, and it deserves to be exposed as such, and then replaced entirely with a truly egalitarian view, one based on intellectual honesty and true equality of opportunity for all.

        Furthermore. Just because you feel women still have problems does not allow you to utterly dismiss the problems of others. that is arrogant and sexist. Just like the original author.

    • Modern feminism is highly focused on the ways that an “intersection” of oppressions affect women’s lives.

      Fixed that for you.

    • In my experience, there’s a certain subset of feminists who fly from intersectional analysis because, if you truly take it seriously as an analytical framework, you must first presume that no one axis of differentiation is necessarily more powerful than another.

      MZ is correct when she says that modern feminism only tends to look at how “intersection” screws women over. It generally doesn’t concern itself with how it might actually situate many men as lower on the kyriarchic totem pole than many women. When THOSE kinds of analyses come to the fore, they tend to make many feminists very uncomfortable.

      Given this, many feminists simply ignore intersectionality entirely. This has been a major and historical criticism of feminism by anti-racists and anti-imperialists, for example.

      To be a true intersectionalist, you gotta stop being a one trick pony. This puts intersectional analysis out of bounds for many feminists and many MRAs.

      • Jesus effing Christ. Stop putting words into feminist’ mouths. You don’t know a feminist. You aren’t a feminist. = You know jack shit about feminists.

    • @Nimue:

      Judging by what feminism has brought about in the world, I would say that ‘more feminism’ would only bring about more of the same.

  37. The very fact that his hateful woman is taken by feminists as exemplary and allowed to write on a website that is supposedly about and for men proves that everything the MRAs say about feminism is true.

  38. Yakenjokin says:

    This piece in itself is in contradiction to it’s own assertion!
    Yet another shamming attempt… Pffft

    Oh and btw,, if being angry and embittered about the way one has been treated discounts the validity of ones assertions, then all the victim laced tripe we have heard from the feminists can summarily be ignored.. thanks for the tip!

  39. “Ironically, then, the solution to the problems they manage to correctly identify is … more feminism. I pulled together a sampling of examples to show how this works.”

    What a joke of an article this is. You start by claiming men are wrong, in an arrogant belief that your ideology is the only correct way of thinking. You then proceed to tell us the problems of men’s rights, but not a single one of them addresses any concern on Zeta males top ten article run earlier this week. Furthermore, your solutions of “more feminism’ in every case talks about how the change will affect WOMEN. How is it that ignoring men and addressing their concerns, ONLY from a woman’s perspective, somehow solves men’s issues? This demonstrates perfectly the problem with feminism, that even when claiming to help men, you are only truly helping women, and if a man benefits from it, whatever.

    The truth is, Feminism has done nothing to help break gender roles for men. men are still relegated to providers, and child support, spousal support and denial of male reproductive rights only enforces that role. What has feminism done to help with the issue? It actively opposes male reproductive rights, it helped abolish fault in divorce (to ensure a woman will always have access to support payments), and continues to fight to maintain or increase support (child or spousal) obligations.

    What has Feminism done to help men take on the caregiver role? Well, NOW (national organization for Women) and the Women’s bar Association (amongst MANY others) openly opposes shared parenting, denying men the ability to be fathers to their children post divorce. They have openly opposed calls for courts to enforce custody agreements. It also opposes attempts to acknowledge parental alienation (as a syndrome or otherwise), for when a father (or mother) is being cut out of their child’s life. Prominent Feminists persecuted and labeled hopeless and unqualified, Kristina Schroeder when she opened a department for boys and men into her ministry of family (why? Are boys and men not a part of a family? This speaks volumes about feminist views on men). It seems like feminists have done everything in their power to actually maintain the caregiver role as a woman’s domain.

    I’d be curious if you can list even one thing feminism has done to help men break their gender role limitations, that didn’t first and foremost help women. And before you go crying that feminism shouldn’t have to do all the work for us, remember first, the claim of all, that feminism is about equality, not women, dictates that men’s issues should already be under the purview of feminism. And secondly, it is you who suggested feminism is our solution, and given feminist’s action opposing men’s rights, to this point, that claim requires a lot of backing up

    • Logic was invented by men and the patriarchy and used as a tool to oppress women. Therefore logic is wrong and oppressive and you should not be allowed to use it to analyze feminist dogma. It is very offensive for you to use logic and by that logic you’re wrong.

    • I felt the need to actually run through the “problems” she listed and show just how very wrong about pretty much everything she is. (lets hope this all fits)

      “Men are more often the primary or even sole breadwinners of nuclear-family households.”
      I don’t seem to remember this ever being a men’s issue. This is a feminist issue, but only so far as it relates to women’s dependence. When it comes to children and ex wives, men are still required, by law, to be a provider, even when he had no say in getting where he is at.

      “Reality-based solution: More feminism. Women should get paid the same as men, men should do as much housework as women, and men should treat domestic labor as real work, instead of as emasculating. Workplaces should be more flexible for parents of both genders. If that happened, more women would work outside the home, and more men would cut back work hours for family.”

      So your solution to the imaginary problem of men being forced to be the primary breadwinner is to … solve women’s alleged equal pay issue, and to do unpaid work to “free up the women”… How does this solve the problem as you describe it? Men still remain the breadwinners in this scenario, and hypergamy will still result in men being the primary one due to basic economic principals (the one making less money makes the career sacrifices when required for family) If you want to address this issue for real, you must address the perception of men as fathers. Men need to be allowed to be the primary caregiver without being seen as weak and in need of replacement by their wives. They need to be seen as capable of being fathers, not simply as child abusers and molesters as the rape and domestic violence industries, run by feminists, portray them. Only then will men also be considered as equal parents in the workplace, and any discrimination that may or may not be levied at mothers will now apply to both genders. But as you never even looked at how to improve men’s lives in your solution, only women’s, you must have missed that. Ether that, or you think so poorly of men that you refuse to even acknowledge their issues as real (and are simply using this as an excuse to further your own agenda)

      “Problem: Men have to do all the work asking women out, and women are often hostile to men’s overtures, which hurts men’s feelings.”

      Sexual double standards are a problem, but the “hurt’s men’s feeling” is nothing more then a shameful attack. You call yourself a professional? An Academic? Grow up. You also seemed to have missed the “and expects her way to be paid, despite demanding (and getting) equal pay.

      “Reality-based solution: More feminism. A world where rape victims weren’t denounced because they were overly flirty, where women weren’t mocked because they acted “like men,” and where the word “slut” had no meaning is one where women would feel freer to hit on men. Plus, a world where women weren’t harassed on the street, or where they could tell men “no” and be heard the first time, would be one where women weren’t immediately suspicious of every man who approached them.”

      Again you fail to even address the issue, and instead use the opportunity to instead talk about a women’s concern you feel is related. If rape was entirely removed from society, nothing would have changed regarding this issue. The abscense of rape would not suddenly make women start hitting on men, as it opens them up to rejection, and we know women don’t like rejection. Furthermore, the absence of rape wouldn’t somehow loosen their wallets. Your solution again ignores the issue and chooses to instead promote your own and women’s agenda.

      “Problem: Men are more likely to get killed at work.”
      This isn’t so much an issue as an example of the double standard and hypocrisy of the feminist movement. You demand equality, but only for the good jobs. You are willing to acknowledge the pay these dangerous jobs provide when discussing the wage gap, but refuse to acknowledge that pay comes from increased dangers women have chosen not to endure. You can’t expect the average income of all working women will compare with that of all working men when women are all in the lower paying “comfy” jobs, by their own choice.

      “Reality-based solution: More feminism. Shut down all formal discrimination against women, and create programs that make it easier for women to get into these professions. Stop informal harassment of female workers that keeps them off the job. Educate young girls about their options to take these jobs. Eventually, you’ll get parity in dangerous jobs, and women will, as a side effect, be killed at the same rate as men.”

      All formal discrimination against women has been shut down. It is not only illegal, in many places, it is audited. Furthermore, women have gained the privilege of discrimination against men in the form of affirmative action (and sometimes even quota’s), especially given that failure to hire enough women could result in legal action, regardless of whether those women are best qualified or not.

      And you would need to prove that it is discrimination and harassment that is keeping these women from these jobs, and not just that women don’t want to do them, because, you know… THEY’RE DANGEROUS!!!

      For the third time you have chosen to ignore the issue and instead champion a feminist cause under the false claim that it will solve men’s problems.

      Problem: Ladies Night, where bars often extend a drink special to women and not to men.
      “Reality-based solution: Ban Ladies Night or don’t, because who honestly gives a crap? The only people who stand to lose out are douchebags complaining that they can’t find cheesy bars with lots of hot women to pester.”

      If the gender roles were reversed, and it was men given special discounts, you can be DMAN certain feminists would “give a crap”. You demonstrate a clear failure to understand or empathize with the double standards men face. You simply demonstrate a further arrogance and disregard for men. Ladies nights are a clearly sexist application of discrimination against men. This policy (as well as other similar ones, such as women only bars and sporting clubs) set a precedent that it is not only legal, but socially acceptable to discriminate against men.

      And finally, your ending comment “women to pester” demonstrates for the forth time (out of four) your attempt to address this as a women’s issue. Women, and especially feminists, don’t have a monopoly on the problems experienced in today’s society. Your complete lack of both understanding, as well as empathy for the REAL problems men seek to address (such as family law reform to allow fathers to be fathers, or gender bias in government due to their being a gender minister who’s very job is to be biased in favour of women, but no such position for men.) shows you for the selfish, arrogant, hateful woman that you are.

  40. “We are so wrong”? Thats the gist of your argument? LOL! This piece evaporates into diffusion of utter nothingness. That is not a logical argument. It’s a sentiment. There is nothing in this piece to even disagree with. All i’m getting is that Amanda doesn’t like MRAs.

    This isn’t even provocative… Who cares???

  41. Peter Kasprzak says:

    Unfortunately, overly angry entitlement princesses like this one have missed the point entirely about MRA’s. Shaming language has lost it’s edge, and men are no longer cowed into submission by the mere mention of us possibly having a small penis, or not getting laid. YAWN. We are angry about the HYPOCRISY of the feminist movement, that has preached equality in the boardroom, but ignored the coal mines and the front lines. We are angry about the double standards of traditional relationship etiquette being called into play when the cheque comes, only for a new age agenda being rolled out when a kiss good night is called for. We will not put up with being lumped into a basket of the extremely small percentage of men who do wrong things, including violence, and refuse to not have our voices heard when similar injustices are perpetrated against us. Equality is a very bitter pill to swallow, when you realize that when you gain with the right hand, you have to give with the left. I have torn down the glass ceiling in my world, now you rip up the glass floor. You have the right to work, and to be your own person, and not rely on men. Great. You now have the right to pay half the cheque!

  42. This one guy says:

    The MRA has a problem with Feminism and your solution is to inject more Feminism…
    Isn’t that like saying that if you’re dying from cancer that the solution is to inject yourself with more cancer?

  43. American females have no right to call themselves women. Womanhood is a spiritual title that denotes an elevated consciousness and sense of ones duty to society. We all have a job and a role to fulfill, only petty people: like a minority of American females, complain about existing in reality. I am a white man who is too smart to date American females. I am sensitive and American females are hurtfull and vindictive for no reason. you invent things to complain about, or project your expectations and blame men for it. that is infantile and totally unattractive. I prefer to date women, and one day I’ll meet a woman who appreciates having a kind gentle loving man, chances are she won’t be American. Why do you think the guys are going gay, or foreign? Because the females are repulsive, body and spirit: unkind, vindictive and mean.

  44. Remember men, the solution to all male problems is an ideology based on making the world better for women. Feminism not working for you? Clearly the problem is that you aren’t being female enough. You should get on that. REAL men OBEY!

  45. @Amanda Marcotte

    Madam, your argument has more holes than Colonel Gaddafi’s summer palace.

    Do you have ‘daddy’ issues?

  46. evilwhitemalempire says:

    You guy’s may be good men but you sure make a slow loading web page.
    Jeeezus! It’s like fucking dial-up!

  47. regarding firefighters, this piece in 2008 was illuminating, as to why there are so few.
    Basically, the great upper body strength thats needed to move machinery, hose – few men and even fewer women have

    One of those who didn’t make it was Angela Vesey, 33, a mother of two. As an Air Force intelligence officer, she worked with teams of all-male pilots in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia — and is not accustomed to failing around men. “I have no doubt in my mind,” she says. “I am going to be a firefighter.”

    But not anytime soon. She was terminated by her trainers halfway through the 17-week academy and looks upon the LAFD’s requirements as “much more difficult” than her military training.

    Another casualty was “Mary” — an extremely fit runner who washed out long before her graduation day. Like many fire trainees, she suffered an injury that healed slowly and decided not to repeat the arduous training.

    [snip]
    Nobody tried to make either of them fail. No “old boys” got in their way. Mary was admired by her male boss and encouraged at each step to be a firefighter. “I was just too slow,” she says. Firefighting equipment, like the one-man ladders, started “getting heavier,” and she began to realize she wasn’t strong enough to repeatedly lift it — a necessary skill. Eight weeks into the training — which causes plenty of men to wash out — Mary was stunned to realize that her body had begun “breaking down.”

    http://www.laweekly.com/2008-01-24/news/the-gender-boondoggle/

    Bet amanda grates her teeth at the physical strengths differences between men and women generally. dont worry, soon biosciences will allow you to reengineer your body to have the strength of a man

    • It’s perfectly okay to have physical requirements for jobs that genuinely require them. Make everyone meet those standards. Some women will, and some men won’t.

      It’s NOT okay to assume that all men are more qualified than all women without giving everyone a fair chance to try.

      • Get some fit, healthy and active women on a 40′ sail boat and you pretty quickly find out that don’t have anywhere near the strength of regular men. There are jobs women can do well on the boat, but it is amazing to watch women who think they are strong realize they have no where near the strength of men in the grunt jobs.

        • So women aren’t strong enough to work…

          But they are suddenly strong enough to be domestic violence abusers…

          MRAs… get your lies straight.

          • No David,

            Women are nowhere near as strong as men (on average).

            In jobs where strength is required women will typically need men to help them perform some tasks.

            Domestic violence does not require much strength. Watch the Teen Mom Amber Portwood hit her 3x larger boy friend. How much strength do you need when someone won’t fight back? When they are sleeping or Drugged?

            Piss poor ad hominem attempt, David.

            • Yeah, lets look at Amber Portwood.

              She was charged with battery for the televised slaps and pushes.

              So???

              The law is working the way it should.

              • LOL. I know its almost a year later but I had to respond to this.

                Yes she was charged with battery for the televised slaps and pushes…almost SIX MONTHS after they aired on television. How long does it take to charge someone with a crime after its witnessed by MILLIONS of people? On the other hand there was no such delay in charging the guy that punched Sooki on Jersey Shore a while back.

                And there is also a question of why Amber hitting Gary is all over the place while footage of that bunching Sooki was first shown in a sneak preview but was edited away before th episode actually aired…

  48. EJ clairmont says:

    It’s interesting how in each of her replies, the author of this article both manifests and demonstrates to be true almost everything she believes about MRA organizations.
    Luckily most delusional and unnecessarily combative victim feminists are subjugated to rarely read blogs like this one.

  49. EPIC FAIL

  50. – Housework isn’t just things wives do.
    putting together furniture, putting together electronics, setting up decorations, pet care.
    I know alot of men who have no problem cooking and cleaning.

    – Yes some men are harsh with their approach but i’ve seen woman harshly reject men for no reason, something even taking joy in it.
    If a man were to stop approaching woman ? he’d be seen by woman (and some men) as a loser who took his ball and went home.

    Woman don’t approach because they’d be seen by themselves as desperate and not attractive enough to have men approach them. Alot of them still feel it’s a man’s job to initiate the approach.

    There will always be men who harass you in public just like there will always be people who harass you in public.

    – Just because you give a person options doesn’t mean they’ll use them.
    At the end of the day some woman don’t care to have the same jobs as men.

    – More woman at club = men happy, woman sad
    Men are hitting on the hottest woman, leaving the rest in the dust.

    More men at club = woman happy, men sad
    Woman are getting attention from many guys, leaving men to ditch the club.

    More woman brings more men, but if there’s more men it becomes a bad thing.
    You don’t went to be pestered at the club ? stay home

  51. Wondershot says:

    I know that MRA explanations #1 and #2 are at least one man’s awesome sexual fantasy.

    …which is not to say that it’s feminist, but still, methinks perhaps the lady (i mean gentlemen) doth protest too much.

  52. Arielle says:

    As a feminist, it hurts that so many people (men) assume that I’m ok with women hitting men, or the gender bias in the court system. Just because this society assumes all women are natural baby makers and care-givers (because men should be running companies or out in the workforce) doesn’t mean that every woman is a natural mother or better parent. I’m sick of that stereotype JUST as much as the ones that say that I can’t drive as well, or know about technology, or that I should just LOVE household cleaning supplies…I mean, c’mon!

    As a victim of hardcore domestic assault, it REALLY really hurts to see so many men (here, even!) blowing off women as domestic violence victims. The strong tend to pick on the weak (no matter the gender), so is it SUCH a far stretch when men, on average, tend to be larger than women, on average, to think that domestic violence against women is probably more common? Not to mention many men are socialized to get their emotions out by doing something other than crying, talking about it, etc…. That’s absurd….Just as absurd as men claiming DV rates are ‘equal’…My ex broke three of my ribs. I have met around 5 or six other women who have endured that depth of physical assault. I’m a pretty strong lady (YAY weight training!), but I couldn’t break an adult’s ribs if I TRIED. Maybe there is a man out there who had his ribs broken by his girlfriend. I do doubt that the numbers would be the same across gender lines. In this society many women are socialized to be “nice”, to please others, and to avoid being a “bitch”. These trends also mean that men who ARE abused don’t feel comfortable admitting it, because they might be seen as weak. They don’t want to be a “pussy”, cry “like a girl”, because it’s better to “man up”. That is NOT ok.

    In my personal experience, this is not because they are concerned about women’s opinions. Too many of my male friends express that they can ONLY talk about insecurities/doubts/fears with me or the romantic partners in their lives, because other men would joke, or not take them seriously. Too many men I know end up talking to their sisters, their wives, women…because they fear male judgment. Maybe they don’t represent the whole, I’m not a man….so I wouldn’t know. But they do exist, which means that there are a variety of experiences and saying something like “Women are the ones who judge men and make them live up to masculine standards” just isn’t true. YOU personally may feel that way, but not everyone does.

    I think we DO need to look at the homeless population and prison populations for the reasons WHY so many men think that violence is the only answer to gaining respect, or to meeting their needs. Is this what society is telling them? Men went to war, and not women, because it was assumed that women were weak and inferior fighters/overly emotional. That is NOT fair, and is another example of assumptions of men being “faster, stronger, and better” at something actually HURTING men.

    We feminists are on the SAME side as anyone who wants equality. I would LOVE to pay for dates (and do as much as I can!)…Currently my boyfriend and I have the same job, (me with more experience), and he was offered 14% more in pay at the INTERVIEW than I am making now with two raises. I don’t know about everyone’s experience, but it is mine, so saying that women ‘don’t pay their way’ when so many of us make so much less than our partners, women aren’t included the highest paying jobs in the US (http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/02/19/the-gender-gap-in-pay-by-industry/) (http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/05/02/job-segregation-by-sex-1972-2008/)

    So it just really hurts to hear all these crazy stereotypes about how feminists hate men, and want them to get hurt/shut up…. I would love to know what my man is feeling (frankly, I would love it if he knew himself…I hear “I don’t know” when I ask over and over again). I resent it being assumed I’m too weak to go to war, too emotional to be a leader in my office, too ‘naturally’ small and caring to do harm. I just want folks to be treated justly. That’s what most of us want. And it sucks to hear how so many seemingly rational men have bought the stereotypes and prejudice about us without bothering to check it out for themselves and TALK to a few people about it.

    .sigh. It’s like so many men just seem to hate feminists, feminism and everything we do….I know I try my best. I know THE VAST majority of us do. To be hated for it really burns.

    • Henry Vandenburgh says:

      I agree with you. Both sexes should be taught hard core self defense. I’m one of the few anti gun control liberals I know. I had about six years of martial arts, but, if a seven foot tall person were attacking me, I’d probably just shoot them.

