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

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. MorgainePendragon says:

    YES! Thank you, Maria.

  2. “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”

    it’s like we’re still living in the stone age

    • wellokaythen says:

      Sorry for being “that guy,” but stone age people were not all that patriarchal, generally not as patriarchal as hierarchical agricultural societies. (The idea that they were all matriarchal doesn’t have much good evidence, either.) They did seem to have some gender division of labor, and men seemed to have more political power on the whole, but the idea of “cavemen” bullying “cavewomen” is a modern myth, *created by* modern forms of patriarchy. In terms of gender equality, some societies would actually be *better off* going back to the days of hunting and gathering.

      • Hunting and gatherer societies didn’t even have politics.

      • Very true. Many hunter-gatherer societies were (and are where they still exist) much more egalitarian, both in terms of gender and “class” equality. Agriculture was actually the beginning of our troubles – agriculture enabled class to evolve and changed gender roles dramatically.

  3. “Patriarchy”-bashing is male-bashing because it is directed specifically at males because they are male. If the critique were actually about “patriarchy,” then it would be focus on the problem with hierarchies because that is the actual social structure we have. That men tend to be at the top of that hierarchy is incidental. The same social problems occur when women are positions of power because hierarchies by their nature privilege one group of people over everyone else.

    But clearly the issue is not that some people are at the top of the hierarchy, just who those people are. That is why we see phrases like male privilege, male rule and male domination rather than hierarchical privilege, hierarchical rule and hierarchical domination.

    Claiming that criticizing the system is not equivalent to attacking all those who are a part of it makes no logical sense because systems do not run on their own; they are run by people. To this point, no one says that “patriarchy” needs to change things. Instead, feminists say that men need to change things. Of course, the irony is that in doing so, feminists not only treat men as monolithic, but they also hold male victims of violence as responsible for their own abuse.

    But on a basic level I think that if you keep having people tell you that it sounds like you are bashing men, particularly people who agree with your political views, then there is likely some truth to that objection.

    • Exactly.

    • I don’t, personally, like using the term “patriarchy.” I agree that it’s a loaded word (much like “feminist”… heh).

      I do understand what it really means vs. the baggage that has become attached to it, though. Yes, it’s true that the real problem is the social hierarchy we have and that the same problems would exist if we had a matriarchy or female-dominated hierarchy. No argument there at all. But it’s also the reality that we have lived in a hierarchy dominated by men for thousands of years, and it’s a tad dishonest to just leave that out of the equation. The fact is that many people (men and women), consciously or not, are still living with the consequences of (specifically) patriarchy. Many of our behaviors still “normalize” around this, and it’s still codified into the gender roles that many people still follow, even at our own expense.

      I certainly agree that the consequences of patriarchy to men are understated, and go way deeper than what was mentioned in the article. Men have been expected to be on the front lines of every war, to be drafted, to do hard and miserable labor, to leave their families in search of food or to defend their property or state. Some men may think it would’ve been great to live in a society where polygamy was allowed, but as a practical matter, only very wealthy guys got to have multiple wives and “harems,” leaving even fewer women for the non wealthy men, who often couldn’t find even one woman to marry. And of course we’re now seeing the same problem in places like China where people are aborting girls and there is now a surplus of boys who will never be able to marry. So, believe me, I sympathize with how much men have suffered under “patriarchy.”

      The simple fact is, for most of history we have needed mento take on these roles, for simple survival, just because of their superior physical strength and the fact that they don’t have babies. None of us have really had a choice until recently, and that is why “patriarchy” lasted such a long time. But even now that we do have choices, a lot of the residual is still there and it does still rear its ugly head in the way men and women interact with each other. And I’m not really sure what would be a non-loaded term to use instead of “patriarchy.” “Hierarchy” doesn’t really describe it because much of this residual behavior IS gender specific. That doesn’t mean we have to blame men for it – I certainly don’t. But maybe we need a new term without so much baggage? One that makes it clearer that we’re talking about a hierarchical system which was devised in service to a tiny minority of very wealthy, self aggrandizing men at everyone else’s (of both genders) expense?

      • Julie Gillis says:

        Genderarchy? Kyriarchy (my favorite), Corporarchy? Kingdom?

      • LF:
        At least you acknowledge that the majority of men didn’t have a swell time in ages past.
        The problem with the standard feminist definition is that they use it like a club to (incorrectly) state in contradiction to your well thought out ideas that all men vastly dominated all women.

        The simple truth is both sexes had oppressive gender roles. And only a very tiny minority of 1% of men were movers and shakers. IN other words 99.999% of men were in the same boat with women in terms of power: up the creek w/out a paddle.

        It never (or rarely) gets acknowledged by die hard feminists that while careers were held out of women’s reach, it was the male role TO DIE. Men were measured in how useful they made themselves.
        28,000 men died building the panama canal for something as ephemereal as international trade. 117 men died building hoover dam, thousands of men died building the trans-continental railroad.

        I’m not going to get into which gender had it worse, but the simple fact is that 99.99% of men had no real power in the early half of the 1900’s, and they were oppressed at least equally.

        I would throw in the caveat that women also wove the social fabric of society. Women contributed to the socialization of men to make war. Look at the white feather campaign in WWI in the UK. Look at the shaming campaigns of southern women in the Revolutionary war. Women in tribes in africa throw seeds at tribesmen who will not fight. Mothers to SOME degree embraced the idea that their sons should go to war so that they or their daughters need not.

        I remember reading about a a british women who wrote a letter to a british soldier who was a prisoner that she was breaking up with him. Why? Because he didn’t fight to the death. To say that men were oppressing men is not really that accurate. Women had their hand in this in many ways.

        Now on to today.

        Women have several huge organizations that fight discrimination on their behalf. Men have nothing. While society has done a lot for women, it has done virtually nothing for men. Despite men being the largest victims of crime their has been no crime law helping especially men. Nothing has been done about men’s much poorer health or dying 7 years earlier. Nothing has been done about mothers winning sole custody 13 times more often than fathers. Nothing has been done for male specific suicide solutions when men are 80% of all successful suicides.

        You say nothing has ever existed where men have been oppressed like women. I disagree.

        As you rightly pointed out, the last century was not about the wholesale oppression of women, but the oppression of all with strict gender roles. When women are freed of their gender roles and men are not, that creates a system of privilege for women, and a system of injustice for men.

        • I agree with a lot of what you’ve said John, especially the last paragraph. I certainly agree that we have all suffered under gender roles and that we need to be careful not to turn the tables too far the other way (always a concern when societal changes happen). I do hope that men will work toward improving many of the things you mentioned: improving crime, poorer health, mothers always winning sole custody, suicide, etc. Women had to form these organizations on their own and I think men need to do that, too. Women did not win the rights that we did by waiting around for anybody to give them to us, and I doubt anybody will do anything about men’s inequality either unless men organize around focusing on these issues.

          But, let’s not rewrite history either. There was still a great deal more oppression for women historically (and still is in many places). Even in this country women could not vote, gave up any property they owned once they married, and of course had no recourse against domestic abuse. While legally there was nothing to prevent a woman from starting a business or having a career, in practice no one would hire women, they had little or no access to higher education, etc. In other words, most men had at least some opportunity to get out of their situation, women did not.

          Obviously (and thankfully) most of these things have now been rectified, but just saying.

          • LF:
            I’m not ready to agree that women had it worse. I am ready to amiably just part ways and disagree on that.
            It seems to me that many women (and a lot of feminists) seem to have a penchant for eliciting an agreement from men that women had it worse, and this festers an air of “turnabout is fair play” and creates a justification to ignore any and all oppression of men.

            • Please show me where I’ve ever done that. You have a lot of good ideas, many of which I have agreed with (like your thoughts on how to deal with the situation where a woman wants to bear a child that the man doesn’t want), but on balance you come across as just very bitter and often exaggerating statistics if they suit your agenda, as well as suppressing facts that don’t suit your agenda (such as I’ve just described above).

              Oppression of men is a fact, both historically and today. I agree with you on that and I support all efforts to eliminate real injustice toward men. I don’t support twisting the truth in support of an agenda (and I have called out feminists on this as well, in case you’re wondering). Just tell the truth and accept the truth. Some people will take it the wrong way or use it against you no matter what, but that’s their problem.

            • LF says:
              “Please show me where I’ve ever done that.”
              I’m not saying you’re actively doing that. My point is that when that admission is made, it becomes a damper upon helping men.

              Additionally, I don’t really feel me, you or anybody can really say who was oppressed worse. The reason being that the oppression was so different for both sexes.

              To my mind the oppression of men was worse for this reason. Women were socialized into believing they were not eligible for or good at doing ____________ (careers, schooling, own a business, vote etc…)

              Men were socialized into believing they could be prideful for doing _____________ (fighting in wars, getting black-lung in mines, working long dirty hours building suspension bridges)

              While held out of careers, at least women always had their worth re-affirmed. They were seen as too precious to waste in cavalier ways (women and children first).

              Men were socialized to SUBORDINATE themselves to the greater good to women, family, squad, army, god, country. Because men were socialized TO DO (rather than socialized TO DON’T like women) men were socialized to take an ACTIVE role in their own oppression and BE PROUD to do it.

              I remember watching the second Lord of the Rings movie with a large group of family and friends. It was the scene in which the Orcs were surrounding helms deep. The royal guard started going around and collecting every man and boy to man the walls.

              There was this one scene in which a guard “recruits” a young boy of 11 or so, putting a helmet upon him which was ridiculously over-sized so you couldn’t even see his eyes.

              Many of the women in our little ragtag group said”oh my god that’s awful, what’s the point of that?” while the men were joking saying “Here comes the draft! get on the wall kid!”

              Even today men are complicit in their own oppression.

              We have a long way to go especially in terms of consciousness raising.

              I would also argue that women did it all on their own (particularly talking about anti-harassment laws and title IX and equal pay act done in the 60’s and 70’s). Firstly, it seems a lot of men in government were willing to give women a fair shake and decided it was time.

              Also, I have no direct evidence of this, but am willing to bet that there was a lot of men in the feminist movement even if they receive no recognition. When I look at MLK’s reclecting pool speech I see about 50% white faces. I have no reason to believe it wouldn’t have been similar for feminists. I would say the movement was so successful, because so many men in government and out of government agreed with it’s foundations.

              Also, things seem to be turning a corner for men’s rights. Many female posters on youtube are stating that feminism is morally bankrupt and unfairly cripples men.

              50% of the members of the activists of fathersandfamilies.org are women (paternal grandmothers and 2nd wives who see first hand how feminist lies and laws that separate fathers from children is causing great harm).

              F&F has had joint fundraising with a GLBT group and shared an action campaign against a department store with a feminist DV group.

              Things are changing, if very slowly. I appreciate your objective views and open-mindedness about men’s issues. It’s a view I don’t see that often, but I am seeing more and more.

  4. Ah, the magic word patriarchy! It is magic because feminists use it instead of “men”, when they don’t want to look sexist. The thing is, they ARE sexist to the core.

    Patriarchy bashing! What a cutie. You have to bash something, doncha. You can’t attack men directly (in the name of PC), so do it indirectly. This game is getting old and transparent….

    “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).”

    You seem to hate all hierarchies what exist, but the truth is, they are everywhere, and working. Hierarchies have rules, and without these rules every living society (human or animal) would sink into anarchy. Yes, society is a construct, so what? In a patriarchy, leadership means responsibility also. Would you give your life for your beloved ones, if needed? Are you ready to replace men working on shitty and sometimes deadly jobs civilisation would stop without? If the answer is yes, men will be happy in a matriarchy and will have a life free from any stress..Let women lead the world, and die for us, not the reverse. You know, the top- and the bottom- of the society will be yours.
    But in case the answer is not, please just stop complaining..

    • Julie Gillis says:

      Not a matriarchy. Not switching the hierarchy, but trying to break the paradigm in half completely. Is it all possible you can see that in her work? She doesn’t want men or women to suffer or decline, she wants a completely new system.
      I personally think men and women are creative enough to do that, to find a way to build a world where, even if there are hierarchies, they are more fluid and fair to all involved, all genders, races, sexes etc.
      I’m an idealist and a humanist.
      Great post, Maria.

    • MorgainePendragon says:

      “You seem to hate all hierarchies what [sic] exist, but the truth is, they are everywhere …”

      Well, they’re not everywhere. Research and data from anthropology, archaeology, and cultural mythology over the last 40-50 years reveals that the majority of humanity has lived on planet Earth in peaceful, egalitarian, cooperative social structures– some of which, though ancient (and often defined as ‘primitive’ by patriarchal societies) still exist today, some of which are being recreated in intentional communities and larger societies.

      http://www.livescience.com/640-peace-war-early-humans-behaved.html

      “they are … working. ”

      They work for those at the top of the hierarchy/patriarchy.

      There is NO evidence that there has ever been a matriarchy as defined as the polar opposite of patriarchy, ie, a society where women oppress men as men oppress women in patriarchy. Some scholars DO use the term matriarchy to define those cooperative, egalitarian structures; but many do not. I value and appreciate linguistic accuracy, so I side with those who use the terms gynocracy or simply cooperative social structures.

      Patriarchy is a valid term because these social structures where men dominate (and EVERY social hierarchy that we know of has men at the top of the pyramid– within their own social or class constructs, men have more power than women and children) were created by and for men.

      Patriarchy continues because most men (and many women) continue to uphold those values/that social structure, even though it disadvantages almost all of them, because they are so well indoctrinated into it they think it is “the way things are” and don’t recognise that it’s simply ONE form of social structure.

      As we can see from many of the comments here.

      Why should a movement and research and study that challenges the dominant paradigm (in this case patriarchy) abide by and work to make itself acceptable to that dominant paradigm? Then it only becomes a part of that paradigm– it is no longer challenging it.

      Maria has laid out a clear and unambiguous definition of patriarchy as she addresses it here. Why not discuss the topic within the framework she has provided, rather than deny the validity of that framework? Millions, probably billions all over the world recognise this framework (although they may use different or additional terms to describe/define it).

      Those whose only contribution is to deny the validity of the framework rather than to address the actual issues it confronts are not contributing at all. It could be argued that their only purpose is to derail the topic and bring it back to the (patriarchal) norms with which they are comfortable.

      If you’re not willing to step outside your comfort zone, I would say your chances of becoming a “good man” as this site defines it are non-existent.

      • Standing O.

      • “You seem to hate all hierarchies what [sic] exist, but the truth is, they are everywhere …”

        In case you don’t like my english, please write me in hungarian. Then i will be the one who will make fun of you. [sic]

        “Well, they’re not everywhere. Research and data from anthropology, archaeology, and cultural mythology over the last 40-50 years reveals that the majority of humanity has lived on planet Earth in peaceful, egalitarian, cooperative social structures– some of which, though ancient (and often defined as ‘primitive’ by patriarchal societies) still exist today, some of which are being recreated in intentional communities and larger societies.”

        With other words, you wanna go back to grass huts. What holds you back?

        “Why should a movement and research and study that challenges the dominant paradigm (in this case patriarchy) abide by and work to make itself acceptable to that dominant paradigm?”

        You have to convice people. Otherwise, if you want to change anything (in society) against the majority’s will, you’re a fascist. Let me quote the Beatles here:

        You say you got a real solution
        Well, you know
        We’d all love to see the plan
        You ask me for a contribution
        Well, you know
        We’re doing what we can
        But when you want money
        for people with minds that hate
        All I can tell is brother you have to wait

        That’s how many men think about the feminist solutions. And you can’t change anything against the will of half of the population.

  5. First, I just want to say I think this article is brilliant. I think a huge part of the problem of gender is that men don’t have a critical consciousness when it comes to analyzing their gender roles. A large part of it certainly has to do with identity construction and those who uncritically buy into the system. Also, I think in our narcissistic culture we are taught to relate everything back to ourselves personally. So when men hear a critique of patriarchy they see it as an attack against the very conception of who they are, instead of a critique against a larger system.

    I would also like to say that I am somewhat critical of the idea of “male privilege.” I say this because it seems to me that the word privilege comes with too much positive connotation. This is not to say that I don’t think men are granted more power and authority than women are, I think that couldn’t be more true. However, I would say that this power and authority is not a beneficial thing for men themselves. Here’s why: First, on a basic level little boys are taught by older men who have bought into masculinity how to act. Gender works in many ways on an unconscious level and little boys are deprived of important relational skills to help them build fulfilling and meaningful human relationships. Second, once they get older men who buy into masculinity and patriarchy then have to take this emotional detachment further. They have to strip themselves of an essential part of their humanity. Thus, the patriarchal male who buys into masculinity will receive power and authority. However, this is at the expense of being able to make truly fulfilling and meaningful relations with others, at the expense of living a truly human life built around meaningful, compassionate relations with other people. In turn, I would say that, in regards to leading a fulfilling human life, men who have power and authority do not have any privilege. A lot of this was already said in the article above, but I’ve been thinking about it for a long time and wanted to write my thoughts down.

    • So, a black boy from the ghetto has more power and authority (privilege) than a white, suburban girl? Obviously not. Blows that whole theory.

      No concern or sensitivity for even the least privileged people in the country because they are male.. This shows that these feminist teachings really are nothing more than male bashing.

      • Julie Gillis says:

        That’s the whole point of Kyriarchy though. It’s about varying systems of oppression.

        If I am a white single mother secretary with a BA working for a married property owning PHD African American man, he individually has more cultural dominance, fiscal dominance and likely gender dominance over me. But if he and I are driving side by side at midnight and a cop decides to pull one of us over, it’s probably that he might be pulled over for driving while black. So my white priviledge would play in in a systemic dynamic of whites being favored, and depending on the race, class, etc of the cop, his or her biases, prejudices, and internalized isms come into play

        A black boy from the ghetto..no probably not having more power and priv, than a white suburban girl in that scenario, not at all. but it’s clear that she will probably have less individual power than a white male, or a black woman depending on the role she plays in those scenarios. The white girl has more systemic power than the black boy. That’s not necessarily about gender, depending. It could be about race, class and education. Or also gender. All depends.

        Those bands of power are constantly shifting on an individual basis, and it’s the examination, in my opinion, of how systemic dominance works (not individual power or authority) that is what is important to us as a culture globally. Why do groups try to wield power over each other. Is this natural in the sense we should all give in? Is it acculturated?

        What I see happening is people being very triggered by the individual level, “Hell no I’m not priviledged! I have a woman/male/white/black boss!” and not being willing (maybe) to look at this not only on that level but other bigger systems.

        Yes there are small currents and eddies that move us about the ocean, but there are also HUGE currents we can’t always see.

        I’m not expecting you to agree with me Eric, though I do wish we could talk in person rather than by typing, but it’s just a frame I use to try to understand where I am on that waterline-individual, interpersonal, intercultural, global.

        • That opposes the foundation of her argument, that males in general automatically have privilege, and females automatically are subordinate. That’s her argument. It’s very clear.

          “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.”

