Bash Patriarchy, Not Men

Maria Pawlowska argues that all, including men, are victims of patriarchy.

One of the most exciting things about social media is the interaction with readers that the comments section provides. It allows the reader to become a writer as well, and the writer to become a reader, furnishing a dialogue. And—there’s no two ways about it—not everybody is going to like what you write, and that that’s OK. It probably means you’re doing something right? You can’t please everyone (I mean, not even J.K. Rowling pulled that off). But I get anxious when I get the impression that I must have seriously miscommunicated something because, according to the comments, some readers appear to draw the exact opposite conclusions from what I intended.

Enter the topic for this post: it seems that patriarchy bashing is still interpreted by some to be man-bashing. Such a correlation is actually pretty scary, so I thought I’d go ahead and write a post on why the two are actually opposites.

If I were to sum it up in one sentence, why when I criticize patriarchy I’m not criticizing men, I would say that men themselves are victims of patriarchy and I’m not victim-blamer. Fortunately, there’s more space to elaborate on this.

First of all, let’s get our definitions straight. Patriarchy is a social system in which males assume the role of primary authority figures central to social organization. Moreover, in a patriarchal system men hold authority over women, children, and property. Male rule and privilege, as well as female subordination, are implicit.

Patriarchy is a system that men, as well as women, are part of. It’s a system perpetrated by both sexes. (If you hold any doubt, read Katie Riophe’s latest in The New York Times.) Criticizing the system is not equivalent to attacking all those who are a part of it. The problem with criticizing patriarchal values is that too many have come to believe they are “natural.” If someone thinks men really are somehow biologically predestined to be the heads of families and states, then questioning that may appear to be a direct attack on the essence of being a man.

And this whole “rule over women” deal may actually sound kind of neat if you lean to the far right and have a pinch of authoritarian tendencies, right? It’s not all nice and dandy, though—a patriarchal system brings with it a host of limitations to men as well as women. The latter are obviously the more constrained gender. They are supposed to listen to their husbands and fathers in everything and follow their lead. They aren’t allowed their own ambitions (save the “Best Housewife of the Year Award” and a first prize ribbon at the bake fair). They aren’t allowed free lives. Fifty years ago Betty Freidan told us the story of how damaging institutionalized patriarchal values really are to women. This really shouldn’t be news to anyone—women are not a monolith of creatures that want only to have babies and husbands. They should be granted the possibilities to strive for personal achievement just the way men are. But if patriarchy had its way this would never happen.

There’s more to it, though, and in The Feminine Mystique Freidan also touched on how men were hurt by the system. In a patriarchal system a man’s wife is his dependent in every sense of the word—she’s not his best friend, not a partner, not a companion that shares life’s ups and downs. She’s a helpless creature that needs to be sheltered, taken care of and who can’t really make conversation about anything other than diapers and PTA meetings. The full responsibility for anything that isn’t cooking, cleaning, or childcare related rests on the man of the house and there’s no one to share the responsibility with.

There’s also no one to talk to about the stress and worries. Patriarchy 101: Women are emotional, they worry, cry, and are generally “sissies.” Men are strong, brave, clear-headed, and, well, for lack of a better word, “manly.” Moreover, men aren’t really allowed to show too much interest in their children and definitely cannot display “excessive” affection. A pat on the back and handshake after a victorious Little League game will do. In a patriarchal system all men are literally the kings of their castles, and we all know that kings aren’t allowed to do anything that isn’t in the protocol (or they shouldn’t anyway).

In more general societal terms patriarchy strips the public life of females and everything they bring to the table. And I’m not talking about the empathetic, care-giving, etc. values, which are still mischaracterized as distinctly “feminine.” I’m talking about the real stuff—individuals and their skills.

I was at a meeting once with Bill Gates in which he was asked about his thoughts on international development. He had a simple answer (and I paraphrase): “The key is gender equality—you need all the smart people you can get and no one can afford leaving half of their population behind.” Last time I looked no one was calling Gates a men-hating feminazi. And whatever your opinion on Windows, I really think he nailed this one. Patriarchy isn’t just a deeply flawed system because it prevents women from achieving their best and stifles men in very strict gender roles. In fact, it holds back whole societies. Ultimately, it makes all of our lives more difficult and, yes, deserves a good bashing!

—Photo ellyjonez/Flickr

NOW TRENDING ON GMP TV

Super Villain or Not, Parenting Paranoia Ensues
The Garbage Man Explains Happiness
How To Not Suck At Dating

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Maria Pawlowska

Maria Pawlowska is a healthcare analyst with a passion for reproductive health. She spends her free time trying to stop herself from compulsively buying new books about women, sexuality, gender and sometimes the odd primate study. Maria currently lives in London with her husband and you can reach her at m.pawlowska [@] gatesscholar.org. You can follow her on Twitter @MariaPawlowska.

Comments

  1. Julie Gillis says:

    So, Lori. I see the anger and frustration men are posting here. I also see the anger and frustration some of the female posters are placing on the boards here on this post. Remember how I have complained I don’t like drive by comments filled with snark and aggression? I don’t like it from the women either. I don’t see it solving any problems at all, only enflaming argument and reinforcing anger and bile on each side.
    It makes me sad, because i’m sure there are reasoned arguments and nuanced discussions to be had on the topic. But what winds up happening are quotes about people being killed in their sleep, accusations of rape apology and worse, and then the inevitable pushback from men. Defensiveness all around, and each side more firmly set on their side against the other.
    Not very healing if you ask me. Which, well, no one did. But there you have it.

    • Oh, no..... says:

      Well, Julie, I am happy for you that you are not as burdened by men as I am. I don’t think the problems can be solved when men like Eric and the other Men’s Rights advocates posting here exist. They are not here to learn anything, they are here to bash.

      I see no possibility for “healing.” My way of dealing with these issues is to stay at home most of the time so that men cannot get access to me (unless they are engaged in telephone hangup call campaigns, to which I have been subjected by many men, including a superior court judge). When I go out, I am fair game because I am usually alone, and men make sure that I know they exist and that they cannot be stopped from harassing me on the street and bothering me in restaurants and subjecting me to predation.

      As you can see, I am not optimistic about positive change in this area. When I was younger I was more optimistic, but now I am just tired of it, and I have zero tolerance for the Erics, Budmins, Derbises and the rest of them who patrol the world, making sure that women are put in their proper place. I think that is a fair position for me to take. I will spend the rest of my life avoiding male violence the best I can, doing my work, enjoying my small family, and trying to focus on what is good in the world when I am not being distracted by the men attacking me.

      • Julie Gillis says:

        Oh No,

        I’m not burdened. I have a husband and two male children, loads of male friends and colleagues. While yes, I’ve experienced a few moments of man on women weirdness in my life, I’ve had a relatively lovely time working, living and playing with men. Most of my female friends have had good relationships with men. I don’t live in a world where I experience men “patroling the world” or subjecting me or my friends to predation.

        I obviously don’t know the details of your experiences. Your comments make it sound like you’ve never had a nice interaction with a male in your life, that all men are out to get you, and that you’ve been seriously traumatized. I can only offer you sympathy and empathy for whatever experience you’ve had, but I don’t think it’s fair at all to paint all men with the same brush. I try to believe people’s experiences, but I also want them to believe mine.

        • Yeah, what Julie said. I don’t deny your experience, but it is not my experience.

        • Oh, no..... says:

          Julie, I don’t paint all men with the same brush. I have had some lovely relationships with men, but for the most part I have been subjected to predation. Your being married protects you against predation to a certain extent, since most men won’t bother a woman who is the property of another man. When I was with my last boyfriend, certain types of predators left me alone (not the strangers who would harass me on the street when I was walking alone), but the neighborhood predators closed in again after that relationship ended. I will not marry for protection. I have not, since I broke up with my last boyfriend in 1999, found anyone with whom I would want an intimate relationship. So I have to deal with the perils of being single, and they are very real.

          I do not believe that all men are out to get me, but I am harassed frequently enough on the street and other public places that I cannot forget about it, no matter how much I would like to forget. I am currently being stalked and harassed by a neighbor, who has been encouraged in his violent behavior toward me not only by other men in the neighborhood, but by several members of the local police department. This is terrifying, to say the least. But such violence against women clearly is acceptable to many people, and I get the nuts ‘n sluts treatment from bystanders who cannot imagine these men behaving the way they behave, so I MUST be crazy.

          One fact I rarely see addressed anywhere is that many, many men lead double lives – they have a steady girlfriend or a wife, and then they engage in predatory behavior when the main woman is not around. The main woman is clueless and thinks “her man” is the nicest guy in the world. Nobody wants to hear that “her man” is a rapist or a man whore. Look at Tiger Wood, Arnold Schwarzenegger, several members of Congress, and just about any serial rapist. Addiction is often a factor in the behavior of these men, and they are seasoned liars. My stalker/harasser has had two steady girlfriends over the years he has been attacking me, and the current one thinks he’s a real prince. When I tried to warn her about him, she said she had heard I was “a real slut” and a “crazy bitch.” That woman is profoundly out of touch with reality, but everyone supports her in her delusions.

          So don’t accuse me of having a warped perception of men and don’t feel sorry for me. I am being subjected to very real gender violence. I am being traumatized. I wish it were otherwise, but I have not had any choice in the matter.

          • “so I MUST be crazy.”

            – Anyone who has read your posts here would come to the same conclusion. Please seek mental treatment.

            • Oh, no..... says:

              Luckey, I am sure that baiting women is one of your favorite sports. Could you do it somewhere else?

        • One of the difficulties of speaking up for ourselves or advocating and sharing our experiences is that there’s this assumption on the other side, that we all must have had bad experiences with men, and the pity party comes marching in – this make it harder for our stories to be heard and taken seriously. We have had both good and bad experiences/relationships with men like most women, but that’s not where we need to see change – get it? And no we love men, contrary to what others may believe.

          People need to hear the depth, breadth and passion our stories tell! It is obvious that these stories burden you as oh no has pointed out. I’d rather be in your shoes, because it’s not a joyride to be sharing our personal experiences and opinions on a controversial topic such as this! We’re being diminished and degraded and our stories made insignificant by many others on here, as though these are just exclusive to us only – as though they’re isolated and no one else can fathom these problems in their protected, happy and secure lives. We’re crazy, don’t you know??? And the “Men’s Fact Police and Advocates” on here work to drown out what are obvious ills with the world and yeah patriarchy.