      I think feminism in its best sense is right. But trying to make women and men something they’re not is wrong.

    • thehermit says:

      “sigh. It’s like so many men just seem to hate feminists, feminism and everything we do…”

      you should add:…and with a good reason.

      “So it just really hurts to hear all these crazy stereotypes about how feminists hate men, and want them to get hurt/shut up…”

      I’m sorry to say that (i really do), but you should know better what is called feminism, before you describe yourself to be one.
      this Not-All-Feminists-Like -That (NAFALT).we’ve heard a thousand times.

      • What I’m saying is that MOST of us are not like that. Have you ever talked with one of us, like face to face? Asked us about our experience openly and honestly? Or have you just read some talking head and formed an opinion without really delving in?

        Saying all of any group is like a narrow definition does not make any sense.

      • And even more than that, if you all have heard that there is more to feminism than your stereotypes, why not SEEK US OUT, so that we can COME TOGETHER and fight TOGETHER, instead of dismissing us, when, apparently, a lot of us are out here and think similarly.

        • thehermit says:

          I don’t want to fight with anybody TOGETHER, who calls him/herself a feminist. The word in itself is discriminative, so are the goals. And the acts, oh well, they speak for themselves.

        • Actually in my youth I was a feminist. I thought it was the way the world would be changed to the better for everyone and freedom from gendered expectations was the way I would like the society to be formed. However a lot of this died when the feminist movement I was involved in dissolved into drinking cheap red wine and trying to quote books that where not understood. The biggest backlash came when the women of my local feminist chapter had no problem laughing and flirting with the men telling extremely cruel jokes about white nerdy men, spending their spare time watching porn. Hardly what I would call an organisation fighting against stereotypes.

    • Jalestra says:

      Oh no, I’ve seen countless incidents of women taking advantage of men being taught “it’s not right to hit women” in order to hit them. SOOOOO many. I’ve seen so many incidences of a woman crying to the police about a man hit them when he never did (and yes, I stepped up and said so). The fact is I raised in an abusive home and around domestic violence and I can honestly say that women were just as guilty as men. They may not be strong enough to break ribs (in most cases) but they are just as guilty.

      By the way, damage isn’t just a matter of strength. I barehanded slipped a man’s disc and he was twice my size. That was just a matter of knowing where to hit (in my defense he hit me first and it was automatic reaction). Quite frankly a woman that will hit a man and expect them not to hit back deserves my utmost contempt.

      • Thaddeus G. Blanchette says:

        I have to admit, I’ve seen this sort of thing a number of times, too, Jalestra. And when we get away from physical and into emotional violence, women are easily just as bad as men.

        I, too, don’t buy the “Oh, women are smaller than men and could never do that sort of damage” argument.

        I’ve seen a tiny woman drag two men down a flight of stairs when she was in the middle of an enraged fury. I’ve actually had a woman half my size bite me so hard it left scars. She was drunk at a party and began trashing the house and three of us – two men and a woman – had to sit on her until she calmed down.

        No, Arielle. Seriously: although you are being sincere, you really don’t know what you’re talking about when you say women can’t do as much physical hurt as men. It totally depends on the woman and the circumstances. It also depends on whether she can get a weapon or not.

        While I do agree that there are more physically violent men than women out there, I also believe that the stats for violent women are grossly underplayed. Finally, based on my own, admittedly annecdotal experiences, I wonder how much male physcial violence is preceded by female emotional violence.

        For example, I once saw a very small woman get right in her boyfriend’s face, back him into a corner, and scream at and insult him for the better part of a half hour. All the time, she was going “Do something! Say something! You f*cking loser!” And he kept on yelling “Leave me alone!” Finally, he just lashed out and walloped her one across the eye. You can imagine what happened then: a trip to the local battered women’s support group, a restraining order and expulsion of the guy from their house.

        Now sure, he shouldn’t have hit her. But can you really and honestly say that he began the violence?

        • I’d add that in general women can hit men with impunity. Most men will never hit a women – even in self defence and men are unlikely to get any help or sympathy if they are attacked by a woman. In the cases I know of where men are attacked by their partners, the women are generally proud of it. So even if men are more violent by nature, the constraints are on them, not women, for women their violence can be an empowering experience. It is humiliating for a big strong man to be beaten up by a small weak woman, watch the Amber Portland video for an example.

          Thaddeus, I have experienced the verbal and emotional abuse you have mentioned. The only strategy for me was to leave, unless she hit me I could never hit her. Female on male violence and abuse is a serious issue that deserves attention, not the ridicule it generally receives. Well said.

        • Yes, he started the violence. He could’ve walked away instead of punching her in the face since she wouldn’t have the physical power to stop him from walking away.

          Talking =/= violence.

          Punching someone = violence.

  53. Timothy says:

    I stopped reading once I got to the wage gap lie. It has been debunked so many times, yet people still choose to believe women are oppressed in the workplace, when facts show they are privileged.

    This article was almost as bad as the recent call for male genocide, and women only government.

  54. Haha, this Amanda b*tch is hilarious; by god, could she find even one possible situation where women aren’t the ones discriminated against, even the obvious situations where it’s easy to see that men are the ones getting the short end of the stick end up being women discrimination. You go girl.

    • EJ clairmont says:

      It’s victim feminism. Women are always, ALWAYS victims of something in the eyes of victim feminists. It’s just up to college-dropout feminist-shrills like Amanda to find out who is victimizing them. Maybe go defend women who cry false rape some more Amanda. You sad, sad, little woman.

    • Yeah because calling a woman a ‘bitch’ because you disagree with her makes your point more valid?

      Your misogynist colors are showing.

  55. This one guy says:

    I am all in favor of equality, but only if the people demanding it are willing to go all the way. We hear all the time about how women are pushing for greater representation in politics, yet I can’t recall a single instance of feminist groups lobbying for increased representation in the construction industry. If there are any such cases, please feel free to cite them.

    One of the other arguements of the MRAs is that in divorce cases, the women gets custody roughly 90% of the time. If that’s the case, then shouldn’t feminists be fighting for a father’s right to be a part of his kids’ lives?

    Further, it also seems that women are generally given lighter sentences than men for the same crimes. Feminists should fight for equal enforcement of the law so that it is blind to the gender of the convicted fellon.

  56. Fabrizio Polo says:

    The following quote is remarkable hate speech. Your’e really telling me that if it weren’t for discrimination women would be taking over dangerous work? I don’t think so… at all.

    Have you ever seen a female garbage person?

    The disgusting quote:

    “Problem: Men are more likely to get killed at work.

    Reality-based explanation: Some of the most dangerous jobs out there are ones where women are either formally barred from entering, or informally discriminated against. This is in part a protection racket, keeping jobs from women who want them, because they’re either good pay for relatively low education, or the only game in town. This includes everything from fire-fighting to coal-mining. The military has formal discrimination that keeps women from the more dangerous but higher-paying combat roles.”

  57. Men, unlike women, are not a bunch of needy herd animals who need to start a million support groups. We don’t need leaders and detailed battle plans like women. We choose not to lower ourselves to the level of feminists and pump of bogus claims.

    The MM already hit one level of critical mass without needing to mass in some physical place or register online with one group. Think about it. Tens of millions of men saying no to marriage, dating, and no to being providers and protectors. Men are waking up and realizing that women, government, and society use and abuse us. You women need us more than we need you. Men are talking with each other.

    Men, MGTOW men going their own way and ghost turn your backs and walkaway from those who would enslave you to the female-government run plantation. Men, taste the freedom of going your own way.

  58. I just noticed something else. Almost every single one of thsoe solutions is pretty much, “Only worry about helping women and then some of the benefits will trickle down to men as well.” Seems like I recall some other trickle down tactic that was supposed to kick off in the 80s or so…

  59. I always wanted to ask Amanda the following question. Especially after reading her article on the Nice Guy ™ and the following debate on the female right to preference.

    Why is it that the free market is not acceptable in how labour pricing is commenced, but the only way to commence in the meat market is the total raw unregulated market economy were the dateless man has only himself to blame.

    • Love is not a ‘market’. It doesn’t have clearly defined rules. If you think so, you’re a damned fool.

  60. Let’s look at some obvious feminist fallacies in this article:

    — “Women should get paid the same as men, men should do as much housework as women,” —

    Yes, but women already get paid as much as men for the same work, they receive more college, university degrees too with the feminized education system and have more choices in life styles to be 1. full time housemother, 2. part time 3. work-full time. While men usually only can work full-time. There’s only very few full-time househusbands. This combined with systematic discrimination against men due to sexist feminist policies which give special support to women only.

    The wage gap myth has been debunked over and over.
    It would not make sense to hire men for the same work if they cost more.
    The feminist myth that women do more work overall, has been debunked as well. For example:

    London School of Economics sociologist Catherine Hakim’s research shows that when both paid work and unpaid duties such as housework, care and voluntary work are taken into account, men do pull their own weight.

    “It’s true that women do more work in the home, but overall men and women are doing the same, which is roughly eight hours per day,” Hakim told Reuters.

    In fact, the study of how people use their time found that men in Britain spend slightly longer on “productive” work each day than women.

    “Feminists are wrong to claim that men should do a larger share of the housework and childcare because on average, men and women already do the same number of hours of productive work,” Hakim said.

    http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/08/05/us-work-couples-productivity-idINTRE6744A620100805

    — ” A world where rape victims weren’t denounced because they were overly flirty, where women weren’t mocked because they acted “like men,” and where the word “slut” had no meaning is one where women would feel freer to hit on men. ” —

    The the author only sees women as rape victims, ignores the epidemic of false rape accusations. Nor the fact that men in general find women who act like men more unattractive. And that respect is a two-way street.

    —– ” More feminism. Shut down all formal discrimination against women, and create programs that make it easier for women to get into these professions. Stop informal harassment of female workers that keeps them off the job.”—

    The fact that most job deaths are men, is because women don’t want the risk and dangerous dirty jobs that are mostly done by men. There is no “formal discrimination” which prevents them from doing these same jobs. It’s completely against the law to prevent someone based on gender to do such jobs. Rather they don’t want to be trash collectors, plumbers etc, and prefer the clean high paid jobs.

    — “Ban Ladies Night or don’t, because who honestly gives a crap? The only people who stand to lose out are douchebags complaining that they can’t find cheesy bars with lots of hot women to pester.”

    So I bet if the tables were reversed and men got free entrance, and drinks, the feminists would be shouting sexism from all rooftops Yet when it only affects men they don’t care about these sexist double standards.

    • “The fact that most job deaths are men, is because women don’t want the risk and dangerous dirty jobs that are mostly done by men”

      It’s worth remembering that in the past (and to a lesser extent today), women were discouraged from taking such jobs because it was ‘unseemly’ or because by virtue of being female, they were seen as too weak to perform them.

      “There is no “formal discrimination” which prevents them from doing these same jobs”

      You forgot about informal discrimination, Any female geek can tell you that sometimes the environment is downright hostile towards women because of the people in it. A lot of us have been told on multiple occasions that we don’t exist, because women aren’t -blank- (and not just when people don’t know we’re there). Enough of that and no one is going to be sticking around even a job they enjoy.

      • EJ clairmont says:

        So basically when there is not concrete evidence to back up your claims you just manufacture an anecdote to back you up? Do people really have to spell out how that doesn’t mesh within the formal non-empirical science of reasoning, aka LOGIC.
        If you want to make a statement, you need verifiable truths to back up your premises, or else you are just spewing hot air.

  61. Henry Vandenburgh says:

    Okay, MRA can be pretty silly. But there are essential differences between men and women. Women and their reproductive agendas pretty much control our culture on the social psychological level, even if men contorl the political economy– some men, that is. We can see this because the 60s and second wave feminism didn’t lead to increased sexual freedom and personal liberty and creativity as one might reasonably have expected. They led instead to increased puritanism and more behavioral rules for men to follow. And woe betide the woman who is sexually free. The term “slut” is back after a hiatus in the 60s – 70s, and the term is used as much by women who want to control marriage markets as by men. And I made some comments on the other thread about women and the desire for alpha males that didn’t get published for some reason. It’s still absolutely true. It’s easier to get a woman, even more than one (which is a tendency of alphas – a biological trendency) if you are butch or have resources. I doubt if this’ll ever change, and it shouldn’t, unless we want to degenerate genetically.

    I absolutely support women’s equal legal rights, but don’t support the common false feminist tabula rasa assumptions.

    • “It’s easier to get a woman, even more than one (which is a tendency of alphas – a biological trendency) if you are butch or have resources.”

      A common misconception among the manosphere. This is only partly true. If you are looking for a LONG TERM relationship, money is important. At the dating stage, Mr Money is likely to be the guy who pays for the date, and takes her home. Then she calls the guy she wants to have sex with.

      There are two kinds of relationship material for women (generally). Just like there are for men.

      The kind you take home to meet Mom. And the kind you want to tie to your bed for a week.

      Rarely, if ever, are they the same person.

      And frankly, I’d FAR rather be the guy she calls for sex, than the guy who pays for her stuff.

      • Henry Vandenburgh says:

        Pretty much true. And a bit cynical. I don’t think that this necessarily happens right away, and not necessarily with all women. It’s tendential, rather than a law. But it should give us pause that about 10 percent of children are not genetically related to their fathers of record.

        Patriarchy “can” be seen as the delivery of the female reproductive strategy disguised as male domination.

        I tend to think that pre-“patriarchal” societies allowed more sexual freedom and autonomy for both sexes, and it would be nice to see that return. This may have only been true of Europe and places like the Kunming area of China.

        • Thaddeus G. Blanchette says:

          Why, Henry? 10% of children not being related to their fathers doesn’t mean that those 10% were generated by so-called alpha males.

          And hell, man, you’re a trained sociologist: why are you giving any credence at all to this grossly simplistic “alphabet soup” theory of human socio-dynamics, anyhow? Did American sociology revert back to the late Victorian era in the twenty years I’ve been out of the country, or wtf?

          • Henry Vandenburgh says:

            Thad– many sociological theories are ideologies that run from these truths. Most modern sociology, BTW, is shameless nonsense– no sense of the Victorian enthusiasm about science! Postmodernism and pure social constructionism are BIG problems. I don’t claim that sociobiology is “all-driving” as many of its proponents do– it’s a large factor or constraint that operates everywhere, though, much like Marx’s ideas about capitalism.

            Yes, I’m aware that subdominate men father children by being clever. I gave the cartoon version. Your comment though doesn’t to offer much that’s substantive in return. The corpus of modern sociology is currently weak, and we are in a different crisis than Gouldner wrote about.

  62. Amanda and the Good Men Project…

    The Solution to MRA Problems? More Feminism

    —–

    Sorry, Amanda, please wait some more weeks – the 1st April is not far away.

    That’s the best joke I ever heard…

    More feminism…

    Luckily the MRM is a growing movement and it is not so easy to kick us out.

  63. I don’t know what is more ridiculous that she actually took the time to write this and get some traffic to her site or that she used ‘happy hour’ and ‘asking girls out’ as ways to prove her point. I don’t know where she gets her facts from but apparently the men she talks with have serious self worth issues and if she’s going to do research on this so called ‘movement’ then actually talk with real men and not ‘boys’. Feel free to contact me I can tell her about divorce, anger, pain, and frustration and it won’t be because I got turned down by the hottie at the 2-1 at the pub.

    The saddest part in all of this is the sheer anger and hate that she seems to have for anyone who disagrees with her. She’s no better than those she tries to condemn.

    And I really hope she works on her father wounds…

  64. Amanda, is your hope for “more feminism” going to solve the gross inequity of male only conscription and the resulting consequences for young men who do not register with Selective Services? What about the legality of male genital mutilation in a nation that rightfully does not allow such barbaric practices on baby girls? Both are serious questions as I personally believe this to be two issues of grave injustice in this country and ones that must be addressed by those who claim to want equality for all.

    • I won’t speak for Amanda, but my general impression from the feminist movement is…yes. I think we’d all prefer that the draft be taken off the books entirely, but if we’re gong to have it at least be fair about it. The second issue is a little more complicated because of religious traditions, but outside of that the general consensus seems to be that there’s no good reason for it to be common place, and a few good reasons to avoid it.

      • Jayn, thank you for your reply. My research has led me to different impressions about the feminist view of Selective Service and have primarily found that this issue is either ignored completely or addressed in a way that denies the profound issue that conscription truly is. The mission statements and political activism of feminist organizations seem to be without any focus on ending government conscription. This reality is disappointing. If you happen to have any links or recommendations for information that might present support for your views in the feminist community I would be interested in taking a look.

    • It’s true that feminism doesn’t talk much about the Selective Service — I would imagine that it’s because there hasn’t been a draft in decades and there are a lot of important issues going on now. They do discuss allowing women into combat units. I have done graduate work in Women’s Studies and the general consensus seems to be that no one should be drafted, men or women.

      As for circumcision, I oppose it, as do all the feminists I know. There is no reason to remove a normal healthy body part, male or female.

      Our country does support female genital cutting, although it takes different forms here than in other cultures: breast implants, labiaplasty, routine episiotomy, and unnecessary c-section. As a feminist, I oppose those things too.

      • The fact that there hasn’t been a draft doesn’t make this any less of an issue when the penalties for not registering are still realities. Young men who not register with Selective Service are ineligible for federal financial aid, federal jobs, passports, US citizenship, and federal job training. Registration is also a prerequisite for maintaining a driver’s license and applying for state financial aid in several states. All of these consequences would be detrimental for a young man and no equivalent issue is faced by young women. Why is this not an “important issue”? in a movement that is allegedly striving for equality between the sexes?

        As a feminist you oppose a consenting adult woman to undergo cosmetic surgeries? Are women not intelligent enough to weigh the risks of these operations and make a choice for themselves? Why do they need your blessing and support to do so?

        • After the page refreshed and I lost my comment I forgot to add that I absolutely agree with you about routine episiotomy and c-sections that are truly unnecessary. Both can be lifesaving options when they are truly needed but they are inappropriate to be used across the board. When my husband & I were writing our birth plan shortly before our daughter was born he marveled that they really like genital mutilation in the medical/OB birth model. My CNM has performed just three episiotomies at that point in her fifteen year career; the OB/GYN in the practice hundreds.

      • Frankly you’re a minority from what I’ve seen. Just go read Schwyzer talk about circumcision sometime. The majority of feminist responses that I’ve seen have been FGM =BAD, MGM= beneficial or at the very least a parents choice.

  65. Amanda,

    Thankyou for recruiting people to our side. You are quite the useful idiot!

  66. Amanda Marcotte is a known misandrist and she’s writing for the “goodmenproject” what a load of horse shit

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Marcotte

    • Let her write. Every time she opens her mouth, more men join the MRM. I say give the hate-monger a pulpit and let her rant.

      • What I have noticed about Amanda is that she regularly sticks her foot in her mouth, gets slammed for it, feels humiliated, tries to cover it up as well as possible, and then, some time later. . . . DOES IT ALL AGAIN.

        Cyclically, like clockwork. Over and over. She literally can’t help making an ass of herself. I hate to psychologize and sound like a feminist, but. . . we’re lookin’ at personal issues here! Of course, she has a supportive peer group. . . but the rest of the world is not impressed. INCREASINGLY not impressed.

        • I am surprised that the femi-fascists have not realized that Marcotte is a liability yet. I guess they are not used to people who question their religion. This is turning into a cake walk.

  67. chemistbert says:

    It looks as though Amanda Marcotte has abandoned the comments. Admitting defeat in the face of actual fact and reason perhaps?

  68. Jay Hammers says:

    “Men’s rights activists—a loose coalition mostly comprised of men embittered that they’re not getting as much tail as they believe they’re due and men embittered after having their wives up and leave against their wishes”

    Okay, babe, I admit that’s where I stopped reading.

    1- I get plenty of ass from my fiancee. I got plenty of ass from girls before her, but they didn’t really interest me.

    2- I don’t have a wife just yet, but my future wife won’t be leaving me, because she’s not a misandrist piece of poo like you.

    • It took the birth of my two MALE children to bring me into the MRM.

      I was willing to play the role of feminist man-bot, dutifully serving as a slave to the feminist establishment.

      My boys are different. I will fight to my last breath for them to live free, as human beings with dignity. If things go well, they may live to see a day when men are equal to women. However, even if things don’t go so well, I think we can fight for a world where laws that enslave men are dismantled, even if we are not able to dismantle the laws provide special protection to women.