          • Julie Gillis says:

            Which was why I tried to introduce the concept of kyriarchy. FYI ‘I”m not taking any offense at your not liking the term. I’m not an academic, but I like that term. I’m not trying to introduce psychobabble, but just come this from a place I”m familiar with.

            My point is that there are various ways we as groups and also as individuals tamp each other down.

            • Kyriarchy doesn’t really help your argument. Its like the Ptolemaic introduction of epicycles; your just adding complexity to make your theory work. The basic problem with kyriarchy as with patriarchy is that it deals with the problem of hieararchy by dividing people into groups based on race, sex, class etc. The whole foundation which derives from Marxian class analysis if bad to begin with.

              “systemic dominance works (not individual power or authority) that is what is important to us as a culture globally…Why do groups try to wield power over each other. Is this natural in the sense we should all give in? Is it acculturated?”

              Ah here you hit the nail on the head. I don’t care about your version of systematic dominance due to race, sex etc. I just don’t think its an important problem in the developed world (developing world is a different story). On the other hand I very very much care about individual power and authority which for you is unimportant. I just don’t believe that racism, sexism and the rest are important problems in America.

            • ” I just don’t believe that racism, sexism and the rest are important problems in America.”

              Let me throw darts in the dark here…I’m guessing you’re a …let’s see…white male?

            • You can always pick out a male basher/male bashing. They cite “male privilege” but never acknowledge white female privilege.

            • The trouble is that although most of the systemic injustices have been addressed at the legal level, racism and sexism have not disappeared quite yet – they’ve just moved into different, deeper realms. “Driving while black” is a great example. Legally, this issue has been addressed, but in reality we all know it still happens that black men are disproportionately hassled by police, disproportionately incarcerated for offenses where a white guy would’ve gotten off with a fine or community service, etc. It’s no longer “supposed” to happen but it does.

              Similarly, there are still sexist dynamics that play out in the real world, even though legally they aren’t supposed to happen. Because of all the progress that has been made, we’re supposed to ignore this, apparently. Just like because men have historically enjoyed rights that women didn’t have, we’re supposed to ignore injustices toward men. This stuff still hurts people, robs them of opportunity and sometimes life and liberty. Shoving it under the rug doesn’t change that.

            • Julie,
              The problem is that many feminists run screaming from Kyriarchy.
              Look at how every time an article is presented about the boy crisis (and a feminist pundit is invited to comment) feminists deny solutions for the boy crisis.

              One of the main comments I have seen from feminist leaders and authors is that it is minority boys pulling the average down (which is really bs when you look at the facts) and use that as an excuse to deny help to boys or try to steer the topic towards only help to black boys.

              The simple fact is even if we accept this argument, implementing educational changes friendly to boys would disproportionately help those black boys. More of the new systems resources would help those black boys who are most at risk.

              To say it’s only portion X of boys who need help isn’t an adequate argument against scuttling a fix in education for boys, or to deny it to others (even if those others only need a mild fix).

              Again and again I see feminist input that denies helping boys and men. They are against male studies, they are against a Cabinet level post on boys and men (identical to the one Obama made for women and girls), they are against shared parenting. NOW had a meeting with Obama in which he agreed to redirect 42% of the $800 billion stimulus package to female oriented job creation sectors (like medicine and education). This in the face of men’s unemployment being almost double womens.

              More and more feminists are not relying on things like kyriarchy (by what I see anyway). They are sticking to their tried and true arguments that men are the class enemy and if men gain women lose philosophy.

            • Kyriarchy is fine. But feminists don’t use it.
              They use patriarchy as an excuse to not help, poor, depressed, disenfranchised and minority men.

              Many feminists (by this I don’t mean rank and file people who call themselves feminists, but the most influential leaders of feminist organizations) use patriarchy theory to say that men are the class enemy of women and deny men (even those more oppressed than the bulk of women) help.

              Look at NOW’s rabid defense of the sole custody model. They raise action alerts in any state that begins looking at equal physical custody in divorce.

              Look at how NOW had a meeting with Obama in which he agreed to redirect 42% of the $800billion stimulus to female-dominated sectors (like medicine and education) despite men having roughly double the unemployment of women.

              Not word for word, but the pres of NOW said “we are against the stimulus going to help burly sweaty men”.

              Despite the obvious need to help these men, NOW was against helping them for NO GREATER REASON than that they are men (i.e. outright and brazen bigotry).

              Far from becoming more mainstream, NOW has moved from cloaking their anti-male initiatives in female victimhood to OUTRIGHT BRAZEN bigotry against men.

            • Oh, come on, John – Obama agreed to direct stimulus money to medicine and education because they are “female dominated?” Not because we actually need more funding for education and medicine?

              If NOW wants to believe the president would’ve handed out this money JUST to help women, that’s their problem. Much of the stimulus money, incidentally, also went to infrastructure contracts that favor blue collar men. Did NOW try to stop that from happening?

              OK, so there are some feminists who are over the top. News flash. Why get on this site and poison any real discussion by throwing all this bogus stuff around? You admit that many rank and file feminists aren’t like that, as well as many of us who simply identify as humanists and are totally on board with addressing societal injustice against ANYone. But you’re alienating those people with this broad brush you’re waving around.

            • LF
              it’s a matter of historical record.
              http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/659dkrod.asp?pg=1

              The problem is that the man-haters are not feminism’s radical fringe, but rather it’s radical core.
              When is the last time you have heard anything from MADD? You know why? Because they had a legitimate grievance, it was addressed, and they shut up.

              It stands to reason that the same is going to happen in feminist organizations. As more and more female issues get addressed, more and more mainstream reasonable women who’s issues BECOME ADDRESSED will LEAVE the group being complacent with the results (i.e. complacent people do not become advocates). This will leave only those people who are inconsolable! It stands to simple reason that this is the reason why the remaining feminists in organizations like NOW & AAUW
              ARE EXTEMIST BIGOTS

              All you have to do is look at their actions.
              They DO start action alerts to thwart shared parenting.
              They DO lie about the prevalence of rape and male on famale DV.
              They DO oppose male studies
              ht tp://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/04/09/sexist-beatdown-manly-masculine-male-edition/

              It’s time for women who count themselves feminists to start wondering what feminist leaders are doing on behalf of women.
              The most active feminist organizations seem to be dominated with women who think that if men get a leg up, then women MUST get a kick down and therefore justify not helping men at all.

            • LF says:
              “OK, so there are some feminists who are over the top A). News flash. Why get on this site and poison any real discussion by throwing all this bogus stuff around B)? You admit that many rank and file feminists aren’t like that, as well as many of us who simply identify as humanists and are totally on board with addressing societal injustice against ANYone. But you’re alienating those people with this broad brush you’re waving around. C)”

              LF, I appreciate you open-mindedness, so while maybe going long-winded I will try to civilly nail down my responses to the many points you make in just a few sentences

              A) Saying “Some” feminists is an intense minimalization of the issue. The leaders and cabinets of the largest most influential feminist organizations are “LIKE THAT” this is an IMPORTANT ISSUE OF EQUALITY that men and feminists (concerned about what is being done in their name) should be concerned about.

              What if I told you that 80% of nazi’s never wanted to exterminate jews (but never voiced their opinions)? would that matter to the 6 million dead jews or their family members?

              It does not matter what rank and file feminists believe, but rather the leaders who hold the reigns of power and what they do (and the fact that many of the open-minded reasonable men-loving feminists do NOT oppose them).
              B) What is bogus? Research it yourself. The historical fact stands that NOW (and other groups) convinced Obama to redirect the stimilus for reasons of giving women a FURTHER LEG UP in employment at a time when male unemployment was double that of female. You can argue with my adjectives of these feminists, but my info is not bogus.

              C) If I took the pains to state exactly who the culprits are (as you acknowledge), then how am I alienation anybody? If anything good-hearted reasonable men-loving feminists should be JUST AS AGHAST as I am at what these women are doing in YOUR name. They are involved in active acts and statements of bigotry against men.

              Quite frankly men deserve better.

      • MorgainePendragon says:

        “a black boy from the ghetto has more power and authority (privilege) than a white, suburban girl?”

        Depends on the context, setting, situation. We’re talking about human interaction here, not math problems that have an absolute answer.

        Under certain situations, his male privilege supersedes her white privilege. If she were in “his” neighbourhood and was sexually assaulted, you can bet your ass SHE’D be blamed and the system would do all it could to discredit HER and exonerate him. In patriarchy, male access to female sexuality crosses colour/ethnic boundaries.

        Nor does either of them have dominance over the other in many sorts of situations: University admissions, hiring practices, etc. Again it depends on the situation and the individuals involved– but if both were exceptional athletes with mediocre academic records, HE would be more likely to get a scholarship to university than she would. Even if she had an exceptional academic record, HE would STILL have a better chance at a scholarship.

        African American women and other women of colour are, without a doubt, least likely to have privilege– although I’m sure there are certain situations where they would. Certainly, if it were considered a “privilege” to be a mail-order bride, then Asian women (and possibly those from Eastern Europe) would be at the top of the list.

        I understand where the term kyriarchy comes from– but I believe all oppression stems from patriarchy so I see kyriarchy as simple a subset or alternative, whereas patriarchy is the foundation.

        In fact, the original oppression stems from human (male) rejection of our place within the ecosystem, the cycle of life, and an attempt to hold ourselves as more valuable than any other form of life and to control nature. To live outside of natural law, as it were. Because women give birth and have cycles that tie them physically to nature in ways that do not have overt parallels for men, women have long been associated with ‘nature’ and men with ‘culture’ (even though social sciences also show that those who actually create culture are the ones who do the most basic work of the society– NOT those at the top, who only define and enforce the social construct. Even though they generally only oversee the creation of culture, men are considered its innovators.

        And patriarchy came about because of (or perhaps created) the stratification that says that ‘culture’ is more important/valuable than ‘nature’.

        In the ancient societies that still exist as cooperative egalitarian social structures, this stratification does not exist.

        • Thank you for this, Morgaine….I really appreciate your intelligent additions to this thread, which are aimed at illuminating rather than just bashing….let’s have conversation based on the anthropological facts instead of mere extrapolation of “what it appears to be”.
          I look forward to more by you……can you perhaps write an article for GMP on just this? The genesis of the social structures?

          • MorgainePendragon says:

            Lili, I read and research and think about this a lot. I will try to come up with something along those lines for GMP–thanks for asking– but it may take some time. I am a ‘victim’ of the procrastination monster!

            I agree that the sort of analysis I see from some posters (and most writers on GMP) is much more productive than the bashing and have been trying to write comments more in line with that sort of thinking.

        • Morgraine Pendragon writes:
          ““a black boy from the ghetto has more power and authority (privilege) than a white, suburban girl?”

          Depends on the context, setting, situation. We’re talking about human interaction here, not math problems that have an absolute answer.

          A) Under certain situations, his male privilege supersedes her white privilege. If she were in “his” neighbourhood and was sexually assaulted, you can bet your ass SHE’D be blamed and the system would do all it could to discredit HER and exonerate him. In patriarchy, male access to female sexuality crosses colour/ethnic boundaries.

          Nor does either of them have dominance over the other in many sorts of situations: B) University admissions, hiring practices, etc. Again it depends on the situation and the individuals involved– but if both were exceptional athletes with mediocre academic records, C) HE would be more likely to get a scholarship to university than she would. Even if she had an exceptional academic record, HE would STILL have a better chance at a scholarship.

          African American women and other women of colour are, without a doubt, least likely to have privilege–
          D)
          ==================
          Rather than cut & paste I figured I would label your comments a,b,c,d.

          A) Sex assault? If this is the one “equalizer” between black men and white women that you can think of this is a pretty piss-poor example. Also, I think it’s horribly inaccurate. Black men were lynched for getting “uppity” around white women. When a black man is accused of a sex crime against a white woman he’s toast.

          B) I also don’t agree with your surmisation that it would be equal in terms of college/admissions. While they both (as far as I have learned) count for fulfilling diversity quotas on colleges, there are 5 white women to each black male. In this way the fed governments allowance of white women to be counted as minority status (to my mind) was a huge back-stabbing by feminists who pushed for white women to be counted as minorities in college and for perks for government contracts to minority-owned businesses. White women have the same white privilege white men do. Is anybody really so deluded that white parents aren’t going to pull the same strings for their daughters as their sons? Black men are getting squeezed out of college spots by white women.

          C) athletic scholarships are drying up for men thanks to a hard-core line by the courts in adjudicating Title IX compliance. 30,000 athletic scholarships for men have been cut since the early 90’s, almost exclusively thanks to harsh Title IX compliance stanards. The overwhelming majority of these are poor latino and black men.

          D) black women are NOT at the bottom of the power pyramid. Black women have lower unemployment, higher college attendance and completion rates, higher pay, lower mortality and incarceration rates, lower rates of drug use and criminal offences.

          If we’re going to have an honest discussion, then we need to set aside non-evidence based assumptions.
          While I appreciate your call to cooperate, it seems like a lot of women want to start from a safe premise that women are more oppressed than men (within the same demographics, black men vs black women, white men vs white women).

          This simply is not so. Each gender has their own special brand of oppression. Women and feminists need to realize that men DO suffer special male-only oppression issues in society (and no it’s not the main feminist point that men can’t act like women, it’s much broader than that).

      • Eric M says: “So, a black boy from the ghetto has more power and authority (privilege) than a white, suburban girl? Obviously not. Blows that whole theory. ”

        Lock the two of them in a room together and see who comes out on top.

        • Can’t. The black male didn’t show up because he was gunned down or is incarcerated.
          The White girl couldn’t show up either because she is busy at her appointment with a college recruiter.

    • NJH88

      Feminists don’t have the critical consciousness to accept the data and research that shoes gender isn’t entirely a social constrict and prefer to engage in magical thinking.

      • That’s right, Ron – you’ve got your stereotypes down, though you threw in some extra words: Men are rational, women are emotional. Ho hum.

    • MJH:
      I disagree.
      Look at the feminists shopping around no-fault divorce to 49 states of the USA.
      When they did this they stated that women were living in stagnant loveless or even abusive marriages and needed to be freed. In feminist writings you see all the time that gender roles are a straight jacket upon women (and men too). The theory went (and I’m paraphrasing) if gender roles are straight jackets, then marriage as the asylum in which those straight jackets were administered.

      It was argued that freeing women from stagnant of abusive marriages would free men too.

      Okay, let’s look at this in an objective fashion.
      When a father divorces a mother (or has divorce enacted upon him) what happens?
      A) overwhelmingly the mother gets sole physical custody
      B) as large amounts of her time will now be spent child-minding if she has a job she may have to quit it, or if she does not she will now not be able to
      C) this means her main source of income is child support
      D) what does this mean to the man? This means he will have to
      E) spend less time w/his kids
      F) he now has to pay for a house he does not reside in, get an apartment or second house, possibly an extra car
      G) if this man expects to date and start a family he will have to pay for all of the above and his own lodgings and replacement toys bedding for when he has the kids, will have to pay to court a new woman
      H) to accomplish all this he will actually have a TIGHTENING of the male role. He will have to acclimate to less time with his kids, work more hours, wine & dine more clients if in sales, toady up and do special things to buck for promotions

      In other words “equality” to feminists means a TIGHTENING of the male role for men.
      The actions of feminists is severely divorced from the theory.

      In the meantime, single mothers saddled with the HUGE majority of child-minding time DO NOT have the time to pursue a career, learn a trade, go to school, volunteer or expand her life.

      So, why then does NOW start action alerts whenever any state reviews possibly initiating shared custody reform to stop it?

      Feminists haven’t ushered in the breaking of gender norms. All they have done is leashed men and women tighter to these norms. Which feminists are okay with as long as men and women are separate.

      Feminists have transformed husbands and fathers gift of taking a beating in the materialistic world into something forcibly extracted and forced men to live separate from their children.

      This disastrous social experiment is paying horrific dividends. There are dozens of studies which show that children fare better with lots of contact with loving fit fathers. And yet STILL do feminists rabidly fight any threat to ending the sole custody standard.

  6. “She doesn’t want men or women to suffer or decline, she wants a completely new system.”

    There’s nothing wrong about being an idealist, until you know your limits. Fabricating weird ideas does not help to make the world a better place.

    • Julie Gillis says:

      @Thehermit:

      And what exactly about a world where men and women relate more equitably is fabricating a weird idea?

      I’m sure about 150 years ago in America, no one would have ever believed that African Americans would ever be free, equal, able to work, parent and marry alongside whites. Yet it happened, thankfully.

      There were people who believed that that particular system of dominance, both personal and institutionalized of white over black was wrong and toxic both for blacks but also whites. They worked for change over several generations. It’s shifted. Was that a weird idea? Maybe so, but I’m damn glad to be able to live in the world they helped create.

      Thus, idealizing a world where systems are more equitable for all, is not weird, but wonderful.

      Lots of weird ideas turned into amazing changes for society-computers, vaccines, radio waves being captured and harnessed, space travel and exploration. I see that human beings are creative and yes, weird, and great things can come from that creativity.

      If fabricating weird ideas is wrong, I don’t want to be right.

      I personally appreciate the concept of Kyriarchy over Patriarchy, because systems of heirarchies shift and one may be a person of priviledge but actually be in the one down (or two down) position.
      “Kyriarchy is a neologism coined by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, as a modification of the term patriarchy which elaborates intersecting structures of domination. …
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy
      A system of “ruling and oppression” in which many people may interact and act as oppressor or oppressed”

      From http://myecdysis.blogspot.com/2008/04/accepting-kyriarchy-not-apologies.html, “When people talk about patriarchy and then it divulges into a complex conversation about the shifting circles of privilege, power, and domination — they’re talking about kyriarchy. When you talk about power assertion of a White woman over a Brown man, that’s kyriarchy. When you talk about a Black man dominating a Brown womyn, that’s kyriarchy. It’s about the human tendency for everyone trying to take the role of lord/master within a pyramid.”

      • Julie Gillis says:

        I mean, would you have told Ghandi or MLK or Madame Curie or Edison or Martha Graham or Helen Keller or Betty Friedan or Cesar Chavez or Benazir Bhutto or Harriet Tubman or the Pixar Team or LucasArts or Bill Gates or Steve Jobs to know their limits? They surpassed their limits. There are countless nameless others who walked in the path of those limitless weird fabrications that helped create a better world for all of us. Knowing your limits is great. That’s how you know where to push to surpass them.

  7. I will believe “humanist” feminists are about equlity, when they are pointing out some bias what men suffer from. It’s about 58% females on universities in the US (and the gap is opening), yet not one of them said the education system is biased. Bill will lose some great minds b/c the were born with the wrong testicles, and remain uneducated.

    “If fabricating weird ideas is wrong, I don’t want to be right.”

    Not wrong at all- in your head…. But to serve it if it were a good solution for the existing problems, that’s a mistake. Can be dangerous also. As i said, you have to know your limits.