          We’re not out looking for pity, we’re asking for change.

          Men on here equate patriarchy with themselves and they’re holding onto it with every shred of their being – they see their MANHOOD in patriarchy, and they’re not going to let go of it without a fight, apparently! Sad, sad. Patriarchy represents manhood and power to men. They can’t see their world without either. Women aren’t in even in their equation. Pride is stubborn.

          • Well said. Don’t you know that all men are infected to some degree with ‘answeritis’ We can’t stand to be wrong or not have the last word.
            most of these guys are blowing smoke and will have the same equal passion for which sports team rocks and sucks.
            I still agree that patriarchy exists not as a plot but as a symptom ofma failed economic and social structure.
            It only benefits some men in some circumstances and some women do benefit from it in some cases.

          • MichelleG says:
            “We have had both good and bad experiences/relationships with men like most women, but that’s not where we need to see change – get it? And no we love men, contrary to what others may believe.

            People need to hear the depth, breadth and passion our stories tell! It is obvious that these stories burden you as oh no has pointed out.”

            Michelle. To flip the record over (ahem–showing my age there lol). I have seen on the threads regarding dating where a lot of young men voicing their pain because they are kind respectful men who get passed over by women who overwhelmingly choose jerks.

            The response they get? Their pain is denounced and the female posters actually claim that these guys are probably not REALLY that nice and therefore not deserving of female companionship anyway.

            If women want an open dialogue and want men to truly listen to some of the horrible things that other men are doing wrong, then we expect the same in return.

            So far, I have not seen very much receptiveness from female posters here that women can be just as destructive and hurtful to loving men as men can be hurtful and destructive to loving women(and in about equal numbers I would assume as men haven’t cornered the market in maliciousness).

            • “We have had both good and bad experiences/relationships with men like most women, but that’s not where we need to see change – get it? And no we love men, contrary to what others may believe”

              What I meant to say is that, dating and relationships isn’t the topic at hand, on this thread/ article – hence I said, “that’s not where we need to see change – get it?”. I wanted to refocus the topic, and not have it be about pity and personal relationships with men or lack thereof. That’s all.

              And about nice guys getting passed over, that’s not true in my case…I’m dating a truly nice guy – he’s a gentleman; he’s compassionate, romantic, thoughtful and very well-educated. He may not have the looks but his huge heart definitely makes up for it plenty!

              By the way, sometimes women don’t actually choose jerks, it’s the jerks who choose them. Jerks are very persuasive, aggressive and manipulative – they get dumped very quickly – believe me. It’s just sometimes women give in to their “charm” and persistence. Nice guys are not known to be persistent or skirt chasers.

            • Hi Michelle,

              I’m happy for you and your SO. I wish you the best.

              I know my point was off-topic. My point was that while the message that a statistically significant portion of men may be harming women in real ways and that this will be painful for good men to hear (of which I would count most of the male posters here) and these messages from women shouldn’t be dismissed, then men should expect the same.

              So far, what I have seen is not a male problem of refusing to listen, but a human one. Good people tend to trust in humanity, and tend to project their reasonable activities and actions upon their gender (when discussing gender)–so it hurts a little to hear these types of comments.

              So far, I have seen women just as close-armed to these messages as men.

            • Oh, no..... says:

              John D wrote: “I have seen on the threads regarding dating where a lot of young men voicing their pain because they are kind respectful men who get passed over by women who overwhelmingly choose jerks.” the problem here is that your answer assumes that women’s choices are somehow the kind, respectful guy’s business. If a woman chooses a man Nice Guy considers a jerk, so what? No woman owes any man a relationship. We are not products being withheld from Nice Guy’s use.

              I am often surprised at how out of touch men are, and how much of a role fantasy plays in their lives. There are men here who will jeer at me for being “paranoid,” but the truth is that men become very angry when their fantasies about women are not fulfilled. When I ended my last relationship in 1999, I considered it my own business. I did not anticipate that the men in my neighborhood would get together and speculate about who would be the next guy to have sex with me, and to bet on who would “score” first. I had no idea that men who had fantasized relationships with me would be furious that I was not interested in being involved with them. I did not anticipate the violence that was ultimately directed at me for my choice to keep to myself.

              So how am I to feel sympathy for the nice guys of which you speak? I don’t owe men a thing, yet they direct their rage at me for not giving myself to them. Flip that situation around, John D, and tell me how you would feel if you were treated as someone who is obligated to be in a relationship when you don’t want one? What if you were required to support a woman financially just because she was “nice” and wanted a relationship with somebody? (Hah – that reminds me of the definition of marriage: “Find a woman you don’t like and buy her a house.”)

            • Oh No,
              You’ve made it completely known that you have no sympathy for men, so there is really no point discussing this with you.

              My conversation was with Michelle. I was simply pointing out that if women expect men to give an objective sympathetic ear to women’s problems, then men deserve an objective the same from women.

              Currently, I have seen way way less sympathy to men’s issues on these boards from (some feminist-leaning) women, then I have seen when women voice their issues from men on this board.

              Your statement is just another notch in my belt as far as proving that trend.

          • Oh, no..... says:

            Well said, Michelle. The responses from most of the guys here are purely reflexive. Mark is a refreshing exception.

      • Oh, no:
        “I don’t think the problems can be solved when men like Eric and the other Men’s Rights advocates posting here exist.”

        Oh, no –

        I am not a Men’s Rights Activist or a feminist. I don’t subscribe to any divisive ideologies, where gender prejudice is tolerated, which both of those tend to be. I’m not directing that to any individual, rather the movements.

        Secondly, you have told a lie about me, claiming that I bash women. Feel free to bash me but don’t lie about what I have said.

        Either admit that to be a lie or quote a single time when I have “bashed women”or “put women in their proper place” (whatever that means).

      • Oh No says:

        “I see no possibility for “healing.” My way of dealing with these issues is to stay at home most of the time so that men cannot get access to me (unless they are engaged in telephone hangup call campaigns, to which I have been subjected by many men, including a superior court judge).”

        Just out of curiosity, how could you possibly know it was the judge?

        Oh No, I have two things to mention about your plight.
        A) self-fulfilling prophecy. I remember waiting in a cafeteria line in which this (mid to late 60’s) white woman did not want to get very close to a tall young black male. Just so you understand, her demeanor was BLATANT. She was clearly giving furtive worried looks at the guy and visibly moving backwards to keep a WIDE bubble from the guy as he was occasionally moving backwards from horsing around with his friend ahead of him. As the guy paid the counter clerk and left the line he said “boo” to her and kind of flailed his arms in a psuedo threatening mocking gesture.

        Predations are a necessary burden of life. I was often the target of unscrupulous mechanics and other repair men (and I’m male) until I learned enough about various trades to lay down some hints that I would know if they screwed me over (not in the same scale I know). Predators prey on those victims with which they perceive a large degree of success (on men and women alike).

        Your attitudes may be attracting these types of men. I have noticed in bars and other settings how dominating men will be drawn (like wolves to an injured braying sheep) to “shattered” women with low self-esteem. It’s like they have a built-in radar.

        B) while not stating your plight is exaggerated or imagined, is it not possible that (considering how MANY people are saying this is not their reality) YOU ARE AN EXTREME STATISTICAL OUTLIER in terms of this? You seem to be INCREDIBLY worried about having your reality denounced, while simultaneously denouncing the reality of care and comfort and safety of other women (in relations to men). It seems you’re concerned with making your plight seem to be the rule rather than the exception. I really don’t think it is.

        • Oh, no..... says:

          John D –

          You ask:
          “Just out of curiosity, how could you possibly know it was the judge?”

          I know it was the judge because he was also calling and hanging up on a federal judge who was working with me to get the superior court judge removed from the bench for sexually assaulting me and many other women. He stopped calling the federal judge around the same time he stopped calling me — which was when he was removed from the bench.

          I see you are practiced at blaming the victim by the way you call my difficulties a “self-fulfilling prophecy” and suggest that I am somehow sending out a “victimize me” vibe. I do not behave the way your describe in your example. I am not jumpy. I am very self-possessed – a trait in women that apparently infuriates control freaks like you.
          “Predators prey on those victims with which they perceive a large degree of success.” Most of the predators who hassle me are strangers. They assume success because they are physically larger than I am and other people are not alarmed when men hassle women. It is considered “natural.”

          I am not a “shattered” woman with “low self-esteem.” As I said before, I am quite self-possessed and confident. That pisses guys like you off.

          “While not stating your plight is exaggerated or imagined, is it not possible that (considering how MANY people are saying this is not their reality) YOU ARE AN EXTREME STATISTICAL OUTLIER in terms of this?” Note that the other women who say this is not their reality are married or have steady boyfriends. Being the property of another man acts as a deterrent to predators. Single women are targets. Most women I know “belong” to particular men, and so they are not targeted.

          I have not denounced the reality of care and comfort and safety of other women in relation to men. I acknowledge that they feel safer and are actually protected by their connections to men. I didn’t say that my situation was the rule. I said that I am mercilessly harassed because I choose not to be the property of some guy. You apparently interpret my choice as a lack of “self-esteem.” It is not.

  2. “Physical autonomy-I get to plan my pregnancies”

    If you want to give men some reproduction rights (instead of the old cliche “keep it in your pants”), it’s okay . We have nearly none at the moment.
    “Equity/Equality-My LGBT friends can get married if they want, adopt if they want, etc.”

    As someone who was raised by two lesbians, i can’t support this. Some things are just not equal.

    Everything else what you want is supportable, but utopistic.

    Oh yeah… one more thing. Do you know how the topic or article is called what don’t generate any heated arguments? Dead.
    Debate is good.

    • Oh, no..... says:

      And what would men’s “reproductive rights” look like, Hermit? I’d like to hear that one. Does it involve forcing women to have babies?

      • When i can have a say about do i want a child or not. At the moment, it is the mother who decides alone. Her body, her choice, is it familiar?

        • Oh, no..... says:

          Hermit, that is exactly how it should be. Since the woman risks her health and her very life when she has a child, she should determine when or if she has a child. If you want a child and the woman in your life does not, then your solution is to break up with that partner and find a woman who wants a child with you. End of story. When men have the ability to become pregnant, then we can talk about your rights in that regard.