      I have a wonderful wife who has neither left me nor been poisoned by feminist hatred. I fight for my children, and all of our children.

      Feminism is a movement of hate that was founded on the commodification of children. Every effort of feminism aims to transform children into a resource that women use to improve their lives, rather than the other way around.

      • Jalestra says:

        You know, I grew up on feminism. I was stoked that my forebears fought so hard so that I could grow up and be whatever I wanted. Thanks to them I didn’t have to hide who I was. For me, as a little girl, that’s what it was all about. There was nothing “evil” or “wrong” about men or boys. Feminism used to be a good thing.

        But after having 3 boys I got worried. I watched how my boys have grown, one into manhood and 2 still very young, and I want them to have the same right. The same ability to grow and be who they are without being heaped with derision and scorned for being themselves or forced into a mold they don’t fit. My boys deserve the right the same as my daughters.

  69. I don’t wanna have babies at all, so…

    So sayeth Amanda, like, every second word of hers is like, I dunno, like…

    Amanda, what do you get from all of this? I guess you went to uni and got a degree in media studies, journalism, whatever…but what drives you? If you don’t want kids….and you will simply die one day….why do you fight for feminism?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9NWQB6LigQ

  70. I posted a few comments here a couple of hours ago and hey have no shown up. Did they get lost in the Spam Ether?

  71. And this is pretty much why I hate The Good Men Project. They invite a bitter bigot to write an article about MRA’s. Revolting.

    • I do not agree. I think that the best weapon against bigoted man-hating feminists is their own words. Let them speak, then make fun of their lies, their hatred, and their war on boys.

      • What Antz said. Nothing illustrates the hateful bigotry of feminism better than a feminist ideologue on a rant.

        And nothing illustrates feminist ‘concern’ for men, than hundreds of posts of feminists denying, belittling, minimizing, and dismissing mens concerns…even when they are the actual topic.

        Nope, nothing recruits anti-feminists better than feminist behaviour.

    • Magdelyn,

      Speaking of sounding bitter…

  72. @Amanda Marcotte:

    I have a serious question for you.

    What makes you think that you know what feminism is?

    I consider myself a non-feminist .

    (Forget the term “MRA”.)

    So, when I call myself a non-feminist, it clearly means that I reject feminism. Otherwise, I would call myself a feminist, yes?

    And if I reject feminism, it must be that I have some idea what feminism IS, yes? Otherwise, how could I reject it?

    Clearly, I reject feminism because I know what feminism is, and knowing this, I say “no thanks.”

    And I must have a good reason for this, yes? And since you don’t know what my reason is, you cannot tell me I am wrong. . .can you?

    So are you, as a feminist, telling me, as a non-feminist, that I need “more feminism” even when I make clear that I don’t want ANY feminism?

    Would you STILL insist that I need “more feminism”?

    Please respond yes or no.

    If you respond no, thank you for making it clear that you think feminism is optional.

    If you respond yes, explain to me on what ground you (a feminist) feel you are entitled to dictate terms to me (a non-feminist)?

    How would you justify taking such a stance?

    Please get back to me Amanda. I very seriously want to hear what you’ve got to say about this.

    Don’t blow it off. It is important.

    • I’m waiting, Amanda. . .

      • Jay Hammers says:

        I would love to see these feminist cowards call in to A Voice for Men Radio.

        Of course, they don’t the gonads…

        • Jay Hammers says:

          don’t have^

        • In practice, I myself prefer to avoid that style of sexually-based attack rhetoric (“gonads”).

          Reason being, that it feeds the Feminist Construct and “gives them a reason” in their own minds.

          It’s like a self-validating mental escape avenue for them. A cop-out, in effect. Another way for them to “not hear you”.

          But when you systematically seal off all such avenues, the pressure builds up inside their heads, eventually (in theory) to the point of explosion.

      • She has never had the guts to debate an MRA before Fid, why do you think she’ll suddenly find courage here?

        • Oh, I’ll bide my time for a bit. Whether she shows or not, I’ll still find a use for it.

          Actually, this would not be much like “debating” . It would be more like bowling.

  73. The FANTASY top priorities of the MRM, according to feminists:
    1) Having to pay more household expenses than women
    2) Women hurting men’s feelings when the man asks her out
    In fact, neither of these two banalities would rank in the top 1000 concerns for the MRM.

    The ACTUAL top priorities of the MRM (according to poll):
    1.) Fathers’ Rights (20%)
    2.) Feminism (11%)
    3.) Anti-Male Double Standards (10%)
    4.) Removing the Notion That All Men Are Potential Rapists/Pedophiles (9%)
    5.) Reproductive Rights (7%)
    6.) Better Treatment of Men Regarding False Accusations (7%)
    7.) Making Government Programs Gender-Neutral or Accompanied by a Male Equivalent (6.2%)
    8.) Educating Boys (5%)
    9.) Negative Portrayal in the Media (5%)
    10.) The Male Gender Role (4%)

    In summary:
    Feminism is a movement for female privilege and pampering, and so naturally a feminist thinks that MRM also wants privilege and pampering.
    MRM is a movement for EQUALITY and EQUAL PROTECTION.

    • You realise that of those ten issues, 6 are concerns that feminism is more than happy to engage with?

      #7 is interesting when paired with Futrelle’s article though, especially since MRAs who advocate for this tend to want funds diverted from already-underfunded women’s programs, rather than having funding increased to make room to expand the number of people serviced. IOW, this type of ‘equality’ would be at the direct expense of women.

      • You realize that feminists say one thing and do the other?

        Feminism is hate. There can be no “engaging” with hate.

      • Jalestra says:

        What is up with this stupid refreshing page?

        Jayn, in saying that you are making the same decision: to help women at the expense of men. Men shouldn’t receive a portion of the funding because it would hurt women? Hardly sounds equal to me….

        Why shouldn’t you both EQUALLY be underfunded? Or better yet, how about working TOGETHER like adults in helping PEOPLE, not genders.

      • If you consider that I spend a great deal of time debating with Futrelle and his lot, and have even done so on the debate of having a men’s minister as an egalitarian counterpart to the women’s minister. the feminist response has ALWAYS been… men already hold all the power in government, they don’t need a minister.

        This assumption ignores the political repercussions of an official, elected by both genders to perform in a gender neutral capacity, demonstrating, even on a single issue, an interest in men’s issues. Men’s rights, as seen by this very website, is politically incorrect. Furthermore, Men are actually less likely to aid other men, meaning men being in those positions have little interest in men’s issues, unless they affect them directly. Furthermore, the vast majority of men in positions of politics are men like Futrelle and Biden and Obama. Men who are indoctrinated into the feminist ideology and, as shown by marcotte here, believe that the best thing to do is to help women, and if that hurts men, well help women some more. And if men are killing themselves by the landfill… maybe we should help women some more. The fact is, there is a gender biased ministry in virtually every western nation, but only one, a women’s ministry.

  74. Wow, that was annoying, the page refreshed on me as I was half way through writting a comment.
    Hopefully I can write with the same feeling of the original.

    I think I have a problem. I think I don’t understand Feminism or I have some deeply incorrect assumptions about it. I am sorry, and I am looking for correction and/or clarification, not trying to push an agenda.

    It may have come from the culture in which I grew up, the examples I have had, the fact that I have no sisters, and probably many other malevolent memes that have passed through my head.
    But there seems to be some inconsistancies/misconceptions that I see that I feel would really need to be addressed for me to ever consider myself a Feminist.
    I’m seeing the term strawfeminist a lot here, and I think that is likely what I am describing,
    but maybe that comes down to using a bad term such as Feminism for something that would be better described in egalitarian terms. Also I guess I am referring to strawfeminism as I see it in America/Canada as I can understand the dire need for coalition to fight extremly harsh situations(by local standards) in many other parts of the world.

    1. Feminism does not seem to equate to equal rights. I would love to be told how I am wrong, but Feminism, as I have always seen it, has pushed disproportionatly for spectial cases and exceptions to be made for women. This has been in mens clubs(ie Scouts?) invaded by women, and womens clubs (ie gyms?) protected from men. Or firefighters or military women that can pass a lesser physical bar just to make the numbers better. Further domestic violence agains’t men seeming to go unnoticed.

    2. Feminism as I understand it is trying to push for boys to be docile doves and girls to be fierce fighters for their rights. As I was growing up at least, I felt that the boys around me were very much being taught to sit still, be quiet, and be nice, while the girls were much more encouraged to speak their minds. That sounds to me like a score for Feminism then a score for humans.

    3. Feminism has been pushing more to criminalize men and victimize women. I state as an example prostitution, false rape accusations and lying about birth control to extort child support payments.

    4. Feminism seems to want to get women paid more for less work/skill/loyalty level. This can be seen in how Feminists would react to a woman making less money while taking a year off to have a baby. Or sick leave, vacation time, stenght levels, hazzard levels, flex time, etc. Promotions and job security despite long absences. They seem like paid bonuses for behavior that a business shouldn’t have to support.

    Ok, I’m pretty sure I’ll get flamed for this post, but it really confuses me and I would love some answers that address the problems that I have (not just poking holes in my examples which I am just using to illustrate what I see, not how they actually came to be)

    Currently I think Feminists that believe in the term strawfeminists are actually egalitarians and actual feminists are more like religeous extremists. Your thoughts on this point of view?

    • Try checking out some feminist blogs or books. Read what actual feminists are writing instead of anti-feminist’s characterizations of them. That will answer your questions. Strawfeminists are the “religious extremists” you’re describing that by and large do not exist. They’re the examples that people use to make feminists seem unreasonable, when the vast majority of feminists do not hold views at all resembling what you’re describing.

      • But these are observations of what I have seen in my (given) short life. Not things I have read from anti-feminist literature. My problem is that actions speak louder then words. Maybe the people by and large don’t exist, then who/what is pushing these experiences/occurrences in my life? Is it the cumulative actions of many people who think that they are not being extremists that just happens to form into this image of a movement gone too far? Either way I feel that extremism, even decentralized, should be checked, and that Modern Feminism seems like a misnomer that I wouldn’t want to associate with.

        • Feminism is hate. There can be no “good” type of hate. Feminism is a profoundly evil force that currently uses all of its poisonous hatred to orchestrate an all-out war on boys. They want to destroy all boys in the 6-12 year range using Ritalin.

          If you do not believe me, go to the two most popular Feminist hate sites, “Feministe” and “Feministing”. Search for the word “Ritalin”. Then search for “Ritalin” in the MRM site “The Spearhead”.

          You will learn that feminists are currently engaged in an all out war to destroy boys, and that MRMs are fighting to protect boys from the feminist extermination war.

      • “Try checking out some feminist blogs or books. Read what actual feminists are writing instead of anti-feminist’s characterizations of them. That will answer your questions. Strawfeminists are the “religious extremists” you’re describing that by and large do not exist. They’re the examples that people use to make feminists seem unreasonable, when the vast majority of feminists do not hold views at all resembling what you’re describing.”

        No, Bret. The extremist feminists do indeed exist. They are not the “radical fringe” of feminism; they are the radical core. The reactor rod. Without them, feminism as a sociopolitical organism simply would not and could not exist. It would have no fuel, no engine, no drive.

        So, your understanding of reality is naive, and precisely the inverse of truth.

        The “reasonable majority” of feminists are what we call “carpetbaggers”. The radical extremists are the “bad cop”, while the carpetbaggers are the “good cop”. Ultimately, feminism contains no bad v. good, but only bad v. less-bad.

        Got the picture?

  75. Marcotte manages to imagine non-existent MRM complaints. Here are the top two MRM issues:

    1) The feminist campaign of humiliation and dehumanization of young boys.
    2) Sexist family courts that assign primary custody to mother 95% of the time.

    Compare these two issues to the banalities that this author talks about. What a joke.

    • Please provide examples of #1.

      #2 exists because of the sexist pigeonholing of gender roles on both genders. The answer? Feminism, which wishes to break down the societal gender roles and barriers. Feminism is an ally, not an opponent to #2.

      • Bret, say what you will, but a big part of the feminist agenda has been “father-bashing” in its many ugly forms — as a sub-project of destroying the traditional family and the institution of marriage. Are you cool with that project?

        And please don’t respond by spewing a bunch of ‘feminist theory’ at me. That is like quoting scripture in order to prove the bible.

        And besides, I am a non-feminist, so feminist theory does not impress me.

        • “And please don’t respond by spewing a bunch of ‘feminist theory’ at me. That is like quoting scripture in order to prove the bible.”

          I love it. Nicked.

          • No, it’s like quoting Scripture to prove that the Bible contains Scripture.

            How can we tell you about feminism without telling you about feminism?

            • I should rather say, how can we (non-feminists) tell YOU (feminists) about feminism without telling YOU (feminists) about feminism.

              Let that percolate for a minute.

              I know, I know, it is a brain-twisting new concept.

              But basically what it says is, that the authority to define feminism has shifted to the zone outside of feminism’s perimeter.

              If you think about it, there is really no reason why feminism should hold the monopoly on defining feminism. Feminism is as much an object for the world as it is an object for itself .

              That is to say, feminism has both an objective and a subjective aspect.

              And the ruling paradigm so far has been “feminist subjectivism”.

              But that is going to change.

      • #1 is a bit of an exageration, but feminists continue to do damage to young men and boys because they’re committed to an ideology that says male brains and female brains are identical blank slates, therefore, what works for one must work for the other. Thus, any suggestions that a female-dominated educational system discriminates against young boys is seen as illegitimate. Any pushes to have boys educated separately from girls by male teachers is illegitimate.

        Come to think of it, when’s the last time feminists pushed for more male teachers (other than the odd complaints about restricted gender roles.) I mean, actually pushed for quotas and diminished standards like they do when they try to push for women firefighters.

        #2. Marcotte herself is on record as being against joint custody as a default for divorce cases, as in her view, men only want to have access to their children in order to drag on divorce fights for decades in order to exert patriarchal control over their former partners. Marcotte doesn’t believe men actually give a s*** about their children.

        Here’s the view of MIchigan NOW on joint custody:
        http://www.glennsacks.com/enewsletters/enews_11_28_06.htm

        • The problem with dividing up boys and girls is it assumes all girls learn the same way, and all boys learn the same way. They don’t. Individual girls learn differently from each other just as individual boys learn differently from each other. When I left middle school years ago, they had just divided up kids by sex. The boys learned through games, and the girls learned through groups. I would have wanted to learn through games, but if I had been a girl I would have been forced through group work, and I would have been miserable. Plus, dividing them by sex does nothing, because once they get in the work force, there is no divvying up between sex. Girls and boys NEED to learn to work with one another through their own individual learning needs. Again, not all girls learn the same as each other, just as not all boys learn the same as each other. I’ve known plenty of boys/men who were successful in a supposedly female-oriented school environment. Some of these were stereotypically masculine boys, and others weren’t. Teachers need to be able to cater to all learning needs during lectures, and not just one specific type. I have several professors that cater to the various learners: hands-on, auditory, and visual learners. Hands-on through note taking, auditory through spoken lectures, and visual through power points and other such materials.

          • “Girls and boys NEED to learn to work with one another through their own individual learning needs.”

            And just to make sure that the boys accept their new lifetime role as beasts-of-burden, make sure that all the boys are turned into zombies by mega doses of Ritalin.

          • Amber: — Apart from all you have said, there is the purely political question of reclaiming male space, which might as well begin in schools as anywhere else.

            Furthermore, who says it is written in stone that men and women MUST be integrated in the workplace? Is that a “good” thing, or is it a “bad” thing? Such questions need to be tossed around frequently and openly, and made part of the zeitgeist.

    • “Marcotte manages to imagine non-existent MRM complaints.”

      She also (willfully or otherwise) can’t tell the difference between MRAs and PUAs.

      For the record, those two groups live in separate worlds, and they tend to
      stay at arm’s length from each other. There is a noticeable tension between them.

      • In fairness Fid, this is because we don’t actually have a name for our movement (not really anyway) and it’s hard to explain the relationship between the three main groups.

        So, we’re all called “MRAs”…even though only about a quarter of us actually think of ourselves as such. Heck, if you include “non-feminist”, then there’s 4 groups, and “MRAs” are a TINY percentage of those.

        The Feminists just haven’t figured out that the majority of us are MGTOWs yet.

  76. “What about teh menz?”

    Every time I read this contemptuous phrase (yes, I read the feminist blogs) I am reminded that feminism is all about women and only women. How could feminism actually help the MRM?

    Some interesting discussion of feminism here:

    http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/phmt-argument/

    In it, there is this quote:

    “Men, not women, need to be the ones creating the spaces to discuss men’s issues.”

    And so, this is exactly what happened. Men can discuss the male experience and men’s issues honestly without the cluck clucking of the doyenne’s of political correctness. In our discussions, we have discovered common experiences. We have discovered new truths which are extremely relevant to men.

    I think Amanda is rather fearful of what men are discussing in the manosphere because this threatens female privilege.

    We don’t need more feminism. The MRM simply needs more men.

    • And you will not have a single feminist try and argue with you, you know why? Its because they cant, they cant honestly (with a straight face) say feminists are fighting for mens rights.

      NOW (largest feminist org in america) posts “action alert” against shared parening bill.

      http://www.glennsacks.com/enewsletters/enews_11_28_06.htm

    • ““What about teh menz?”

      Every time I read this contemptuous phrase (yes, I read the feminist blogs) I am reminded that feminism is all about women and only women. How could feminism actually help the MRM?”

      That filthy feminist expression translates as “let them eat cake.”

      And if you know your history, you will know what eventually happened to the person who originally uttered the cake statement. 😉

    • “We don’t need more feminism. The MRM simply needs more men.”

      The non-feminist revolution is growing in countries all around the world. I keep tabs on those things. Trust me.

  77. Patrick says:

    Okay then. If you prefer instead that men should get paid as much as women, and that women do as much housework as men, then knock yourself out. You’re *still* talking about gender parity, just phrased in a rather bizarre way because (1) women on average make much less than men for the same work and (2) women on average do much more housework. How is it that it’s a “sweet deal” for women to want parity? how dare they.

    • “women on average make much less than men for the same work”

      “In 2009 Consad Research Report (one that was prepared for the Dept of Labor) that does a good job of debunking the “wage gap” and even goes on to criticize certain “groups” (feminists) for intentionally misinforming the public about the real reasons behind the gap.”

      http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

      Yup complain about made up womens issues instead of valid mens issues, issues that I know you and all of the other feminists couldn’t care less about.

  78. I know of one MRA who has put up a stink about Ladies Night – Roy Dean Hollander.

    But recently Feministing profiled a young feminist blogger named Jamie Keiles among their Feministing Five who has recently written a post decrying Ladies Nights as sexist and misogynist.

    Amanda diminishes many of the points that MRAs have. While I’m not an MRA, I do sympathize with many of their positions. For instance, divorce theft, default maternal custody, and myths surrounding domestic violence (women instigate it much more often than people think) are issues worth addressing.

    In short, Amanda cherry-picks those parts of MRA that she finds most abhorent while ignoring many of their more legitimate points. She and other feminists have decried this tendency in others who pick the worst parts of feminism.

    • “While I’m not an MRA, I do sympathize with many of their positions. “

      Chuck, are you SURE you’re not an MRA?

      If you believe that men have rights, and if you suspect that these rights are under attack or in abeyance in some way, then you just might be an MRA whether you like it or not.

      From an objective standpoint, I mean.

      Repeat “I am an MRA..I am an MRA…I am an MRA” until it starts feeling natural for you.

      Seriously, that list of issues that you sympathize with sounds like a pretty basic MRA checklist to me.

      Are you SURE you are not an MRA? And if not . . .why not?

  79. Only when people can stop pushing their isms and start talking about the issues fully and logically will anything really get done. No ism is the answer to anything, the world isn’t that simple.

    • I have to agree with this statement. I think this is a big problem with both feminists and the MRAs.

      • typhonblue says:

        Here’s a thought experiment.

        Identify the social theory that underpins Men’s Rights Activism. That’s right. There is no social theory. It’s just a series of objectively verifiable double standards. (This is why MRAs have schisms: some of them subscribe to wildly different social theories.)

        Now what’s the social theory that underlies feminism? That’s right, patriarchy theory.