    • Julie Gillis says:

      I don’t buy this. I’m all for looking at the causes of any group of people losing educational power. My husband too, who is an academic is concerned and curious. I don’t buy that is a one up one down situation. That’s far too simple. Education on a national level is a 800 headed hydra. There are class, income issues in place. some unversities are not able to take the number of applicants because their funding (public) has been cut, they can’t increase class size, they can’t hire more staff or faculty, thus the applicant pool is growing (due to population growth) but the admissions are staying stable. Thus more kids don’t get in, male and female alike. Or they have to choose sub par university structures or they decide…why spend this money if I can’t get a job.

      Or they can’t get Pell grants and federal funding due to economic collapse.

      Or their parents have lost jobs and they can’t afford schooling. Or their stock was wiped out and thus savings.

      Those are all dynamics in the system where you seem different subsets of students going to school. I have no doubt that policies supporting girls play a role, but let’s not kid ourselves that that’s the only causation of how our public university system is failing ALL students. When Universities nationally drop from 60% public/state funding to 14% in 20 years….that’s a huge problem that has huge impact on who gets to go to school.

      Disenfranchisment doesn’t happen from one cause.

      Finally, do you truly think my examples were dangerous? Do you think that equity for African Americans through the long slog to get there (policies, civil rights movements etc) was dangerous? Should all those folks have known their limits? Kept all those pesky folks in their place? Do you think folks like Harriet Tubman or Steve Jobs should have been like…well, these ideas in my head are dangerous.

      Or is it that a women and men dynamic that you take issue with?

      There are lots of solutions to longterm problems. It takes courage and creativity and a willingness to be a little uncomfortable for a generation or two if you have the vision of how much better things could be.

      • Most of the 800 heads in your hydra affect both genders equally and can therefore be eliminated from the root cause analysis. If you care about the gender performance gap concentrate where the impacts are obviously unequal.

      • Julie- you make excellent points here, each one of them. Thank you for clarifying just how incredibly complex the layering is. Finger-pointing gets no one anywhere, but as you said, doing the hard work and slogging through (like the civil rights movements, etc.) is much more difficult than playing the victim or staying small but safe, but it’s oh so needed.
        And right on about the leaders you name- each saw a terribly wrong pattern in their society and each had the courage to do something about it, despite challenges every step of the way. That’s the only way anything ever really changes, after all….
        Maybe an article from you about the Kyriarchy? Seems intriguing…..

      • Julie,

        While you bring up some interesting points, one thing I think is telling is this:
        I have seen on tv or read in newspapers maybe 7 articles on the boy crisis in education.

        In every single article or video I have seen a feminist representative is invited to talk about it. IN every single article I have read/viewed that feminist representative denies marginalizes or in some way tries to deny that the boy crisis is as prevalent or serious as to need any intervention (with the possible exception of minority males). This is very telling.

        Also, a good resource is “The war against boys” by Christina Hoff-sommers.

        • I have an open mind on the subject of the education gap and its causes, but I’m not at all sure a good deal of it isn’t because a lot of young men are simply choosing not to go to college. This may be a symptom of rejecting (consciously or not) the restrictiveness of the male gender role of the big breadwinner.

          • LF:
            I don’t have data on how many men are “not making the cut” when applying to college to make a determination of that.

            But there is tons of available data to show that in high school despite feminists hollering about girls gap in math, you’re only talking about a few % points difference.

            Compare that to reading skills where boys average 3 full grades behind girls by graduation.

            And yet feminists still fight tooth and nail on even acknowledging the boy crisis exists or minimalising it and arguing against intervention. (by this I mean leaders/pundits at NOW and AAUW)

  8. “I have no doubt that policies supporting girls play a role”

    Yes, let’s refuse to notice the elephant in the room.

    • Julie Gillis says:

      Um, it’s not an elephant, unless it’s one elephant in a herd of elephants. You haven’t answered my questions or responded to any of the points about other higher ed issues.
      Or whether leaders from the past should have limited themselves.
      If we are going to solve complex problems, we need complex and nuanced solutions.

      • You twisted my words about the limits. Knowing your limits means to be wise enough to recognise your incompetence in something.

        • Julie Gillis says:

          So are you saying to me personally that I have a level of incompetence which means I should not participate as an activist, writer and humanist towards furthering a goal of more equity between men and women? Or that Maria shouldn’t?
          Or that anyone should check their abilities prior to acting for change?
          Please clarify?

          • I say feminists -and generally feminism- should not do social engineering. They are powerful enough politically today, but incompetent. Or lying about their goals. Or both.

            I don’t say anything for you personally, but you have to decide, who you are: a feminist or a humanist. Humanism is gender blind, feminism is not.

            • Julie Gillis says:

              Who should do social engineering? Everyone has an agenda, thehermit, yes? Are you a humanist or a masculinst? Can you be a humanist and focused on one particular race? Or gender identification or sexuality? Real questions, not snark.

            • Who should do social engineering?

              Pol Pot

            • i consider myself a humanist, because i’m not deaf and blind to human suffering, male or female.

            • “Everyone has an agenda, thehermit, yes?”
              Probably. The question is, are you honest about your agenda, or not. You and the author of this article -and feminists in particular- keep telling us that they are interested about equality… but facts speak against you. Equality, when it fits to your agenda only.

            • superstarjackie says:

              I think this is well thought out ,and rather than men contest this it would be great if more would come forward to change,its in everyones interest

  9. “Moreover, in a patriarchal system men hold authority over women, children, and property. Male rule and privilege, as well as female subordination, are implicit.”

    Then, why are my boss, her boss, and her boss all women? How is that possible?  How come black boys and young men weren’t informed that they have more privilege than white women?  Shouldn’t there be a PSA or something?

    No, this is the same old worn out feminist male-bashing, using the “patriarchy” as cover when called on it repeatedly.  And they wonder why even most women refuse to associate themselves with feminism.

    • The thing is that feminists are really talking about a specific group of men: powerful, wealthy men. When you look at the core issues wrapped up in the “patriarchy” theory, it goes back to those on the top of the hierarchy. However, that does not fit narrative feminists created. Instead, they use those handful of men as representative of the total male population, and then try to pigeonhole every male-female dynamic into that view.

      The obvious problem is that plenty of men lack any social power. It is laughable, and racist, to claim that black males have privilege and power over white females. It is even quite laughable to claim black males have privilege and power over black females. If that were the case, why are black men at the lowest rung of our society? Why do they receive the harshest punishment, the least amount of educational support, more workplace bias?

      The theory of “patriarchy” is an attempt to find a simple answer to a complex problem. It is also an attempt to make a political statement. Those two things rarely work together well, and what they produce is usually a mess of contradictory, hypocritical nonsense.

      • Yeah, I agree. I think the problem though is that regardless of a man’s station in life, the Patriarchy Myth is drilled into his head. Of course it’s laughable that a poor black man has privilege and power over a white woman, but there is a divide and conquer game at work here. Poor white men often blame poor black men, (or more likely these days, Hispanics or Muslims) for their own lack of power because they’ve been taught that they are supposed to have all this power and privilege as white males that they actually don’t have. And we know whose fault that is – it’s the same tiny group of wealthy/power people who have perpetuated the system all along. They’re all still playing a game of “you could be just like us as long as you play by the rules… and if you can’t get ahead it’s all the fault of THAT guy over THERE… the minorities, the immigrants, and the feminists.” And a lot of people still believe it.

        I agree that the term “patriarchy” is way oversimplified and is often used by people who just have an axe to grind with men. But that is the case with most “labels” that we try to put on people – on one hand the labels are useful for characterizing a certain pattern, on the other hand they’re offensive to people who don’t fit the labels.

        • LF
          I have often thought the same things about affirmative action.
          It keeps those on the lower rungs fighting over scraps, while those higher up on the rungs keep the lions share.

    • James Acer says:

      Men hold authority over women , children and property….I wonder how many divorced men in recent year would agree with that statement.

      Every notice when feminists talk about power, priv they ONLY look upwards, YES, Some men hold power but MOST homeless people are men, most alcoholics , drug addicts and the jobless are men, men die 7 years sooner, die from every major disease more often than women.

      If there is a patriarchy where men have all the power then by god , it isn’t working very well at doing that job now is it.

      “Feminists are stupid, throw facts at them”

      • You won’t get any argument from me that recent attempts to equalize power in the genders have gone too far in many cases. We certainly don’t have a patriarchy anymore in that sense.

        But, your comment is a bit like saying racism doesn’t exist anymore because we have a black president. No doubt, that was an important step in the struggle for racial equality – VERY important. But it doesn’t mean the struggle is over. Likewise, “patriarchy” doesn’t exist in the sense that it once did (at least not in developed countries), but progress has a long tail, one that still whips around and stings us more often than we’d like to think. And when I say “us” I mean both men and women. We’re still crawling out of the primordial ooze when it comes to changing gender roles, and making a lot of baby mistakes.

        • Actually, if you flip your argument around LF then it becomes the quintessential (broken) patriarchy theory.

          Overwhelmingly it is men in power, so therefore we have a patriarchy and all men are doing fine. (I’m not saying this is your point, but just pontificating)

          We have a black male president, so therefore all black males are doing fine. The broken ideology becomes even more absurd.

  10. Julie Gillis says:

    Eric, did you see my post above on Kyriarchy? I know that sounds like one of those obnoxious made up academic words, but it frames the ideas of multiple layers of oppression pretty well. I think it’s a more nuanced view of how hierarchical systems work, and how that could allow for a black woman to have authority over a white man. In that individual instance, sure she’s got “power” but is that actually a systemic dominance or not?
    I like that academic model, but i know it doesn’t work for everyone.
    I don’t see bashing at all. I see someone wrestling with systems.

    • Are you familiar with statistics comparing educational attainment, unemployment, victims of violence and murder, etc. of young white women vs. young black men? 

      Which is more likely to end up in prison?  A victim of violence?  A murder victim?  A victim of theft?  Murdered?  Unemployed?  Which is more like to not graduate high school?  Which is more likely to be assigned to a failing school?  Which is more likely to not graduate or even ever going to college? Which is more likely to be incarcerated?  Which is more likely to be given a longer prison sentence for the same crime?  Or, as you noted, stopped by the police?  In general.  On average.

      Which is more likely to have parent(s) who graduated from college?  Which is more likely to have the higher income parents?

      The answers to these questions are the reason that when this blogger (or others) talks about “male privilege” but never “white female” privilege, it’s clear that it’s just another male-bashing attack framed with high sounding psychobabble terms – no offense to you intended.

  11. I just found this website and I am pasting my last blog (1of 2- newbie)
    Note that I am Canadian and I am quoting Canadian statistics

    Further to my starting this blog due to frustration. I was deleted from the Huffington Post for quoting statistics that show that not all men are fairing well in our new economy. Men make up over 96% of workplace deaths,74% of homicide victims and over 50% of serious assualt victims which include both assaults requiring hospitalization and sexual assault.

    The richest men (divided into 5 income groups) live 2 years less than the poorest women, while the richest women live 12 years longer than the poorest men.

    Google poverty and health and see how many hits your get for men and poverty.

    CBC had a headline news story last week saying food bank usage hasn’t dropped since 2008 and that a third of the users were children and 47% were female. Doing simple math, that means that men make up 53% of users yet make up 49% of the population.

    So why? My theory is patriarchy. I think that in our society, children are valued by women and men (matriarchy and patriarchy). Thus a mother and father are expected to die for their child. Women are valued by men (patriarchy) thus men are expected to die for their wives. The Titanic was classical patriarchy. By far more men died than women and children because patriarchial society valued them over men.

    As November 11th approaches, we see how men didn’t value other men, thus leading to the slaughterhouse we call Ypres, Passchedale, Vimy Ridge and the Somme. Men don’t care for the lives of other men because men see other men as competition. But they value women and children. How many times do you hear a news article announces a horrific death toll with the words, ‘including women and children’?

    Women and children are valuable, but so is the poor, black male living in Jane and Finch. Yet when his life is ended in violence, no one, other than his mother, seems to care.

    The term cannon fodder is a good term for our poor young males. No one cares if they die. Yet they were once chubby cheeked, burbling young babies, innocent, and wanting of love and affection, and something happened during their lives to make them seemingly worthy of a violent death.

  12. Why is my comment in moderation?

    • Because when you consistently make comments critical of feminist positions, all your comments automatically get put in moderation.

    • I can’t figure out what causes some random posts to be placed in moderation. I THINK it has something to do with making more than a certain number of posts in a given amount of time, to prevent spammers. But I don’t really know… all I know is certain of my posts (and presumably everyone’s) end up in moderation for no good reason, and eventually appear (I guess when someone approves them). I don’t think it’s a conspiracy. 😉

  13. Jacobtk,

    Please repost that comment at your blog.

  14. If men and women both go out and hustle(for lack of a better word) who will train the Kids? . I believe attempting to change family structure is like messing with DNA, be careful we might end up with monster society,also understanding gender roles is important in the development of child.. Gender equality I totally agree with but redefining gender responsibility and duties is senseless

  15. “I myself have never been able to figure out precisely what feminism is. I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat. ”
    ― Zadie Smith, On Beauty

    This is my favorite quote on feminism, by a favorite author. It does not mention men. It is aspirational in nature, and expresses the frustration many women feel that *simply by speaking up for themselves, their rights, and the desire for equality* they get attacked. “Feminism,” however you construe it, is not about male bashing or, as I’ve seen asserted by many men on GMP, about women wanting to be *better* than men. It is about women wanting to be equal: equal pay for equal work, equal safety (meaning lower risk) from rape, equal opportunity to be business CEOs and politicians, equal amount of work in the household (not more), etc. Obviously the equality sought is *relative* to the opposite gender. But it is NOT about, oh, hey, let’s just bash men. It is about: Please see me. Please hear me. Please recognize that I just want what is fair and has been denied my due to my gender. Call this fighting patriarchy or fighting hierarchy–whatever suits you. It’s just semantics. It’s what Zadie Smith says–that simple and that profound. Labels don’t matter–ideas do.

    • ” It is about: Please see me. Please hear me. Please recognize that I just want what is fair and has been denied my due to my gender.”

      It would be nice for you to recognise what happens when men say the same, Yes, those on the bottom of the society, the disenfreanchised ones… Women are the first who tell them STFU.

      • And now thehermit gets to the gist of his problem. Some woman he wanted rejected him.

        I can’t tell you how many hermits have stalked and harassed me because I declined their advances.

        You have a problem, Hermit, but your problem isn’t women. Your problem is you.

        • Oh no,
          REally? YOu went there? REally?
          After 70 posts saying how bad men suck and you say this to hermit?
          First off, you’re slicing his intent. He was clearly talking about political disenfranchisement, but you twisted it to smear him trying to say he’s unloved by women.

          If you are inviting people to speculate that they are the source of their own misery, I invite you to do the same.

          Maybe you can’t attract a good man because you’re not attractive to good men. Maybe your hostility attracts hostility. You reap what you sow.

  16. simply put.

    I am not “king” in my house nor do I know any men who are “king”. My wife has more practical decision making and spending authority than I do. I work for a guy who works a woman who reports up to another woman. This whole patriarchy theory (conspiracy?) just falls flat on its rear when you compare it to my lived experience.

    The idea that the solution to all men’s problems is more feminism smells very much like “trickle down” economics to me. Not a whole lot trickles down. Men have certain privilege related to their gender roles and women certain privilege related to their gender roles. If you want to talk about breaking down gender roles try it without the tired (and gendered) positions of patriarchy and feminism- you might get a better response.

  17. superstarjackie says:

    Life is about caring sharing ,lets start with gender war”,time to end it” All men are born of women surely you owe us respect !

  18. Thank for posting this. As a straight male, I fully support this. I say this because, for better or worse, I’m highly empathetic and as a result tend to be emotional. My girlfriend, on the other hand, is extremely stoic, rarely expressing any emotions at all. You’d think this would make for a really neat relationship, with the gender perceptions flipped and all. Unfortunately, despite her liberal leanings, she was raised by very conservative parents in southern Virginia, and despite being a feminist still adheres to old school gender norms. The end result is that she routinely berates me for being “a wimp,” “feminine,” “a wuss,” “not manly enough,” etc. While I try not to let it get to me, it really hurts that someone who I love, and who loves me in return, insists on hassling me like this, especially over traits I personally find highly useful.

    • Brad, that infuriates me. There are all kinds of men. Just as I don’t like when women police each others femininity, I don’t like anyone to police how anyone else is performing their gender role. There is a huge spectrum, and there is room on it for everyone. And it is not for anyone else to tell you where on that spectrum you should be. I have a very emotional husband and love him for that. I wish your wife appreciated you for being in touch with your emotions. There are a lot of men like you who would like to be freed up from stereotypes. There are also a lot of men who would have the same opinion of you as your wife. The stereotypes must stop. Be who you are–that is good enough, and better than good enough!

    • Kirsten (in MT) says:

      Brad, if you are in a relationship with someone who routinely berates you with degrading comments such as those, you might want to give some thought to what it means that she “loves” you. That does not sound like loving behavior or a loving relationship (on her part) to me.

    • @Lori: Girlfriend, not wife (thank goodness). Thanks, I appreciate the thought.
      @Kirsten:…yeah, there have been some heated arguments, both with her, and some of my friends, who also hold the opinion that I might want to break up with her. Thing is, she *knows* that she’s not supposed to do that, and she is immediately and sincerely apologetic about it afterwards, but these prescribed gender roles are so deeply written into her it’s hard stamping them out. I haven’t given up hope yet, but if the situation hasn’t improved by next year, I may just end it, as much as I would hate to do that. (And I won’t even get into her issues with emotional intimacy. Like I said, it’s a gender flip, but that still includes all the problems associated with each gender)

  19. Why not bash matriarchy?

    The matriarchal ghettos are producing by far the most child abuse and criminality.

  20. Feminism cannot dismantle patriarchy because it relies on it.

    So what happens is that they dismantle the parts that suit and keep the parts that it needs, which puts increasing amounts of pressure on men. Men are staring to go their own way in increasing numbers because if this. Without men putting the bulk if the work into the system, it will collapse because women take more out than they contribute.

    The establishment is already worried about this.

  21. wellokaythen says:

    I can’t help but think that patriarchy has to be the most powerful thing ever made by human hands. It sounds like it’s more powerful than racism, sexism, theology, political ideology, even more powerful than industrial capitalism. (It can be perfectly compatible with all these things, but this still sounds like patriarchy could trump any of the others.)

    It was created thousands of years ago in multiple places all over the world by people who must have been geniuses to put something so enduring into motion. It’s about as close as humans have come to creating a perpetual motion machine. Quite a feat to get one half of the population to be enslaved by the other half, generation after generation, eliminating or co-opting all opposition to itself. It even convinced billions of the enslaved to embrace it as a good thing, while convincing many other suckers that it doesn’t actually exist. It’s devious, insidious, and exquisitely self-perpetuating. It takes a thousand different forms, and even hides in the opposition movements fighting patriarchy. Just when you think you’ve started to stamp it out, it goes deeper underground and tricks people into thinking that it’s dead, only to resurface in disguise.