          • I don’t think he’s suggesting that men should dictate abortion; rather that both men and women should be able to choose, post-conception, whether they wish to become parents or not. Women have that choice via abortion. The point is about giving women the option to not be forced by a man to become a mother, and giving men the option to not be forced by a woman to become a father.

            • So how would that work, as you envision it? Do you mean that if a woman gets pregnant and she chooses to bear the child, but the man does not want to become a father, that he should not have to assume any responsibility for the child?

              Man… talk about an issue I can see both sides of. Because I agree, in an ideal world that should be the case… but of course that opens such a huge can of worms as far as unscrupulous men abandoning their families. Should anybody be able to just absolve themselves of parental responsibility at any time? I don’t think so. But I’m not really sure what the answer is.

            • Both parties would be required to decide prior to birth, perhaps before week 20, or even better, week 16. If he opted out, she would still have time to seek an abortion if she didn’t want to be a single parent.

            • I see. Not a bad idea. I do think it’s very unfair for a woman to have the choice to have a baby that the man does not want, and then expect him to still be responsible for the child, especially since in the reverse situation (the man wants to keep the child and the woman doesn’t), there’s no way the man could win, other than by pleading with her to bear the child and let him raise it.

              Also, what about in the case of married couples? Say a couple already has all the children they want/can afford and the wife finds herself pregnant again. She wants to keep the child, he doesn’t (or vice versa). Yipes.

            • Sadly, the same rules could apply but would require that they get divorced . That’s pretty sad and extreme but the only viable solution that I have ever heard of.

              But, if a couple marries well, they shouldn’t ever face that choice.

            • We’re usually together but doing different things. She shops way more than I do.

            • LF Says:

              “So how would that work, as you envision it? Do you mean that if a woman gets pregnant and she chooses to bear the child”

              A couple of years back there was a movement to try and establish the right of men to get a paper abortion when a woman had a child (from casual sex or a casual relationship) that the man did not want.

              This would terminate his parental rights and his financial responsibility.

              Strangely, Karen Decrow who was president of NOW from 70 to 72 stated women should not be able to “force” men into parenthood and start paternity suits (or in this day and age I guess you would call it child support).

              “If women have the right to choose if they become
              parents, men [should] have that right too. There is a
              connection between legalizing abortion for women
              and ending of paternity suits for men. Giving men their
              own choices would not deny choices to women.
              It would only eliminate their expectation
              of having those choices financed by men.”

              There is a strong sense of justice in this. If a woman decides to bring a child into existence despite the man’s protestations, then the age old saying “Whoever picks the tune pays the piper” applies pretty well.

              Despite all the cries about patriarchy, what we have today is a society in which women have choices and men have responsibilities.

            • Well like I said John, I think it’s a good idea – I agree with Ms. DuCrow.

              The only problem I’d have with it is this: if the man signs something saying that he wants nothing to do with his child, is that ironclad? He can’t change his mind later? Because the problem there is… unlike if there’s an abortion, if the woman chooses to have the child, the child may want to know who his/her father is when they get older. The man might conceivably, by that time, be OK with having a relationship with his child, and for the child’s sake I wouldn’t be in favor of saying “no” to that. But if it’s too easy to re-establish ties, a lot of men might sign such papers just to get out of any financial responsibilities.

              Boy, trying to come up with decent solutions to this stuff is a mess. :(

            • I’m not a lawyer and this is hypothetical. My guess is that the contract would be ironclad until the child turns 18. Once the child turns 18 neither the government nor the mother have any legal right to control the associations of the child or the father.

              If the situation comes up where both the child and the father want the father to assume some kind of parental role then I would say that the mother’s approval would be necessary as up until that point she is the child’s sole guardian (I do not think this decision should be shared with the father’s step-child, it should be hers alone). If she declines, then her decisions should be enforcible by law enforcement to keep the father out of their life either with or without the added step of getting a restraining order.

              I also think if the father wants a relationship with the child (and the child feels the same way) then he should owe a substantial portion of back child support.

              Depending on the age of the child, if the majority of the raising of the child is completed, then the father should have the right to enact this support in a number of forms: a gift of equal value to the child (like a car, elective surgery, college tuition or whatever), or a fund in the child’s name payable to the child upon 18th birthday.

              Also, if the mother is willing to let the relationship between child & father go forward, I would say that the mother should also have the right to lower the back child support if she is willing (in other words the back-child support might be calculated from higher earnings from previous jobs which the father no longer has).

            • That all sounds good to me. I’d vote for it!

            • Julie Gillis says:

              In my fantasy? Neither would be forced into anything because everyone would be locked up on birth conrtrol until such time as both want a child.
              I sure wish that there were some kind of birth control that was safe yet temporary that both men and women could take. Or a reversible form for both men and women.
              I realize that’s a fantasy.
              If we lived in a society with many more social support structures, let’s say, perhaps something a bit more socialist, I’d probably be damn fine with the father waiving his rights. If I got knocked up, and he didn’t want it and I did. Fine with that. What if you wanted it and I didn’t. Maybe I’d bear it and give it to you and not be a mother. The society perhaps would have to have the interest of all it’s citiizens for health and wellness if we couldn’t rely on each other..
              I don’t think I’d have the right to make you (or anyone) make me pregnant. I shouldn’t have the right to make you stay connected to me. I don’t have the right to make you give me your kidney. You don’t have the right to make me bear your child.
              But, the child needs support is all I’m saying. So I advocate as much BC as humanly possible. Includes condoms.

          • Hermit says:
            “When i can have a say about do i want a child or not. At the moment, it is the mother who decides alone. Her body, her choice, is it familiar?”

            Oh, no….. responds:
            “Hermit, that is exactly how it should be.”

            Oh, no. Are you familiar with the saying “whoever picks the tune pays the piper?”
            If women have 100% total control over whether a child is issued from a coupling, then they should shoulder 100% of the responsibilities. If a man CHOOSES to contribute (and how much) to the child that issues from a casual relationship fine. But he shouldn’t be coerced into it by law.

            Women don’t seem to understand that CHOICES = RESPONSIBILITIES at least in a sane world. Only in an insane world can somebody make another person responsible for YOUR choices.

            Strangely Karen Decrow “got it”. ONe of her quotes:

            “If women have the right to choose if they become
            parents, men [should] have that right too. There is a
            connection between legalizing abortion for women
            and ending of paternity suits for men. Giving men their
            own choices would not deny choices to women.
            It would only eliminate their expectation
            of having those choices financed by men.”
            She was Pres of NOW from 1970 to 72

    • Julie Gillis says:

      1) what rights do you want hermit? I can’t force you to impregnate me, you can’t force me to carry your child. Wear condoms and make sure she’s on the pill if you don’t want a custody issues.

      2) So you were raised by two women. Why does that mean that they shouldn’t get married? Because you had a bad experience that’s a totaltiy and a universal truth for others? Sorry, don’t think so.

      3) Heated arguments are fine with me, and frankly hermit I’m not gonna ask people not be jerks to each other, but some of the comments have steered into hyperbole, attack and paranoia. THat’s not good discussion, that’s just yelling into the wind. Wasn’t even talking about you, Hermit.

  3. “Since the woman risks her health and her very life when she has a child, she should determine when or if she has a child.”

    And men risk their future. It requires two person to have make a baby. If you take one’s rights, then take the responsibilities also. End of story.
    It is funny how you accuse men here not being empathetic…

    • Oh, no..... says:

      Hermit, you just introduced another factor that was not being discussed previously, and you treat it as a trap and yet another opportunity to attack me. Yes, a man risks his future when he fathers a child. It seems your objection to female autonomy in terms of reproduction is in a woman getting pregnant without the father’s consent and then keeping the child instead of aborting it, thus forcing a financial responsibility on the father. Is this correct? If the woman deliberately gets pregnant by fooling a man into believing that she is on some form of birth control, thus fraudulently inducing him, then she is in the wrong. But if you are having sex with a woman and YOU are not ensuring that she is protected by some form of birth control, then you are in the wrong, and if a pregnancy results, you are on the hook to support that child. So it seems that what you should do is take responsibility for protecting against unwanted pregnancy instead of complaining when the woman becomes pregnant with your child. You know that this is the sensible way to proceed, but if you did that, then there would be nothing to complain about. And I know from your posts that you really enjoy complaining.

    • Julie Gillis says:

      At this point men have ample access to condoms and should require proof of women’s birth control. That’s easy enough to do. There is also oral, manual and anal sex which don’t lead to pregnancy.

      • Oh, no..... says:

        Julie, I think you are a little naive.

        Are you aware that the epidemic of HPV is being spread through oral and anal sex? Just watch – over the next ten years or so there will be a huge uptick in the number of oral and anal cancers in this country due to HPV.

        P.S. – condoms don’t protect against HPV.

        • Julie Gillis says:

          Not naive at all, Oh No. I’m well aware of the stats. However we were discussing birth control and pregnancy, not STDs, which was what Hermit seemed so concerned about.

          As for STDs.

          Get the shots, pick your partners carefully, get tested.

          • Oh, no..... says:

            There is no test for HPV in men. Doctors won’t test women for HPV unless a pap smear indicates abnormal cells. Many people who have no symptoms are carrying HPV and infecting other people unknowingly.

            I am too old to get a shot for HPV. I have chosen abstinence.

  4. “But if you are having sex with a woman and YOU are not ensuring that she is protected by some form of birth control, then you are in the wrong, and if a pregnancy results, you are on the hook to support that child.”

    Life is not so simple. If YOU decide to keep the baby, then YOU should take the responsibilities alone. It’s a big mistake from my part to try to build any emotional contact with that child, because if YOU decide -at any moment- to break that contact by not letting me see my child, not fucking SWAT units will come to enforce my rights. Patriarchy at work.
    My point is, that your rights are not automatically superior over my rights JUST because you’re happen to be a mother, and i’m a father. If they are, i’m a secondary citizen.

    • Julie Gillis says:

      I agree with you Hermit, to a point. If we lived in say Sweden? Or a country where the child’s health care was assured, where childcare was easily accessible (leaving plenty of room for me to earn an income) then sure. you don’t want the child….go away. I don’t want the child and you do? Here you go!

      We don’t live like that. We live badly here in America in many ways, not the least of which is we are litigious as hell, yes indeed there are biases against men in terms of custody battles though I suppose I can see the reasons in the genesis of those poliices.