        Feminism is an ism. Men’s rights isn’t an ism. It’s an observation.

  80. I’m not a hater of feminism, and I’m not a big fan of MRAs, but answer this. If feminism is so great at helping men out, where are the feminist discussions on helping men? Why is it if you bring up an issue that negatively affects men more than women and men need help too, you’ll be told feminism is about women, and to fix it yourself, except then either the problem will be completely denied or any attempts to actually focus on men will be actively opposed?

    I think there are a lot of problems with the MRA movement, and the analysis of them here is not exactly completely off-target (though it is a bit of a strawman). Feminism has its place and has brought some good changes, some which men have seen benefits from as well as women. But let’s not pretend it’s something it isn’t, and it isn’t the solution to issues men face.

    • Sarah TX says:

      where are the feminist discussions on helping men

      Umm… this whole post? Prominently featured at least once a week on nearly every feminist and womanist blog I read?

      • This whole post is mostly about how wrong MRAs are. And I’d love to see some of these places where feminists are holding events and conferences to help men out. I don’t read them daily because I got tired of being treated as the enemy by most of them and especially because I have better things to do, but I sure never saw it.

        • Many feminists have made it clear, in more words or less, that it is not their job to “go to bat” for men.

          And that’s OK. I’m fine with that!

          And in return, it is not men’s job to “go to bat” for women, either.

          Men and women are now, ipso facto, separate political interest groups, or power blocs if you will.

          Feminism has been a hugely effective political lobbying movement for women.

          Men have no equivalent political machinery on their own behalf, which is why they are getting run over. However, they may take cold comfort in the fact that they don’t “owe” anything to women. It’s just the way things are now — an objective fact of history.

          It is also true, in my opinion, that we no longer have a social contract between men and women. More concretely stated, this means men are not externally obligated to act ethically toward women — any more than women are externally obligated to act ethically toward men. Certainly, feminism has nearly nothing to say to women on the subject of ethical behavior toward men, and feminist innovations (mostly in the realm of law) have empowered women to predate against men with impunity.

          So again, under the circumstances, men are entitled to “look out for number one”. And the only law that governs any man’s conduct toward any woman, is a moral law within himself. (Needless to say, the exact form and content of this “law” will vary from person to person.)

      • Feminist discussions are not about helping men…they are about changing men.

        • typhonblue says:

          Changing men *is* helping them!

          • This message brought to you by the Men Are Broken Women Campaign and the Female Elite Committee.

          • There is nothing wrong with me that needs to be fixed, but I still suffer from discrimination in family courts, threats of domestic violence and rape (despite the fact I have never raised my hand in anger (or any other reason) to anyone, man or woman) and a litany of accusations and insults in the mainstream media (amongst many other issues)

      • if you think this post in any way seriously addresses the issues that affect men, you are either blindly ignorant or being deliberately deceptive.

    • Here are a bunch of posts about feminism helping men: http://feministallies.blogspot.com/search/label/Feminism%20Helps%20Men

      • Some of what you linked to is a good example, but most of it missed the point I was making entirely. I’m talking about times when feminists have actually campaigned to help out men without resorting to blaming it back on men or my personal favorite, The Patriarchy. Most of what you have listed is either something about a study on how feminism indirectly helps men (something I already acknowledged, if you look closer at my post above) to a lot of opinion. I probably wasn’t clear on that though.

        Incidentally, this article…

        http://feministallies.blogspot.com/2007/08/some-things-men-can-do.html

        …is exactly the kind of thing I thought I’d get when I asked for examples about feminism helping men. This is a list basically about how men can help women and how we’re all responsible for violence against women. Saying this is about helping men is the equivalent to me giving women a list about how they have a responsibility to hold each other accountable from slapping and throwing objects at their boyfriends or husbands to stop violence against men and calling it a feminist list designed to help women.

        I should point out here I don’t doubt some feminists have helped men, but you usually aren’t going to find it from feminist groups, organizations, blogs, etc.

      • typhonblue says:

        I looked through a few of them.

        1. Some are arguments on how embracing feminist theory helps men, not how feminism helps men.

        2. They mostly read as arguments why men’s needs shouldn’t take precedence over women’s.

        • 1. How are these different?
          2. Men’s needs shouldn’t take precedence over women’s.

          • I can’t answer #1, but I’ll comment on #2. You’re right–but the reverse shouldn’t be true either. Feminism at its core doesn’t promote the reverse, but feminists themselves do often take it to that point. This is where the problem with this entire article lies (well, one of them, at least). How does a movement that by and large solely focuses on women help men?

            • Some feminists are misguide fundamentalists. Just because some feminists are dicks doesn’t mean we all are. I find that people who are jerks – are jerks, it has nothing to do with their political or theoretical beliefs.

              • Dear KV,

                But the problem seems to be that feminists feel free to presume that all MRAs are dicks just because some are. Two out of three of the feminist authors posting here basically make this point, taking fringe examples of MRA opinions and holding them up as if they were movement gospel.

                It’s fairly frustrating, I imagine, for MRAs to be constantly subjected to this double standard.

                After all, nobody with any interest in leveling the gender playing field dismisses feminism’s core critiques because of the radical misandrist fringe. But both Marcotte and Furtelle here do precisely that to MRAs.

                • This wasn’t the point I was making, but it is a good one. I’ve been around enough sites to know feminists often get mad they’re judged by the most moronic of their bunch, but in many cases will do exactly that to those they don’t like.

                  I also was not saying all feminists were jerks in the first place, so I don’t know where that came from.

  81. Hahaha.. This is just laughable, and really, it’s an insult to feminism, since you’re painting all people who think the issues addressed are important as being ‘MRAs’, which you have already assumed to be angry, middle aged, white, bitter, pickup artists. Sound familiar? (“all feminists are bitter lesbians”). If you don’t see the value of those points, why respond to them with feminist approaches? They’re obviously valid.

  82. “When it comes to addressing MRAs, I get more men scolding me for my tone and my unladylike behavior, or concern trolling me for not taking MRAs bullshit…”

    Classic distorted thinking, probably symptomatic of something. Dr. Tara Palmatier could probably diagnose her over the phone.

    Having Amanda Marcotte comment on mens’s issue and the MRM is about like having Angry Harry comment on women’s issues and feminism. She has zero credibility. She completeley disgraced herself by her dogmatic bigotry during the Duke Lacrosse affair, when she insisted that even after the charges had been dropped, the three students still must be guilty of something. Well, of course in her world, they were guilty of something, weren’t they?

    Here she continues in the same vein. What a recruiting tool for the MRM.

    • Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant says:

      Oh yeah, I totally forgot about that little display. Guys, if you want hard evidence regarding Marcotte’s bigotry and respect (or lack thereof) for basic civil rights, just google “Amanda Marcotte duke lacrosse”.

    • Wow, I just looked at Marcotte’s sexism and hate-mongering during the Duke lacrosse incident. She openly calls for them to be thrown in prison even if they are innocent. I did not know there were such bigots left in the world. The intensity of her hatred is hard to believe, even for a feminist.

  83. Men doing more of the unpaid work in the home will free women to do more work outside the home. It seems a simple concept to me.

  84. I imagine MRA’s represent a very big tent. Imagine characterizing ALL Baptist Churches based on Westboro Baptist… pretty ridiculous isn’t it? (Remember any church can call themselves a Baptist church; there is no governing body.) How about we characterize ALL feminists by quoting Catherine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin and Valerie Solanas? Equally ridiculous? I wouldn’t describe myself as a Men’s Rights Advocate but as a guy who was told “All I have to do is call the police and tell them you hit me… Just remember that the next time you piss me off!” I can definitely identify with some MRA’s… By the way, I’ve never done anything remotely violent in a relationship.

    This article is intellectually lazy and blindingly contemptuous. There is nothing that qualifies as analysis here. There is nothing even remotely thought provoking here. Mr. Schwyzer and Mr. Elam obviously don’t agree on much but both of their articles contain nuggets of material that would make an unbiased reader think. Did someone review this for publication or was it blindly posted once submitted?

    • Feminist credentials = blindly posted

      Paul Elam’s article is somewhere on the back pages, not accessible on the home page.

    • Sarah TX says:

      Westboro Baptist Church is neither Baptist nor a church – it’s just a name they picked for themselves to sound legitimate (sort of like how the store Banana Republic has nothing to do with banana republics). Are you saying that some Men’s Rights organizations are not actually Mens Right’s organizations? Which ones? This is starting to devolve into a No True Scotsman fallacy.

      • The manosphere has various factions and some are opposed to the MRM, some are sympathetic and some are allies. I’m sure feminism has the same schisms.

      • Actually Westboro Baptist IS a church. It’s an independent Baptist church that had its first public service back in 1955. They didn’t start the insane public anti-homosexual demonstration crap until the 90’s. Regardless- I’m sure you don’t want me characterizing all feminists by the equally insane rantings of Valerie Solanas.

        Every day guys are concerned about things like bias in the family court system, the dearth of young men attending college, and potential abuse of domestic violence laws (it nearly happened to me a long time ago- “All I have to do is call the cops and tell them you hit me. Remember that the next time you piss me off!”). These concerns do fall within the men’s rights umbrella. Ms. Marcotte’s silly caricatures shows an amazing lack of empathy for men.

        I try to judge causes individually and support them based on their own merit. A simple example- last week I helped my wife get ready for a demonstration in favor of midwife licensing in the state of North Carolina. I created her posters, took a day off work so she could go to the march without a thought, and helped her prep for her meeting with legislators. Restriction of birth options is something that concerns many women. It certainly doesn’t impact men as much as it does women. I would consider many of the protestors who also attended the march to be absolute moonbats based on their stances on other issues but it didn’t stop me from seeing the logic in their arguments about THIS issue.

  85. Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant says:

    Honestly, what pisses me off the most is Amynda’s dogged determination to paint any MRA criticism as sexist. Over on her blog she says

    “When it comes to addressing MRAs, I get more men scolding me for my tone and my unladylike behavior, or concern trolling me for not taking MRAs bullshit […] The idea that when a man speaks, women should listen patiently and mind their manners no matter what really comes out in this situation. […] men [male feminists] don’t get concern trolled, scolded on tone, or talked down to nearly as much. I mean, they do, but it’s muffled to a large degree.”

    This is crap, but it perfectly enscapulates the warped victim mentality that so many feminists labor under. Like I said on another blog, she manages to reframe any MRA criticism as having a sexist and/or misogynist basis. Listen to the descriptors: “scold”, “unladylike”. I wonder if she ever considered that just maybe, MRAs aren’t trying to sit her down and wag their finger at her for not being a dainty little lady… but are just calling her out on ad hominem attacks and general rudeness? Hugo and the “Good Men” crew get (or would get, if they were as insulting) the same comments. Actually, Schwyzer, despite highly diplomatic language, gets a huge amount of dislike directed his way from MRAs. Not that it’s undeserved (Schwyzer is noted misandric apologist), but the point is, MRAs DO NOT treat female bloggers any differently from male bloggers. In fact, the MRA movement is quite egalitarian.

    As soon as Amynda here can actually point out the specific ways in which the MRAs are treating her any different from, say, Schwyzer in his comments section, I’m interested. Until then, it’s just the immature whining of someone determined to make themselves a victim.

  86. Morrisfactor says:

    Mz. Marcotte’s article simply regurgitates the standard (and disproven) feminist lies/propaganda and is demeaning to men. Move along, move along. There’s nothing to see here….

  87. What i did was address actual complaints.

    Not exactly. You did not quote any “actual complaint” or provide any basis for the “actual complaints” you addressed. What you did was take four specific issues and presented a bunch of strawmen MRA arguments that you proceeded to knocked down. It is entirely possible and probable that some MRAs agree with the strawmen arguments you presented. However, you would have to demonstrate that those views are the majority views of most or all MRAs. You did not do that, so as far anyone knows you could have based your “critiques” on some random post you read or simply made them up and attributed them to all MRAs.

    While a third-rate joke like “Men are more often the primary or even sole breadwinners of nuclear-family households because women are spoiled” might make feminists laugh, it does not address any actual MRA position. Why not actually quote a prominent MRA, making the statements you claim MRAs hold. This way a person could at least check the information for themselves rather than having to rely on a biased source which a reason to misrepresent the MRA position.

    • Because she’s too lazy, too ignorant, and too settled into a dogma that she has made into a writing career. She’s the Glenn Beck of feminism.

      • catullus says:

        I don’t like Marcotte much myself, but she’s got a few intercontinental plane rides to go before she reaches Beck country. His recycled nefarious-conspiracy-to-screw-America pap outshines by miles Marcotte’s fretting over the Duke lacrosse non-rape case or her discomfort with some of Margaret Sanger’s less-savory views. She’s chickenfeed compared to the Beckster.

  88. It is interesting to notice the difference in going from articles written by men to one written by a feminist. Everything drops away such as reasoning, facts, logic, and common-sense. What gets pushed are personal attacks and shaming language. Abstract claims are made designed to push the hysteria button.

    After 45 years of feminism, increasing numbers of people are just not drinking the feminist cool-aid.

    Men, go your own way MGTOW, ghost stop supporting women and society since they don’t care about you. Men, Boycott Chivalry and don’t be a stooge.

  89. “A matriarchy of spoiled women have managed to get men to pay for it while they sit around on their butts eating bon bons all day, while the children scamper angelically past them, requiring little to no work.”

    complete strawman, any reasonable person realizes how much effort properly caring for children for much of the day is.

    “Women still make less than men in the workplace, ” oh it’s THIS line again. this has been shown numerous times to be a result of working less hours, selecting jobs with more flexible schedules, and going into fields that are less lucrative (on average). when controlling for all of these things, the ‘pay gap’ disappears.

    don’t let silly things like facts get in your way though.

    “Women en masse should demonstrate our gratitude for this financial support of some of us by giving up on fighting for equality, especially equal pay. Also, no more child support.” More straw man arguments here. i guess keep arguing against things no one is proposing if it makes you feel special.

    Funny that you fail to mention the very solid arguments behind scaling back/eliminating child support (and more importantly alimony), instead focusing on your straw man.

    “Some of the most dangerous jobs out there are ones where women are either formally barred from entering, or informally discriminated against. This is in part a protection racket, keeping jobs from women who want them, because they’re either good pay for relatively low education, or the only game in town. This includes everything from fire-fighting to coal-mining. The military has formal discrimination that keeps women from the more dangerous but higher-paying combat roles.”

    I’ll take this seriously when i see women en masse protesting for access to the exciting fields of mining, oil rig employment, construction, etc. or when i see them marching in the streets to demand a more equal share of combat deaths in war.

    again, the author hilariously misses the point by ignoring that in the vast majority of cases, women are flat out inferior workers in these fields due to physical strength limitations. implying that women should have a more active role in military combat is a dangerously stupid assertion- while every branch of the military has much more lenient physical standards for women to sign on, i can 100% guarantee you that any armed enemy will not be going easier on a female soldier due to her sex. not being up to par physically is downright dangerous to both the female soldier and the other soldiers with her.

    this is before you get into the very real shift in team dynamics and morale that occurs when female soldiers are present, and the massive problem with female desertion/dereliction of duty via getting pregnant while on active duty/reserve to avoid deployments and not getting punished for it.

    “Eventually, you’ll get parity in dangerous jobs, and women will, as a side effect, be killed at the same rate as men.”

    you will never get parity in these jobs until the massive physical strength and endurance advantages males naturally have are no longer an issue. it is pretty much certain that at these points the jobs will no longer be so dangerous, defeating the purpose.

    fully half of this article details total non issues to the MRM. no one really cares that much about having to make the first move regarding dating on nearly the same level as things like father’s rights or the complete absence of due process regarding DV or rape accusations. an extreme minority of people care about ‘ladies nights’ to the point that mentioning it as some sort of refutation to the entire movement is laughable.

    it’s really sad to see feminists resort to blatant straw man arguments, misrepresentations, and ad hominem attacks (“a loose coalition mostly comprised of men embittered that they’re not getting as much tail as they believe they’re due and men embittered after having their wives up and leave against their wishes” is ad hominem, regardless of what anyone might say or whether or not it is true) because dealing with actual facts and data paints such a massively different picture than the one they want to have people believe.

    the author fails to discuss anything really of substance past that, and even the arguments she does bring up have been so thoroughly refuted numerous times before that one has to wonder if this article is just a massive joke.

  90. J.G. te Molder says:

    Back in the real world, women don’t get paid less, in the office and science they get paid more per hour than men do. Men still make more over all, because they work longer, work more stressful and thus high paying jobs, and work jobs that get hazzard pay (and die more often).

    And no, there is not a single bit of discrimination going on here, except against men, of course, women simply chose on their very own lower paying jobs and less stressful jobs and jobs with less hours.

    Is any feminist demanding less pay for the women that get paid more, and are they demanded by feminists to work longer, and if not enough women are choosing life-risking jobs are they shamed into it by feminists? Well, of course not, feminists just claim it’s all men’s fault for discriminating against them, and demand even more pay.

    Funny thing, the most egregious horrors, the Domestic Violence issues, the shaming of men, false rape accusers being punished to the full extent of the law, or extend the law if not punishing them is the full extent of the law, as well as the complete underfunding of male health-care are nowhere to be seen.

    I see no feminist clamoring for the change of VAWA into the VAPA, with half of DV shelters for women transformed into DV shelters for men and kids, or demand an equally funded VAMA is put into existence, I see no feminist demand that disgusting shaming campaigns against young men are stopped, in fact, they are applauded, as they are invariable made my feminists in the first place. And where is the feminist Blue Ribbon Campaign for Prostate cancer if feminists are so about equality and pro men? Oh, wait, it doesn’t exist.

  91. chemistbert says:

    Who wants to be equal? I don’t care to be anyones equal. I would like to see white men get a fair shake in the legal system. There is too much gender bias built into the law for any man to think he can get ahead these days. Perhaps if we all just treated each other like the wonderfully varied individuals we are then we would not need laws that force someone to be equal to others. Harrison Bergeron comes to mind.

    • SallyStrange says:

      I would like to see white men get a fair shake in the legal system.

      How’s the weather on your planet?

      • The single biggest factor in sentencing is GENDER then race.

        SO White females are given the “easiest” sentence even when they commit the same crime men do.

        Female – 18.51 months
        Male – 51.52 months

        http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/sentencing.pdf

        So I guess it must be real nice to be a part of the most privileged group in the west (white female).

        • Hard to believe that there are still people who do not know that when a man and a woman are convicted of the same crime, the average male incarceration is 3 to 4 times longer than the average female incarceration.

      • Oh you mean the part where when it comes to sentencing white women for the most part get off the lightest and men of color (namely black and latino men) worst of it?

      • dry and arid…like your womb.

      • chemistbert says:

        Rather nice. Sunny and pleasant all the time. Hey you can’t blame a man for dreaming can you?

  92. Evil Pundit says:

    Feminism cannot possibly solve men’s problems, since feminism caused most of them. The author’s attitude attests to this.

    • Catullus says:

      Men make most of the soup themselves. Not that I think much of Amanda Marcotee, who clearly enjoys ascribing the lowest possible motivation to people she dislikes, especially if they’re men. But is she didn’t exist, we’d have invented her.

  93. oldfeminist says:

    “Men are more likely to get killed at work.”

    Don’t forget how dangerous sex work is, especially the lower-paid forms.

    • Then legalize prostitution, give them safe working conditions and benefits, and stop demonizing and criminalizing male sexuality.

      Yes, I know, legalizing prostitution reduces the value of your vagina to get the things you want…

      Yes, I know feminism has tried to preserve this power.

      You’re still hypocrites for wanting to keep it though.

      • Thank you, “factory”, for making it clear you’ve never actually talked to a feminist about anything. If you had, you’d know that the people on the forefront of the decriminalization/legalization and safe work conditions movement are feminists. For ALL sex workers, be they male of female.

        It’s time to grow up and stop being so mad at strawfeminists.

        • Actually, there seems to be huge divide among feminists regarding prostitutes. Some are active in trying to get these women proper protection and healthcare, while others are only concerned with blaming and criminalizing men.

          • SallyStrange says:

            Once upon a time, there was a big divide. That was in the 80s and 90s. These days, not so much–there’s pretty widespread agreement that sex workers deserve legal protection, rather than prosecution, and women who actively *choose* sex work (rather than being forced into it by lack of economic opportunity) should be respected and supported.