    Just looking at it objectively and historically, it’s a remarkable institution. If you think of it as a kind of technology, it’s had a much bigger impact than the creation of agriculture or the invention of atomic weapons. Landing on the moon? Child’s play, compared to patriarchy. (The moon missions are on hiatus, but patriarchy keeps on rolling.)

    Yes, some sarcasm here, but also some sincere amazement. If I was the kind of person who worshipped something, I’d choose something unbelievably powerful and indestructible like Patriarchy. Simply amazing.

    • Sounds like a paranoid delusion to be honest.

      • Oh, no..... says:

        Really, Ron? Remember what happened after World War II? During the war, women had good jobs that paid well. After the war the women were sent home to breed and consume. My mother was one of those women. She never held a job again after she married my father in 1946. If she had looked for a job the only job she could have found would have been in the pink-collar ghetto: secretary, retail clerk, school teacher.

        It is real, so stop jeering.

        • World War II? Seriously?

          Uh, this is almost 2012.

          • Oh, no..... says:

            Eric – that is just one example of how this crap is perpetuated. It destroyed my mother’s generation and mine.

            In 2012, women still suffer rape and abuse. (Read up on what routinely is done to women in the military.) Until that stops, we are stopped. I am sure you revel in that fact.

            • Women don’t have a monopoly on victimhood. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that males are victims of crime, violent assault, and murder far more often than women.

              Men are victims. Women are victims. There is no doubt. My approach is to love and help my family as best I can, and help those I volunteer to work with build strong, healthy families, keep their children safe, and teach them how to be good and helpful human beings.

              The animosity against males that you harbor benefits no one.

        • Patriarchy has been on a sharp decline for many years now. This isn’t your mothers generation anymore. The millenium generation has an entirely different life and patriarchy isn’t part of it. Thank god.

          • There may be a decline from past generations, but patriarchy is still alive and well or else we wouldn’t be here almost 300 comments in talking about it; why GMP exists along with similar sites and blogs, or why “Take Back the Night” movements are still strong and growing, or why there are campus programs to escort female students to their car at night, why communities continually seek to expand shelters for women and children of abuse?

            • MichelleG
              “There may be a decline from past generations, but patriarchy is still alive and well or else we wouldn’t be here almost 300 comments in talking about it; why GMP exists along with similar sites and blogs, or why “Take Back the Night” movements are still strong and growing, or why there are campus programs to escort female students to their car at night, why communities continually seek to expand shelters for women and children of abuse?”

              In other words patriarchy is here because a significant minority of women have been taught that it is?

              Your premise that patriarchy is real & a problem because so many people say so reminds me of a joke:
              A couple is touring manhattan new york. In the middle of a thriving downtown area, they encounter a guy standing at an intersection in full safari gear with a big elephant gun.

              The couple goes up to him and asks him what he’s doing. He responds: “I’m keeping the elephants out of new york.”

              When the couple responds there are no elephants in new york, the hunter responds: “see what a good job I’m doing?”

              A mass delusion does not a reality make. Just because a sizable portion of women are concerned about patriarchy does not make it real.

              I just got 20 million hits from goggle when I plugged in “Moon is artificial”.

              Quantity of people sharing a delusion does not make it more real. Look at the sizable portion of people who believe immunization shots are bad.

              Neither does the number of comments on a thread that delusion people rack up (both their own and critics in rebuttal) prove anything.

              Sorry, BUZZZZZZ you lose. Johnny, tell us who the next contestant is.

            • Oh no:
              I could turn that around.
              Just because a sizable portion of delusional people say the holocaust didn’t happen doesn’t mean that 6 million jews are suddenly alive and well that were murdered.

            • Oh no:
              “I get it. Some woman divorced you and you became a men’s rights fanatic. Maybe you have lost your job. You’re really angry at women. We are easy to blame.”

              Lol, whatever you can get to stick right? If you can’t debate my points then you’ll try to smear my credibility? YAWN. Feminists arguing tactics 101.

              What’s next? misogynist, homophobic, bigot, rape apologist, rapist.

              Puhlease! Seen this tactic before. Been there, done that, saw the movie, read the book, have the cliff-notes.
              Please argue my points w/out all the theatrics to try and smear people. They really only make you lose credibility, not your target.

            • See, where Eric went wrong is even answering jibes like that.
              The simple truth is you weren’t interested in any answer. You just want to distract from the debate. If it takes smears, then that’s what you’ll do.
              50 derailing posts later between you and him and the conversation hasn’t moved forward one inch.

              I don’t feel the need to build any “creds” with you Oh no.

              Learning from Erics mistake, I am well aware that NO CREDS will be good enough for you. If my view on male & female gender oppression differs from yours then clearly I’M THE BAD GUY w/no redeeming qualities whatsoever. lol

            • Oh, no..... says:

              John, I am not interested in arguing with you. This isn’t an empty debate. This isn’t about logic. This isn’t about studies in unnamed magazines. This is about what happens to people. I don’t like the term “feminist” and I don’t consider myself a feminist. I am a human being. I am sick of being attacked.

            • And yet you seem to relish combat. If you’re sick of being attacked why the over-the-top name-calling and smears and hyperbolic reactions?
              If you’re sick of taking shit, why do you keep dishing it out and setting the tone as hostile when men simply open a forum.

              Eric especially has been super patient in the face of a lot of slurs and name-calling. You sounds passive-aggressive.

              You simultaneously vociferously attack people, then make please upon peoples pity with comments like: “I’m sick of being attacked” or “don’t feel sorry for me”

              I think luckey is kind of a super douche, but he may have a point. I don’t think you should be airing these kinds of troubles on an internet blog, but in a therapists couch.

              I hope you get to a better place.

        • Oh No,
          “Are you really suggesting that WWII vets who had gave it their all for their country should have their jobs stolen while they were gone?”

          Really, Ron? Remember what happened after World War II? During the war, women had good jobs that paid well. After the war the women were sent home to breed and consume. My mother was one of those women. She never held a job again after she married my father in 1946.

          Right THERE is why b1tching about “teh patriarchy” is total reeking horse crap.
          Women want to pick and choose the portions of the male role they want:
          Good paying jobs, mmmmm yum I’m all for that. Dying with your intestines hanging out in a foreign land: mmmmnah I’ll pass.

          (the oppression you point out of women having to leave factories does not even hold a dim f*cking candle to the oppression of men socialized to fight in wars. The oppression of women is so critically held in your heart 50 years later, but the MUCH GREATER oppression of men to have their lives cut short you are totally blind to).

          Women and feminists act like the male role is a buffet dinner in which they can choose which portions they want. Feminists want equal rights for women, but not equal responsibilities. Rights comes with responsibilities (unless you have two X chromosomes).

          • Oh, no..... says:

            John D – How is work that pays “male”? Your comments in this regard demonstrate that you are stark raving….male.

            And war? Who starts wars? Men. Who drafts the people who fight in wars? Men.

            I don’t want a “male role.” I want to work for pay, have a choice about whether or when I have sex, have a choice about whether or when I have children. I want to be free of violence. I want joy in my life. I want my humanity to be recognized, not stomped on.

            I’m sorry, but I cannot take you seriously because you are unreal.

            • Oh No:
              “John D – How is work that pays “male”? Your comments in this regard demonstrate that you are stark raving….male.”
              You’re evading my point. I’ll answer the above question when you answer my question: Why do you center on women having to evacuate factory jobs, when in the same historic reference you are totally blind to the oppression of men being socialized to fighting for their lives, seeing grisly deaths and maiming that would scar them for life?

              “And war? Who starts wars? Men. Who drafts the people who fight in wars? Men.”
              Wrong–governments do.
              A) Women had the vote some 20 years before WWII. So women face equal responsibility for voting in war hawks.
              B) it has been shown that female leaders war just as much as male leaders. Indira Ghandi, and Margaret Thatcher to name a few at the top of the list
              C) women have had a crucial role in sending men to die in wars. Look up the white feather campagin of WWI (in which women shamed men who did not volunteer), the shaming campaigns of women of the south during the revolutionary war, and women in tribes in Africa who throw bird seed at tribesmen who do not fight. Women have an equal hand in choosing their sons and brothers to fight so that they wouldn’t have to. Don’t kid yourself. Women’s hands are dirty too. One of the successes of the Nazi movement were snoops and snitches who would report un-Nazi like behavior to the Nazi’s. The overwhelming majority of these were women. The overwhelming majority of people buying jewish property (after they were seized) were women.
              Men are not demons and women are no angels. Surprise! You’re down here in the fugly muck of humanity with the rest of us BAAAAABY!

            • Oh, no..... says:

              Okay, John D. You’re a victim. Great. You win.

              Now how do we stop rape? How do we stop street harassment? I wouldn’t be thinking about this shit if I did not have to deal with it.

            • OH no, says:
              “Okay, John D. You’re a victim. Great. You win.”
              lol, honestly no I’m not.
              But my grandfather was in WWII as a medic. He got two silver stars for pulling guys out of very heavy fire. And you know what? He was abused by my grandmother.

              My father was drafted into vietnam. He came back all doped out on drugs and suffering from PTSD. Why? Because he had to shoot a 13y/o vietcong who was about to throw a grenade at him.

              My mom was forced to divorce him when I was 5 and my sister was a newborn.
              She had to deal with a lot of racism from black employees at the Department of Social Services (later renamed Family Indepence Agency a misnomer) and lots of other crap which she did bravely. I have seen things from both sides of the fence.

              So, if men and women were roughly equally oppressed in the first half of the last century (but in vastly different ways) then where does that leave patriarchy theory.

              There are two parts to patriarchy theory? There was not massive oppression of ONLY OR MOSTLY women. Both genders were oppressed harshly with strict gender roles.
              In some ways I would say the oppression of men was greater.

              The reason being that women were told what they could not do. Men were told what they MUST do. Of course this wasn’t laid down in strict commandments, but by socialization. This meant that men were socialized to take an active agency in their own oppression i.e. being “proud” of being the sacrificial cannon fodder in war, or the blood and bones upon which modern society is built (look up almost any suspension bridge or tunnel or dam or other large work and you will find many dead men).

              Men were socialized in being “brave little soldiers”.

              But now today women have several huge organizations to help them fight oppression, but the oppression of men still gets no acknowledgement or solutions.

              I noticed you didn’t respond to my post about men suffering many times over women as victims of crime, homelessness, suicide, on the job deaths etc…
              You and I both know why you didn’t respond, because those stats of male disposability blow apart patriarchy theory.

              As far as stopping rape & sexual harrassment:
              for future generations I would suggest signing on board to the shared parenting movement. There are many studies which show that having loving fit fathers in their lives create men who are much more mature and well-adjusted regarding sex.

              Look at hip hop artists. This is a group which overwhelmingly (90% or more) are raised in fatherless homes. And how do they speak of women? As tricks and ho’s and much much worse.

              For right now? A) rape is part of all crime. The overwhelming majority of rape is committed by those who also commit other crimes against both men and women. IE damaged or ruthless people who have an inability to feel empathy. If feminists want to stop rape, then they should start caring about male on male crimes. Rape is part of the same problem. A greater focus on ALL crime would help.
              B) more after-school programs to keep young men/boys out of gangs and off the streets
              C) decriminalize marijuana to the level of alcohol. “My body my choice” should apply for everything, not just pick and choose. The gang violence today is similar to the violence of bootleggers when alcohol was banned. Lift the band and remove the violence.
              D) reform the prison system. USA passed russia & has the largest prison system in the world. If it was aligned with the powers-that-be interests prisons could be true centers of rehabilitation. Unfortunately, everybody from politicians to guards, to laundry services, launch services, to prison builders want more & more recidivism.

              Ex-cons have some ridiculous constraints. They can’t get student loans, they can’t work in medical fields, and a whole bunch more I can’t remember.

              If we want fewer monstrous men, then we need to stop treating men in monstrous fashion (starting at birth with the unkindest cut). The bible says “you reap what you sow” and this has never been more obvious than the way we are treating our young men.

            • I have a long comment in moderation hell. Hopefully it will pop up soon.

    • “I can’t help but think that patriarchy has to be the most powerful thing ever made by human hands. It sounds like it’s more powerful than racism, sexism, theology, political ideology, even more powerful than industrial capitalism….It was created thousands of years ago in multiple places all over the world by people who must have been geniuses to put something so enduring into motion”

      Your so incredibly close and yet so far….
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inevitability_of_Patriarchy

    • Oh, no..... says:
  22. This argument only works if we accept, as axiom, the fact that Patriarchy still exists in a meaningful way in the 21st century. I would argue that the evidence does not support this view. By most measures of general welfare, the average American woman is far better off than the average American man, and most of our country’s laws are written to favor the interests of women over the interests of men.

  23. Perhaps the misinterpretations (man bashing) of what you mean by patriarchy are rooted in your half-baked understanding of what it is. Despite a well-intentioned title to your article, the substance comes up short.

    Patriarchy had its origin in our gender roles, and that role for men was always fraught with much more disadvantage than advantage; more powerlessness than privilege; more expendability than control, over anything.

    Personally I am really sick and tired of clueless ideologues and their hapless attempts at empathy with men by bemoaning how we have been shorted on emotional expression and time with children. This is nothing more than patronizing claptrap.

    If you want to understand how gender roles, and ultimately patriarchy, have had a negative impact on men, look at conscription, forced labor, socialization to assume dangerous work in order to support women, and a boatload of other issues a damn sight more important than whether we’re allowed to sit in circles, emoting and passing Kleenex.

    Your take on this is a reflection of the same prevailing fantasy that has been deluding feminists for half a century. The male gender role is not about power. It is about pain, suffering and sacrifice. And it is about keeping your mouth closed about it. Please spare us the thoughtless connection you are making between the .005% of men who actually had power, and the overwhelming majority whose lives are spent indentured to a role that is more akin to a pack animal than a king.

    • Justa… What a stunningly dismissive, arrogant, and entirely predictable response you have offered. You have entirely missed the point of the article, the parameters of which are broad and inclusive. In so writing, you have proved beyond question that patriarchy is alive and well…. In your heart and mind. Have fun with that.

      • If that article is broad and inclusive, then I would hate to see your definition of narrow. Was I dismissive? Yes. as well I should be with fodder like this. Predictable? I hope so, just as I hope that harsh and cutting dissent becomes the norm with this myopic “men’s only disadvantage is that they are not allowed to cry” NONSENSE.

        And I am sure that anyone who feels this way is arrogant to people like you. I consider it a compliment.

        I have no more interest in maintaining patriarchy than you do. I just don’t delude myself about who that system protected and who it really hurt.

    • I fully agree that our society faces a problem with repressive gender roles and gender expectations.

      Why feminists have chosen to label that “patriarchy” is beyond me, but the label illustrates how skewed their perspective of the situation is, and the limitations of their thinking when it comes to finding solutions. This system doesn’t give “men” all the social power, any more than it deprives “women” of an equal voice in our culture. It DOES, however, lock people into narrow little channels of standard and accepted behavior based on chromosomes. That’s what needs to change, and feminism (to its credit) attempted to address one-half of the problem for one-half of those affected by it.

      That’s as far as they got, and I think the misnomer “patriarchy” is part of what’s holding our society back from making further progress in this area.

    • Oh, no..... says:

      Right, Justa. And when men feel “oppressed” about their “burdens,” they smack their wives or girlfriends around or go out and rape someone weaker. Boo hoo.

      • Oh, my. Isn’t that quite the intellectual comeback! If men acknowledge. or God forbid. complain about any of the disadvantages in their traditional roles, they are somehow equated to rapists and wife beaters- at least in the minds of some.

        They have a word for that kind of thinking. It is called bigotry. Well, unless you want to stipulate that when women feel “oppressed” about their “burdens” they throw their babies into dumpsters, beat them to death or just point a finger at an innocent man and cry rape.

        Boo hoo is right.

        • Oh, No.. .. says:

          Right. We point at “innocent” men and “cry rape.” Methinks you are a rapist.

          • You strike me as a person who sees rapist everywhere. Good luck on your obsessive compulsive disorder.

            • “You strike me as a person who sees rapist everywhere”
              Like the 6th Sense?
              suspenseful whisper: “I see rapists, they’re EVERYWHERE.”

            • Oh, no..... says:

              Well, boys, let me tell you a little bit about rapists. #1 – they are rarely strangers to their victims; #2, like you guys, they are angry at women; #3 they don’t understand that what they are doing is rape; they see it as “scoring” sex. From what I can tell, when “scoring,” men don’t care whether the woman wants to participate; the main thing is to use alcohol and/or a date rape drug to incapacitate the target, or offer her a ride home and then jump her, or get her convinced that you are her friend and can be trusted, and then you jump her. This is the typical rapist, not the guy in the dark alley with a gun or a knife.

              So, given the nastiness and hostility and abiding sense of superiority you dicks exhibit here, I would say there is a very good chance that you have committed rape.

              But I don’t expect you to be bright enough or receptive enough to understand any of this information.

            • Yes.. We aren’t “Bright” enough to place our selves at the tender mercy of your kangaroo court. 

              How foolish of me Not to assume that once you’ve been cornered by logic you’d shout Rape on a message board. That almost never happens when people discuss Patriarchy.

            • Oh, no..... says:

              What kangaroo court? I just informed you of facts about rape, and the type of men who rape — deeply angry men.

              Now you haul out the “logic” argument. The use of the word “logic” by guys like you is similar to the use of the word “God” – it is simply arbitrary. Men declare themselves “logical” and women “emotional” or “crazy.” You are not logical at all, you are just pissed off and dismissive.

              There is a great deal of confusion and soft-pedaling about rape. The New York Times has a good editorial on the subject today: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/confusing-sex-and-rape.html?_r=1

              Budmin, all I can tell you is that you are angry, combative, tedious and boring. I doubt that women want to have much to do with you at all, unless they are so brainwashed into believing that they need men that they would endure your abuse just for the sake of having a “man” in their lives. I’ll bet that’s a lot of fun.

            • Uhm….Okay if U say so….

              But When adults are discussing subject matter as serious as rape, please understand that We need more then your asinine ad’ hominem attacks & personal stories could provide. We need cited sources. We need a clear definition of rape that is fair and worthy universal support.

              We don’t need your opinions or your bigotry. We need the law.

            • Oh, no..... says:

              Okay, hater Budmin. Every state has its own statutes defining the crime of rape. In California there are basically two kinds of rape, the first defined by Penal Code section 261 in 1872. The second kind – object rape – is defined by Penal Code section 289, which was enacted in 1978. If you bothered to read the New York Times piece I posted earlier today, you would have some sense of how confused both the public and law enforcement are regarding rape. The police department in my community trains its officers not to recognize what rape is, and as a result the police are abusive towards women like me who attempt to explain what the law is. The police refuse to look at the statutes that govern; they go by their training materials, which are flat out wrong.