      Until that point, don’t get anyone pregnant. Wear a condom, make sure she’s on BC, don’t stick the baby maker into the baby maker, avoid the problem I guess.

      Finally, there is this thing called Trust, Hermit. And you don’t have to participate in it if you truly are paranoid anyone you love will betray you as you mention above. I mean, I do know couples who have joint custody and they treat each other with respect even though they’ve divorced-it does happen. Some people maintain civility during a divorce and the child is treated well and gets access to both parents. And frankly that’s how it should be. When two parents are finished with each other but connected through a child? They should grow the hell up and not use the child as a weapon in their own drama. That’s hideously abusive to the child.

      • Oh, no..... says:

        Amen, Julie. It is shocking how most divorcing couples get into using their children as weapons in their own dramas. My ex-husband and his family tried to start that with me, and I immediately moved to stop it. I assured my son that I would never prevent him from seeing his father, and I assured him that he could spend as much time as he wanted with his father, and that I could amuse myself when he was away with Dad. We never had a visitation order because it was not necessary – our son went back and forth between households as he chose, starting at the age of seven. I have taken care of his dad when dad was sick. All of us are going to share Thanksgiving dinner at dad’s house this next week.

        Being disrespectful to the child’s other parent is abusive. Too bad most people cannot overcome their egos and power issues and just focus on the child’s well being.

        • Oh No says:
          “Amen, Julie. It is shocking how most divorcing couples get into using their children as weapons in their own dramas.”

          It is quite clearly the case that this is widespread. It is also quite clearly the case that it is overwhelmingly mothers who are #1 most likely to use kids as pawns and #2 most likely to win at this practice (thanks to the toadies in family courts who are mothers bullies by proxy).

          Mothers win sole physical custody about 13 times as often as fathers (80% versus 6%). Women initiate divorce 70% of the time and overwhelmingly for superfluous reasons.
          Anybody concerned about the divorce epidemic and the well-being of kids should support the shared parenting movement.

          In point of fact I think fathersandfamilies.org is one of the most truly egalitarian organizations out there. They are doing good work and strive to make sure children of divorce have substantial time with BOTH mothers and fathers.

          F&F even paid a military mom’s legal fees last year. When she got back from deployment, her husband (who had been taking care of the children while she was away) tried to use her deployment as an excuse to keep majority time and not go back to the original agreement.

          There are those who “talk the talk” about equality, then there are those who “walk the walk”.

          F&F appears to really put their money where their mouth is when speaking about equality, children’s rights, and parents rights.
          They are starting to get:
          1) a good deal of wealthy donors from hollywood and other sources
          2) facilitate a lot of face time with politicians
          3) building ties with feminist groups and gay rights groups
          4) 50% of their members are women. 2nd wives, paternal grandmothers and other women who see the incredible destruction that says fathers rights run through mothers has caused.

          With any luck, in 25 years the whole of the USA will have presumptive shared parenting as it’s laws. This would be a gigantic boon to children, children’s rights to both parents, and parental rights.

    • Oh, no..... says:

      “Life is not so simple. If YOU decide to keep the baby, then YOU should take the responsibilities alone. It’s a big mistake from my part to try to build any emotional contact with that child, because if YOU decide -at any moment- to break that contact by not letting me see my child, not fucking SWAT units will come to enforce my rights. Patriarchy at work.
      My point is, that your rights are not automatically superior over my rights JUST because you’re happen to be a mother, and i’m a father. If they are, i’m a secondary citizen.”

      Actually, life IS that simple. You take precautions or you unleash forces beyond your control. It has nothing to do with you being a “secondary citizen.” The problem you describe is manifestly avoidable.

      • Either you (the universal “you”) are pro-choice or anti-choice. To deny a human of either sex post-conception reproductive choice is anti-choice. That is simple.

      • Oh No says:
        “Actually, life IS that simple. You take precautions or you unleash forces beyond your control.”

        Oh no. I’m old enough to remember a time when women got a very raw deal on trying to collect their child support. The large scale garnishing of wages had not arrived. The employment database was not as sophisticated as it now is.

        All an unethical man had to do to avoid paying child support was to jump states, change jobs or work under the table.

        Your solution for men is little different than the misogynistic men who told the single mother (who couldn’t get her support) “SHE SHOULDA KEPT HER LEGS SHUT!”

        All you and other feminist like you have done is move the onus for sexual congress from women to men—this is not a solution. Furthermore, the current situation isn’t based in biology but upon LAWS.

        One of the prime catalysts for the suffragette movement was a single women with no family who had a baby in which the father had run out on her. It being during the industrial revolution the mother had no safety net to care for her child and collect and income. So, she went to work leaving the baby alone and it died. She was sentenced to life in prison.

        Women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton wanted the vote for women, to start ushering in law reform that was less based on doctrine and more taking context into it. So, obviously LAW is the issue, not biology. It’s amazing how far we have come in 100 years, and yet how little we have changed. We’ve gone from making women into villains into making men into villains.

        In the middle, there was some common sense. Before the manhating variation of feminism, there was a true egalitarian version.

        Karen Decrow who was president of NOW from 70 to 72 was quoted as saying:

        “If women have the right to choose if they become
        parents, men [should] have that right too. There is a
        connection between legalizing abortion for women
        and ending of paternity suits for men. Giving men their
        own choices would not deny choices to women.
        It would only eliminate their expectation
        of having those choices financed by men.”

        Why this concept seems to elude you, and instead you center your arguments around “if you woulda kept it in your pants you wouldn’t have a problem” doesn’t prove any point except to show how little you stand for equality.
        “keep it in your pants”
        My how you sound like the bigots of old (she shoulda kept her legs crossed).

        • Oh, no..... says:

          John D – I didn’t tell Hermit to keep it in his pants. I told him to be sure to use birth control, not leave it up to his hope that the woman is using it (which was always the case when I was younger – the man just assumed I was taking care of it.) What a bunch of words you wasted chiding me for something I never said.

          • Oh no says:
            “John D – I didn’t tell Hermit to keep it in his pants. I told him to be sure to use birth control, not leave it up to his hope that the woman is using it”

            Truly a distinction without a difference. “Accidental” births or truly accidental births will happen (condoms are only 99% effective).

            The problem isn’t biology, but LAW in which the man is held to be additionally responsible for any births that ensue despite it being a 100% female choice. (When there was a problem for women getting support the LAW was changed. But when men are forcibly tricked into becoming parents there is no help being offered).

            Women have the right to abandon children at firehouses or hospitals, but men can’t be freed of financial obligation when a woman forces him to become a parent.

            A few years back I remember reading in a british women’s mag that in a poll 30% of women said they would lie about contraception to get a child even if they knew the man did not want to be a father.

            Women have choices, men have responsibilities. If feminists and most women were truly honest with themselves, they would accept the right of men to have paper abortions. Men should have just as much right to decide if they want a child or not as a woman.

            In the case of accidental (or “accidental”) conception while a man cannot have the same right to choose if the child is born he should have the right to decide his level of involvement (and financial and other responsibilities) especially if the woman lied to the man to have a baby.

            Tricking somebody into parenthood is evil and a great harm to the resultant child. Financially gaining off of it is incredibly repulsive.

            When I tripped across the Karen Decrow quote I was incredibly astounded to see that somebody got this and that
            1) it was way back in the 70’s
            2) she was a woman
            3) she was the freaking president of NOW

            How far backwards we have come since then.

            • Oh, no..... says:

              If you were paying attention instead of constantly being in attack mode, you would see that I agree with you that women should not be allowed to trick men into impregnating them and then demand money from the men. But when you start mouthing nonsense like “women have choices, men have responsibilities,” you lose all credibility. Why don’t you take your enormous energy and put it towards stopping rape? Until men stop raping women, don’t talk to me about women having “choices” and men having “responsibilities.”

            • Oh no,
              “If you were paying attention instead of constantly being in attack mode”
              Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah giggle snort teehee, chuckle Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ohmygod Icantbreathe!
              Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah giggle snort teehee, chuckle Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ohmygod Icantbreathe!
              Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah giggle snort teehee, chuckle Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ohmygod Icantbreathe!

  5. I am sorry that many of you women have ended up either dating or being surrounded by the very same guys who are writing in this blog.

    So many guys missed the title of the blog and think the are being bashed.

    Patriarchy in muslim world is absolute and is also in the Christian world as well. That is institutionalised patriarchy. We who don’t believe in some dude in the sky, can see the consequences of it, but unfortunately so many children have been brainwashed and we are suffering the consequences of it. It is only when the majority of people are enlightened will change really happen. That mean no support for religion, in schools or on the calendar. The ‘ goddess movement’ is even stupider as people who should know better made up a new religion in the name of equality. Its like sticking a stick in your own eye because your brother is getting special treatment because he is blind.
    Men and women are different and we should respect it. Men are larger and stronger on average and do more physical labour that is dangerous. But it is patriarchy of some men that values women as possessions which leads to men in power not caring about other men. They only care about women as sexual objects and that is their only value. that is why movies that have scores of nameless men killed while the plot centres around the beautiful woman in peril is perpetualing patriarchy. That is not to say that women should be killed too, like in the mysoginistic “Saw” movies, but this ‘I got to save the women so she will fuck me after’ plot is promoting patriarchy at the expense of women and men.

    • So, you want to take away Christmas and other holidays, not just for yourself but for everyone else too?
      There are a number of things that I personally disagreee with and would never do but I also respect the right of other people to engage in them, even if I think it’s stupid, immoral, or even personally destructive. It’s their life and right to do whatever they please to and for themselves.

      Secondly, you seem to have customized this term called patriarchy and attached it to everything you personally dislike about the world. That’s certainly economical because you don’t actually have to think critically and analytically about facts on issues that are, in fact, not directly related.

      To conveniently lump it all under “patriarchy” or “vevilefetzer” or whatever term you want to come up with and them complain about it, while actually doing nothing about it, is a bridge to nowhere.

  6. You live in the US.I live in Hungary, where the childrens health care is automatically free for everyone. But my post was not about that.

    ” yes indeed there are biases against men in terms of custody battles though I suppose I can see the reasons in the genesis of those poliices.”

    Injustice is injustice, you can not cherry pick, at least if you’re a humanist.