            • haha, ah yes, the ghost of orwell returns. women (whores) who *choose* sex work (to get ass-pounded by johns for hard currency) should be respected and supported.

              Why of course.

            • The human trafficking misinformation in an attempt to blame and shame the male patrons and participants of the SuperBowl would very much disagree.

              • y this I refer to your objection that there is not a divide that is trying to criminalize male sexuality

        • Oyveh, I have been ‘engaging in dialogue’ with feminists nearly every day for the better part of a decade.

          And yup, you’re right, they ARE ‘all feminists’. And so are the people on the other side of the divide, only some of them are ‘conservative feminists’. All of them are part of the Pussy Cartel’ (so to speak) and have ‘skin in the game’ (somebody stop me before I get too punny)…

          Frankly, that’s an issue MRAs cannot touch yet, obviously.

          So yeah, good luck to you on that one.

          It doesn’t take away a thing from my argument, though, that prostitution represents a threat to women’s power. “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free” might turn into “Why buy the cow when you can rent a different horse every day for less money?”…that’s why Prostitution is illegal.

          If you want to get it legalized, try attacking it from that angle and see where it gets you. I bet you meet with success…

          • SallyStrange says:

            How is prostitution a threat to women’s power? If some guys wants to pay for sex rather than pestering an uninterested women for it, everybody wins.

            Oh right… you actually believe that normal women, feminist or not, regard their vaginas as biological casino chips. Right. If only.

            • Prostitution is not a threat to women like Sally. The only thing which is threatened by prostitution is women of class. women without class need feel no threat at all.

            • “Oh right… you actually believe that normal women, feminist or not, regard their vaginas as biological casino chips. Right. If only.”

              Since when were feminists “normal women”?

          • denelian says:

            prostitution is illegal, because years ago, during the Suffragist movement, on the of the BIG things women were after was more protections for prostitiutes.
            and the liquor lobby was TERRIFIED of women getting the vote, convinced that if they DID, alcohol would be outlawed [and while prohabition DID happen, men voted for it just as much as women, as percentages of voters] so they pushed to make illegal things the suffragists wanted, like birth control, prositution and etc. BEFORE the Suffragist movement, neither prostitution nor drug use were illegal; Suffragists showed up, and wanted protections in place for prostitutions [and a union] and wanted quality control of drugs [especially opium] and – boom, both were outlawed.

            TODAY, i don’t know ANY feminists who want prostitution to remain illegal. the “drive” to prosecute johns is a tactic in the battle to legalize prostitution, NOT the end-goal [because we are well aware that, so long as the ONLY people punished for breaking this specific law are the prostitutes, mostly women, there’s no LEGISLATIVE drive to do a damned thing – just like, if MEN had to carry pregnancy, we’d see MAJOR differences in how law and medicine treated and thought about pregnancy – but if the CUSTOMERS are being punished – and, LEGALLY, it’s as much a crime to hire a prostitute as it is to be paid as a prostitute – then there will be pressure to “fix” it by making prostitution legal]

            also, in many ways, feminists in different countries have different goals. feminists in the US are the feminists that i am familiar with, and are the feminists that *I* know what to legalize prostitution.

        • Strawfeminists? I suppose Cath Elliott who writes anti-prostitution articles for the Guardian on a regular basis is a strawfeminst.. She’s probably a lot more a mainstream feminst than you. At least people have heard of her.

      • Yeah, because all feminists are soooooooo against decriminalising sex work?

      • Catullus says:

        You should take the wrap-arounds off, because wearing them has casued you to go off the deep end. I don’t know how many hokers you patronize, but men who do can tell you legalized sex work doesn’t ‘reduce the value of [a wmoan’s] vagina to get the things [she] wants[s].” When men get arrested for picking up hookers, they don’t shrug their shoulders at the police station and non-chalantly say, “go ahead, call my wife.” They cry and beg, ‘please don’t tell my wife.”

        • Keep exploring what you’re saying there….you’ll eventually get it…

          • Catullus says:

            Oh, I get the part about legalizing sex work. I’m all for it. The part **you** don’t and can’t get is the part about how juvenile is the notion of ‘legal prostitution will devalue relationship sex’ and that’s why feminists don’t want it’ . How can you get it, plugging away as you do in the fetid air of Mom’s basement?

            • Ah, one more juvenile Feminist shaming tactic, and I will be able to call out BINGO.

              And I’m not talking the silly “Hey, I’ve got a line” type. Oh no, this is a full-on Blackout BINGO.

              But if you can’t see where easy and cheap access to professional level sex with women would cut into the number of guys willing to drop $100 on a date hoping to get a kiss, well, there’s no helping you.

            • Listen Catullus, that cliche about “living in mom’s basement” is getting really, really old.

              Basically, it sticks to the person who says it FAR more than it sticks to the person it gets thrown at.

              Really man, it is friggin’ lowbrow as hell. I’m serious.

              I have a sneaking hunch that people who make use of that little “trope” are secretly living in mom’s basement themselves.

              But from a larger perspective. . . what is wrong with living in mom’s basement, anyway?

      • I’m a feminist 100% FOR legalized prostitution. Some women (and men) want to sell sex – and I have no problem with that, (if the person is a consenting adult).

    • Well if you’re going to include illegal work, we may as well talk about the dangers of drug dealing, and drug dealers tend to be men. Illegal activities have an inherent risk to begin with. I’m not sure they’re really the best examples to use.

    • So does this mean when talking about rape we shouldn’t separate prison rape and outside of prison rape with that ten foot pole that people (including feminsits) like to use?

  94. SallyStrange says:

    Why is saying that men should do as much housework as women “female entitlement”?

    • It’s not, but women also need to work more hours outside the home to catch up to men.

      Most social surveys have shown that the total work between men and women is equal. So, you can’t insist that men do more housework without also insisting that women do more work outside the home.

      • I’ve never come across a single social survey that has said that.

        • Try looking somewhere other than the Women’s Centre….

        • Gary, this is a matter of drilling into what questions are asked on which surveys. Most of the studies that show women spend more time doing household work than men do not ask about the kind of work that working class guys do themselves all the time — painting, plumbing, home repair, landscaping and lawn mowing, and the like. When studies do include those questions, the household work levels of men and women turn out to be approximately equal. It will also be interesting to see what the various studies show when a bit more of this 17% unemployment / underemployment world appears in the rear view mirror.

    • Appleblossom says:

      Arguing, not arguing.

      • denelian says:

        this isn’t actually true – TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FEWER HOURS WORKED BY SOME WOMEN, there is still a wage gap of 80cents to the dollar – NOT taking that into account, it’s about 70cents to the dollar.

        it also ignores the fact that many women work those “fewer” hours because the majority [if not entirety] of childcare is placed on their shoulders – most couples with children, it’s ONLY the mother who takes time off to take care of children – because the father WON’T [and i know a couple where it was the HUSBAND who is the stay at home parent, which is awesome – except now he’s having trouble finding a job, because every employer is asking “why didn’t your WIFE do this, it was HER job” and he keeps saying “she had the better job with better benefits and it made MORE SENSE for me to stay home” and they don’t CARE, he’s the MAN, *HE* should have worked, despite losing more income that way and etc. it’s assinine, really – and would be fixed, or at least alleviated, with more feminism]

        • denelian says:

          so… the fact that BC is hard to get, and getting harder, doesn’t matter? the fact that abortions are even HARDER to get, and for many women impossible, doesn’t matter? the fact that women think they’re going to have a baby and child-care is going to be split equally, and then isn’t, doesn’t matter?
          further, there *IS* evidence – if you look at a man and woman, right after college education , same degree and grades and everything, the man starts off making about 5% MORE for the EXACT SAME JOB.
          ten years down the road, presuming neither has married, if the continue the EXACT SAME, that man will be making at least 10%, and possible been promoted further, for the EXACT SAME PERFORMANCE.

          or, when a woman gets married, she has a harder time getting promotions, even if she doesn’t have children [and even if she will never have them] because of the assumption that married women WILL breed and WILL do the bulk of childcare?
          that women with children are automatically “mommy-tracked”, sometimes even if the FATHER is acting as stay-at-home-parent?

          yeah, nuthin’ there, all right.

          • Razlo5000 says:

            Thats right “nuthin’ there”

            First, BC isn’t getting harder to obtain. This is a flat out lie. Second, women have been granted many other means of preventing pregnancy so this is also a moot point. But it is a moot point for a third reason explained below.

            Abortion IS BABY KILLING. Not an acceptable way of shirking the responsibilities you’ve agreed to shoulder.

            PREGNANCY IS A CHOICE, NOT AN AFFLICTION.

            Men (on the whole) earn more for logical reasons. And as usual. it isnt because of a fictional male dominated society keeping women down.
            *If you’re bitching about the $0.70 stat, then this is explained first of all by the reality that men on the whole take on more hazardous and therefore HIGHER PAYING jobs than do women on the whole (PERSONAL CHOICES). Here is a shocker for you; Working construction in all weathers pays more than that secretarial position in the climate controlled office building. GO FIGURE!
            That refutes you, but I’ll compound and further solidify the MRA position of truth.
            Here are some other factors that GREATLY IMPACT the job market for men and women;

            *It is proven fact that the average man negotiates his salary far better than the average woman.
            *Men agree to work less desirable hours.
            *Men are more likely to move and/or travel for their jobs.
            *Men statistically work more hours, take fewer vacations, and shorter vacations.
            *Men take far fewer sick days and take little or no “personal days”.
            *Men do not bring with them the constant threat of litigation and sexual harassment complaints.
            *Men are far more likely to remain at the same job for a long time. (thats male commitment for you!)
            *Men (for the vastly most part) are not…….”catty”.
            *Men are statistically MORE PRODUCTIVE with their time than women are.
            *Men have no “pussy pass” which renders them exempt from physically strenuous tasks (should they crop up).
            And here is the final nail in the already buried coffin;
            *MEN CAN NOT AND WILL NOT EVER BECOME PREGNANT. So men are guaranteed to not require 6 months paid maternity leave. and will not require their position be left open to them indefinitely should they chose to not return after the child is born. You want to claim this is not fair, well it is just the reality. It is not the employers fault if they choose to negate a colossal risk. It is not discrimination, it is the reality of the situation. Simply irrefutable fact is, men were BUILT for this role. Women simply weren’t. I’m sure your PC radar just exploded. You can’t force a round peg into a square hole and cry discrimination whenever somebody points out why this just doesn’t work. I fully support women who choose careers, but women who choose to occupy a position that caters to THEIR strengths (homemakers) should not be shamed for making a logical choice.

            HOWEVER, if you looked into any actual facts, you would learn that IT IS WOMEN WHO WRONGFULLY EARN MORE THAN MEN when number of hours worked, and education are accounted for. And by the way, women with MALE BOSSES tend to earn up to 5% MORE than women with female bosses.

    • SallyStrange says:

      You haven’t explained anything.

      Assuming that women WANT to work more outside the home — why does asking for men to do their fair share IN the home equivalent to female entitlement?

      If men and women shared the housework more equally, men would HAVE to work less in the workplace (or at least sleep less–the capitalist solution) and women would end up working more.

      So again, how is this female entitlement?

      • Razlo5000 says:

        Also @ Sally Strange;

        Work done inside the home is not equal to work done outside the home. Thanks to labour saving inventions, what used to take all day now only takes 1-2 hours. (No wonder women watch more TV than men in EVERY time slot).

      • “If men and women shared the housework more equally, men would HAVE to work less in the workplace (or at least sleep less–the capitalist solution) and women would end up working more.

        So again, how is this female entitlement?”

        Because work at home is so easy. I would love to work more at home than at work but what can I do. Maybe woman have so easy jobs that working at home feels hard.

  95. Wait, I don’t even follow your FAKE logic. “Men & Women should make the same amount of money.” Check. “Men & Women should do the same amount of housework.” Check. Then your conclusion is…actually I don’t even understand your conclusion.

    • Would you support a man’s right to choose whether or not he’s a parent in the EXACT SAME timeframe women have a choice (ie, including AFTER the baby is born (adoption type scenarios), even if it means walking away from a pregnant girlfriend?

      Would you support the wholesale revision of the education system to make it more ‘boy friendly’, even if that means the destruction of several programs for girls (who, everyone but feminists admit, are vastly outstripping boys and men in education)?

      Would you support the criminalization of Male Genital Mutilation – regardless of religious beliefs – as FGM is today?

      Would you support presumptive joint physical custody?

      Would you give up half your DV shelters to accommodate men should finances dictate?

      Would you see the removal of the ability for a woman to have a man arrested and dragged through the mud on her word alone as a bad thing? Do you oppose prosecuting those who maliciously accuse men of rape (and anyone who says this doesn’t happen is also, concurrently, denying that lynch mobs existed…since false accusations of rape were commonly employed for a ‘reason’ to kill some “nigras”)?

      Will you support the creation of an equal number of ‘councils for men and boys’ as there are councils for women and girls, and failing that, would you support the reduction of the feminist bereaucracy to mirror the size of the ‘male focused’ bureaucracy?

      ….

      • denelian says:

        1. men can already choose to do this. don’t want to be a father? don’t have sex, or use BC [if you say “but women mess up their BC” i’m gonna say “Then buy your OWN condoms and spermicide, and USE THEM EVERYTIME” or “get a vasectomy.” it is NOT only a woman’s job to do the BC.] if a pregnancy happens, it’s a woman’s right to CHOOSE whether or not to abort, because it’s in HER body, she’s the one taking the risks [and it *IS* risky. pregnancy can, and DOES, kill, maim, multilate, make ill, and etc]. if she doesn’t abort, and doesn’t give it up for adoption [if she does want to give for adoption, but you don’t, YOU can take custody of the child], then both parents have a RESPONSIBILITY to care for the child. you can choose to not be a father; you still have the responsibility, which means you can choose to never even SEE said child, but you still need to pay child support. child support is for TAKING CARE OF THE CHILD YOU HELPED CREATE.

        2. no. i WOULD support an EXPANSION of the education, to add programs for boys that help them, as it helped girls, after all those decades of GIRLS struggling because they were treated unequally.these programs have fixed THAT problem – now, the “problem” appears to be that boys were ONLY outperforming girls, historically, because everthing was slanted in their favor, and without that slanting, they aren’t doing what GIRLS used to have to do to excel [i.e. doing all the extra work that girls do]. another problem is that being “smart” [i.e. doing well academically] is seen as making one a “nerd”, uncool, and to a large extent unmasculine. this social perception needs to CHANGE. in countries where the sexes are treated MUCH closer to equal in schools, boys and girls do almost exactly the same. the current programs were instituted to help girls overcome the inherent biases extent in our society, and while i won’t get behind removing them, i have NO problem adding other programs for boys. these things are NOT zero-sum equations – girls doing better doesn’t mean BOYS have to do worse [girls outperforming boys isn’t because boys started doing WORSE, either – it’s just girls are doing better now. boys could ALSO be doing better; the reasons they aren’t include what i’ve already mentioned and many other problems, starting with the general, shameful underfunding of education] we can, and SHOULD, be doing more for EVERYONE educationally

        3. absolutely. it’s wrong to circumsize ANYONE who can’t consent. the focus on FGM is because it’s so much physically worse, but ethically they are the same. if there’s a religious “need” for circumcision, that can happen when the person becomes an ADULT and makes the choice to do so.

        4. so long as there is no abuse, absolutely.

        5. no. we worked HARD to create those shelters, and most of them were created by US with NO government help or support. even now, most operate without any government help or funding, and fuction solely off of charitable contributions. you guys want DV shelters for men, do what we did and MAKE them – you’re even in a better place to do so. there aren’t enough shelters for women AS IT IS, and “giving” many of them up for men is counter-productive [especially because few men over all would use them. and we can’t “share” because that makes it easier for abuse – on BOTH sides – to continue in the spaces that are supposed to be safe] but i guarantee, if you start building them, feminists will HELP.

        6. it already *IS* a crime – it is a crime to file a false report of ANY crime. aside from that, the RATE of false reports of rape are HALF the rate of false reports of other crimes.
        what you don’t seem to realize is HOW HARD it is to get ANYTHING done with a rape report. despite the fact that false reporting of rape makes up less than 2% of all rape reports [which are about HALF, or even less, of all rapes] the perception that there is a HUGE percentage of false reports means that, even if a rape is reported, there’s only about a 50% chance it will be investigated at ALL – and then, only about a 50% chance anything will come of said investigation – and THEN, even if it goes to court, the person whose name will be “dragged thru the mud” is the WOMAN’S – she was wearing this, she drank that, she’s had sex before, she’s went to this place, she was polite to the rapist when she first met him – the implication is ALWAYS that the victim “asked for it” by sheer virtue of the fact that she had a vagina.
        YES, in the past, rape was used against non-white men – if they had sex with a white woman, white MEN [angry, because those were THEIR women] would say it was rape. or the woman would say it was rape in an effort to protect herself, because they were going to lynch him anyway [and NO, it wasn’t right, but it was VERY fucked up all around] – but this is a total red herring – for instance, you’re bringing up that, historically, non-white men were persecuting for having sex with white women, while IGNORING that, historically, white men were RAPING non-white women, and were NEVER punished for it; it was ALLOWED and permisable.

        7. yes, i would support the creation of “councils for men and boys”. i would NOT support getting rid of current ones.

        • Ok, anyone want to take a whack at this wall of text?

          Screw it, I’m tired.

        • 1. Men have no reproductive rights. Condom use is NOT a “reproductive Right”, it is a “Contraceptive Right” at best. Directly analogous advice to women: “Keep your legs closed if you don’t want a kid.” Vile sexism when said to women, but perfectly OK when said to men. Yet another example of sexist feminist double standars. Add it to that massive heap in the corner, I’ll get the forklift….

          2. You assume, like many Feminists, a bottomless public coffer. Which is demonstrably not the case, with many States on the verge of Bankruptcy right now. An EXPANSION of the services already available is not possible right now, if ever.

          3. Actually, MGM removes 25,000 or so nerve endings from the penis (almost all of the fine-touch receptors). The male foreskin is identical in every way except shape to the female clitoral hood. And we do this to infant boys because it “looks better’ every bit as much as we do for ‘religious reasons’. Wanna guess who thinks it “looks better’ to?

          5. Tell that to Erin Pizzey, the woman who opened the first shelter (which was for women AND men) – who had to leave England for fear of Feminist death threats (for saying men deserve equal space in these shelters). Want proof? Watch nearly ANY of her YouTube videos, or interviews. It’s also prominently featured in her book.

          Feminists didn’t BUILD a damn thing. They appropriated it.

          6. “it already *IS* a crime – it is a crime to file a false report of ANY crime. aside from that, the RATE of false reports of rape are HALF the rate of false reports of other crimes.”

          No it is NOT ‘a crime’, in most cases. The overwhelming majority of false accusations result in no punishment AT ALL. Those that are, are usually punished as a misdemeanour. (Crystal Gayle Magnum is a great example of the ‘consequences’ of a false accusation….free school, an appearance on Oprah, and a Book Deal….tough life.

          When false accusers are spending the sentence the accused would have gotten in Jail, then and ONLY then can you say it’s punished on anything close to the same level.

          7. Again, you seem to have no idea how to balance a checkbook. Either that, or you’re being disingenuous… “Hey, I told you we support it, there’s just no money yet. But don’t use the money women get,…that’s just wrong.”

          Yeah, feminist ‘concern’ warms my heart.

  96. “Reality-based explanation: Women still make less than men in the workplace, but still do more free labor at home, even when they work full time.”

    Really, and this is a “reality based explanation” ? I’m sure you have evidence for this claim, for the last time I looked, this is only true is you discount all the time men spend doing work “around” the house. If you include all non-paid labor working for the abode, and not just confine the definition to specific work done in the house, then men and women do an equal amount of non-paid labor outside of their paying jobs.

    But this should be an obvious anyway – and only not obvious if you beleive women continue to work after arriving home from their job while men lie on the couch, sleepand continue to oppress women in their dream state.

    What a foolish, foolish analysis.

    • Most foolish of all, is the original analysis which says that women were somehow being “oppressed” in their historical role of doing housework. But then, I reckon the feminists had to lay it on thick, retrojectively speaking, in order to gain any traction for their politics.