              § 261. Rape defined
              Currentness
              (a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances:
              (1) Where a person is incapable, because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, and this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing the act. Notwithstanding the existence of a conservatorship pursuant to the provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1 (commencing with Section 5000) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code), the prosecuting attorney shall prove, as an element of the crime, that a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability rendered the alleged victim incapable of giving consent.
              (2) Where it is accomplished against a person’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.
              (3) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused.
              (4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph, “unconscious of the nature of the act” means incapable of resisting because the victim meets one of the following conditions:
              (A) Was unconscious or asleep.
              (B) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred.
              (C) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator’s fraud in fact.
              (D) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator’s fraudulent representation that the sexual penetration served a professional purpose when it served no professional purpose.
              (5) Where a person submits under the belief that the person committing the act is the victim’s spouse, and this belief is induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce the belief.
              (6) Where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person, and there is a reasonable possibility that the perpetrator will execute the threat. As used in this paragraph, “threatening to retaliate” means a threat to kidnap or falsely imprison, or to inflict extreme pain, serious bodily injury, or death.
              (7) Where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate, arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim has a reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official. As used in this paragraph, “public official” means a person employed by a governmental agency who has the authority, as part of that position, to incarcerate, arrest, or deport another. The perpetrator does not actually have to be a public official.
              (b) As used in this section, “duress” means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising the existence of duress.
              (c) As used in this section, “menace” means any threat, declaration, or act which shows an intention to inflict an injury upon another.

              § 289. Forcible acts of sexual penetration; punishment

              (a)(1)(A) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.
              (B) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration upon a child who is under 14 years of age, when the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 8, 10, or 12 years.
              (C) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration upon a minor who is 14 years of age or older, when the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 6, 8, or 10 years.
              (D) This paragraph does not preclude prosecution under Section 269, Section 288.7, or any other provision of law.
              (2) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person, and there is a reasonable possibility that the perpetrator will execute the threat, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.
              (b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), any person who commits an act of sexual penetration, and the victim is at the time incapable, because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, and this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing the act or causing the act to be committed, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years. Notwithstanding the appointment of a conservator with respect to the victim pursuant to the provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1 (commencing with Section 5000) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code), the prosecuting attorney shall prove, as an element of the crime, that a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability rendered the alleged victim incapable of giving legal consent.
              (c) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration, and the victim is at the time incapable, because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, and this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing the act or causing the act to be committed and both the defendant and the victim are at the time confined in a state hospital for the care and treatment of the mentally disordered or in any other public or private facility for the care and treatment of the mentally disordered approved by a county mental health director, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail for a period of not more than one year. Notwithstanding the existence of a conservatorship pursuant to the provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1 (commencing with Section 5000) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code), the prosecuting attorney shall prove, as an element of the crime, that a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability rendered the alleged victim incapable of giving legal consent.
              (d) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration, and the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act and this is known to the person committing the act or causing the act to be committed, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years. As used in this subdivision, “unconscious of the nature of the act” means incapable of resisting because the victim meets one of the following conditions:
              (1) Was unconscious or asleep.
              (2) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred.
              (3) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator’s fraud in fact.
              (4) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator’s fraudulent representation that the sexual penetration served a professional purpose when it served no professional purpose.
              (e) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the victim is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or eight years.
              (f) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the victim submits under the belief that the person committing the act or causing the act to be committed is the victim’s spouse, and this belief is induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce the belief, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or eight years.
              (g) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate, arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim has a reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or eight years.
              As used in this subdivision, “public official” means a person employed by a governmental agency who has the authority, as part of that position, to incarcerate, arrest, or deport another. The perpetrator does not actually have to be a public official.
              (h) Except as provided in Section 288, any person who participates in an act of sexual penetration with another person who is under 18 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison or in the county jail for a period of not more than one year.
              (i) Except as provided in Section 288, any person over the age of 21 years who participates in an act of sexual penetration with another person who is under 16 years of age shall be guilty of a felony.
              (j) Any person who participates in an act of sexual penetration with another person who is under 14 years of age and who is more than 10 years younger than he or she shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.
              (k) As used in this section:
              (1) “Sexual penetration” is the act of causing the penetration, however slight, of the genital or anal opening of any person or causing another person to so penetrate the defendant’s or another person’s genital or anal opening for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse by any foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, or by any unknown object.
              (2) “Foreign object, substance, instrument, or device” shall include any part of the body, except a sexual organ.
              (3) “Unknown object” shall include any foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, or any part of the body, including a penis, when it is not known whether penetration was by a penis or by a foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, or by any other part of the body.
              (l) As used in subdivision (a), “threatening to retaliate” means a threat to kidnap or falsely imprison, or inflict extreme pain, serious bodily injury or death.
              (m) As used in this section, “victim” includes any person who the defendant causes to penetrate the genital or anal opening of the defendant or another person or whose genital or anal opening is caused to be penetrated by the defendant or another person and who otherwise qualifies as a victim under the requirements of this section.

              So there you go. Now you will probably call me “asinine” for knowing the law.

            • Oh No,
              “Well, boys, let me tell you a little bit about rapists. #1 – they are rarely strangers to their victims; #2, like you guys, they are angry at women; #3 they don’t understand that what they are doing is rape; they see it as “scoring” sex”

              Mike Nifong! Is this you!

            • Oh, no..... says:

              What do my comments have to do with Mike Nifong? Nobody these days disputes the fact that the great majority of rapes are not committed by strangers. Do you? And do you dispute that rapists are angry at women? Do you really think that men who force sex on women are not rapists? Just what is it about rape that you dispute?

          • According to several studies false accusation of rape is approximately 32% (some go as high as 40%) with post-coital accusation rating very highly, aka ‘regret accusation’. This number should not be surprising, police acknowledge that statistic is equivalent to lies concerning other crimes. The fallacy that women don’t lie about rape is akin to believing they don’t lie about any other crime.

            • Oh, no..... says:

              And your point is?

            • Oh, no..... says:

              I have to wonder where these “false report” statistics come from. If they are derived from police reports, then they cannot be reliable. If they are derived from cases that are designated “unfounded” by the police or the DA, again they are unreliable, since that term is not clearly defined. Some interpret “unfounded” as meaning “false.” Some prosecutors treat the word “unfounded” as meaning “not enough evidence to prosecute.” That does not mean “false.” I cannot take these “studies” as true because the language employed by the police and prosecutors is so inconsistent and attitudes toward rape victims are so biased.

          • Oh, no…you have mental and emontional issues. Please take your personal attacks and hatred elsewhere.

            • Oh, no…your response is irrelevant due to your mental illness. Please seek treatment instead of blogs.

  24. Simple solution to end patriarchy.
    Women find poor, shy, nerdy males attractive.

    I love one of my son’s songs he used to play about 5 years ago that says, “Boys like girls, girls like cars and money, boys like girls that are kind and funny”

    Boys are raised to be peacocks – get attention or die trying.

    Feminists will not admit that 100% of women in the last two studies in Germany and England, said that they either wanted men to make more money then them, or the same. Zero, out of thousands said they wanted to make more money.

    So obviously men have to try to make alot of money to be found attractive.

    Another study in the Vancouver Sun showed pictures of the same men with a victorious expression, a pained expression, neutral and happy. Wome prefered them in that order.

    its no wonder boys act like jerks, girls find them attractive.

    I am a short white male. I was always a ‘friend’ but never a boyfriend. Then when in university I hit the gym, added 50lbs and got a good job and suddenly I was hot.

    I am now a successful 50 year old CEO and happily married for 23 years but women still come on to me, some 15 years younger. Why?, Because I have power and the confidence that comes with it. But I am a ‘GoodMan’ never cheated and I am a more than equal partner raising our boys (i was the diaper king, cook and dishwasher and maintenance man) as my wife has had health issues.

    So teach our girls to like boys for their humour, sense of fun and not their money and status and you will end patriarchy.

    • I don’t think it will end patriarchy, but I like what you’re saying. I’ve known a lot of women who are into men for the wrong reasons, and who pass up wonderful men for shallow reasons. But the same can be said for men when they focus on beautiful faces and bodies, or worse, parts of bodies. I hate terms like ‘I’m a leg man” or “I’m a breast man,” like women are just pieces of chicken! We have a very looks-obsessed culture, and it’s really a shame. We also–both genders–place too little emphasis on inner qualities like intelligence and sense of humor.

      I get what you’re saying about girls should like shy, nerdy guys. But I was a shy, nerdy girl. It was the same for me. *Everyone* should have greater depth. Unfortunately, our pop culture places a huge amount of value on the outside, not the inside.

      • Pop culture produces what sells.
        I read women’s magazines on the elliptical machine at the gym ( cause women are far more organized than men, and come prepared), and I understand the pressure that women face. I would suggest that we are all attracted to ‘fit’ because deep in our evolutionary nature, that would make the best mate. It is the marketing of what ‘fit’ looks like which makes so few of us worthy.

        Of course, once we evolved the sense of ‘self awareness’ humans have struggled to accept the fact that we are an animals and that is why bodily functions including sex, are taboo areas. Ironically, by the time we solve our gender roles, technology will make the intelligent mammal obsolete. The movie ‘ Artificial Intelligence’ is not a fantasy, but in the next two millenium, a reality. Sexual reproduction will go the way of the dodo bird and I hope our future treats us like the ignorant children that we are.

        • (r)Evoluzione says:

          First of all, if you’re reading a magazine while working out at the gym, you’re doing it wrong.

          That’s like listening to your iPod (TM) while having sex… just not enough attention paid to the pure physical joy that is the human body.

          That puts a fine point on my next contention: sexual reproduction won’t ever go away. It’s too much fun, too beautifiul, too messy, too chaotic, too wild, to ever be done away with by technology.

          The taboos will fade and new ones arise. Your earlier points above are good, about boys being raised to be peacocks–they are, but it’s biology speaking, not culture. Study some evolutionary psych. It’s an emerging field, full of rich insights into human behavior. In fact, nothing makes more sense than human behavior in the light of evolutionary pressures and adaptations.

          • I am not to the point of experiencing joy doing cardio – heavy weights, kickboxing yes, ellipical, stair master no. Sex yes, though Movember 18th was rather anti-climatic :(
            the point i was making is it will take al long time to condition women to find the non- alpha male just as attractive. Sex will be happening as long as humans are around – not likely carbon based in the next few thousand years as we become more computer and machine.

    • Many women are materialistic, that’s true, and it’s unfortunate. On the other hand, for women who are financially independent and don’t care how much money a man makes, it can be really difficult to find a man who doesn’t think that’s intimidating. A lot of men have “traditional” gender expectations, and as much as they complain about the choices women make, they keep chasing the same kind of women for the same old reasons. Most guys will pursue an attractive, stereotypically feminine woman who has traditional expectations over a smart, shy, nerdy, successful or professional woman who has progressive expectations.

      • Very true. I’m a financially independent, somewhat nerdy woman who hates high heels and makeup and most gender stereotypes. I also love nerdy guys, and I don’t care the least little bit how much money they make. What I care about is that my guy is intelligent, kind, funny and is pursuing something (whether as a career or avocation) that he is passionate about and is meaningful to him.

        And yet I’ve never been married, and most of the guys I’ve dated eventually go on to marry a more stereotypical woman. Go figure.

      • On”dating Dianna” on CBC radio she discussed a study that showed that finacially independant women in their late 40’s and older didin’t go for younger men but men who were older, finacially stable and looking forward to retirement. What that says to me is that women want companionship over sex. Men go for the trophy wives because so many are emotionally stunted and have no idea how to relate to a woman. I grew up around jocks and the superficial conversations they would have blew me away. As a “brainiac stoner” in those days I would be the guy girls came to to discuss other guys including the girl I was in love with. I was the guy Ian Hunter signs about in “Irene Wild”. Also ended up hanging myself and was saved by a female friend who I had confided in on how much my unrecoited love hurt and went looking for me. Which again the point is that the emotional guy in highschool is often overlooked over the peacocks. And that kills some of us. My son’s 17 year old friend shot himself this August over a girl cheating on him.

        I am now having the last laugh as I am married to a wonderful professional woman ( fierce, fit and fearless!) and we have two well adjusted boys. I run a large health organization which of course is female dominanted ( nurses) and I was hired by a female. My Board Chair has also been female.

        Patriarchy exists because of men and women. Most men in prison grew up in homes without a man. So being around a man does not make a boy a chauvanist. Mothers do it to.
        Someone quoted Bill Gates yet he is male and super rich – the ideal example of male privilege yet he was a nerd and thus really is a well balanced guy.
        Some of the guys writing here really need therapy because they are angry at their mothers and with women in general.

        • Oh, no..... says:

          Mark P – please clone yourself! We need more men like you. xoxo

        • MarkP
          I grew up around jocks and the superficial conversations they would have blew me away.

          Some of the conversations women are having are blowing me away too mark:
          ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vq6njtmU7g

          And on national tv no less.

    • Girls are raised to be “peacocks” too – just in a different way, namely by being beautiful to get attention or die trying.

      It’s very sad, on both sides. I don’t play games. I don’t put on heels or Wonder bras to make you think I’m something I’m not, I don’t enjoy getting attention from random guys on the street, and I don’t expect guys to shower me with expensive dinners or anything of the sort (in fact I feel pretty uncomfortable around so-called alpha male type guys). But it seems that even a lot of nice, nerdy guys still go for the “peacock” woman. I think there might be something unconscious that still feels like the kid who was made fun of in high school and could never show up at the prom with a beautiful girl on his arm. I can understand that, but if that’s the height of success in “mating” it’s very sad. We all deserve better.

  25. Patriarchy is a system based on EGO.

    Ego is selfish and thinks of no one else.

    Enlightenment and progress for the greater good can never be achieved in the presence of ego.

    Patriarchy teaches women to be oppressed and dependent on men for survival. It says women are inferior long before they are even born into this world.

    I blame patriarchy for the 8 years of physical abuse growing up.

    I blame patriarchy for not being able to realize my true potential.

    I blame patriarchy for the traumatic memories which I still can’t get rid off, despite countless counseling sessions and hypnotherapy.

    I blame patriarchy. You should too.

    • It would be far more logical, rational, and reasonable to blame the person(s) who abused you. Otherwise it would not be possibe that women now have less unemployment, more managerial positions, and graduate from college 20% more than men.

      • The abusers grew up in a patriarchal society. We still live in one, don’t we?

        I have six brothers; growing up I washed their laundry – hung two baskets of them on the clothesline each weekend, cleaned the house from top to bottom regularly, washed the dishes by hand daily – more on weekends and 3 times or more during the summers. I did this for FOURTEEN years since the time I was 11 years old.

        The beatings started when I had my first menses. I was made to feel horrible and disgusted for being female. My mother made me wash my panties and my clothes separately from the men and hang them separately from the men on the clothesline. My brothers were always respected regardless of whatever wrongdoings they had done. I always got blamed when there was trouble. My father turned a blind eye and was supportive of my mother beating me.

        You have the balls to say to tell me, this is not a patriarchal problem???

        • I’m sorry that you had that experience but the fault lies with your parents. Period.

          As evidence, during that same period, countless millions of other girls had wonderful experiences growing up. For example, I have four sisters. None of them had such an experience, and I’m probably older than you because I’ve been married for going on 20 years.

          I have daughters and they’re happy, healthy, loved, and have never been abused in any way by anyone. I could choose to abuse them but that would be my choice (one I would never make) not because any system has forced me.

          • Congratulations Eric! Let me award you with this trophy for parent of the year, and I haven’t forgotten about your parents. You’re such an upstanding citizen! Eric you should team up with Super Nanny, she at least acknowledges and works on parenting issues with people instead of brushing them under the rug – you could learn from her.

            Now let’s move on from patting ourselves on the back and see how men can help other men and society abolish the negative attitudes and ideology that’s associated with patriarchy, so that we can award everyone with a trophy for great parenting; building and contributing towards a positive and harmonious society.

            • Michelle, as long as you caught up in fighting a gender war you will be on the losing side. I am the only male in my immediate family, have 4 sisters, and only girl cousins. Surrounded by females. I have wonderful relationships with them all, as I do my female boss and her female boss and her female boss. I work along with them just as I would a man. I love my daughters just as I would if I had sons. I am closer to my sisters than my brothers.

              In my world, and the world of my friends and family and coworkers, (Fortune 500 company) there is no gender war. I feel sorry for people who waste years of their lives fighing it.

            • “I feel sorry for people who waste years of their lives fighing it.”

              How can you feel sorrow if you have not walked in our shoes?

              We need support and understanding – the commitment to walk beside us; not in front of us.

              We need loving and loyal friends, lovers, husbands, brothers and fathers, uncles – we don’t need honor killings, oppression, rapists, rape jokes at our expense…I would have done fine in life without beatings and being told and shown I’m different because of my genitalia. Sorry to pop your bubble, but patriarchy is directly related to these horrific things.

              Patriarchy is ego based – it tells you to take things that is not yours. It took my innocence as a child. It took my future.

            • Patriarchy almost took my life…because I contemplated suicide many times growing up.

              But “I’m worth fighting for” I constantly told myself. I haven’t lived yet…there’s more for me to do and fight for.

              I’m alive today – Are you sorry I spent years of my life growing up and fighting against it? Given my sad situation I could have easily given up and stopped fighting; stopped living and let patriarchy win.

            • “I’m alive today – Are you sorry I spent years of my life growing up and fighting against it? Given my sad situation I could have easily given up and stopped fighting; stopped living and let patriarchy win.”

              I’m glad you’re alive but the years you spent fighting against “the partriarchy” was a waste of time/life. At that very same time you spent years fighting “the patriachy” millions of women were happily moving on with their lives, building satisfying relatoinships with (gasp! men – some even getting married and having children), not giving the so-called patriarchy even a moment’s thought.

            • So you’re telling me to (gasp!) GET OVER IT?

              Easy for you to say, easy for my brothers and parents to also point their fingers at me and tell me to GET OVER IT.

              How about I tell you get over, telling me to GET OVER IT?

              You’re the one on here fighting the gender war too, as anyone who’s been on GMP long enough can tell. Successful and loving men like you should be out in the world giving back, instead of coming on here and telling women to GET OVER IT, and basically telling us where to go.

            • Michelle, please quote me as saying “GET OVER IT.”

              I reviewed my comments and can’t find it. If you can’t quote me, you have created what’s called a strawman by misquoting me and then arguing against something I didn’t say.

            • Who’s shoes? The only shoes any human has walked in is their own. But, I am very close to many women, and know that sex/gender war is a choice. My wife, daughters, sisters, family, and friends will let other people fight if they so choose but we would much rather use our lives living in harmony.

              Are you aware that men are victims of assault, crime, and murder far more often than women? Are you aware that men have higher unemployment, lower educational attainment, higher suicide rates, and die 7 years younger?

              So, don’t pretend that women have all or even most suffering in the world. Suffering is a human experience; it’s not owned by one sex or the other.

              I know tons of women who live happy, content lives along with men. If you don’t, it’s either your choice or perhaps consider therapy to help you work through any issues that prevent you from accomplishing what women do everyday.