    “Until that point, don’t get anyone pregnant. Wear a condom, make sure she’s on BC, don’t stick the baby maker into the baby maker, avoid the problem I guess.”

    I think it’s a little bit late, but let me point out something: nothing personal here. We’re discussing ideas.

    ” I mean, I do know couples who have joint custody and they treat each other with respect even though they’ve divorced-it does happen. Some people maintain civility during a divorce and the child is treated well and gets access to both parents. And frankly that’s how it should be.”

    Should be. But that’s not the point. The thing is, you- as a mother- have many possibilities to take my rights as a father, the access to my child(ren). Far too many. And people (men AND women) are not saints, they often abuse power. So women and especially mothers should not be so much power in their hands on the field of reproduction.

    “That’s hideously abusive to the child.”

    That’s why it should be prevented by the law.

  7. I can’t stay out of the abortion debate, like a moth to a light
    just so you know my foundation for learning is science (Geology) with a minor in philosophy and political science, though environmental assessment, MCSE and human resources and now linguistics and astrophysics are the learning dejour.

    I think I made up this analogy- I have told it to friends since the early eighties.

    Scientists spot a mother eagle pushing her eggs out of the nest.

    what do they do?
    shoot the mother eagle?
    try catching the eggs
    or (this is the coorect answer) try to figure out what is stressing her.

    No one ‘supports’ abortion. in an ideal world they would only happen when the birth threatens the mother’s life or if being born would create unbearable suffering and an early death.

    so why do women have abortions other than the above to reasons ?- (i am taking an educated guess on these but my organization does provide sexual health services)
    a) to avoid a life of poverty or to add to their life of poverty
    b) to avoid being forever tied to an abusive asshole
    c) because their religious parents will disown them
    d) rape and or incest
    e) losing their dreams for the future.

    Want to end abortions? Sex education,age appropriate throughout school. free and accecsssible birth control. Provide publicly funded daycare, get rid of fundamental religion, reward mothers for bringing a child into being – our population is declining, we need more children. Fully funded post secondary schools, 2 year mat leaves, job security including advancement.

    And like our First Nations, treat all child births like the miracle that they are. Erase the terms ‘bastard’ or ‘ ‘out of wedlock’ from or vocabulary and treat the term ‘ single mother’ with respect!

    • god I wish the ipad had spell check!

      • What do you think of Ayn Rand? Personally i think she solves many of the social paradymes of gender relations.

        • Yipes! I hope not. Ayn Rand was one sick puppy.

          • Why so? She seemed to be at worst a high functioning sociopath if anything. If you understand her then you probable understand most women.

            • Geesh I don’t even know where to start. I won’t even comment on the “If you understand her then you probabl(y) understand most women.” What?

              Anyhow… sociopath is a good start, in describing her. Empathy is simply absent from her worldview, as are children. But it’s pretty obvious also (both from reading her books and reading about her personal life) that her relationships with men were pretty screwed up. On one hand, she seemed to love hero worship of men – she would create impossibly “heroic” female characters who secretly desired to be sexually dominated by even more impossibly heroic men. There are all sorts of sadomasochistic themes in the sex in her book – fine if you’re into that sort of thing, but I hardly see it as solving any gender relations problems.

              In real life, she married a very complacent man for whom she obviously didn’t have much respect, and proceeded to carry on a long term affair with her much younger protegee, while her unhappy husband stood by and let her come up with all sorts of hypocritical justifications for why this was OK.

              I would really like to know what gender relations issues you think she “solves” because her attitudes on gender seem to be as bankrupt to me as her “philosophy.”

            • I leaned from her that love is earned, not given in charity.
              I admired Her honesty about who she chooses to deal with and why,
              I love The emphasis she placed on life as the ultimate value,
              I love Her stance on self defense.
              Through her I learned to respect the fact that women NEED productivity and Survivability more then all their prostrations of love and jingoistic clichés of listening to your “Heart”.

              Ayn Rand put in black & white what she wanted in a man and in her life and she didn’t beat around the bush about it either. Basically she was more honest about what women NEED then any victim worshiping feminist hack could ever hope to hide with flowery optimism. You might think her philosophy is bankrupt but it would probably make you sick how often her axiums occur in nature and human interaction.

            • Actually her “axioms” don’t occur very often in real life at all, and that is exactly why they’re so bankrupt.

              This isn’t to say I disagree with her on everything. But if you think that what Ayn Rand wants is “what women need” then you are sorely mistaken. Ayn Rand was ONE woman and her “needs” were quite different from most. On the other hand she was also all too human, and tried to deny her real needs whenever possible because they conflicted with the philosophy she espoused publicly.

              I do agree with her about choosing who you deal with, and that adults do need to earn love. But that doesn’t have to mean having contempt for altruism as she did, and it doesn’t mean doing whatever you want with no consideration for people’s feelings that you care about, as it did to her. The idea that one has to choose between pure selfishness and “prostrations of love and jingoistic clichés of listening to your heart” is immature, like most of her ideas. Most of us do not live in that world – we can practice empathy and compassion and altruism without sacrificing our own identity or life or liberty. In Ayn Rand’s effed up world that was not even possible.

            • “Ayn Rand was ONE woman and her “needs” were quite different from most. ”

              I disagree, when it comes to human relations there always seems to be an exchange of either financial stability for sexual experiences or the sheer narcissistic ascetic  validation for Physical Protection. In other words people use each other all the time. They exchange similar values with likeminded partners. 

              Rand teaches that you shouldn’t sacrifice your values  for something of no value. Blessed are those who share similar goals for companionship.

              I know Ms. Rand fell  from her own ideal. I hold no assertion that Rand was anything other the  a human being with frailties and dependencies dissimilar to my own. I know she was more a student of her philosophy then the standard.

              It doesn’t matter to me. Randian Objectivism is the only ideology that’s telling men that we are our own salvation. That the world is not fair and you have no right to ask for someone else’s pity. That a non productive man isn’t worth sh@t!

              That the individual is the soul architect of his/her own happiness but you have to love your life 1st. Through objectivism self preservation becomes a moral act. I choose to be objective rather then give myself to an ideology that considers my gender a bunch of privileged rapist oppressors?

            • Of *course* no one should sacrifice their values for something of no value. That goes without saying and I agree there are some people who really need to learn that lesson. But to say that the only way to achieve this is through Randian philosophy is… well… crazy. To reduce human relationships to simplistic “exchanges of value for value” or “using” people, equating compassion or empathy with pity, these are all traits of psychopathic people.

              And yes, individuals are responsible for their own happiness, but the sole architects? No, they are not. We depend on each other and on our forebears for happiness just as much as ourselves, whether Ms. Rand cares to admit it or not.

            • Oh, no…you have display hate throughout this post, due to your mental illness. Please seek treatment, not blogs.

            • You remind me of those ADHD teenage trolls who creep into blogs and distract others from the real issues.

              Mental illness is not a joke. Rape jokes are not funny either. Only children would use these terms in derogatory fashion to harass others.

              Do you know where there is a lot of mental illness? In Patriarchy. Look at all the rapists and criminals in prison – they are all examples of Patriarchal mental illness; they have taken things that aren’t theirs and must pay for it now.

            • Shut up, jerk. You are nothing more than a bludgeon.

            • Ha! My favorite philosopher is a Women who loves logic and reason
              So raspberries ta you….

              And by the way YOU ARE NOT FOOLING ANY ONE WITH THE ALMOST SEXUAL PASSION YOU SEEM TO HAVE FOR GIVING MEN ON THIS BLOG GREIF!

              I BET YOU’RE BREATHING THROUGH YOUR NOSE RIGHT NOW….ARN’T CHA?

    • Those are the very same reasons that there should be post-conception reproductive choice for males and females. Literally, the exact same list of reasons applies to males. I hope you are actually pro-choice, not just pro-abortion (i.e. choice regardless of gender)

  8. no patriarchy?

    here is an excerpt from the online Globe and Mail on Sunday( my ipad won’t let me copy and past the whole thing) this is the best paper in Canada and all people in power read it.

    JAMES CHRISTIE
    From Saturday’s Globe and Mail
    Friday, November 18, 2011 6:03PM CST
    After the long fight to get into the Olympic boxing ring next summer, women are still battling – not to be seen as sex objects.

    Boxing’s governing body, the AIBA (an acronym for the International Boxing Association), will decide at a meeting of its technical and rules committees next January whether to recommend that AIBA executives make it mandatory that the 36 women in three weight classes fight at the Olympics in skirts or traditional boxing trunks.
    It’s the latest controversy affecting women as they break into the male-oriented world of sport.

    The national governing body, Boxing Canada, is opposed to making skirts mandatory for female boxers in the ring. Boxing Canada executive director Robert Crete says an athlete “should have an option” in what he or she wears.

    “It’s interesting that they’re assigning a dress code for women and not men and women together,” said Karin Lofstrom, executive director of the Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women in Sport and Physical Activity. She agreed that a choice of garment should be optional.

    “I thought we learned that lesson in sports like badminton,” she said. The governing body of the racquet sport last spring suggested a dress code that called for women to play in skirts. It quickly pulled back the proposed regulation “for further study” after the British sport minister criticized the move as “aggressive and damaging.”

    • Hey, at least here in the US, girls can play football! They have their own special league, the LFL!! And it’s very special! Have you heard of it, neighbor to the north? No? Well it stands for Lingerie Football League. Let your imagination run wild. Yes, that’s it, you’ve got it! And it has just been decided that there will be a junior league version of this for pre-teens. So what do women have to complain about??!! We are all taken seriously and treated equally to men. Don’t know what the fuss is all about in this thread. If the women up there are allowed to box, I say, let them do it in thongs and pasties! After all, there is no patriarchy, just women making poor choices.

    • It’s money. It’s marketing. It’s trying to figure out how to get the most viewers. No one is forced to be part of that organization.

      Are wedding dresses on women rather than tuxedos due to patriarchy?

      • Wedding dresses are not SEXUALIZING. They are not DEMEANING. Come on, you know the difference!

        • I don’t know about that. If a white wedding dress represents Virginity, then it does become a defacto sexual uniform?

          Profit in Buisness leades to Survivability. The same holds true for certain value judgments Like earning potential and fertility.

          Survivability is King!

        • So, a skirt is demeaning but a dress isn’t? According to whom?