  97. Wow. Thanks for proving that feminists can be just as angry, insulting and misguided as the MRA folks. I think both sides have more in common than either of them would like to admit.

    • SallyStrange says:

      What about this post was “misguided” to you?

      • How about this for starters:

        “Men’s rights activists—a loose coalition mostly comprised of men embittered that they’re not getting as much tail as they believe they’re due and men embittered after having their wives up and leave against their wishes—…”

        As much as I might disagree with MRA folks (and believe me I do on a number of issues), this kind of vitriol in a blanket statement doesn’t help anybody.

        Then there’s her MRA solution that reads:

        “Women en masse should demonstrate our gratitude for this financial support of some of us by giving up on fighting for equality, especially equal pay.”

        I don’t think that’s what the MRA people are saying at all. From what I gather they advocate for closing the pay gap as long as women are putting in equal hours in the workplace. Not just because they’re women. And I think that’s reasonable.

        And finally this:

        “A world where rape victims weren’t denounced because they were overly flirty, where women weren’t mocked because they acted “like men,” and where the word “slut” had no meaning is one where women would feel freer to hit on men. Plus, a world where women weren’t harassed on the street, or where they could tell men “no” and be heard the first time, would be one where women weren’t immediately suspicious of every man who approached them.”

        So because some women have felt threatened by some man in her past, it’s perfectly legitimate for her to treat all men who approach her with contempt just because there’s a possibility they might end up being aggressive?? That’s just stupid. If a woman is really suspicious of every man who approaches her, then that woman has far deeper issues than the behavior of men.

        All in all I just thought it was ironic the author is condemning the MRA guys for being over the top and angry, by penning an equally bitter over the top response.

        • You should read the archives of this then:
          http://www.manboobz.com/

        • Natasha says:

          Exactly

        • So manboobz cherry picks comments from other websites and then attempts to portray it as representative of all MRM. He could have very easily planted all of those comments himself.

          Why doesn’t he just address the issues raised by the articles, rather than focus on a small amount of random misogyny?

          It’s not very hard to find many, many examples of misandry on feminist sites..even on this one.

          • Dude, have you ever been on the Spearhead–a mainstream MR site? Go through one commenting thread and then honestly tell me that those comments are “cherry-picked.” I could go in there and randomly pick 5 and with 60% accuracy end up with misogyny.

            IE. Dutch Send Women to do Men’s Job, Rescue Bungled
            “http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/03/06/dutch-send-women-to-do-mens-job-rescue-bungled/”

            Here are the first five comments available when scrolling down on that article:

            1. MGTOW says

            Female marines = waste of space and resources.

            This is what you get by pandering to the ‘me too’ whims of feminists and women.

            Waste of space? I am sure the women serve their country feel great about that.

            2. Hidden due to low comment rating: Velocity says

            Singular: woman
            Plural: women

            C’mon now.

            3. Incoherent: Continent says

            Dutch (not to be confused with Pennsylvania Dutch who actually were Germans abbreviated “Deutschland”) once travelled to the New World and founded New Amsterdam now called New York. Several years ago it was reported that to provide unisex soldiers male Dutch soldiers were allowed to wear hairnets so they would blend with women,

            4. Malestrom says:

            Female marines? What is the world coming to?

            The Royal Marines of my home, Britain, do not accept women into their ranks. I imagine they desire to remain a serious military organization.

            5. Dirk Johanson says:

            I still think there is a legitimate role for women in combat: on the very front of the battle lines, as extra padding to supplement bulletproof vests..

            Three comments indicate women should be kept out of the military even if they want to and are capable of serving, and one indicates that women should be shot.

            Cherry-picked indeed.

            • The spearhead is a very rough crowd with a lot of warrior class / manly men / paleo-aholes. Many of the commenters on the spearhead are not MRAs and are actually opposed to MRAs because they consider them to be the same as feminists. If you want to see worse than that, go to manhoodacademy, again, NOT MRAs.

              • Denis, that’s crap and you know it. MGTOW is very well known, and I’ve seen Dirk post quite a bit too. No one gets anywhere when we deny the rot in our own wood, so to speak. There most definitely IS misogyny in the mens movement.

                Nowhere NEAR as much as people say, and many statements that aren’t woman-bashing are taken as such…which is what this tool is doing, but to say The Spearhead is a ‘rough and tumble’ site is ludicrous.

                People are simply unused to women receiving harsh criticism.

                That’s their issue to deal with, not ours. Let them make the accusations they would make even if butter didn’t melt in our mouths. You see it all over these comments.

                Don’t fight it. Own the label, wear it with pride, suck the sting right out of it.

                Someday feminists and women will realize that misogynists are not born, they are made.

                • I understand their anger, frustrations and need to vent. I just don’t like their interference in the creation of a MRM.

                • Patrick says:

                  “Someday feminists and women will realize that misogynists are not born, they are made.”

                  Sigh…

                  I think you’ll find that the vast, VAST majority of self-identified feminists say that misogyny is a product of culture.

                  • *sigh*…

                    I think you will also find that they are not looking ANYWHERE NEAR the source of it….(hint: their own behaviour…)

                    • Feminism itself bears a very great share of responsibility for whatever growth of “misogyny” might be occurring in our contemporary world. You introduce moral/psychic poison into the social ecology, and the consequences are bound to be quirky, erratic, unpredictable.

            • The only statement of the lot that I can see any objection to, is the one about women getting shot.

              That one is over the top — the best you could possibly say about it is, that it is in poor taste.

              As for the rest, those commenters are simply expressing their opinions, and their only “sin”, if you will, is that they disagree with feminist orthodoxy.

              It is not their problem, if you happen to disagree with them.

              SHOULD women be in the military? It’s an honest question, an open question, and people have a perfect right to converse about it.

              If they honestly feel that women should not be in the military, then that is their considered opinion and they are entitled to it.

              There is nothing you can legitimately “hold against them”.

              So what the hell is the problem here….?

        • SallyStrange says:

          I can’t speak to the rest of it, but this:

          because some women have felt threatened by some man in her past, it’s perfectly legitimate for her to treat all men who approach her with contempt just because there’s a possibility they might end up being aggressive?? That’s just stupid. If a woman is really suspicious of every man who approaches her, then that woman has far deeper issues than the behavior of men.

          is a just basically a huge misunderstanding of what it’s like to be a woman. Women are taught from girlhood to react this way towards men. Their parents, teachers, boyfriends, and husbands encourage it. “Don’t walk downtown alone.” “Don’t go out with a guy without letting someone know your whereabouts.” “Don’t talk to men on the subway.” Etc. I personally didn’t get a LOT of that training from my parents growing up (mostly because we lived in the sticks) but that only led to corrective training from friends and boyfriends when I reached adulthood. “What are you thinking! You can’t go out jogging NOW, it’s past 8 pm!”

          I encourage you to read this post, called “Schrodinger’s Rapist.” It explains the situation more clearly than I could. http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/

          • “Women are taught from girlhood to react this way towards men. ”

            As you say, they are indoctrinated into this. And it fits the traditional gender role and supports it. And this is supposed to excuse this paranoia? And anyway, what does it have to do with the objective realities of thier lives? Want to compare statistics on vitis of phyiscial violence in this society? Guess what – it isn’t women. Not by a long shot.

            • oldfeminist says:

              It’s not paranoia. Women not only get told men will attack them. THEY EXPERIENCE IT.

              And it’s not just the bad ugly scary guys in the shadows of the bad neighborhoods. Men they thought they could trust: relatives, friends, teachers, coaches, neighbors, ministers, community leaders.

              You remember the old saying, “you can’t judge a book by its cover”? There is no way for a woman to know for sure who’s the type to assault her.

              Men at least usually know who the physical bullies are, and it’s generally agreed that it is wrong to bully someone else.

              Women are assaulted by men they thought they could trust, men they admire, men who have power over them. It isn’t limited to a few assholes that you can categorize as assholes.

              • Yes, men are such horrible, evil creatures aren’t we. Glad to see feminists show their true colors.

                • The vast majority of women who report rape – are raped by someone they know.

                  My take on the matter is this:

                  If I’m on the bus, reading a book with headphones in – it means I probably don’t want to talk to you. If If I’m doing work on my computer at a cafe, and you come up to me to start chatting and I tell you – thanks but no thanks – I’m busy – it means leave me alone. For you to continue to approach or talk to me is harassment.

                  You aren’t entitled to my conversation because I have a vagina and you have a penis. I try to be polite – until I feel like you aren’t hearing me. When you don’t listen to me – it makes me angry. When someone tells you no, I’m not interested, or thanks but no thanks – that means back the fuck off. I don’t want to be rude or curt with you – but there are many times where I have been left with no choice – because I am not any more interested in talking to you than I was 5 minutes ago.

        • Daddyfiles lays a complete and thorough smackdown of Sally “the troll” Strange.

    • DaddyFiles:

      I gather that you are not a feminist AND not an “MRA”.

      May I ask, then, what you are?

      Or could it be, that you are sitting on the fence?

  98. Amanda Marcotte says:

    That men should share in the housework is “female entitlement”? Why? Because it’s women’s work?

    • Sopt being a coward and answer her question.

    • Sarah TX says:

      This post is one uncited “fact” after another, FYI. The one kernel of truth that you’ve uncovered is that men and women work the same hours, but men receive more pay:

      Euro and US time use surveys show that men and women spend roughly the same amount of time working, all things considered

      Women receive 75 cents on the dollar for working the same amount of time? Well, you’ve certainly convinced me that there is absolutely no pay discrepancy!

    • Oh please, spare us the sexist drama. I had a partner that would spend 15 minutes cleaning the floor and expect some reward for it. I would spent 8 hours cleaning the rest of the kitchen and the effort was ignored.

      Women at home have no accountability for the work that is done. I go to work and account to my boss.
      I come home and account for the size of my paycheck. She’s at home with absolutely no pressure to perform. I’m happy to wave goodbye to this crap. Spare me the innocent, nurturing entitlement crap. All lives don’t fit into the same little ideological bubble.

      • Don’t generalize all women, thank you very much, you sexist jerk. There are men who do not hold themselves accountable for things at all, just as there are women.

        • So is name-calling your first response to everything you don’t like to hear, or do you go with shaming language part of the time too?

        • It is typical of a twit to form such a view, fact is to hold a woman accountable for anything in the home will get you thrown out or in jail. It has nothing to do with women and everything to do with the law. It’s not a generalization about women its a reference to the law.

          Again spare us the sexist drama

    • In theory, how far would you be willing to extend the power of the state in order to create and maintain the situation that you describe? How much bureaucracy and enforcement apparatus would you be willing to establish? How would you propose to fund all of this?

  99. Amanda Marcotte says:

    More like, “Feminist activists donate money to Planned Parenthood and don’t think rape jokes are funny.”

    • Natasha says:

      No, it’s just ridiculous generalization designed to paint feminism as the saviour of all mankind….but preferably just womankind

    • So you’re a big supporter of Eugenics, and killing off the ‘undesireables’, or breeding them out of existence? Gonna join the WKKK and give speeches like Margaret Sanger did (the founder of planned parenthood)?

      Why not, you’re of the same moral fibre after all…

      • Brendon says:

        Do you realize how much of a ridiculous logical leap it is to connect support for contemporary practices by Planned Parenthood and the belief system of a woman who served as the organization’s president half a century ago?

        • Sarah TX says:

          What, you mean that being a patriotic American doesn’t automatically mean that we want to murder all Native Americans like our forefather Andrew Jackson? I’ve been doing it wrong…

      • Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, but that doesn’t mean everybody in America loves slavery.

    • ARE rape jokes funny? I have heard ABOUT rape jokes, but I have never actually heard one (or not to my knowledge), so I am in no position to know if they are funny or not.

      But then again, looking at this in a philosophical way, “funny” is entirely subjective. The only test of “funny” is if it makes somebody laugh.

      So, if you say “rape jokes are not funny”, all you are really saying is “rape jokes do not make me, personally, laugh.”

      • Rape jokes were funny for a while
        but then they got played out
        much like the racist jokes
        and dead baby jokes

        The reason feminists get a bad rap is because they operate with a pole up their ass
        if a joke is funny, then it’s funny – laugh at it!
        It’s ok to laugh at a funny joke

        • You mean dead baby jokes aren’t funny anymore?

        • When your best friend/sibling/parent/cousin/roommate is raped – get back to me and let me know if you still think it is funny.

          Rape is not funny. Not Ever.

        • “The reason feminists get a bad rap is because they operate with a pole up their ass”

          That’s not true, they find man bashing extremely funny. Some feminists even make a decent living off of misandry humor

    • post a blog about it when you get divorced and settle down with a gay man

    • Oh, but they are funny when they’re about men in prison?

  100. I’m still waiting for feminists to step up to the plate and be honest about helping male victims of domestic violence and eliminating gender bias from family law. Feminists are obstructing true equality.

    • Amanda Marcotte says:

      Ad hominem is arguing that a person’s arguments should be dismissed due to irrelevant (and often untrue!) information about the person. If I argued, “Don’t listen to MRAs; they’re all fat and ugly”—an argument I see used frequently on MRA boards about feminists—then I would be arguing ad hominem. What i did was address actual complaints. Cracking jokes =/ ad hominem, but I sure do see conservatives make that assumption a lot! I guess it’s just fun to drop fancy-sounding phrases.

      • Natasha says:

        hehe 😉

      • Natasha says:

        Ok, in all seriousness 😉

        Lol….so Amanda, when you said this:

        “Ad hominem is arguing that a person’s arguments should be dismissed due to irrelevant (and often untrue!) information about the person….What i did was address actual complaints.”

        You clearly weren’t referencing what you said here then…right?

        “Men’s rights activists—a loose coalition mostly comprised of men embittered that they’re not getting as much tail as they believe they’re due and men embittered after having their wives up and leave against their wishes—irritate feminist bloggers for many reasons, from blaming feminists for problems they clearly brought on themselves, to the Russian bride weirdness to their dogged trolling and grudge-holding of feminists that criticize them.”

        yeah, *thats* not ad hominem at all, is it?

        Your argument fails by your own definition.

        • No, that’s not an ad hominem. It’s an unflattering description of MRAs, and an explanation of why they annoy feminists. With particular issue she discusses, she gives specific reasons they are wrong that are independent of this unflattering description.

          • Any person could also dismiss all feminists by comparing them to the most radical man-haters out there and there are many. It is an Ad hominen attack intended to diminish credibility of the MRM.

            • Denis: you can make unfair, unflattering comparisons with awful people. It’s only an ad hominem if that characterization substitutes for an argument on actual positions. Reread this piece, with each issue area Marcotte brings up, she gives reasons for her position that are independent of her unflattering characterization of MRAs. Therefore: not an ad hominem.

              Example:

              “Denis smells bad, therefore he can’t be trusted”

              That’s an ad hominem

              However, this:

              “Denis smells bad; furthermore, Denis has made a common error about the definition of ad hominem”

              That is NOT an ad hominem, even if you smell fantastic.

              • Wrong.
                Ad homini are personal attacks designed not to replace the person making the attack (though often that is done as well) but to discredit the person being attacked. The above excerpt is clearly an example of an ad hominem – a bad one too without any subtlety. By calling all MRAs bitter and vengeful, she is automatically discrediting any argument they might have because if she’s right, then they have no objectivity and therefore can’t understand the truth.

                At least have the honesty and decency to admit when you got personal. Any idiot can see it so denying it is just being dishonest.
                And then people wonder why MRAs hate feminists.

        • ““Men’s rights activists—a loose coalition mostly comprised of men embittered that they’re not getting as much tail as they believe they’re due and men embittered after having their wives up and leave against their wishes. . .”

          Amanda is correct about the “loose coalition” part. She is wrong about the “tail” part.

          As for the part about their wives leaving them… maybe Amanda can explain why the hell they shouldn’t feel “bitter” about something like that? Eh?

          Why should they NOT be “bitter” about that?

          Can Amanda make clear to us, based upon her complex, nuanced understanding of these men and what they have suffered in their lives, why they either should or should not feel “bitter” about spousal desertion?

          Does Amanda possibly feel it is a GOOD thing to be deserted by one’s spouse? Is it the sort of thing that a person ought to enjoy? Is that what Amanda Marcotte means to imply?

          Hey, feminists sure do use that word “bitter” a LOT. It is one of their favorite vocabulary items. Has anybody noticed this?

          We ought to call their attention to it every chance we get, so that they will start feeling self-conscious about it.

      • Amynda, your ayrticle has convynced me to bycome a fymynyst!

      • Sluts….they deserve to be spanked.

      • Just a metalhead says:

        To be fair to Amanda, she has a point. What she does isn’t mostly “ad hominem” but “straw man” arguments. Meaning she twists the arguments of her opponents into unrecognizable caricatures that she then destroys. She is thus satisfied to have defeated these arguments… too bad that they are not her actual opponent’s arguments. However, pretending that people do hold these arguments can be seen as an “ad hominem” because she clearly attributes misogynistic and monstrous motives to the arguments she claims all MRAs have.

        Now, to be even fairer, you CAN find people on the ‘net making the kind of argument that Amanda blasts in this piece. However, you can also find feminists making arguments that all men are rapists and that men should be exterminated or limited to a small portion of the population because they are inherently evil and unfortunately necessary to natural reproduction. Hell, some respected feminist figures said the same thing, Mary Daly anyone? However, I’m pretty sure Amanda would scream bloody murder if anyone were to portray all feminists as man-hating evil assholes based on these cases, and she’d be right to do so… too bad that she then sees nothing wrong on doing the same thing to MRAs.

        For the record, I’m neither MRA nor feminist. I recognize that the two movements have some good points to make but at the same time reject some of their other points.

        • “For the record, I’m neither MRA nor feminist. I recognize that the two movements have some good points to make but at the same time reject some of their other points.”

          My friend, there may come a day when you will find it to your advantage to quit sitting on the fence. Hopefully, that day will arrive sooner rather than later.

          But how if we replaced the term MRA with “non-feminist”?

          Would you then be willing to make the following statement:

          “..I’m neither non-feminist nor feminist…” ?

          Or would you feel more comfortable choosing sides if it were phrased that way?

          • “My friend, there may come a day when you will find it to your advantage to quit sitting on the fence. “

            I disagree. I think there is room, even need, for people on the fence on this issue in order to maintain an objective view. And I think it behooves us to pay attention. Once I see some progress for men’s rights, I hope that I will be able to climb back o that fence myself. But for the time being, while things for men continue to get worst, feminists continue to demand all the attention and claim a monopoly on equality, and attack anyone who speaks up for men, and so long as men are not being heard, I will continue to add my voice to the choir. I just hope it doesn’t take so long that I am unable to return to an objective viewpoint once the time comes.

            • Thaddeus G. Blanchette says:

              Actually, I find myself agreeing with Kratch, here.

              While I’m not a big fan of MRAs, I’m glad they are out there because they bring up issues no one else will touch or, in many cases, is even allowed to touch.

              I got dragged into this whole debate, somewhat against my will, because I was recently slandered on a famous athiest blog for saying that men have issues with gender, too. It’s gotten to the point where if you even hint that men might be something other than potential rapists and privileged patriarchs, you yourself will be accused of promoting violence against women and children.

              I find this quite ironic, because the last time I became involved with “men’s issues” in the U.S. (the mid-1980s), it was pretty well recognized among feminists that men had gender-related problems. Apparently that view has become anathema to many women.

              So I’m glad MRAs are kicking up a fuss out there, even though I personally disagree with a lot of what they say.

              • “it was pretty well recognized among feminists that men had gender-related problems.”

                Yeah…yeah…yeah. But that’s just the feminists talking. And whatever comes out of their mouths is, well… feminism.

                And they have zero authority to address men’s issues.

                So take everything they say, and wad it up, and flush it.

      • @Amanda:

        “Cracking jokes =/ ad hominem, but I sure do see conservatives make that assumption a lot!”

        Is that your definition of “conservative” then?

        “A person who makes assumptions about the meaning of “ad hominem” “?

        Frankly, Amanda Marcotte, I doubt that you even understand what the word “conservative” means at all.

        Define “conservative” for us please. Are you up to it?

        Cuz, when you say “conservative”, I think you are just dropping fancy-sounding phrases like a fourteen-year-old intellectual poseur (who is now circa 30).