            • Oh, no..... says:

              Eric – what a condescending jerk you are. Sure, some women have male protectors and providers who shield them from violence that other males would inflict on them if they chose to be single. Believe me, if a woman opts out of being somebody’s wife or girlfriend, the predators come around and make sure she is uncomfortable with her choice.

              There is no “choice” in the matter. Live your own life at your peril if you are female.

            • One of many differences between us is that I can debate and disagree without insulting and name-calling. People who manage to remain happily married for years have that ability.

              “Live your own life at your peril if you are female.” That’s not the experience my sisters and dozens of single woman friends of mine. It’s very sad to hear that someone feels that way about life when many other women don’t.

            • “My wife, daughters, sisters, family, and friends will let other people fight if they so choose but we would much rather use our lives living in harmony.”

              Because your life is roses, you’ll be complacent? Complacency is equivalent to harmony to many others like you – the bystander effect. That is a choice. That is your choice.

              I didn’t know I asked for beatings. Did I have a choice in that? Did I have a choice which sex I was born with? China and India made choices…they killed off girls in favour of boys – now look at the trouble they’re in.

            • Complacency is just complaining. I have volunteered in my metropolitan area for over a decade providing no cost health care and youth and family counseling services. I know that life is not easy and not everyone is good and kind.

              I’m sorry that you were badly treated but not everyone is. Not all males are bad people looking for opportunties to abuse females. I can understand how you might see the world that way but your experience is not the rule.

              China and India have favored boys, and will have social problems as a result. Likewise, our society favors will suffer other social and economic problems as a result of refusing to provide proper education to boys and young men.

            • Patriarchy is trouble.

              Patriarchy has bloody stains all over it.

              It’ll take years to wash off and undo what it’s done.

              There will be a new kind of revolution coming. Nothing physical, no physical war of that kind – because as women, we already know patriarchy can beat the crap out of us. We’d rather throw flowers and petals at you and have you smell them.

            • Suit yourself. Keep fighting if you choose, while other women go on with their lives, living happily alongside men.

            • Oh, no..... says:

              Eric – it’s “whose,” not “who’s.”

            • “Nothing physical, no physical war of that kind – because as women, we already know patriarchy can beat the crap out of us. We’d rather throw flowers and petals at you and have you smell them.”

              Oh, thank God. I was afraid women might actually try to bring down patriarchy. Whew. Since I’m not ashamed of patriarchy and won’t be forced to give up my privilege, it’s all good….

            • Oh, no..... says:

              Eric, you think there is no gender war because it is waged against women in secret. Do you see men raping and beating women on the streets? No. There are men in your Fortune 500 company who beat women. There are no doubt rapists in your Fortune 500 company. They simply show a different face to you than they do to women. You have no clue.

            • So, the war is waged in secret? By whom against whom?

              Why doesn’t my wife know that she and I are at war? Why don’ t my sisters know that they are at war with their brothers, cousins, uncles, and father?

              Who is waging the war against whom? Why don’t most people know that they are at war with the opposite sex? How can it be a war if the people you claim are on opposite sides don’t even know that they are fighting?

            • Oh, no..... says:

              By some men against many women, Eric. You may be the exception in terms of refraining from inflicting physical and/or sexual violence against women. There are plenty of men to serve that purpose, and it limits women’s lives.

              It is most definitely a war.

            • By some women against men as well. But, in both cases, they are in the minority.

            • “You may be the exception in terms of refraining from inflicting physical and/or sexual violence against women.”

              – Oh, no…you have mental and emontional issues. Seek treatment, not blogs.

            • “By some men against many women, Eric. You may be the exception in terms of refraining from inflicting physical and/or sexual violence against women. There are plenty of men to serve that purpose, and it limits women’s lives.

              It is most definitely a war.”

              Well, it’s about time this country had a war that it was winning. Looks to me based on the “Oh no…” and “MichelleG” threads that patriarchy is winning by a landslide and the margin of victory is increasing.

            • Oh, no..... says:

              Eric is all about I, I, I.

              Eric, if there is no gender war, why is it that men treat my body as public property? Why do men feel free to yell at me when I am simply walking down the street? Why do men feel free to comment on my body? Why won’t the police in my city enforce restraining orders against men who beat and rape women? Why can’t I eat a meal alone in a restaurant without some guy trying to hit on me? Why do men get to deny work to me based on their stereotyped ideas about women? Why do men call me a slut when I don’t have sex with anyone? Why do men feel free to discuss me among themselves in sexual terms? Why can’t I just live my life unmolested?

              And how are any of these intrusions a “choice” on my part? If I choose to fight back against these abuses, is that wrong? Is it really a “choice” to have to live with this sort of abuse?

            • “Eric is all about I, I, I.”

              Hilarious. You accuse me of being all about “I”, then you immediately talk about yourself ad infinitum. LOL!

              ““Eric, if there is no gender war, why is it that men treat my body as public property?”

              Sorry, that’s delusional. There are almost 3,000,000,000 men. Clearly not all have even seen you, let alone “treat your body as public property.” Whatever that’s supposed to mean.

              “Why do men feel free to yell at me when I am simply walking down the street?” Why do men feel free to comment on my body?

              Another ridiculous generalization of billions of people that have never seen you.

              “Why won’t the police in my city enforce restraining orders against men who beat and rape women?”

              Why won’t the police arrest women who hit men?

              “Why can’t I eat a meal alone in a restaurant without some guy trying to hit on me?”

              Right. Perhaps if you weren’t at war with half the population, you might not have to eat alone so often.

              “Why do men get to deny work to me based on their stereotyped ideas about women?”

              It’s far, far, far more likely that you aren’t denied because you aren’t the most qualified, your extreme anti-male/gender war attitude comes through on the interview. In this economy, companies can’t afford to hire trouble-makers.

              “Why do men call me a slut when I don’t have sex with anyone?”

              Another ridiculous generalization?

              Why don’t other women have such a terrible time in dealing with men?

              “Why do men feel free to discuss me among themselves in sexual terms?”
              You claim to know what’s discussed when you aren’t even present. Sorry but that’s consistent being delusional.

              And how are any of these intrusions a “choice” on my part?

              The fact that you believe that you have a terrible time getting along with the male gender but plenty of other women get along with us just fine suggest that the problem is yours, not the entire male gender.

            • “Again, don’t fall asleep around her.”

              Again, you advocate murder, the most extreme form of domestic violence. Evidently, to you, a woman killing her husband in his sleep is an acceptable doesn’t qualify as domestic violence.

              As long as you continue to express such hatred for males, you won’t find contentment. Unfortunately for you, boys and men comprise almost half the world population.

            • Eric M says:
              “Again, you advocate murder, the most extreme form of domestic violence.” (directed at Oh No).

              Hardly surprising. The worst DV crime ever committed was committed by a woman:
              ht tp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/17/kuwait-wedding-fire-woman-confesses

        • Bravo Michelle. I am so with you.

        • You make it sound as if abuse is a uniquely gendered crime that is always perpetrated by men against women. Over 200 studies have repeatedly shown that domestic abuse is gender symmetrical. That is to say that women are just as likely to abuse and control their intimate partners as men are.

          This fact pretty much sinks your whole ‘patriarchy’ argument. If it’s patriarchy that causes men to abuse the women in their lives, then what leads women to abuse their husbands and boyfriends (something that happens just as often), matriarchy?

          • Good point. As noted above, the term “patriarchy” is wildly incorrect and misleading.

          • Oh, no..... says:

            How about listing those studies for us. I sincerely doubt that your “facts” are accurate.

          • Go explain that to the thousands of girls aborted and killed in China, India and muslim countries, if not killed, abused and sex trafficked around the world including North America.

            Killed is murder, worse than abuse; sex trafficking is abuse…you forget these all fall more or less under abuse. Try to lessen their pain by throwing stats at them – show them a pie chart where men are equally sexual objectified as females; show them a graph where boys’ virginity are equally sold to women as girls are to men; don’t forget to show stats where boys are forced to have sex by 30 women a day as girls are to men. How about stats for boy child grooms wedded off to much older women? Where are the stats for that?

            • I’m talking about the united states here, and I’m specifically talking about relationships between adults and teenagers. Not that you didn’t know that, but you had no good rebuttal, so you decided to change the subject.

            • It is well known that a lot of domestic abuse male on female are under reported to authorities because females have difficulty escaping abuse for a variety of reasons. Many fear retaliation – harm to themselves and/or children; their finances are controlled by the men; they are emotionally too broken to do anything about their situation (I fall in this category with my mother’s abuse – suffered 8 years of abuse before I had the guts to call the police).

            • Of course most male on female abuse is under-reported, but virtually ALL female of male abuse goes unreported. These studies relied on surveys, not on data from police departments. Men who are abused are significantly less likely to seek help then women who are abused. Most abused men don’t label their wives’ behavior as abuse, and minimize with colloquialisms like “pussy whipped” and the like.

              The whole point of all this is your idea that there is a patriarchy and proof of said patriarchy’s existence is the fact that men beat women. My point is to show you that domestic violence cuts both ways, and to ask if patriarchy causes domestic violence, then why is abuse in relationships gender neutral? As the data confirms it to be.

            • For all the times my brothers hit me growing up, plus two bloody noses – had I reported those incidents – the police department would have been deluged with paperwork for domestic violence. Furthermore, they would needed more staff just to deal with cases of my mother beating me had I reported them (directly patriarchy-related, favouring sons over daughter).

              Patriarchy cannot be oversimplified as males beating women. It is a larger system than that…it is a system of ego and oppression. Violence is one of many forms of oppression. Patriarchy sets the attitudes, behaviors and the tone of how people treat each other and what is acceptable; from inside our homes, to schools and workplaces, to our communities, society and the world, as well as politics and so on.

              Female on female violence is also related to patriarchy ie. my mother disliking girls – beating me. Another example of patriarchy: males calling females whores and bitches, this encourages girls to see other girls as sluts and bitches and then you get girl on girl fights and cyber-bullying.

              Female on male violence is an underlying form of patriarchy – you better believe it. This is an unhealthy way for females to take back control – reverse the roles of what has long been acceptable. Similar to the idea that men have dated much younger women for so long that it’s become acceptable and standard, but now the tides are changing – now we see older women dating younger men – this is less acceptable by society though because it’s fairly recent. Violence is never acceptable though.

              Patriarchy is trouble. It is archaic and reeks of ego.

            • Exactly Derbis.
              In the 70’s DV researchers used anonymous surveys to highlight the problem of wide spread abuse.

              But those same ground-breaking researchers Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles are ostracized from the DV governmental establishment because their research shows that women abuse in equal numbers.

              The anonymous surveys show women abuse just as much as men.

              Surprise! Men are not demons and women are not angels. We’re all just human.

              There is no patriarchy.

            • There is no patriarchy? Okay, I’m happy for you and for anyone who believes the pied piper.

            • Epic fail by MichelleG.

            • Oh, no…you suffer from mental illness. Please spend time in treatment and not on internet blogs.

            • MichelleG:
              “Go explain that to the thousands of girls aborted and killed in China”
              I thought feminists SUPPORTED abortion? Fetus’s aren’t babies right?

              Since fetuses “don’t count” then the people we should feel sorry for are the millions of chinese men who will not be able to secure female companionship as the gender imbalance becomes worse.

            • Sorry for the chinese men? No I feel sorry for the minority women, who will be sex trafficked and murdered for their bodies because men will be sexually frustrated. This is already happening…the numbers of murdered women will rise as the years go on.

              Country girls are already being lured with promising jobs in the city but they end up being sex trafficked and kept in brothels to serve sex-hungry men who can’t find wives or girlfriends.

            • wellokaythen says:

              “Go explain that to the thousands of girls aborted…”

              Careful, there. That sounds a bit like an anti-abortion statement, referring to a female embryo/fetus as a “girl.” Did you mean it to be an anti-abortion statement? That might call into question certain reproductive rights of women in those countries. Abortion as a tool of patriarchy is an uncommon argument in gender studies circles.

            • Gender studies are only available for privileged westerners. So your argument is invalid beyond your textbooks.

              Abortions in China and India are very common in selecting male gender – again patriarchy. There are supposed methods and clinics which couples pay a hefty sum for, to help them select the sex of the baby. They travel very far to get to these facilities.

            • Patriarchy is so bad in India, that some parents are forcing their daughters to undergo sex changes to make them a boy.

              Here’s the link:

              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/india-sex-change-girls_n_885783.html

          • Oh, no..... says:

            Here we go with the “studies” again.

        • MichelleG says:

          “My mother made me wash my panties and my clothes separately from the men and hang them separately from the men on the clothesline. My brothers were always respected regardless of whatever wrongdoings they had done. I always got blamed when there was trouble. My father turned a blind eye and was supportive of my mother beating me.

          You have the balls to say to tell me, this is not a patriarchal problem???”

          I’m with Eric on this one. You should blame your parents, not patriarchy. Interesting though that you were abused by your mother and yet blame “patriarchy” because your father didn’t step in.

          It sounds like what you needed was MORE patriarchy, not less.

          • On the blog the female misogynist she describes herself and other girls and nerdy boys being the subject of harrassment and bullying by loud-mouthed boys.

            She blames the female teachers and says that the teachers “got wet” for the little hoodlums stating that since these boys were “bad boys” who expressed their dominance, the female teachers secretly (or not so secretly) swooned for the boys and let them terrorize the other kids.

            Funny: you are abused by a woman and blame men by proxy for your father not stepping in.
            She was abused by boys and blames women by proxy for the female teacher not stepping in.

            Maybe we should stop letting our childhoods define our realities when we hit 18?

          • Patriarchy society favours males, this is especially obvious in China, India and Muslim countries…in such societies females (be it mothers, sisters, aunts) have no choice but to support propaganda that male gender is supreme; females are whores from birth and inferior. Even in North America, patriarchy is known to name call females sluts and bitches; while men have respectable, heroic, self-serving labels such as players, stud – for the same sexual actions. That’s a double-standard.

            There are many societies in the world, where females are shamed for no reason and singled-out because of their gender. Mothers and fathers are especially afraid of daughters getting raped or pregnant, or having sex outside of marriage or early on and losing family honor or face. They don’t worry or discipline boys – males have free reign in this area (this is where a lot of problems lie!!!)

            They assume males are weak because of what they have observed in their lifetime, and feel that they must abuse and shame their daughters to submission and despair – oddly to protect their sexuality from men. To cause them to hate their sexuality from an early age – therefore hating their gender and stop them from acting on their sexual urges later on.

            I hope that has enlightened you to the evils of patriarchy.

    • LOL, do you build bridges with ego? Send a rocket to the moon on it? Can arrogance alone find a mathematical language to explain the forces of the universe?

      Does ego make a man lay down his life for a woman, or his child, or even his country? Does it make him walk into a burning building to save a life or stand on the deck of a sinking ship as lifeboats are being filled with women?

      The author if this piece made a half-assed attempt to separate bashing men from bashing patriarchy. It failed because the author does not comprehend or respect the historical role that men have actually played in this culture.

      Like it or not, men have dominated in some aspects of control because they have also dominated in disposability and risk taking, and because they have dominated in sacrifice. You will never, ever have your supposedly revered equality for women till they bleed and die as often as men. That’s your end to patriarchy.

      Get over it.

      • Wow. I’m speechless at your post.

        I’m sending love to all you men on here, you guys really need it. Please share it.

        I haven’t had much love in my life, but I can be strong for you guys and can tell you need it more than me.

        I’m not religious (Agnostic, Atheist whatever) but there are times when I think God needs to be in people’s life… if not God, spirituality will do. I hope you guys all find some.

        • Sorry you haven’t had much love but it’s never too late. I have been blessed to have been surrounded by it and now try my best to give more than I get.

        • Actually, you are not speechless. You just chose to make a condescending post resemble an act of love – which does perhaps speak to whether you have had your share of it.

          The only place you were speechless is where it concerned actually refuting anything I said. With that your silence was picture perfect.

      • Oh, no..... says:

        Justa: I guess you didn’t watch Titanic.

        • Actually I skipped the Hollywood version. The gender death gap that occurred in the real sinking of that ship told me the only story I needed to hear.

      • Oh, no..... says:

        We bleed and die at the hands of men. Does that count?

        • Seriously, seek mental treatment.

          • Men are so smug on here; they are proud of Patriarchy, which their forefathers scrupulously helped erect ; through wars, enslavement, genocide, raping and killing of women and children, stealing and destroying land and ecology; in which these same male descendants will now bleed and die for in the name of their balls.

            Patriarchy is a game. A game of scoring, power and to see who can get the most. A competition amongst men on men. Women are just pawns and trophies – we don’t matter.

            Patriarchy doesn’t need resuscitation, it is a societal cancer.

            • wellokaythen says:

              I admit to a certain level of smugness, but I’m just speaking for myself here. I would never presume to speak for all men. I’ve also heard women say that women are smarter, stronger, better, more capable, more resilient, more powerful, and that women essentially make everything happen. I’m getting conflicting messages, and I’m not sure whom to believe. Are women running the world or NOT running the world?

              I would ask any women reading this blog if they feel like THEY are just pawns and trophies that don’t matter. I wouldn’t expect them to speak for all women. I’m guessing some of them would say that they’ve never let anyone treat them like pawns or trophies.

            • Oh, no..... says:

              Who says that women as a sex are superior to men? That’s dumb.

              As for being a pawn or a trophy who doesn’t matter, it isn’t so simple as “letting” someone treat you that way. When men relate to women in terms of stereotypes, it is astonishing how those stereotypes stick, no matter who the woman happens to be or what she actually does. After I was raped, the rapist bragged about it, telling people he had consensual sex with me. When I protested, he claimed I was “ashamed” of having had sex with him and was falsely accusing him. Then I found out that men had been making up stories about me and calling me a “slut” for years, during which time I had been celibate and had not dated anyone. So why are these stories believed over the facts of my life and my true behavior?

              I did not “let” this man treat me as a pawn or a trophy – he claimed me, and the more I protested the more I was abused by him and his buddies.

              It is bizarre that men and their female allies have the power to redefine someone like me into someone I most certainly am not. Why should this twisted man be allowed such power? The only reason I can see is that he is a man and men, no matter how sleazy, are given more credibility than women. I have no other explanation for it.

  26. Two items for thought. Patriarchy has its downsides for all men: we are more likely to die at work and in combat, by an order of magnitude, and more likely to be imprisoned or otherwise marginalized. Remember “women and children first?” That means that men only get in the lifeboat if there are seats left over (and I’ll even say I agree with this). For every thing that patriarchy ALLOWS men to do, there is at least one that it REQUIRES men to do. It’s definitely a double-edged sword.

    In addition, consider this: 490 or so of the Fortune 500 have male CEOs. This is definitely not fair to women, when viewed in that light, but let us also consider that something like 99.99999% of men are not Fortune 500 CEOs, only slight less then the percentage of women who aren’t Fortune 50 CEOs. Then it looks like we have more in common. Men may have advantages in playing that game, but it’s still a brutal game for almost everyone.