  9. Football is a game ( not real life) that is based on size and muscle mass. No one questions that men, with testosterone, will be bigger and stronger than women.
    Just like you,will not have a baby, not due to discrimination but to biology.

    Women just want to walk the streets at night without some drunken jerk hitting on them, to have a job interview and not have the guy staring at her breasts, not to be excluded because ‘they are emotional, and not to be talked to like they are a child. They want their role as the bearers of children respected and not to be dependant on anyone. Just like a guy.

    I am guessing that you and most of the guys writing here, have never had great sex, the kind where you make love and lie there in total stress free comfort and talk about things, learn things about your lover that makes you love her more.

    • “Football is a game ( not real life) that is based on size and muscle mass. No one questions that men, with testosterone, will be bigger and stronger than women. Just like you,will not have a baby, not due to discrimination but to biology.”

      That’s very obviously not true, since the claim was made that women were relegated to the lingerie football league, as if they were prevented from competing to play in the NFL. So, you should argue with those to brought that up.

      Mark, men and women are discriminate against in different ways. It’s not as if only women are discriminated against. If you were fully in touch with reality, you would recognize that black men are far more discriminated against and oppressed than white women. Pick any area: crime victim, unemployment, murder victim, education, you name it.

      “I am guessing that you and most of the guys writing here, have never had great sex, the kind where you make love and lie there in total stress free comfort and talk about things, learn things about your lover that makes you love her more.”

      I am guessing that you haven’t been happily married to the same lovely lady and mother of your children as I have, for going on 20 years. There’s a very good chance that I’ve had way more great sex than you ever will. I got married very young, have great sex regularly, and my wife and I don’t believe in unhappy marriage or divorce. So, we’ll be having great sex for a few more decades at least.

      • sorry bud, got you by three years of marriage and both me and my wife understand divorce is a reality ( what would you do if your wife does leave you- not let her?)
        Not in touch with reality. I work with the social determinants of health every day.

        Are you telling me that black male is subserviant to a black or white female??

        You should got to the hood and ask the guys hanging around selling drugs and hookers if they feel like women control them -they are the ones heading to prison and an early death.

        the day white women are pimping black men on the street is the day you win your case.

        You should listen to ganta rap and see just how oppressed black men feel by their bitches and hoes.

        Racism may trump sexism, homophobia may trump racism, diability is more than a barrier than sex but that doesn’t mean sexism doesn’t still occur.

        • I married a woman who agrees with me that marriage is permanent.  We believe in working through problems together.  That is our shared philosophy.
          __________________
           
          I’m not “telling you” anything that is not factual.  I am informing you that white women were never legally bought and sold as slaves, never lynched, literally killed with impunity because they weren’t considered full human beings with rights, skinned, dragged behind speeding cars, never stereotyped as lazy and shiftless, rapists, ignorant, genetically inferior, and part ape.
          I’m informing you of the fact that black men suffer more violence and murder than white women by a huge margin.  I’m informing you that black men are provided far fewer educational opportunities and suffer far more societal discrimination than white women.  I’m informing you that black men have far higher unemployment, far lower high school graduation rates, far lower college graduation rates, far higher suicide rates, far higher incarceration rates, and far more despair due to all of the above, which creates a cycle  – since they become fathers of succeeding generations.

          Compared to black men, white women are highly privileged. Those are simply considering the facts.  To ignore that is shameful, and reflects contempt.

          I won’t comment on the racist under and overtones of your comment. They stand on their own.

  10. lol, read the’ Is there such thing as female privilege’ on the eden fantasy website.

    so you feel choked up cause you can’t sleep in a bed with another guy and you think its female privilege that they can. No its not, its homophobia!
    And the horror of circumcision. OMG! I was circumcised!!!! Funny, I don’t remember anything. I have had at least two orgasms a day for 38 years ( i am 50) , never had ED, VD, urinary tract infection, HPV nor do I have dick cheese). My wife lifes it that way and If moma ain’t happy, no one is. By the way, circumcision is kinda a guy idea, you know the bible, even though I suspect that a woman noticed men’s willies looking pretty grim and saying, why not cut some skin off so urine doesn’t collect under it and get all gross.

    Oh and women are 20% more likely to be employed by men. Stayed at any hotels lately? the term ‘ cleaning lady’ still holds true. Men still make more per hour.

    My son is looking forward to going to school next year cause it is nearly 70% female and he is straight. Most guys in his grade are fucking around, getting drunk and dreaming of the high paying job at the oil sands. That is why women will make more money but that won’t make women feel anymore safe walking the streets, probably less so, as more Marc Lepines’ come out of the woodwork blaming their failure to succeed on women.

    • MarkP, this is terrible. There are two sides, and castigating males (or females) in a gender war is not the answer, pal any more than castigating blacks or Latinos is. Kicking someone when they’re down is wrong. Give a hand or leg up is the right thing to do. I have only daughters but am concerned about the horrific plight of young men. The 70/30 gender education gap is going to, and has already started to come home to roost our society. Radical gender imbalances are bad for everyone.

      • Oh, no..... says:

        Okay, Eric. Since you are so concerned about gender imbalances, let’s make Congress half female, and half of the judge positions female, and half of the CEOs of the Fortune 500 female, etc.

        • “Since you are so concerned about gender imbalances, let’s make Congress half female, and half of the judge positions female, and half of the CEOs of the Fortune 500 female, etc.”

          You forgot the homlesses somehow. And the coal miners. etc.

        • Cool with me. That could happen if they chose to be 50% of the candidates.

          Women politicians are no more or less incompetent than their male counterparts..

  11. Hermit- Why don’t you just get a vasectomy? If you really wanted to have control over whether or not you become a parent, it’s the most logical step to take.

    • i love my children, and they were planned. But again, we’re discussing ideas, why attack me personally?

    • That’s a terrible thing to say. Would you say to a woman, “Why don’t you just get a tubaligation? If you really wanted to have control over whether or not you become a parent, it’s the most logical step to take.”

      If not, it’s not only terrible, it’s sexist.

      • If he really wanted to have control over whether he became a father or not, he would take that control into his own hands and get a vasectomy. Women get their tubes tied all the time and yes, I have asked women if they are going to do that or stay on birth control and what kind are they using.. etc.
        Getting tubes tied is a much more costly and invasive procedure than a man getting snipped.
        You make it sound like it’s the end of the world. My grandpa had one because he didn’t want to have any more kids. Big deal.

        • Valerie,
          You’re only looking at one instance for men (when they’re done having kids). What about young men who want to control whether they become parents for right now, but have children later.

          Surgery shouldn’t be the only option. 30% of women surveyed in a woman’s mag said they would lie about contraception to have a baby even if the man had expressed he didn’t want to become a father.

          That’s a lot of self-centered lying women, if the % remains valid for women at large.

          • Then men should get vasectomies if they think so many women are going to lie about it. Why put that choice in someone else’s hands when you have the power to control your own future. Vasectomies are fully reversible and affordable. Why not control your own life?

            • Velerie, to get a vasectomy does not change the laws suddenly unbiased, so that’s not the point. (In case you really want to know, i ‘ve always loved children, so the thought never came up) Biased laws are a human rights issue, like it or not. Oh yes, and it has nothing to do with me personally. More about my childrens future, what i feel responsible for.

              Feminist groups are against DNA testing at birth…. i wonder why. So even vasectomy not always enough. There are horrible and disguisting cases out there.

            • Ok, fine, Hermit, have it your way. Don’t get a vasectomy and tell other men not to do it either. You can have control over your future but you choose not to. Nothing more I can say.

          • Where the hell do you get all these statistics? :D Seriously. What “women’s magazine”?

  12. Oh, no..... says:

    In response to a question about where his wife might be while he is constantly on the internet, Eric says: “We’re usually together but doing different things. She shops way more than I do.”

    Of course she does.

    • Since you have no answers and no valid points to make, you continue to stoop to personal attacks and insults. Now you’ve moved on to attacking my wife.

    • So, since his wife enjoys shopping, you’re implying she’s not a liberated female and just a slave to her husband. Believe it or not, some women like to shop. Some men do too. Who are you to say whats appropriate for that woman to do? A true feminist wouldn’t attack the lifestyle a woman chooses even if it doesn’t coincide with your personal likes and ideals.

  13. wellokaythen says:

    I made my comment about the awesome power of patriarchy because I wanted to express, in an awkward way, how having an extreme view of patriarchy can actually backfire. If patriarchy has “destroyed” generation after generation, and men keep on getting away with all these horrible things century after century, it sounds pretty invulnerable to me. The worse it sounds, the more universal it looks, the less confidence I have in fighting it. If there’s never been any progress against it at all, then it’s hard to imagine any progress in the future.

    I’m left with a hypothetical, another one of those gender paradoxes I keep running into. If you could choose between being a man in our society and being a woman, which would you choose?

    For anti-patriarchal women: if you’re a woman looking at the horrible injustice of patriarchy, would you choose to be a man if you could?

    Same thing for a man who thinks women have more privilege than men – would you rather be a woman than a man?

    If the answer to any of this is that you would NEVER trade in for the other gender, that it’s way better to be the gender that you are, then I’m not sure how that answer squares with saying that the other gender is better off.

    Same thing in general for people who claim that group X gets special treatment – would you rather be a member of that group if you had a choice? (If being black and gay and female are the most privileged positions, then I should wish I were an African American lesbian.) If not, then how privileged could they be?

    • I think you’re taking a pretty extreme interpretation here. I don’t think anyone is saying there hasn’t been progress – only that the journey isn’t completely over yet, despite some people’s wish to declare that it is.

      I wouldn’t choose to be a man if I could (although there are plenty of documented cases of women who would, parents who want sons and not daughters, black people who try to look more white, etc.), but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing about being a woman that angers or saddens me and that I’d like to see changed. I’m sure that as a man you probably feel the same, even if you wouldn’t trade places with a woman.

      The thing that disturbs me is that so many of these discussions seem to turn into a “who is the bigger victim” contest. It would be nice if someone could bring up a problem that exists for one gender without spawning all these other comments about how much worse it is for the other gender. We all know that we’ve all suffered behind gender roles and the societal norms that go with them. Different problems affect different genders and it would be nice if we could discuss each one without it turning into a contest of who is getting screwed over more.

      • “The thing that disturbs me is that so many of these discussions seem to turn into a “who is the bigger victim” contest.”