        Honestly, I think there is a conservative “archetype” in your head, corresponding to certain people you knew in the shithole part of Texas you originate from, whom you did not like.

    • Just answer the question. I have not encountered male or female feminists that are sympathetic to male victimization.

      • Uh, what? The point of the article was to address the fact that there are solutions to a number of popular MRA complains…& that solution is feminism. That directly addresses that. That being said, the ONLY people I know who address sexual assault among men are feminists– take for instance prison rape. In main stream culture, prison rape is a joke, or a threat to use in a cop show to get people to confess. I only see feminists addressing the rape culture of prisons.

        Does that count?

        • I haven’t seen feminists addressing the rape culture in prisons or any issue of male disposability, but I would be very interested to learn more about what they are doing.

          If proposal is that feminism is the answer to men’s issues, I would really like to see some substance to support that. In my experience, feminists have been very opposed to many men’s issues.

          • Sarah TX says:

            I haven’t seen an Mens Right activist having sex. Does that mean all MRA activists are sexless?

            I AM GOOD AT LOGICS!

          • “I haven’t seen feminists addressing the rape culture in prisons”

            well then apparently you haven’t encountered many feminists. i’ve seen this addressed on feministing several times. and a few other feminist blogs.

            • If feminists truly care about men getting raped in prison (I’m assuming that’s what we’re talking about), then they ought to be concerned not to put innocent men in prison in the first place (where they would get raped).

          • “If proposal is that feminism is the answer to men’s issues, I would really like to see some substance to support that. In my experience, feminists have been very opposed to many men’s issues.”

            then do some goddamn research, lazy ass. are we supposed to provide you with the information you need?? are we supposed to give you links to every website where feminists discuss things that affect men?? have you ever heard of google? you can’t claim that feminists hate men and/or dont care about things that hurt men just because you are too stupid/lazy/stubborn to actually find out how feminists feel about men and the things that affect them.

            • Ubermensch says:

              Megan, poster girl for feminism. You go girl!

            • “National socialism was all about improving the lives of all people and spreading piece.”
              If you want evidence of that, then look it up yourself.

              Sorry but the burden of proof lies with those who make the assertion not those who doubt it.

            • NOW (national Organization for Women is the leading feminist organization out there actively participating in reform.

              NOW actively opposes Shared Parenting
              NOW actively opposes Child support reform that would protect fathers from being financially destroyed and made homeless by the draconian and heavy-handed zeal of collectors.
              NOW openly opposes efforts to enforce custody agreements so that fathers can’t be forced out of their children’s lives.
              NOW actively supports the elimination of due process with regards to domestic abuse, particularly in the cases of custody.
              NOW opposes male reproductive rights
              NOW opposes any kind of Alimony reform (apparently women do need men to provide for them)
              NOW opposes any kind of Fault in Divorce
              NOW supports Domestic Violence perpetrated by women (I know this one will get some opposition, so I will back this up right here and now. Senator Bundgaard’s former girlfriend assaulted him and tried to steal his car. When she was arrested for abuse, NOW campaigned to have him ejected from the Senate).

              And this is just one prominent feminist organization…Imagine if I was willing to examine even more

          • That is disingenuous, because on another thread, “Is talking about beauty scarring your daughter,” I directed you to resources on both the enthusiastic consent model and the rape culture model which explicitly address prison rape, specifically the “cavernous need for men’s prison reform.” I also directed you to resources from black feminist though on male disposability. You said “thanks for the links.”

          • Here’s a post I did on the issue of prison rape:

            http://www.manboobz.com/2010/11/further-reading-prison-rape.html

            It contains about a dozen links to feminist blog posts on the issue.

            Looking around online for substantive discussions of the subject, I found far more of them on feminist blogs than on MRA blogs. MRAs bring up the subject a lot, but mostly, it seems, to score rhetorical points; generally they don’t do much beyond mentioning the topic.

            • “MRAs bring up the subject a lot, but mostly, it seems, to score rhetorical points; generally they don’t do much beyond mentioning the topic.”

              And the objection to “scoring rhetorical points” is . . . what, again?

            • You seem to put a lot of faith in blogging, as if a handful of people saying something are somehow representative of those actually doing stuff. I prefer to look at the actions of those doing stuff in the name of their movement.

        • Catullus says:

          Seeing women fret over prison rape on Lifetime doesn’t count, mordicai.

          • Watching OZ isn’t ‘fretting over prison rape’…no matter how many orgasms it gets ya.

            • catullus says:

              You’re right. It’s not even something as basic as fretting over prison rape. It’s a television drama (which I’ve never seen, by the way). Your point?

              • “You’re right. It’s not even something as basic as fretting over prison rape. . . Your point?.”

                Well, in theory, it might pass for that in the minds of certain people.

                I think that might have been Factory’s point.

          • How about this, from the seminal online publication on rape culture?:

            “Rape Culture 101” on Shakesville, one of the most widely read resources on the subject. Look it up.

            “Rape culture is ignoring the cavernous need for men’s prison reform in part because the threat of being raped in prison is considered an acceptable deterrent to committing crime, and the threat only works if actual men are actually being raped.”

            “Rape culture is 1 in 33 men being sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. Rape culture is encouraging men to use the language of rape to establish dominance over one another (“I’ll make you my bitch”). ”

            “Rape culture is a minister blaming his child victims. Rape culture is accusing a child of enjoying being held hostage, raped, and tortured. Rape culture is spending enormous amounts of time finding any reason at all that a victim can be blamed for hir own rape.”

            “Rape culture is the idea that only certain people rape—and only certain people get raped. Rape culture is ignoring that the thing about rapists is that they rape people. They rape people who are strong and people who are weak, people who are smart and people who are dumb, people who fight back and people who submit just to get it over with, people who are sluts and people who are prudes, people who rich and people who are poor, people who are tall and people who are short, people who are fat and people who are thin, people who are blind and people who are sighted, people who are deaf and people who can hear, people of every race and shape and size and ability and circumstance.”

            “Rape culture is rape jokes. Rape culture is rape jokes on t-shirts, rape jokes in college newspapers, rape jokes in soldiers’ home videos, rape jokes on the radio, rape jokes on news broadcasts, rape jokes in magazines, rape jokes in viral videos, rape jokes in promotions for children’s movies, rape jokes on Page Six (and again!), rape jokes on the funny pages, rape jokes on TV shows, rape jokes on the campaign trail, rape jokes on Halloween, rape jokes in online content by famous people, rape jokes in online content by non-famous people, rape jokes in headlines, rape jokes onstage at clubs, rape jokes in politics, rape jokes in one-woman shows, rape jokes in print campaigns, rape jokes in movies, rape jokes in cartoons, rape jokes in nightclubs, rape jokes on MTV, rape jokes on late-night chat shows, rape jokes in tattoos, rape jokes in stand-up comedy, rape jokes on websites, rape jokes at awards shows, rape jokes in online contests, rape jokes in movie trailers, rape jokes on the sides of buses, rape jokes on cultural institutions…”

            • “Rape culture is ignoring the cavernous need for men’s prison reform in part because the threat of being raped in prison is considered an acceptable deterrent to committing crime, and the threat only works if actual men are actually being raped.””

              Does this Shakesville article anywhere address the issue of False Accusation in its summary of rape culture? Do they feel it is acceptable (in principle) for actual men who did not actually rape anybody to actually get raped in prison?

              Their silence on that subject would (in theory) speak large.

        • “That being said, the ONLY people I know who address sexual assault among men are feminists– take for instance prison rape. In main stream culture, prison rape is a joke, or a threat to use in a cop show to get people to confess. I only see feminists addressing the rape culture of prisons.

          Does that count?”

          No, that doesn’t count. If feminists truly gave a crap about men getting raped in prison, they would lean toward prevention rather than cure.

          That is, they would show some remorse for the false rape industry which they created, which is railroading so many innocent men into prison in the first place.

          Instead, they will tell us things like “men who are falsely accused of rape can possibly benefit from the experience.” I presume this means that such men will “benefit” from getting boinked by the booty bandits in the big house. Right?

          • You have no idea what you’re talking about. Majority of rapists see no prison time.

            The majority of inmates are there because of the drug war, violence, and petty crimes accumulations.

            • Your statement has no bearing upon my original comment. You are “shifting the frame”.

              • Fidelbogen: I think Gary’s point is that feminists really bear no responsibility for men being raped in prison. In addition, there are plenty of feminists who actually do talk about prison rape and even help organize against it.

                • My fellow atheist: you are ducking the point as well as certain people (well known to us atheists) will duck various points when they are conversing with us atheists. You know the people I mean. 😉

                  If feminists truly cared about prison rape, I should think they’d logically gravitate toward more “upstream” solutions, by showing some compassion for men, who never raped anybody, getting sent to prison to get raped.

                  (Feminism bears many similarities to a cult religion. Have you ever noticed that?)

            • “Majority of rapists see no prison time.”

              “ACCUSED” rapist. and there may very well be a good reason for that that you refuse to acknowledge and, thus, place the blame where it belongs. I’ll let you think about that.

          • Haven’t you ever read the work of Angela Davis? One of the most important feminists of the 20th century who talks extensively about prison abolition in favour of community based solutions? Or does that not fit in to the feminism in your head?

            • Angela Davis is not germane here. Nor does it impress me that she is a big mucky-muck feminist from the 20th century. I am a non-feminist, myself.

              • Um, she is an important feminist who addresses the idea of prison rape. Not sure how much more germane I could be.

              • What are you talking about Angela Davis is not germane? You asked for an example of a feminist who acts against prison rape. She is one example.

                • What does Angela Davis have to say about False Accusation?

                  Does AD concur with the thesis that “only 2% of rape accusations are false”?

                  • She supports prison abolition and community based solutions, so that question is not germane if you understand that in that sort of system, false accusations wouldn’t have the impact they do now.

                    • Again I would favor the upstream solution. False accusations would have even LESS impact if they did not happen in the first place, full stop.

                      Whatta we gotta do, resort to jury nullification in ALL rape trials?

                • “You asked for an example of a feminist who acts against prison rape. She is one example.”

                  Actually no. I did not, in fact, ask for such a thing. But please accept my apology if I gave that impression.

                  • @Atheist:

                    My comment immediately prior was addressed to an earlier comment by Switch2glide, but alas, I got my threads mixed up. Please accept my apology for that also.

        • “The point of the article was to address the fact that there are solutions to a number of popular MRA complains… & that solution is feminism.”

          Several problems with this comment:

          1: She doesn’t address a single “actual” MRA complaint, let alone a popular one. The closest she gets is addressing examples of complaints.

          2: Not a single one of her solutions addresses the actual problems as she describes them, let alone the MRM.

          3: Every single one of her solutions is to help women’s issues in the hope that, maybe, as a side effect, it might somehow nudge into the issue she’s addressing, but she would be wrong on most accounts. And that is hardly a reasonable stance to addressing men’s issues IE, to make it about women instead. That is simply selfish, arrogant and overall sexist and bigoted.

          I go into a great deal more detail in my posts near the bottom of the comment section.

    • SallyStrange says:

      You don’t understand the definition of ad hominem. If I happen to insult you whilst clearly explaining the factual reasons why your argument is wrong, that’s not ad hominem. Common mistake.

      • Sally, are you trolling again?

        • No, just correcting MRA ignorance.

          • ad homini are for the purpose of discrediting the other so any argument they may have loses weight, and recognition.

            Example:
            “Sally you are just bitter and got dumped and cheated on too many times so your feminism is just an expression of your anger towards men and heterosexual relationships. ”

            For the record, that is NOT my opinion but just a hypothetical example. After stating that, anyone who believes it, would not take responses by you as seriously because they don’t believe you’re being objective. That is the purpose of the ad hominem and that is why it is used.

            I prefer to just stay away from insults entirely but I guess I’m in the minority.

          • That’s a logical fallacy right there. Confusing the whole with the part.

            It is not “MRA” ignorance that is being corrected.

            Just ignorance, full stop.

    • SallyStrange says:

      Okay. I’m a feminist.

      I’m against gender discrimination in family court–I think the assumption that women are “naturally” better parents than men is sexist, damaging and insulting to both men and women.

      I think that men who are physically assaulted by their domestic partners should be taken seriously. I think that rigid gender roles that teach men that they are less “manly” should they complain about being hit or shoved by their partner are very damaging to men. As a feminist, I’d like to see these gender roles destroyed and forgotten, so any man can feel empowered and confident about bringing a complaint about domestic violence to the police.

      So now you’ve met that feminist you wanted to meet. Now what?

      • So you would support gender equality (Title IX) in VAWA and all government funded services for DV?

        What about equal shared parenting and mandatory mediation?

        • Absolutely, but your strawfeminist wouldn’t.

          • what’s a strawfeminist?

            • The monolithic feminism that you have constructed that actively opposes men’s rights is the strawfeminist, whereas I have provided numerous references and scads of evidence for you on other threads that feminism is:

              a: a loose coalition of different groups fighting in different ways towards the goal of women’s equality (ie. NOT a monolith)

              b: not represented by the white privileged feminists who dominate the boards of NOW

              c: not, for the most part, opposed to men’s rights in any way. I have given you a lot of information, for example, on black feminist thought–a lot of which focusses on men’s issues. Also I have provided links that show that the rape culture model discusses the “cavernous need for men’s prison reform.” and also, that feminists have often led the push for the dismantling on the military industrial complex, on the basis that it is a form of gender-based-violence (GBV) against men. You have been pushing this DV thing like it is representative of the whole of feminism, and not engaging with any of the comments I have left which show the ways in which feminists actively work for men’s liberation.

              d: who is strongly allied with the gay right’s movement? Feminism, or MR? Who is allied with Social Justice groups which address class and race issues? Feminism or MR? Who has produced an extensive corpus of academic work on how boys and girls are forced into gender boxes which unfairly constrain both of their potential (see Julia Serano’s discussion of “oppositional sexism”)? Feminism or MR?

              • I just haven’t encountered many of these other feminists and I guess what you refer to as strawfeminists are the majority.

                MRM is mainly focused on men’s rights. They don’t have the funding or the organizations that feminism has to tackle other societal issues. While feminists do address some class and race issues, they still fail to recognize that the majority of men are powerless and the essential discrimination of equity programs. They deal with these issues, just not honestly.

                • SallyStrange says:

                  Sounds like you haven’t encountered many feminists, period. My experience is that my views are not at all uncommon, at least not in my particular little feminist bubble. I can provide you with links if you like.

                • So you want feminists to focus on men’s issues, but you don’t think MRAs should focus on anything but men’s issues?

                  • Did you read the article? It’s claiming that feminism is the solution to MRM problems. It’s not, feminists do not care about men’s issues.

                    • How many times will we have to link you to resources, explain out perspectives, and do work for men’s rights until you believe that isn’t true? Your statement is a direct contradiction of the work I wake up every morning to do.

                    • How many times will we have to link you to resources, explain out perspectives, and do work for men’s rights until you believe that isn’t true?”

                      If the various do-gooder feminists in this world really gave a snap about “men’s issues” then they would need to confer with a delegation of MRAs, and accept a list of very specific MRA grievances and agree to speak out very publicly and loudly in support of this inherently MRA platform, in their publicly stated capacity AS FEMINISTS.

                      The thing we need to get away from, is this business of feminists controlling the frame and controlling the discourse, as if feminism was the world.

                      Feminism is NOT the world. It is merely a world-view.

                      One of many.

                  • Actually April, I’m not asking anything of feminism. My interest resides in family law. Equal access to my children, period. I was quite happy to see my partner go her own way. No hurt no foul. Life is long, enjoy! The fact that tactics of fear were employed to limit my access, compels me to change the outcome. I love my children and see no reason why I can’t participate in their lives. We can write articles and comments for the next thousand years to no avail. The law has perverted the outcome of the family. The experience on the ground for many men simply disenfranchises them from their children. In fact I accept the demise of the family construct against current laws. Marriage is a power structure that does not and can not evolve. For those that can’t smell the rotten meat, have at it the law still provides it.
                    I am interested in the lives of my children, period. I pay my taxes and I expect and demand equal representation. I ask nothing of feminism or feminists. I demand representation from my government.

              • “a: a loose coalition of different groups fighting in different ways towards the goal of women’s equality (ie. NOT a monolith)”

                And yet, you ARE monolithic when an accomplishment needs touting. Buffet Feminism is bullshit. If you take credit for feminist ‘accomplishments’, then you ALSO take ‘credit’ for their failings.

                It comes with the jersey.

                “b: not represented by the white privileged feminists who dominate the boards of NOW”

                You mean like the Academic and Establishment Feminists who are “not, for the most part, opposed to men’s rights in any way”, yet populate places like the AAUW (boy problems in Education? No way! Girls are just doing better is all.) and violently oppose reforms (like a stimulus package that gives jobs to those who are, you know, out of work, as opposed to raises for government workers) that help men and boys.

                “d: who is strongly allied with the gay right’s movement? Feminism, or MR? Who is allied with Social Justice groups which address class and race issues? Feminism or MR? Who has produced an extensive corpus of academic work on how boys and girls are forced into gender boxes which unfairly constrain both of their potential (see Julia Serano’s discussion of “oppositional sexism”)? Feminism or MR?”

                I think you will find that your assumptions are quite wrong.

                Assuming Gay Men are your friend would be a mistake. I’m just sayin’.

              • “The monolithic feminism that you have constructed that actively opposes men’s rights is the strawfeminist, whereas…etc.”,

                If feminism has any “core minima” whatsoever, then in that sense you could call it monolithic. I guess it all comes down the the way you parse things. MRAs in general lean toward a kind of “facts on the ground” pragmatism, in my observation….

              • “a: a loose coalition of different groups fighting in different ways towards the goal of women’s equality (ie. NOT a monolith)”

                Women’s equality is an oxymoron. Equality can not be restricted to a single gender. One is ether about equality, or one if about women’s empowerment.

                “b: not represented by the white privileged feminists who dominate the boards of NOW”

                You can not discount the largest acting organization functioning in the name of feminism as “not representative” of the movement. If anything, they are the most representative of the movement, as they are actually doing something. Some nobody sitting behind a computer writing on a comment section can not be said to be more representative of an ideology then an organization that shapes that ideology, and act’s in it’s name. If you don’t like it, then expose NOW and all other organizations like it as the frauds you claim them to be. Otherwise, quit your whinning and accept the consequences of associating yourself with their… yes, it is theirs now, ideology.

                “not, for the most part, opposed to men’s rights in any way.”

                I very much disagree. Most feminists I have spoken with DO oppose men’s rights, even the reasonable ones like having a men’s minister as an egalitarian counterpart to the women’s minister that exists in virtually every western nation.

                “on black feminist thought”

                Sorry, I’m not privy to your past conversations. Perhaps you can provide me with an example of a black feminist organization that opposes the policies of NOW with regards to men’s rights.

                “who is strongly allied with the gay right’s movement? Feminism”

                That’s why NOW and the feminist influences in the UN failed to even speak up when the UN voted to remove sexual orientation from a resolution condemning summary and arbitrary executions. (The resolution admonishes member nations to protect the right to life of all people, and calls on states to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds.)

      • “Okay. I’m a feminist.”

        I’m sorry. Get help.

        “I’m against gender discrimination in family court–I think the assumption that women are “naturally” better parents than men is sexist, damaging and insulting to both men and women.”

        If you actually believe that, then why in god’s name do you call yourself a feminist? You are describing something which feminists have rampantly promoted. Feminism THRIVES on gender discrimination in the family courts, and feminism has waged a vicious hate war against fathers, families and marriages for years. And if you don’t know this, you are either willfully obtuse or living under a rock. Which, come to think of it, describes the majority of feminists.

        I think that men who are physically assaulted by their domestic partners should be taken seriously.

        If you believe that, then you are not much of a feminist, because you are undermining everything that feminism has worked so very hard to promote. The whole point of feminism is to give women a monopoly on violence, in order to keep men under the control of the state.

        So why in god’s name do you call yourself such a shameful thing as a “feminist”???

        I think that rigid gender roles that teach men that they are less “manly” should they complain about being hit or shoved by their partner are very damaging to men. As a feminist, I’d like to see these gender roles destroyed and forgotten, so any man can feel empowered and confident about bringing a complaint about domestic violence to the police.