    In Gender Wars, everyone loses, both “sides.” Men can’t win by fighting women, and vice versa, we have to help each other to overcome a lot of historical and cultural bullshit.

    • Oh, No.. .. says:

      Justa, you so obviously relish bashing women. Do you stalk them on the street as well?

      And do you guys all read the same men’s rights websites? You all seem to have found the same statistics about violence against men, blah blah blah.

    • Oh, no..... says:

      I love it how all of you guys read the same Men’s Rights websites and bring up the same tired examples of female “privilege” – such as the lifeboat example. Christ, how many of you are ever going to be on a sinking ship? That is so stupid.

      • I love it how all of you guys read the same Men’s Rights websites and bring up the same tired examples of female “privilege” – such as the lifeboat example. Christ, how many of you are ever going to be on a sinking ship? That is so stupid.

        How about men being:
        the targets of violent crime by 80%
        being 95% of all the incarcerated
        90% of the homeless
        95% of on-the-job deaths
        80% of all suicides
        38% of all college graduates
        having a 13 to 1 odd against winning sole custody versus the mother
        living 7 years less
        oh and if you are sexually mutilated by a woman the WORLD WILL LAUGH AT YOU:
        ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vq6njtmU7g

      • yeah I had to laugh at that one too.

        I would hate to be married to anyone of them if that scenario ever presented itself – I could see how their misogynist attitudes and ego would come between their wives and children – patriarchy first!

    • Dave Keiser says:
      “Two items for thought. Patriarchy has its downsides for all men: we are more likely to die at work and in combat, by an order of magnitude, and more likely to be imprisoned or otherwise marginalized. Remember “women and children first?” That means that men only get in the lifeboat if there are seats left over (and I’ll even say I agree with this). For every thing that patriarchy ALLOWS men to do, there is at least one that it REQUIRES men to do. It’s definitely a double-edged sword.

      In addition, consider this: 490 or so of the Fortune 500 have male CEOs. This is definitely not fair to women, when viewed in that light, but let us also consider that something like 99.99999% of men are not Fortune 500 CEOs, only slight less then the percentage of women who aren’t Fortune 50 CEOs. Then it looks like we have more in common. Men may have advantages in playing that game, but it’s still a brutal game for almost everyone.”

      If it doesn’t provide privilege to a MAJORITY of men (greater than that provided to women) then it’s not patriarchy. The sense it is argued for in this article is in the sense of a political tool of oppression (like apartheid) not an anthropological sense of passing property down male lines.

      Modern western society fails this second test conclusively that the laws passed by men are FOR men. They most certainly are not.
      Take the metrics that determine blacks are oppressed and disenfranchised and turn them to gender and you see that men have a 4 to 1 disadvantage (or more) in:
      * being targets of violent crime
      * being incarcerated
      * homelessness
      * on the job deaths
      * suicide
      * 13 to 1 odds against winning sole custody

      The list goes on and on

  27. Oh, no..... says:

    Eric the Rational says: “One of many differences between us is that I can debate and disagree without insulting and name-calling. People who manage to remain happily married for years have that ability.

    “Live your own life at your peril if you are female.” That’s not the experience my sisters and dozens of single woman friends of mine. It’s very sad to hear that someone feels that way about life when many other women don’t.”

    It always cracks me up when a man tells me that his sisters and female friends have never been sexually assaulted or impeded by men. Do you REALLY think any woman, knowing you well enough to detect your smug, condescending attitude towards women, would confide such experiences to you? Not likely.

    I am sure you are very happy in your perfect little world. I wonder if at some point your wife will get fed up and kill you in your sleep.

    • Perhaps you haven’t had the experience of being close to and trusting a male. But, my wife, sisters, daughters, cousins, and many other close female friends know that experience very well. It’s not weird, extreme, or surprising. Futher, we are not special or unique.

      It’s very sad to hear women who have such animosity and hatred toward males. I can’t imagine being heterosexual and having such hateful feelings toward the entire opposite sex.

      ” I wonder if at some point your wife will get fed up and kill you in your sleep.”

      We love each other, faults and all.

      But, your implication that my wife should kill men is surprisingly hateful. Men and boys are humans too.

      • Oh, no..... says:

        For a guy who claims to be so “rational,” you have difficulty understanding the written word. I have had the experience of being close to and trusting a male, and it was lovely while it lasted. I sincerely doubt that you truly know what your female friends and relatives have experienced. There are men in my family who express the same attitudes you express here, and I would not trust them as far as I could throw them. I certainly would not confide anything in them.

        I do not have “animosity” or “hatred” towards men in general. I do not hate “the entire opposite sex.” I have not said anything of the kind, and the fact that you exaggerate by making such statements is telling. I know from my own experience and that of other women I know that there is a large minority of men who despise women and enjoy exercising power over them, all the while declaring how much they “love” women. There is a larger number of men who are simply deaf, dumb and blind to women’s experience of the world. Some women exploit men like you for money and “security.”

        I did not imply that you wife should kill men. My comment is directed at the fact that your cluelesness and arrogance will likely wear on your wife, and at some point she will surprise you in a way that is unpleasant – most likely by leaving you. I have seen that happen many times to men who were absolutely certain that they had “perfect” marriages, while their wives were chafing under their men’s inability to relate to them on anything more than the most superficial level.

        • “I sincerely doubt that you truly know what your female friends and relatives have experienced.”

          That’s because you don’t understand, evidently, what a TRUE close and loving relationship between a male and female involves.

          “There are men in my family who express the same attitudes you express here, and I would not trust them as far as I could throw them. I certainly would not confide anything in them.”

          How unfortunate for you. That is unthinkable in my family.

          “I do not have “animosity” or “hatred” towards men in general.”

          Your statements show very clearly that you do.

          “I know from my own experience and that of other women I know that there is a large minority of men who despise women and enjoy exercising power over them, all the while declaring how much they “love” women.”

          Funny. As soon as you deny having animosity toward males, you make yet another statement showing that you do. LOL

          “Some women exploit men like you for money and “security.””

          I married for love and so did my wife. I had no money whatsoever when we got married and we were more interested in pursuing community volunteer service than in making money. I didn’t even start to try to make a larger income until we started having children.

          So, I’m clearly not the kind of man women marry for money. Having loads of money’s not my thing, never has been.

          “I did not imply that you wife should kill men.” (me)

          Yes, you did. You said: “I wonder if at some point your wife will get fed up and kill you in your sleep.”

          “ My comment is directed at the fact that your cluelesness and arrogance will likely wear on your wife, and at some point she will surprise you in a way that is unpleasant – most likely by leaving you. “

          Another concept you are unfamiliar with is that we believe in working through problems rather than abandoning each other and our children. My marriage isn’t perfect but we never stop trying. That’s what love is about.

          • QUESTION NO. 1 related to Eric’s response to the comment:: “I sincerely doubt that you truly know what your female friends and relatives have experienced.”

            That’s because you don’t understand, evidently, what a TRUE close and loving relationship between a male and female involves.

            What does a “TRUE close and loving relationship between a male and female involve”?
            ___________________________________________________________________

            QUESTION NO. 2: “There are men in my family who express the same attitudes you express here, and I would not trust them as far as I could throw them. I certainly would not confide anything in them.”

            How unfortunate for you. That is unthinkable in my family.

            How do you know whether or not the women you know confide their deepest feelings and true experiences to you, and that they do not edit themselves in order to avoid your inevitable superior comeback?
            __________________________________________________________________
            QUESTION NO. 3:

            “I do not have “animosity” or “hatred” towards men in general.”

            Your statements show very clearly that you do.

            That isn’t an answer. Be specific. Why do my statements apply to ALL men and not just the specific jerks I have to fend off on a daily basis?
            ___________________________________________________________________
            QUESTION NO. 4:

            “I know from my own experience and that of other women I know that there is a large minority of men who despise women and enjoy exercising power over them, all the while declaring how much they “love” women.”

            Funny. As soon as you deny having animosity toward males, you make yet another statement showing that you do. LOL

            Eric, can you read the words “minority of men”? You are not a serious person. You simply enjoy placing your boot on the back of any woman’s neck and applying pressure.
            _________________________________________________________________
            QUESTION NO. 5:

            “Some women exploit men like you for money and “security.””

            I married for love and so did my wife. I had no money whatsoever when we got married and we were more interested in pursuing community volunteer service than in making money. I didn’t even start to try to make a larger income until we started having children.

            So, I’m clearly not the kind of man women marry for money. Having loads of money’s not my thing, never has been.

            Eric, do you have money now? I said “men like you.” Your ego inserted the words “your marriage” where they did not exist. See, it’s all about Eric, all the time. That’s called narcissism.
            ___________________________________________________________________

            “I did not imply that you wife should kill men.” (me)

            Yes, you did. You said: “I wonder if at some point your wife will get fed up and kill you in your sleep.”

            And you said, “But, your implication that my wife should kill men . . .” Word games, narcissism, boot in the back of neck. It’s all just a game to you.
            ___________________________________________________________________

            “ My comment is directed at the fact that your cluelesness and arrogance will likely wear on your wife, and at some point she will surprise you in a way that is unpleasant – most likely by leaving you. “

            Another concept you are unfamiliar with is that we believe in working through problems rather than abandoning each other and our children. My marriage isn’t perfect but we never stop trying. That’s what love is about.

            Sorry, Eric. This doesn’t wash. I’ve watched many couples “work on” their marriages, and then one or the other gets fed up and leaves – often to the great surprise of the other, and usually the guy.

            But this is just sport to you, so I won’t bother with responding to any more of your posts in this vein.

            • QUESTION NO. 1: What does a “TRUE close and loving relationship between a male and female involve”?

              It means that you recognize, acknowledge, and even celebrate the differences in your perspectives, and use them to better understand – rather than using it as a roadblock to having a loving relationship or trying to bludgeon each other because of those differences.
              ___________________________________________________________________

              QUESTION NO. 2: How do you know whether or not the women you know confide their deepest feelings and true experiences to you, and that they do not edit themselves in order to avoid your inevitable superior comeback?

              Because we have that kind of relationship. They don’t believe me to be superior in any way. They hold the same values.
              __________________________________________________________________
              QUESTION NO. 3:
              “That isn’t an answer. Be specific. Why do my statements apply to ALL men and not just the specific jerks I have to fend off on a daily basis?”

              You have here repeatedly generalized using the term “men” (as in men in general) rather than “a few men”, “the specific jerks I have to fend off on a daily basis”, etc. which a person would use if they mean to refer to specific men. So, when you used “men”, your statements were intended to apply to ALL men.
              ___________________________________________________________________
              QUESTION NO. 4:

              “Eric, can you read the words “minority of men”? You are not a serious person. You simply enjoy placing your boot on the back of any woman’s neck and applying pressure.”

              You said “LARGE minority”, meaning nearly half of all men. Clear animosity toward nearly half of all men.

              That’s funny coming from a person who has relentlessly attacked the opposite sex, whereas I keep trying to convince you that it’s possible to live in peace and harmony. You just like to fight against any man within range, for some reason.
              _________________________________________________________________
              QUESTION NO. 5:

              “Eric, do you have money now? I said “men like you.” Your ego inserted the words “your marriage” where they did not exist. See, it’s all about Eric, all the time. That’s called narcissism.”

              You said men “like me”, which clearly includes me.

              Women who marry men like me don’t marry for money because it was never my desire to have a lot of money and I still don’t. I take care of my family decently but my household income is probably below average for my community because there is only a single paycheck.
              ___________________________________________________________________
              Yes, you did. You said: “I wonder if at some point your wife will get fed up and kill you in your sleep.”

              That was a typo. Regardless, you implied she should kill her husband.

              “Sorry, Eric. This doesn’t wash. I’ve watched many couples “work on” their marriages, and then one or the other gets fed up and leaves – often to the great surprise of the other, and usually the guy.”

              Perhaps because they had hateful attitudes toward each other and engaged in the gender war you seem to love. Mutual love and respect is way better than waging a gender war. Try it.

        • You have serious mental problems and need professional help. Please seek it out instead of blogs.

          • MichelleG, mental illness is a serious problem. Ignoring it will not make Oh, no better. Your comments towards me are irrelevant. Oh, no needs treatment.

            • Mental illness is a real problem – so is harassment. And I deem these types of derogatory comments to anyone as harassment. GMP doesn’t need ADHD teenage trolls.

            • Hey, no fair. I haven’t been a teenager in decades, and my ADHD is completely undiagnosed. Ha!

      • wellokaythen says:

        Besides, my wife might kill me for reasons completely unrelated to our gender differences. Maybe it’s because of my snoring….

  28. There is no such thing as Patriarchy. What they refer to as patriarchy is simply the traditional system of gendered social roles that both sexes have been complicit in promoting. This system didn’t privilege men over women, rather it carried advantages as well as serious disadvantages for both sexes.

    Patriarchy is a bigoted and inaccurate term

    • Oh, no..... says:

      Right. Women are SO bigoted against men. Complicity? Just try to live a life clean of exploitation. It is nearly impossible to do. I am labeled a “slut” because I decided to opt out of having intimate relationships with men. The men around me assume I must be a whore available for anybody to screw because no man “owns” me. And then, of course, because I am divorced I must be desperate for sex with ANYBODY. The stereotypes women have to deal with are ridiculous but very real. And Patriarchy is very real.

      • All of that is perfectly true. But I notice that you don’t even try to understand the stereotypes and stigmatization that men experience in our society. You seem to be approaching this issue from a perspective of narrow-minded ignorance and dogmatic zeal.

        And no, patriarchy only exists in feminist fever dreams. Take a look at our criminal justice system and notice how incredibly (and openly) discriminatory it is towards male defendants.

        • Yeah, funny Derbis. How would you know whether I understand the stereotypes and stigmatization that men experience? You didn’t ask me about that. And if I speak of my experience, you accuse me of “narrow-minded ignorance” and “dogmatic zeal.” You do what men typically do – diminish my experience by calling me names.

          No, patriarchy is real. I am not a feminist. And I look at the criminal justice system every day, because I have a full time job defending people who are incarcerated. The system is not discriminatory towards male defendants. Male defendants commit most violent crimes. (The system is, however, openly discriminatory against poor people.) The women I get as clients rarely kill people or beat people. Mostly they commit crimes like prostitution, or financial crimes on a petty scale. The significant crime is committed by men – most murders, nearly all sex crimes, and nearly all of the big-dollar financial fraud.

          • Honestly you don’t understand those things, because if you did you wouldn’t be pushing provably false fantasies like the existence of a patriarchy. There is male privilege of course, but there is also male dis-privilege (women and children first during a disaster ala Titanic, being sent to die in war, paying for dinner on dates, giving up seats on the bus, etc), and there is also female privilege. What you call patriarchy is simply traditional gender norms that both advantage AND disadvantage both sexes in different ways.

            For a good run-through of the ways women are privileged over men in our society, see this link: http://www.edenfantasys.com/sexis/sex-and-society/devils-advocate-female-privilege-1114111/

            • Oh, no..... says:

              1) How many times do men encounter a situation like a luxury liner sinking, where there would happen to be a shortage of lifeboats so that men would have to give up their lives for women? 2) Women are sent to die in war. 3) Men pay for dinner expecting sex in return. Not a fair trade. 4) Men don’t give up their seats on buses for women these days – at least not in my town. Really? Female privilege?

            • 1) The “women and children first” ethic is alive and well. It was actually employed when that plane crashed into the Hudson river a few years back.
              2)Not involuntarily, and they can’t even enlist for direct combat roles within the military. And men still constitute over 95% of all combat fatalities.
              3)So you believe that sex is something that men take from women? Not something that men and women do together?
              4)Go to Georgia, they absolutely do

              Yes really, female privilege. That fact that you categorically dismiss the idea of female privilege out of hand shows how doctrinal and myopic your worldview is. I STRONGLY suggest you click that link in my previous post. It explains the various ways women are privileged in our society, and I think it will be a consciousness raising experience for you. Most of the things he points out will already be known to you, but I doubt you thought of them as something that privileged females until someone framed the issue in those terms. The existence of male privilege doesn’t preclude the possibility of female privilege, both can and do exist in our culture.

            • Oh, no..... says:

              Not “doctrinal” at all. I am viewing the world from my experience, and my experience is that I cannot leave my home without being intruded upon by men. I get no benefit from them, except for my steady job representing them when they commit violent felonies. In boom times and recessions, the one thing I can count on in my life is male violence and male privilege to approach me in public, to redefine me in terms of male fantasies, and to attack me according to male fantasies. I’d like to see you deal with that every day of your life.

            • That is a seriously anti-male, misandristic worldview.

            • Oh, no..... says:

              No, Eric, is is not an anti-male, misandristic worldview. It is my personal experience, which I live every day. That is what you wish to deny and stomp out – my voice, my experience. No matter how many times you choose to attack me, you cannot change what I have experienced. I know you will assert that I am paranoid and crazy, but that is just another example of the way in which patriarchal males behave. And you are most definitely a patriarch. Your next post will be another vicious attack, if not on me, then on another woman.

            • ” No matter how many times you choose to attack me. . .”

              Feel free to quote my attacking you. You can’t because I never have.
              However, you have called me derogatory names and insulted me numerous times. So, the evidence of who has attacked whom is in writing. YOU are the one who has viciously attacked, not I.

              I can certainly quote a few of yours:

              “So, given the nastiness and hostility and abiding sense of superiority YOU DICKS exhibit here, I would say there is a very good chance that YOU HAVE COMMITTED RAPE.”

              “Eric – what a condescending jerk you are.”

              “I wonder if at some point your wife will get fed up and kill you in your sleep.”

            • Oh, no..... says:

              1) How do you know that the “women and children” first ethic was employed in the crash on the Hudson? Got proof? 2) There has been no draft for either sex for many years now, so you are not dis-privileged in that regard. 3) Men and women do have consensual sex together sometimes. Sometimes men coerce women into sex. Most often men use what is supposed to be an opportunity to get to know each other (a date) as an opportunity to try to “get some” from a woman who has not yet decided whether she wants to have sex with that particular man. That is why I don’t date – I don’t want the struggle afterwards where the guy jams his tongue down my throat in an effort to get me into bed. In my personal experience, I find that men just assume that if you are willing to have dinner or coffee with them, then you are willing to have sex with them. 4) On the West Coast, men do not offer their seats on the bus to women. More likely it is a younger woman who gets up for an elderly person.

            • Still haven’t addressed your female privilege, I see

            • Oh, no..... says:

              Derbis, you have not given me any real examples of “my” female privilege. You are tossing out fantasy examples.

            • Oh No says:
              “2) There has been no draft for either sex for many years now, so you are not dis-privileged in that regard.”

              If a guy does not register for the draft within 1 month of his 18th birthday he can be subject to all of the following:

              “CONSEQUENCES FOR NOT REGISTERING
              The maximum penalty for failing to register with Selective Service is a $250,000 fine and up to five years in prison. Failure to register will cause ineligibility for a number of federal and state benefits including:
              FEDERAL JOBS
              A man must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service. This applies only to men born after December 31, 1959.
              STUDENT FINANCIAL AID
              Men who are not registered with Selective Service cannot obtain Federal student loans or grants. This includes Pell Grants, College Work Study, Guaranteed Student/Plus Loans, and National Direct Student Loans.
              CITIZENSHIP
              The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) makes registration with Selective Service a condition for U.S. citizenship, if the man first arrived in the U.S. before his 26th birthday and was required to register.”