        I admit that I have done that. Did it just a minute ago.

        It has become a defense mechanism. It gets really old to hear constantly how horrible you are because of being male, how we are rapists, abusers, the devil incarnate – and how wonderful women and girls are in comparison. The concept is to become better men, not get beat down and insulted constantly.

        I mean, if you happen to not be a rapist, oppressor, victimizer, and otherwise a really bad person, it’s insulting and irritating to constantly be told that you are, simply because of your gender.

  14. The gridlock in this thread is like the gridlock of the Super Committee is like the gridlock in Congress. This is going nowhere, and I am stunned by the amount of time being put into it. The MRA’s and the feminists will no more come to consensus on this issue than the dems and the GOP can come to consensus on any issue. I wish that were not true, and admire the effort being put into this thread, but it is obvious after over 300 comments going on for days, we are at total impasse. I suggest everyone give up a fight going nowhere, and chill out. My inbox needs a break.

  15. I know it’s not very constructive to speculate about anyone’s motivations, especially since it’s so hard to prove the motivation. So, I’ll just say what my impression is, right or wrong, and ask if anyone else was thinking the same thing:

    The “Oh, no…” messages sound like a caricature of a type of feminist argument, like something invented to discredit the anti-patriarchy thread of feminism. If so, it’s brilliantly entertaining.

    I don’t know if this makes me cynical to think that someone would be so sneaky, or if it makes me naïve because I can’t believe anyone would sincerely be that extreme.

    • I admit, I had the same thought.

    • Honestly, I’ve started wondering the same.
      If that’s the case, I’ll admit it is a terribly dishonest tactic. On the other hand, it did elicit some very interesting comments.

      It’s hard to know. On the other hand I have seen things work the other way around. On the thread about Feminism and Fathers, finding a common ground there was a feminist reader who talked to talk of equality (even getting comments from the author that she seemed like a good advocate), but as with most things hardcore feminists say, when you play “reverse the genders” she was revealed as not into equality at all, in fact quite the opposite.

      I have also seen on many feminists threads in which feminists state they like to go onto mra (or just mainstream threads on gender issues) and pose as men.
      Who the hell knows?

    • Oh, no..... says:

      That is ridiculous – and you accuse me of being paranoid?

      I am not a feminist. I am a person who happens to be a woman. I am a person who prefers solitude. I am a person who hates being harassed. I am a person who has been raped and stalked.

      Most of the men attacking me on this forum seem to deny my experience. Why? You can’t handle the fact that in this day and age men still rape and stalk and harass?

      I have not made up any of the facts I have related here, nor am I playing a game.

      • Not being paranoid, just speculating. I can understand your preferring solitude, hating being harassed, and being raped and stalked.

        I just have a very hard time understanding how so many men could be harassing and stalking you to the extremes you describe. We’ve all, as women, had experiences of being stalked, harassed and feeling threatened by men – sometimes often enough for it to be scary or at least extremely annoying – but in most cases it’s still a pretty small subset of men. I’ve had many more experiences of feeling genuinely cared about by men. You make it sound like every man you come across thinks you’re a slut just because you’re single (I’m single too, and I don’t have this experience at all nor do I know anyone who does), like any single woman is constantly going to be stalked if she isn’t with a man, etc. Either you live in a VERY conservative, odd community or you have a very different experience than most women, and that tends to provoke some suspicion in online forums, where people can be anonymous and often aren’t who they say they are.

        It’s certainly true that there are people who pose as “feminists,” “animal rights activists,” Democrats or Republicans, etc. on message boards just to present an extreme point of view and discredit the movement they say they’re part of. Your point of view is certainly extreme, so you shouldn’t be too surprised if people don’t trust it.

        • LF – I had no clue that so many men were involved in this stalking and harassment until I filed for a restraining order against the rapist, who I had thought was just a sociopath operating on his own nuttiness. When I got my TRO against the guy, he filed for a restraining order against me (which was refused), alleging that I had falsely accused all sorts of men of sexual misconduct, and that I was bragging to every man in sight that I was some sort of sexy beast with fantastic skills. He named several men, most of whom I had been avoiding for years – which apparently really pissed them off. I had not falsely accused them of anything. One guy claimed I had wrongly accused him of “sexual harassment,” when all I did was ask him not to call me. In his application for the restraining order, the rapist described me as this crazed slut – and that is so far from what I am. I lead a really quiet life, don’t go out much, don’t hang out in bars, don’t drink except for a glass of wine with dinner. Up until mid-1999 I felt genuinely cared about by my former boyfriend – a relationship that lasted more than seven happy years, until he hit his mid-life crisis and lost it, and I had to cut him loose. The weird thing is that I do not live in a conservative town – it is supposedly very liberal. I think I HAVE had a very different experience from most women. Most women I know are in relationships with men, and I know a few looking for a relationship. Nobody seems to bother them. One guy who seems friendly and who has overheard the gossip says the creeps can’t understand why I won’t have sex with any of them, and they don’t see anything wrong with forcing me. The rapist, who lives nearby, has been yelling at me and vandalizing my property for years. So I am very stressed. Knowing of the hostility of the other men who support the rapist doesn’t help, either. Nor does the involvement of the police, who like the rapist and have offered their help to him. At this point I do not know the identities of all of the men involved, so that makes me feel less than trusting. Most of my real friends live out of state, or outside the U.S.

          With your explanation, I understand why people don’t trust my description of my experience, but it is very real. I am hoping that this is just a prolonged bad patch, but I am beginning to wonder.

          • Well I’m sorry you’ve had this experience if it’s real… but since you’re apparently aware that your experience has been unusual, it’s hardly very fair to get on a website such as this one and spew a lot of bile at “men” in general, is it? Some of us are trying to have conversations where we can reach genuine understanding, and projecting what is admittedly an outlying experience onto men as a whole isn’t going to get that done.

            I can understand that you’re angry and stressed, and there are some men here who are equally bitter and obviously venting their frustrations against “women” (or “feminists” or whoever), but the folks who run this site have repeatedly said it isn’t supposed to be anybody’s personal battleground, and I appreciate that sentiment. I don’t think that does any good. If you can find a way to talk about your experiences without taking it out on an entire gender (and most of your comments really do come off that way), then people’s responses might not reinforce your fears so much.

            • Oh, no..... says:

              It is real. And excuse me for being impatient with the majority of the men posting here, who clearly are here solely for the purpose of bashing women and reinforcing negative sexual stereotypes. I am not hostile towards all men. Most of my friends, in fact, are men. They simply are not part of the jerk sub-population of men.

          • Usually i’m very sceptic about the stories when someone accuses his/her community with a conspiracy against him/her. Something is fishy here.
            I don’t say you’re lying, and believe you lived your experiences as you described. But… is that the reality? Are the majority of the people in your life (especially the men!) are evil? I’m sure they would tell another story. Or… is there any possibility that you are also doing something wrong?
            i don’t know, just asking questions.

            Anyway, i wish you better days and positive changes in your life.

            • Oh, no..... says:

              Well, Hermit, I would not have believed it myself, and probably would never have known about the involvement of the other men, but for having obtained the restraining order. That unleashed the rapist’s filing and his revelation of the participation of the other men in a campaign to defame and attack me. I have the emails between the rapist and a certain police sergeant – the rapist attached them to his papers. I also have the police report the rapist filed in an attempt to phony up a claim that I was harassing him. He attached a long statement to the report naming the other men and what they were saying about me. I was shocked, since I had not so much as spoken to any of these men in the past 8 to 10 years, and I could not understand why they would be discussing me among themselves at all. I still don’t know all of the details, and nobody is volunteering anything.

              As for the majority of people in my life – no, they are not all evil. I have a lot of musician friends who are kind and a lot of fun.

              I am sure these men will tell their stories, but they are just that – fictional stories. It appears that most of these people are angry because I refused their advances, spoiled their fantasies. I was not involved with any of these people. These were very superficial acquaintances (you know, standing with the dogs in the dog park and chatting) that had at first been pleasant, but then became strange. As soon as they displayed strange behavior, I stopped speaking to them – as I said, years ago. Most of them are drunks and they have a lot of free time on their hands. What did I do wrong? I was friendly, and then I stopped being friendly when they started the sexual comeons or the stalking or otherwise became obnoxious. I never dated any of these guys.

              Thank you, Hermit, for wishing me better days. I certainly could use them.

            • Oh, no –

              I have been nothing but respectful to you.   Whereas, you have repeatedly called me names, personally insulted me, and personally insulted my wife, lyingly claimed that I wrote things that I did not, and then argued based on those lies.  When I challenged you to post the quotes of what you claimed I said, of course, you disappeared from those discussions.

              I’m sorry that it disturbs you that my life is not a wreck, that I have never abused my wife or any other woman, man, or child, that I am happily married.  I’m sorry that it troubles you that I get along as well with women as I do men, that I have a good and close relationship with lots of women in and outside my family, and have been happily married for years with two kids who still jump in our bed every morning.

              You find that “happy family” concept disturbing and unbelievable.  Sorry, I like it and make no apologies for working hard to help make it so.  Your anti-male, “men are rapists” world view is very sad. 

              Worst of all, you have multiple times suggested that my wife should kill me, based on your personal anger and frustration.  Don’t bother to talk about men who rape, as you advocate MURDER.

  16. If discussion about gender is a contest to see who has the worst life, I will happily stand aside and let other people win. If winning the competition means being the biggest victim, I hope I come in last place.

    This is why much of the critique about privilege fails to move me in the direction I guess I’m supposed to go. I suppose I’m supposed to feel guilty. Mostly I feel sympathetic and fortunate. The more I hear about all the apparent privileges I have, the more fortunate I feel. Thank goodness I wasn’t born ____ or ____ or ____. Their lives sound totally miserable. There but for the grace of God go I. Now I need to appreciate every day of my good fortune and enjoy every minute of it. Privilege is such a rare, precious, undeserved gift that I would hate to waste a single moment of it.

    Unfortunately, I will miss out on all that character building. People keep telling me that adversity makes you stronger, but my privilege means I won’t be able to build that strength. My privilege will only make me complacent and lazy, and I’ll be totally unprepared when the revolution comes and sweeps people like me into the dustbin of history. (That’s the risk I freely accept.)