        I have a much better idea. Why don’t you start “liking to see” all of those feminist laws and lies annihilated, which started all this trouble in the first place???? Don’t insult me with feminist claptrap about “rigid gender roles” and “feeling empowered”. No: take responsibility for what feminism has done! DENOUNCE it!

        And if you plan to do THAT, then you might as well stop calling yourself a ‘feminist’.

        It is a filthy word. Why do wish to call yourself that?

        People aren’t going to cut you any slack. When they hear “feminist”, they will NOT ask “what kind of feminist?”

        But you can steer clear of all that trouble by simply announcing that you are NOT A FEMINIST.

        You will be a better person for it. That’s a promise.

        “So now you’ve met that feminist you wanted to meet. Now what?”

        What now? I am not impressed. I have met FAR too many feminists like you! And no, I never “wanted” to meet you.

      • As a feminist, what have you done about any of that? because, as a feminist, those acting in your name IE< NOW are actually doing things contradictory to what you claim you believe. And as they are bigger then you, and have more ability to claim feminism as theirs (as they actually do something in it's name), most people will identify feminism based on their actions, and you can ether accept the consequences of being associated with them, you can stand up against them, or you can acknowledge that perhaps your beliefs are no longer in line with those of modern feminism and move on to a more egalitarian belief.

    • I’m still waiting for MRAs to step up to the plate and build their own domestic violence shelters and advocacy organizations, just like women have had to do. Then you all can sit back and watch those shelters fill up with gay men and trans folks who come there to escape violence from other men,.

      • Ubermensch says:

        Yeah, its called government grants. You know, money collected from men to pay for women who could not produce a dime themselves.

        • Women pay taxes.

          Apply for the f*cking grants yourself you whiny ass.

          Until then… STFU.

          • Seriously. You realize the work force is 50/50 with both sexes, right? Do you seriously think women are not paying taxes at the jobs they work at? Get real!

          • Do you realize that you are, by implication, upholding an adversarial political model of relations between the sexes?

      • “I’m still waiting for MRAs to step up to the plate and build their own domestic violence shelters and advocacy organizations, just like women have had to do. “

        Can you recommended a good book on “How to Build a Domestic Violence Shelter”, so that tired, isolated, impoverished, MRAs can read all about it in their precious spare time and figure out how it’s done? Then maybe they can scrape together the money and go to the hardware store and buy the tools they will need to “build a domestic violence shelter”? But, what about the land? Don’t they need a lot to build it on? Real estate is mighty spendy nowadays: what if they can’t afford this?

        And so on and so on …….

        You seem to be a feminist. Aren’t feminists supposed to be “liberals”? And aren’t liberals supposed to be hip, cool, benevolent people….?

        “Then you all can sit back and watch those shelters fill up with gay men and trans folks who come there to escape violence from other men,.”

        You are a vile, filthy ignoramus. Please wash your mouth out with merde.

        • How exactly do you think that feminists built the first DV shelters? Do you think they just magically conjured them up? They actually, you know, raised money themselves, and set them up, against a great deal of opposition. Even today most shelters get most of their money from private donors.

          And why on earth do you consider it “vile” to bring up gay and transgender victims of violence?

          • Are you stating, categorically, (or just hinting) that so-called “MRAs” (whoever they are) ought to do exactly what the upthread commenter said they ought to do, merely at that person’s behest? Are you dictating terms to these unspecified “MRA” people?

            “And why on earth do you consider it “vile” to bring up gay and transgender victims of violence?”

            But DO i “consider” any such thing? Is that what I said? Was I even thinking about that at all?

          • “How exactly do you think that feminists built the first DV shelters?”

            By usurping the work already done by Erin Pizzey, claiming it was gender unidirectional and preying on the guilt and chivalry of men to fund their efforts based on the unidirectional lies. men do not gain the benefit of the chivalry so many feminists are eager to condemn or reject.

          • Thaddeus G. Blanchette says:

            I actually think men’s shelters might be a good idea and I DO think that MRAs are the people who should go about building them.

            But riddle me this, David Futrelle: what will your reaction be when the first one opens its doors with an all-male staff and restrictions on women entering the place?

            What happens the first time there’s a domestic dispute and the woman who got punched in the eye and goes to HER shelter and the man who got stabbed goes to HIS and both accuse the other of starting the fight?

            Will you demand that those MRAs hand the man over to the cops on the presumption that a woman is never violent unless it’s in self-defence?

            In other words, will those MRAs running that shelter be allowed to stand up for the guy who went looking to them for aid without being called “men who protect the male privledge of violence against women” by people like yourself?

            And as for you MRAs, are you truly willing and able to deal with gay, trans and alternate sexuality men in a non-judgemental fashion? Because those men are going to be the ones who need shelter the most and yes, many of their aggressors will be male.

            I mean, I’m curious how far this “brotherhood” thing goes. Some MRAs I know of would defend gay and trans men to the death. Others, however,…

            • You seem to have a pretty low opinion of men. If a man is humanitartian enough to open, run and participate in a shelter, he is likely also open minded enough to be able to “handle” non traditional men.

      • ghost118 says:

        Actually there was at least one battered men’s shelter that had to close down due to lack of funding. Apparently all of it was going exclusively to women’s shelters.

        http://www.batteredmen.com/bathelpnatl.htm

        • In Canada, Domestic abuse shelters are funded solely by the women’s ministries. If we can’t even get women to admit that violence is gender neutral, we certainly can’t get them to part with their money

      • I guess feminism isn’t the solution after all, is it? If men want something done for men’s rights, they can do it themselves or stop whining. thank you for being one of many examples of just how wrong Marcotte is.

    • This particular feminist clearly favours ad hominem over discussion of the actual issues.”

      This particular feminist wishes to avoid discussion of the actual issues altogether, and her way of accomplishing this is not by ad hominem, but “controlling the frame.” All feminists do this, more or less.

      If Amanda ever accepted an invitation to the MRA Grill, she would get frame-broiled right proper, with no escape hatch.

      Well. . . the whole world is becoming the MRA Grill now, and people are becoming MRAs by truckloads. So, soon there will be no escape hatch — not even into the echo chambers.

      As Adam Kostakis would say, feminism is not sustainable.

      • Grills, escape hatches, truckloads,echo chambers. You’re going to have to draw me a diagram here. Do grills normally have escape hatches that lead into echo chambers? Mine just has a couple of holes to let the air in and and the smoke out.

    • They never will support anything that ‘shares’ money (takes money from) women… They would rather see 50 men commit suicide that help 1 man escape a violent relationship. This is why VAWA teaches police to always arrest men only and ignore female violence.

    • I 100% speak out against intimate partner violence – against any person, under any circumstance.

      However, most women’s shelters do not allow men for several reasons, including
      The Privacy, safety and security of the women and children. Men seeking shelter are not often perpetrators of violence, however – some abusers know where the shelters are in their communities – and follow their victims there, threatening their security and safety. Furthermore, If I had just been battered by my partner – I probably wouldn’t want to be around a man – even another victim.

      Shelters, though, can and do pay for men (as well as LGBTQ individuals) to stay in hotels/motels because they don’t have the capacity, resources, or ability to serve that population in house.

  101. When I woke up this morning & saw another MRA article on Good Men Project I thought to myself “ugh, is today the day I take Good Men Project off my google reader?” Luckily it was followed up by Schwyzer saying reasonable things, & THIS article, which is dead on the money. It is hard to take MRA people seriously because, as you put it, they are just so wrong. So too do I agree with your thesis; more feminism is the answer. Equality helps everybody, even the straight cis males at the top of the hegemony. That is why egalitarianism is so neat– it isn’t a zero sum game.

    • Whatever, Hermes….

    • Well, at least SOMEONE’S not a moron in this comment thread… hey.

    • “Equality helps everybody, even the straight cis males at the top of the hegemony. That is why egalitarianism is so neat– it isn’t a zero sum game.”

      Pfffffft! Semantic garbage.

      Please explain what the hell you mean by “equality”. You a mathematician?

      Operationalize it!

      Oh, and please don’t use femspeak gobble-de-gook like “straight cis males at the top of the hegemony”.

      You are not in a feminist echo chamber now, so talk regular English like regular people. You wanna mingle with the plebes, ya gotta talk like the plebes, bucko!

      I mean, reeeeaaaallly! Feminism is NOT THE WORLD — as much as I know you would like it to be!

      • Straight = I am a heterosexual. I realize that queer people exist, & I realize that since I belong to the dominant paradigm, I have a lot of easy privileges that they don’t.

        Cis = My assigned & assumed gender matched up with my self-identified gender. I realize that this isn’t true for everyone, & that since I belong to the dominant paradigm, I have a lot of easy privileges that they don’t.

        Male = I am a member of the dominant gender in society. I realize this affords me easy privileges, & that not everyone has them.

        Hegemony = Take a look at your dollar bill? See all those white dudes? Take a look at your congress, or at a list of the richest people in America. See all those white men? Take a look at your pay check, or at your Viagra pills, or at your television. This culture assumes “straight white cis male” is the default. This does not reflect reality. It is a social construct, & it gives straight white men undue & unequal power.

        Yes. I do wish feminism was the world. I oppose bigotry & intolerance. You are correct.

        • atheist says:

          Mordicai: WORD

        • Mordecai, I consider myself a ‘non-feminist’.

          Is there anything you wish to say about me?

          And if so, on what authority do you presume to say it?

          ———————————————–

          Oh, and thanks for the definitions, but I’ve already heard that stuff. I only look like a hayseed, but really, I’m not..

        • Well it can’t be reproductive rights, because you don’t have any.
          It can’t be preferential treatment in court and by law enforcement..
          Its definitely not preferential treatment in education and employment law….

          Oh I remember now, you have the privilege of choosing how you become a woman’s indentured servant, either marriage, divorce or taxation. And if you don’t like it, you have the privilege of shutting your mouth and “taking it like a man”..

          • Hey, and let’s not forget the privilege of walking the streets at night free of trepidation. That’s quite a privilege, you know.

            I’ve always felt that the best way to level the differential for that particular . . . privilege….would be to have the cops randomly administer beatings to male pedestrians after dark.

            (That was sarcasm in case anybody missed it. 😉

            • Men walk the streets at night free of trepidation? Really? Men don’t get assaulted, mugged, beaten, murdered? Really?

              • Yes, but you know, ze wimminz have it worse in that regard.

                And so we menz ought to feel guilty.

                Oh, and I like the way Mordecai, just upthread, throws a bunch of red herrings into the discussion.

        • Yes, there are lots of white dudes on American money, but there are far more white dudes who have died for this country. If you go to Asia, you’re gonna see lots of Asian faces on Asian money. This was and is still somewhat of a white society, so you’re gonna see lots of white faces-duh!!! So you think that males are the only ones who’ve had priveleges. Females have had priveleges, but narrow-minded people like you only want to hear what the one-sided feminists have to say.

        • “I realize this affords me easy privileges, & that not everyone has them.”

          You seem to be under the impression that having any perceived privilege at all means you have no problems or discriminations to overcome. You seem to think that because you are male, you get everything you want. You are mistaken.

          “Yes. I do wish feminism was the world. I oppose bigotry & intolerance. You are correct.”

          Contradictions. You oppose bigotry and then back a sexist, bigoted movement. I have shown time and again how feminism is not about equality, but instead it is about female empowerment. Some feminists may believe that empowerment should only go so far as equality, a very few agree men need to be empowered in other area’s as well, in order to establish equality, but the vast majority of feminists in positions to change things not only don’t support equality, they actively oppose it by opposing things like shared parenting and paternity leave. By advocating for more affirmative action, for gender quota’s (but only for the good jobs) and for more opportunities for women in education, despite having not only reversed the gender gap that was originally unacceptable, but widening it even further.

          I’ve told you this repeatedly, and you have yet to rebut it, because you can’t. you instead choose to run and remain ignorant. Well, that only exposes your own failings and the failings of your beliefs and unable to withstand criticism.

    • thehermit says:

      Equality would probably help everybody, the basic problem is, that feminism never was equality. Not at all.

      Do they want 50% women in the congress? Of course. 50% of directors of big companies? Sure. 50% of homelesses? 50% of workplace deaths? …….
      Oh wait, they only want half of the GOOD things.
      Equality? Come on…
      That’s why feminists never will be humanists, does not matter how hard they try consider themselves to be one. Cherry picking injustices by sex…that makes more injustices.

    • The MRA’s are so wrong, and also so fucking WHINY. The fact that a man can feel deeply offended by ladies’ night at bars, just blows my mind. It is so fucking whiny.

      • So why are MRA wrong and whiny? I’d hate to hear what you have to write about feminists being wrong and whiny. Now that is going to be a lot of noise.

        I’m an MRA and I could care less about Lady’s Night. Whoever wrote that was simply using as one tiny example to illustrate society’s attitudes. It blows your mind? You are more hung up on it than any MRA.

        At this time, every honest and thoughtful person knows feminism is not about equality. Never was. What has feminism done for men??? Oh yes, it has done one good thing for men: MGTOW, ghosting, and boycotting marriage. Men are waking up and deciding we no longer are going to be the protectors and defenders of society.

        BOYCOTT CHIVALRY!

        • atheist says:

          BOYCOTT CHIVALRY!

          Oh my God Aharon that is even better than ladies’ night! Yes, by all means, please do boycott chivalry. Refrain from chivalrous behavior of any sort. THAT’LL SHOW ‘EM!!!

          Did you guys design an entire movement purely for the purpose of making me laugh my ass off?

          • You obviously can’t think through consequences.

            • Consequences? You mean like a man making wierd threats to boycott chivalry, and as a consequence I start giggling at the absurdity?

              Or maybe you mean, a man decides, for reasons that make sense to him, to treat women like dirt. The consequence is that women avoid him like that plague?

          • Atheist, for what it’s worth, this non-feminist here doesn’t make a huge issue out of “ladies night”. This non-feminist here is occupied with more weighty matters than that. Don’t believe everything that people like Amanda Marcotte say, I think you are too intelligent for that!

            Oh, and guess what, I too am an atheist!

            So, put ‘er there, BRO! 😉

            Heh heh…!

        • What do you mean by “boycotting chivalry”?

          I’m guessing you mean things like men opening doors or paying for dates. Yes, those are nice gestures, but I am perfectly willing to open my own doors and pay for my own meals. I would gladly do those things in exchange for equal pay and less risk of being raped at the end of the date.

          • I would gladly do those things in exchange for equal pay and less risk of being raped at the end of the date.
            Good and I’m willing give up the beliefs like I’m not allowed to hit a woman in self defense and that when disaster strikes my life is worth less then a woman’s redering me expendable.

          • Except that if you were to be attacked in an attempted rape, it would be chivalry that would inspire a man to help. If someone see’s a man being attacked by an armed assailant in the street, very few people would come to his aid. If the person attacked was a woman, she would have several people (largely men) come to her aid. The willingness of ,em to come to the aid of women when they would not offer that same assistance to men, THAT is chivalry. And that is what you so casually and callously seek to throw away in order to demean the MRM and ignore their issues.

      • Now I am not an MRA, but personally I would be dead silent about Ladie’s Nights, if I didn’t at the same time hear female feminists complain without cease about how they are not allowed in to certain wow guilds and so on.

    • “So too do I agree with your thesis; more feminism is the answer. Equality helps everybody,..”

      Yet, there is Not equality, is there? Politics and laws have made men unequal to women.

    • “That is why egalitarianism is so neat– it isn’t a zero sum game,” said Mordecai.

      Actually, Mordecai, egalitarianism IS a zero-sum game: each participants’ losses and gains is balanced by by the losses and gains of the other participants. In other words, in an egalitarian society, men and women share equal rights and equal responsibilities; hence, the sum of privileges and obligations held by one gender, when subtracted from the sum of privileges and obligations of the other gender, equals exactly zero.

  102. More of this, less of that other thing. Thanks.

    • Hahah YES.

    • lol I remember Marcotte from when she was fired by Edwards…an angry airhead then, and I see little has changed…still has that grim look of “can’t get laid” by the looks of recent photos

    • The trouble with prescribing “more feminism” is that it will, by an inescapable iron law, generate both more MRA “problems”, and more MRAs. Is that what Amanda wants? In some perverse way, I think perhaps that it IS.

      Ahhh…..she’s a feminist gadfly, is Amanda. Well, I should rather say horse-fly. And you know exactly which part of the horse they buzz around……

      • Honestly, most of what Amanda says in this article is just common sense. The world needs to learn it eventually. Feminism has got a bad rap, but really, its not feminism that has been given a bad rap, its all the ladies out there, and the sooner we realize that inequality and gender violence are prevalent in our society, the sooner we can stop arguing over these simple solutions that Amanda points out.

        • “Honestly, most of what Amanda says in this article is just common sense. The world needs to learn it eventually. Feminism has got a bad rap, but really, its not feminism that has been given a bad rap, its all the ladies out there, and the sooner we realize that inequality and gender violence are prevalent in our society, the sooner we can stop arguing over these simple solutions that Amanda points out.”

          It is impossible to take Amanda seriously when she insults and smears the very same people she needs to be persuading, and tells whopping lies about them.

          If she had any “common sense”, she wouldn’t do that.

          So take this entire article and flush it.

          And spare me your vapid drivel.

  103. their endorsement of this article speaks volumes about their capabilities for logical thought.

Trackbacks

  1. […] the concerns that MRAs voice are, in fact, real – it’s just that the solution to the problems tend to require more feminism, not less.  I’m not saying we shouldn’t talk to each other, in fact, as a feminist man I love […]

  2. […] a letter last year to a leader of The Fatherhood Coalition, one of the organizations of the “Men’s Rights Activist” movement, perhaps the most the wretched hive of scum and misogyny you’ll find in […]

  3. […] The Feminist Light: An Ex-MRA Tells His Story « Week Woman The answer to the gripes of men's rights activists is more feminism <i>When you believe that we live in a female-dominated world where straight men are the most […]

  4. […] and counterclaims of self-styled men’s activists. In one particularly vitriolic smack-down, Amanda Marcotte argued in 2011 that the solution to all of the “gripes” of men’s activists is simple: more […]

  5. […] Schwyzer’s How Men’s Rights Activists Get Feminism Wrong, and Amanda Marcotte’s The Solution to MRA Problems? More Feminism. Share this:Like this:LikeBe the first to like this […]

  6. […] A discussion of this stupid MRA movement, as well as this lady’s response. […]

  7. […] mostly by guys, about not being horrible in the ways society tries to teach us to be. I mean, they had Amanda Marcotte write about MRAs, and that’s always good stuff. Then something happened. There’s still some good content […]

  8. Related.. Trackback…

    […]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[…]…

  9. […] feminist blogs, including a piece that Amanda Marcotte wrote for The Good Men Project called “The Solution to MRA Problems? More Feminism“. The article is pretty much exactly what I think whenever I read anything by an […]

  10. […] it’s willfully blind critique of feminism. As GMPM contributor Amanda Marcotte points out here and elsewhere, most of their problems could in fact be solved with more feminism. Take the concerns […]

  11. […] I’ve been vaguely meaning to learn more about recently. Some prominent feminist men (and women) have been writing for them, and they’ve gotten some good buzz from other folks I respect. So […]

  12. […] would also like to encourage everyone, especially Rite Of Manhood to read this excellent post from The Good Men Project, which explains why the solution to most MRA problems is actually more […]

  13. […] the series of articles published by GMPM, Amanda Marcotte is probably the author who most relies on openly parodying MRA positions to make her points. We can […]

  14. […] mad anymore Posted on March 10, 2011 by Deansdale The Good Man Project presented us with an article about MRAs written by an angry feminist. That’s right; who else would you ask to write about MRAs? […]

  15. […] a piece for a series on MRAs at The Good Men Project, Amanda Marcotte argues that the solutions to many […]

  16. […] a piece for a series on MRAs at The Good Men Project, Amanda Marcotte argues that the solutions to many […]

  17. […] to cap it off, here’s an article I wrote for the Good Men Project on MRAs.  When the editor of GMP approached me to write about this, I was really hesitant. For one […]

  18. […] more from the original source: The answer to the gripes of men's rights activists is more … Categories: Uncategorized Tags: answer, creation, equal-number, feminist, hegemony, […]

  19. […] Go read the whole thing. As you’d expect from Marcotte, it’s sharp, funny and entirely spot on. […]

Speak Your Mind

*