              It’s not only about being forcibly conscripted. If the man refuses to be a tool in his own (possible future) conscription he is severely punished.

              Where is all that male privilege I hear so much about? I sure would love some.

            • Oh, no..... says:

              Nonetheless, there has not been a draft since the Vietnam war, so your example of female privilege in this regard is bullshit.

            • If it’s so unlikely, then why are there such steep penalties for men not complying with selective service by their 18th birthday.

              OBVIOUSLY the decision makers think the risk is great enough to lean HEAVILY upon men to register so they can be found.

              As long as the penalties are so heavy handed to insure no disruption in future male forced conscription, it should be obvious to the most simple person that my point stands regardless of your protests.

            • Oh No says:
              “1) How do you know that the “women and children” first ethic was employed in the crash on the Hudson? Got proof?”

              I googled “hudson crash & women and children first”

              ht tp://jezebel.com/5133007/flight-1549-survivors-lets-talk-about-women-and-children-first

            • Oh, no..... says:

              John D – I get a kick out of the fact that you provided a link to a feminist blog in support of your assertion.

            • I’m cool with that. Most of your writing provides me a lot of kicks too.

            • Besides, if I had posted from a different source you would have said it was not credible enough. lol

            • I’ve repeatedly given you the following link: http://www.edenfantasys.com/sexis/sex-and-society/devils-advocate-female-privilege-1114111/

              Which gives several examples of female privilege that you have yet to address

          • Oh No says:

            “No, patriarchy is real. I am not a feminist. And I look at the criminal justice system every day, because I have a full time job defending people who are incarcerated. The system is not discriminatory towards male defendants.”

            Citation1:
            ht tp://www.courts.wa.gov/committee/pdf/2008LFO_report.pd f
            A Univ of Wash study of crimes in which only financial penatlies were assessed (fines restitution) men were treated much harsher

            Citation2:
            ht tp://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/sentencing.pd f
            This study for the USA shows the discrimination suffered by men in sentencing is about equal to the discrimination suffered by blacks

            Citation3:
            ht tp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311004/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.ht ml

            This article states judges in the UK are being trained to give female defendants lighter sentences. This outrage on top of:

            Citation4:
            ht tp://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/digest4/chapter5.pd f
            This study shows that in the UK boys & men ALREADY receive much harsher sentences than do women.

      • http://www.edenfantasys.com/sexis/sex-and-society/devils-advocate-female-privilege-1114111/

        See this link for more information on female gendered privilege.

        • In that link the birth thing was off-the-rails derbis. Biology is not privilege in the sense of political privilege for different demographics.

          • I agree. I didn’t say the article was perfect, and the birth thing is indeed over-the-top. But the rest of the article is spot on and does a good job of explaining some of the basics of how women are privileged in our society to those who are unfamiliar or even hostile to the basic idea of female privilege.

            • As much as MRA’s and men’s specific battles with gender discrimination have been growing on the internet, it has literally been EXPLODING on youtube.

              One contributor particularly has simply the most amazing videos.
              This is ManWomanMyth.

              This is one of his vids:
              ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9A

      • Your mental problems are very real.

      • Oh No,
        Maybe you wouldn’t have so many problems if the male role to initiate contact between the sexes wasn’t the norm.

        Maybe you should move to sweden. I hear women there complain of lazy soft men who never initiate.

        • Oh, no..... says:

          Maybe I wouldn’t have so many problems if men “initiating contact” did not involve men yelling at women on the street, or making sexual comments to strangers. How does that “initiate” anything other than hostility?

          For me, “initiating” is not an issue. It is not wanted. I don’t think it is weird or unnatural not to want an intimate relationship with a man, especially with the current epidemic of incurable venereal diseases. There are plenty of other ways to enjoy people’s company.

  29. wow, so much passion in the posts
    I can’t imagine growing up female , with men lusting after me at age 11. The sad reality is that the ‘animal’ male still predominates over the ‘thinking’ male.

    Myself, I am the survivor of rape, my mother’s. She lived with her uncle and brother and sister after her mother died and Father abandoned her when she was 15. She slept with her uncle to keep him away from her nine year old sister.

    when my mother drank she was pure evil. the things she said to me and my brother were so hurtful that my brother, at 51 still hasn’t recovered( worse than when she tried to kill us).

    Using simple generalizations like patriarchy is not useful as it really is a term to describe what the present is and doesn’t add any information as to why.

    most men in prison were raised by women.
    most serial killers were from single female parent families

    The simple fact is that women and men are meant to
    be together is a respectful relationship.

    Men truly love women and visa vera. It the societal constructs that fuck it all up! Going secular would be the first step.

    • “most men in prison were raised by women.
      most serial killers were from single female parent families”

      That should tell you that these troubled men lacked fathers and father-figure in their lives. Mothers and single mothers can not handle boys alone; teenage boys are generally more temperamental, aloof and troublesome than girls to raise. Girls appear to adjust well with single mom arrangements and no father-figure in their lives than teenage boys. Young men need fathers – they need a the masculine bond and conversations that only fathers can give.

      The other thing people need to keep in mind is that adolescents grow up physically fast – you got a 10 year old son who’s already his mother’s height and perhaps weighing more than her – this poses a risk when single mothers’ are trying to discipline and control her boys. With teenage raging hormones and testosterone, mothers are less likely to impose strict discipline on boys and will let them get off easy – let them do whatever they want.

      Standing up to her son could pose a dangerous risk to the mother in the event he gets angry with her for grounding him, for example, he could get violent and strike her or throw things and break things. In my own life, growing up my mother never disciplined my brothers (six of them); it was only later in life I realized this was probably the case – she feared getting striked or hurt in the process. My mother never had a problem exerting control and beating me, for I was much smaller than her (and still am) and was conditioned to take her beatings. You’d think my father would have had a hand in raising his sons and disciplining them too – nope – he was a coward as well. Although my brothers were fairly good kids, except when they were bullying me around that I could have used my father to intervene.

      • MichelleG:

        “Girls appear to adjust well with single mom arrangements and no father-figure in their lives than teenage boys.”

        I would say that this is technically true, but that this doesn’t mean that girls react WELL to single mother hood.

        There are dozens and dozens of studies which show that having a loving fit father involved with children is as balancing as it is to have mothers in their lives.

        Girls raised in fatherless homes may be less outwardly destructive than boys, but they still suffer from steeply increased incidences of:
        * becoming a pregnant teen
        * low educational achievement
        * problems with alcohol and drugs
        * earlier sexuality
        * problems with entering into relationships with abusive men
        * depression and alcoholism

        The list goes on and on. The simple fact is fathers are important to children’s well-being.
        We need to end the idea that fathers are optional, and that post-divorce the rights of the father run through the mothers permission.

        It’s time for nation-wide rebuttable presumption of shared custody as the starting point in divorces. It’s time for some real progress, and not more shaming and blaming while talking about equality.

        • Of course the nuclear family is ideal. I meant to say girls fare better than boys in single parent families. But most of all I was illustrating the fact that mothers have a far more difficult time disciplining boys than girls, due to the fear of physical retaliation from these young men – that they end up doing whatever they want in their lives. Girls have easier time bonding with their mothers than most boys. During the teenage years young men need father figures badly – both in single mother families and nuclear families.

          Your examples also apply to young men:

          * becoming a pregnant teen – becoming a teen/ young father
          * low educational achievement – same for young men
          * problems with alcohol and drugs – same for young men
          * earlier sexuality – same for young men (takes two to tango)
          * problems with entering into relationships with abusive men – tells you young men have increased aggressiveness, more domestic violence
          * depression and alcoholism – same for young men

          • Yes, but young men also face additional specific problems with crime and other things.
            Also, I don’t accept your premise that mothers are afraid to discipline teen boys.
            It has more to do with parenting styles.

            It may or may not surprise you to know that I was raised by my mother. However, I have heard plenty of times from my friends that the default answer to wrong doing from their mother was:”you just wait until your father comes home”.

            It comes down to gender differences in parenting style, not mothers actually fearing their sons. If mothers fear their sons when they are 16-18, then it is because of poor parenting from 0 to 15.

            Saying it’s fear (to my mind) tries to paint the boys as the culprit in their own dysfunctional upbringing.

            I have seen many mothers who can’t bear to be the culprit of a childrens sadness and so don’t discipline them.

            It has more to do with fathers and mothers having complimentary parenting styles. When you remove one or the other you have issues.

          • MichelleG says:
            I’m not enough of an expert to say if DV is on the rise or declining. Feminists dominated DV organizations keep trying to expand the definition of DV.

            In the 70’s and 80’s it used to be “battering” which is pretty straight forward.
            Now you have the definition of DV trying to be expanded to “financial DV, emotional DV” etc..
            So I’m not really sure if it is expanding or declining. My guess is that it is declining because violent crime in general is trending down.

            However, I do not that DV is roughly gender symmetrical (except for the worst end of the tactics scale. Women suffer from DV murders 3 times as often).

            I don’t have the link handy but a researcher collected the data from 200 DV studies. The aggregate sample size was 65,000. It showed that DV is roughly equal between men and women even when you count defensive battling or reciprocal attacks.

      • you realize your post can be interpreted to support the ” man” as the head of the household because he can keep everyone in line. I know what you are saying, every boy needs a good role model and most single mothers are stressed to the max without having to deal with a steriod driven penis during adolescence. The part of the brain that suggests consequences is just not there in boys as it is in girls.
        It is too bad so many men opt out of their children’s lives – nothing is more fulfilling than seeing and adult evolve.

        we need alot more social workers and pyscologists working with families.

        • Personally, I don’t think it has to do with the threat of physical harm from the boys as an explanation. This explanation does two things:
          #1 it makes it sound like single mothers know they’re effing up
          #2 it takes agency for the job of parenting away from the mother. During MOST of a kids childhood he/she will be too small to overpower any adult (except in very lopsided exceptions) this is plenty of time for any parent(s) to establish good well-adjusted boundaries

          From the research I have read, it is not about mothers “copping out” of doing their due diligence due to fear, but rather the fact that fathers parent in a very different way from mothers.

          Fathers’ parenting centers around goal-setting and achieving, exploration, horse-play, consequences for your actions, obeying the rules, and protecting those weaker than yourselves.

          There is a lot of research on the topic. The simple fact of the matter, while individual stories vary statistically speaking children raised by loving engaged mothers and fathers fare the best.

          • “Fathers’ parenting centers around goal-setting and achieving, exploration, horse-play, consequences for your actions, obeying the rules, and protecting those weaker than yourselves.”

            If that’s the case, where are the good fathers at in their sons lives? If fathers were equally involved in their sons’ lives, boys would have an easier time adjusting to adulthood instead of laying blame and all responsibility on the moms; and then have the audacity to say single moms are effing up. That is so ridiculous.

            I say: single mothers should turn over their sons once they reach puberty to their fathers and let them raise their boys full-time for a change. Fathers don’t eff up do they? So make them accountable! Let’s see how you handle teenage boy hormones.

            The nuclear family was ideal…it gave security and structure to children, which so many kids lack today. Children, teens both need mothers and fathers for role models or else they’ll turn to their gangs or media for influence and acceptance.

            • Michelle:
              Society has told women that fathers are unnecessary and optional to families.
              The out-of-wedlock birth rate is nearing 50% for black families and is over 30% for society at large.

              Many women do not want the fathers in the children’s lives. While many courts will take away licenses and imprison fathers who fall more than $500 behind in child support, no cops will enforce court-ordered visitation. And going to court to secure the visitation ALREADY ORDERED costs lots of money, and has a greater chance to lose the father the visitation.

              If you peruse hisside.com or fathersandfamilies.org you will see horror stories that often when a father brings the mother back to court again and again showing video taped or other evidence of visitation interference, the judge is more likely to state that the mother and father are engaged in too much conflict and suspend visitation.

              In otherwords, a mother who is hellbent on driving a father out of the kids lives need only be contentious and she will get her wish.

              Even when the mother facilitates the full standard visitation, how much influence is the father supposed to have 6 days out of the month?

              One third of children of divorce lose permanent contact with the father within 5 years. This is overwhelmingly due to visitation interference by mothers. This is the main reason fathersandfamilies.org came into being. They fight for the right of children to have substantial time with mothers AND fathers post divorce.

              Father abandonment is not NEARLY as large a problem as (government sanctioned) visitation interference. Not to mention many states allow mothers to move 1000’s of miles away with the children, without the destruction of the father-child bound being weighed at all in the courts eyes.

            • Children are handed over to mothers for custody because during their younger years (let’s say 0 to 12 years of age) mothers are often seen as more equipped to love (especially breast-feed), nurture and rear their young kids than men. Men hate diaper changing and buying kids clothes/toys, making lunches, cooking, feeding kids, doing their laundry etc. There are a lot more resources and media that support moms as well ie.Today’s Parents magazine

              But once boys hit puberty and looking for their own identity (they won’t identify with their moms) – mothers face a whole set of new circumstances to deal with on her own: boys changing bodies, sexuality, aggressiveness, growth spurts, girls and so on. At this stage boys need to identify with a male role model and a father-figure to confide in and talk about the issues they’re facing. It is well known teenage boys like to be “alone” and try to distant themselves from their moms, so last thing they want to do is talk to their moms about guy issues. Perhaps this vulnerability make them susceptible to pedophiles – seeking out wrong father-figures.

            • MichelleG says:
              “Children are handed over to mothers for custody because during their younger years (let’s say 0 to 12 years of age) mothers are often seen as more equipped to love (especially breast-feed), nurture and rear their young kids than men.”

              In a word: sexism against men. I thought patriarchy made sure that didn’t happen?

              You also haven’t answered about the injustices of mom’s being allowed to move 1000’s of miles away w/out courts weighing the destruction of the father-child bond in their decisions, nor the casual dismissal of enforcing court-ordered visitation.

              As far as your above sentence I guess you’ve just explained where all the fathers are haven’t you?

              If mothers (with court enforcement) are going to drive dads out of childrens lives (despite all the good dads do for kids) then absent fathers become a self-serving prophecy.

              Research about the importance of mothers does NOT SAY that mothers can take the place of mothers+fathers, as you seem to be implying. Obviously, children need frequent time with BOTH parents whether divorced or not. The proof is conclusively in that this is what is best for children of divorce.

              The parental rights of fathers do not flow from the mothers permission (or at least should not in a just society).

            • MichelleG says:
              “I say: single mothers should turn over their sons once they reach puberty to their fathers and let them raise their boys full-time for a change. Fathers don’t eff up do they? So make them accountable! Let’s see how you handle teenage boy hormones.”

              Just for the record I have not stated (as you seem to be implying) that fathers are better parents than mothers. I am stating mothers+fathers are better parents than mothers alone.

              By the time a child is thirteen, it is often too late. Their norms have been formed and if they are dysfunctional they probably will be for life.

              An alternate (and much better) idea to yours is: you could join the ranks of fathersandfamilies.org and join in their various action campaigns to email or write letters.

              They fight for shared equal custody in divorce. They fight for the rights of mothers, fathers and children. The fact that this would radically help children is unquestionable.

            • Fathers fight for equal custody – sure, but most of the time they don’t want or can handle all the responsibilities that goes with raising children – bathing them, cooking, making lunches, diaper changing, potty training, taking them to school, laundry etc. Fathers seem to ONLY want them after mothers have taken care of these children’s physical needs. Fathers think equal custody means providing children only emotional needs – father bonding.

              More mothers are stay at home parents, especially if they have a few to raise, this is an advantage for giving single mothers more custody. Whereas fathers work full-time and less able to see to all their child’s daily needs. The courts look at this.

            • So, it’s not okay to tell women they are barred to be fighter pilots, but it’s okay for the law to state that men can’t parent their own children????

              What planet are you from?
              If SOME men are like that it, it doesn’t justify courts using a sexist stereotype to bar all men from parenting THEIR OWN CHILDREN.
              This should be a fathers right to choose, just as mothers can decide what level of work/life balance to choose.

              Once again we see that women have choices, men have responsibilities. This needs to change. Women need to accept that equal responsibilities flows naturally from the fight for equal rights.

              Additionally, shared custody will give women more free time to pursue other interests (like volunteering, career, schooling etc..) instead of shackling her full time to the children. Isn’t that a good thing?

    • MarkP writes:
      “wow, so much passion in the posts
      I can’t imagine growing up female , with men lusting after me at age 11. The sad reality is that the ‘animal’ male still predominates over the ‘thinking’ male.”
      Honestly, the same can be true of women. Look at some of the pictures of the Brown vs Board of Education of the black students going to the white schools.

      Some of the most hateful venom filled expressions worn by the whites following and hounding the black students are worn not by the men, but by the women.

  30. Julie Gillis says:

    Lots of heated conversation happening.

    Whether we destroy a patriarchy, kyriarchy, or matriarchy….whether we call it humanism, feminism, or not an ism at all, here are some of the things I want including the responsibiliites that come with them…..

    Physical autonomy-I get to plan my pregnancies, preventing them (and thus preventing abortions whenever possible) by using legal safe birth control with my partner. I get to have consensual sex.

    Equity/Equality-My LGBT friends can get married if they want, adopt if they want, etc. I get reasonable pay for the work I do. I get access to education. I want all those things for men as well and every race and creed. So long as there is no indication of neglect abuse in divorce (and that means divorce lawyers need to chill the hell out), equal custody for both sets of parents.

    Safety from Violence-whether physical or sexual abuse towards me, you, kids, adults, I’d like there to be far more support for anyone who has been neglected abused or sexually assaulted.

    A more sane economic environment where people can actually enjoy life-I have no idea how the hell that one will ever happen, but I’m all for a 20 hour work week for everyone and a lot more chillin’ out. I’d also like a lot more kindness in the world but whatever.

    So, if you don’t have any issue with me as a woman getting those freedom/responsibilities, or you as a man having them, or different races and genders having them….then I don’t think we are actually arguing over anything.

    Of course if you do have issues with women having a job, or education etc then I don’t know what to tell youl

    • Julie, BEST post in the thread. Thank you for distilling so much anger and fighting down to some basic principles that seem imminently fair and reasonable. If anyone has a problem with any of them, THEY are the ones with the problem. Women get to control their uteruses (uteri?) and marriage equality are perhaps the “easiest,” as they are legislative. The others require work–and that should happen. Can’t wait to see if anyone finds a problem with your list and why. I think it is brilliant.

  31. 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.

  32. “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.

  33. “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.

  34. “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!

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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)

  38. 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?

  39. 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.

  40. 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..

  41. 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? 😀 Seriously. What “women’s magazine”?

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

  50. 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.

  51. 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.

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

  53. 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

  54. 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

*