    I will gladly concede that women put up with all kinds of crap that men don’t or won’t. I sometimes detect a sense of pride in women who point out how much worse women have it. Uh…congratulations? Sorry you tolerate things that men don’t? Better luck next time? Get Well Soon? I’m not sure what greeting card to buy for that message.

    • Peter Houlihan says:

      Establishing superior victimhood isn’t just about ego tripping (although that is certainly part of it). Its often performed to justify extreme measures to restore said victims to “equality” and to resist measures that might impinge on their privileges.

      Personally I think its a massive red herring, but gender debates are always probably going to focus on it.

  17. wellokaythen says:

    There’s another reason to bash patriarchy not men: men aren’t the only ones supporting patriarchal values. Women can also be complicit in patriarchy. In fact, they can be some of the most dedicated agents.

    • Oh, no..... says:

      That is very true, wellokaythen. Some women are really brutal about going after other women – out of jealousy, competition, whatever.

  18. Oh, no..... says:

    No, Eric, you have not been respectful. You have been extremely condescending, dismissive, and snotty. I don’t know what statements you claim I falsely attributed to you, and I am not going to waste my time looking for them. I have work to do.

    I doesn’t disturb me that you claim your life is “not a wreck.” (Naturally, you condescendingly imply here that my life is a wreck.) I don’t know what you have done. I only know what you claim to do. I am glad you are happy. I pointed out previously that I have encountered a number of men who crowed – much as you do – about how “happily married” they were, and then they were stunned when their wives up and left them. I don’t find your “happy marriage” disturbing – I just find you oblivious, patronizing, and obnoxious. That is why I stopped responding to your posts.

    I am not anti-male. I am anti patriarch, or whatever you want to label men who make it their business to control women, put them down, and attack them physically, emotionally, financially or in any other way. I am against the men who have personally attacked me. I think it is sad that men — including you — feel compelled to attack me and then deny what they are doing, deny my experience.

    I have never suggested your wife should kill you. If you had a uterus I would sling the patronizing term “hysterical” at you. I was being snarky because you were being snarky, not only towards me, but towards Michelle G, whose experiences no doubt are also very real and painful. You prefer to jeer and deny. You are not worth addressing, so I will not address you again.

    • “No, Eric, you have not been respectful. You have been extremely condescending, dismissive, and snotty.”

      Snotty? That is the first time I have heard any called “snotty” since middle school. LOL!
      “I don’t know what statements you claim I falsely attributed to you, and I am not going to waste my time looking for them.”

      Actually, it was Michelle, when you and she were tag-teaming attacking me.

      “Naturally, you condescendingly imply here that my life is a wreck.”

      YOU are the one who continues to cite your long list of victimhood, how the District Attorney, the police, and their “female allies” all conspire to ensure that “men” continuously violently attack you with impunity.

      No, you stopped because you had no rational, factual arguments.

      “I am not anti-male.”

      Then, you don’t mean what you say since you speak as if you are.

      “I think it is sad that men — including you — feel compelled to attack me and then deny what they are doing, deny my experience.”

      When have I “attacked you.” Here we go again:

      Quote me calling you names (as you have done me).

      Quote me suggesting that someone should murder you (as you have done me).

      Quote me insulting you and your family (as you have done me).

      Quote me talking about you in a disparaging way to others (as you have done me).

      “I have never suggested your wife should kill you.”

      In fact, you did. Twice.

      “You are not worth addressing, so I will not address you again.”

      Thank you.

  19. wellokaythen says:

    I think there’s actually some real wisdom to be gleaned from the “oh, no…” messages. Here’s what I have generalized from her specific points about men:

    1. Some people claim to be victims who really aren’t. Yes.

    2. Just because some claims victimhood doesn’t mean the reader is obligated to believe and express a particular feeling. True.

    3. Some people may exaggerate their victimhood in pursuit of individual goals. Yep.

    4. Just because a person feels victimized doesn’t mean the person really is a victim. Agreed.

    5. Some people may unjustly hold an entire gender responsible for their lives, to the point of disparaging all people in that gender. Clearly.

    6. Some people justify venomous comments by pointing to their own pain and anger. Obviously.

    7. It’s hard to feel sympathy for someone who is both a victim and an aggressor. So true, so true.

    8. Some people treat victimhood as some sort of cut-throat, winner take all competition. Unfortunately true.

    Sounds like solid wisdom to me, applicable to both male and female bloggers.

  20. Oh no,
    Interestingly, I perused a few threads of that ballbuster webpage you displayed as proof patriarchy still exists in full steam.

    It wasn’t long before I found a post in which the author posted an article displaying this ecard:

    http://ballbuster4ever.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/plzbeabettermanhater.png

    The caption of the e-card reads: “you make me want to be a better man-hater”

    The author’s comments under the linked card read:
    “Of course I had to sift through a bunch of “not a man hater!” graphics to find this lovely pic. Because god knows, hating men is soooo wrooooong!”

    If you think you can come from your hate-filled echo chamber where everybody just nods their heads at tired old themes that men are all oppressing de-evolved demons and women are all suffering highly evolved saints, then you better be prepared to defend yourself.

    Because on this thread you won’t have the intellectual bullying of heavy-handed moderation and intense dogpiling and slurs and insults to rely on, and you better have some evidence to back up your assertions (like claiming there is no male disadvantage in criminal sentencing).

    Because central to the concept of good men is treating men good. If society treats men like demons (aka as in your oh no approved blog) then don’t be surprised when they turn around and fulfill their alloted role.

    Quite frankly I doubt your whole story. I don’t think there are hordes of leering men waiting outside your door every morning. More than likely if there is any truth to your assertions, you attract hostility with your own hostility.

    Will you now go limping back to your webpage and say how poorly you were treated and show it as more evidence of how bad men are? I’m sure you will conveniently leave out how you maliciously attacked any male who simply opened a forum or asked you to back up your assertions with proof.

    I can’t believe you think this webpage constitute proof of anything. I would compare this webpage to the klan, but I don’t want to be sued by the klan for defamation of character.

  21. Peter Houlihan says:

    Wow, reading those comments was like picking through the smoldering remains of some kind of horrific stalingrad in the gender wars. Thank god its only the internet.

    @Maria Pawlowska
    I’m very glad that you’re willing to recognise male, aswell as female, victimhood. Its a very importants step towards a true gender equality movement.

    Despite this, I still take real umbrage with patriarchy theory:

    Firstly, by insinuating that men are at the head and top of everything within traditional gender roles it denies female power and privilege. Its very important that female power and male powerlessness are understood in order to combat TGRs.

    Secondly, if it is perpetrated equally by men and women, and you were willing to take the further step of agreeing that women can be powerful within TGRs, why call it patriarchy? It falsely implies the patriarchy is mostly a “male thing” from which women must be freed. In reality its a bigendered construction from which all humans must be freed.

    Thirdly, it is fundamentally man blaming and man hating. I’m sure you don’t hold those views yourself, but the very act of identifying nebulous “patriarchs” as the cause of all our woes puts the blame firmly in men’s court, while exhonorating women. Part of the problem is the word itself, unless you believe that the issue is with the pater, and never the mater, you shouldn’t use it.

  22. O it worked so well in the black ghetto and Soviet Union…Let’s do it again and again and again!!!!

  23. Seemed like an interesting topic so I linked to it from Google. But feminist/politically inclined posters decided to destroy it, which unfortunately is par for the course when attempts at rationally discussing issues relating to men are made.

    I doubt I will return to this site again

  24. The logic behind this patriarchy bullshit is all over the place and just plain stupid.
    Lets talk about some things here. It is an absolute myth that men are more violent and abusive than women. One of my best friends was rapped and sodomized so badly as a child he had to have surgery to be able to walk and years of therapy to learn that having his mother shove things up his ass and pimp him out to sickos was not parental affection. Yes it was his mother that did that. I personally was also rapped by a woman as a child ,not my mother, but a trusted family member. I was not sodomized but an adult woman having sex with an 8 year old boy is still damaging believe me.

    And yet I grow up and become a tall strong man. I Got married to a woman who is a doctor and has a black belt in karate. I supported her demanding career and sacrificed my own. We got divorced and she lies and accuses me of horrible things. Says look at him he is big I am small he is a man I am only a woman. Now I almost never see my children. She lies at the drop of the hat and I don’t see them. Though I did nothing wrong except yell back at her after finding out she was fucking the neighbor.
    But because of the myth that men are dangerous and violent I barely have a relation ship with the daughters I was raising for more than 10 years.
    I had the progressive marriage. I was the house husband. She had every thing the feminist movement says they want. I totally bought into that mentality for years and tried to be the best house husband I could be to her.

    Problem, despite what she claimed, is over time she as a woman could not respect me as man because she had power over me. This is where Feminists ridiculous claims about patriarchy are flawed. Husbands do respect their wives and all they do. husbands don’t look down on a woman for taking the role of a home maker. Where as despite what any woman says they have a difficult time respecting a man that takes on the domestic role and it has nothing to do with Patriarchy and every thing to do with biology that they feel this way.

    Feminism makes outrageous claims about what men and women are and contradicts itself by doing so.
    Feminism says men are violent and abusive but denies that women are also violent and abusive. Feminism denies the humanity of men and hates all that is masculine and attaches things to masculinity that is not masculine but is in fact human. Violence is perpetrated by both genders. Though men are stronger and cause more damage when they are violent it does not lessen the fact that women hit just as much if not more than men. The difference though when a man is violent it is usually reactionary. Where as women that murder their husbands plan it out a head of time. Neither situation is right. Women are just as violent and capable of abuse and rape and murder as any asshole out there. It has nothing to do with gender or patriarchy or anything.

    The worst thing feminism has done is give women a free pass when they are guilty. Every time you hear about a woman cutting her husbands penis off you soon hear how it was probably his fault he must have been abusive…. My god could you imagine the uproar if media said the same thing if the roles were reversed!

    The simple fact that if I ever defended myself from my ex wife when she was being violent toward me I would have been the one arrested. That is the policy. Man did she do her best during our divorce to try to provoke me to violence. I never saw such evil in a person. A person that got all the support imaginable because of feminist institutions set up in the family court system. Because I am big and male it is assumed I am violent when nothing could be further from the truth.

    There is no conspiracy by men to oppress women. The good things that feminism has accomplished are good things but it has wrought so much evil as well.

Speak Your Mind

*