Women Of America: PLEASE Don’t Make Me An Anti-Feminist By Talking Like Anti-Male Bigots!

Apparently we can’t have mutual respect, equality, fairness and opportunity. There has to be a boot on someone’s throat, hate, envy, anger, payback, pecking orders, groveling and discrimination. The inevitable result of all that is backlash, and when it comes, it’s earned.

The most recent wretched example of this discouraging state of the culture is the escalation of anti-male, feminist chauvinism, though the trend has been building for a long time. Hillary Clinton’s primary argument for electing her President was that she had two X chromosomes, and anything else was a bonus. Long before that, Christiane Amanpour led a despicably sexist panel one memorable Sunday morning  in which she and three other women discussed how women are obviously better than men when it comes to leadership, management, decision-making, and conflict resolution.

I wrote at the time, when I was able to force my mouth to close from the rictus of horror it had been frozen into by this open display of bigotry:

The sweeping generalities, stereotyping, and flat pronouncements of male inferiority were unrestrained. “Women run for office to do something and men run for office to be somebody,” said Amanpour at one point, summarizing an exchange. “There’s something about a group of men and testosterone, you know, making risky decisions ,” said Claire Shipman, an ABC correspondent kindly given the chance to peddle her nauseatingly-titled new book, “Womenomics.”  Shipman spouted various unidentified studies purportedly showing that women in power achieved uniformly better results than those bumbling male counterparts: better hedge fund profits, better corporate performance, pretty much better everything.

If a male pundit properly chided this hypocritical junk—I didn’t encounter any—he was obviously a conservative Cro-Magnon pig.  It has only gotten worse since then. Though no one will admit it, the Democratic Party is already committed to nominating a woman for President in 2020 no matter what, despite the fact that the likely choices of double exxes are inexperienced, shrill, old, obnoxious, or none-too-bright…or Hillary. Never mind: they’re women. They’re better.

There’s a TV ad that has been coming on for some time now. A narrator tells us that “women are awesome” and how special they are. It’s juvenile and blatant chauvinism: a similar ad about how whites are awesome or men are awesome would be so politically incorrect that it would probably be stopped mid-play by antifa vigilantes. No wonder so many boys are deciding that they want to be girls. Who wouldn’t rather be awesome?

How this kind of offensive square peg of anti-male, pro-female propaganda got squeezed into  the round hole of “liberalism” is a mystery, but the ethics alarms of the news media appear to be dead to it.  Here, for example, is an op-ed published last week in that liberal news icon, the Washington Post. The author is professional bigot and college student indoctrinator Suzanna Danuta Walters, Professor of Sociology and director of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University.Why would this pure misandry be deemed appropriate for publication anywhere? I don’t know. You tell me:

So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.

My reaction to this insulting, simple-minded bile is to do my best Robert De Niro impression, and suspect that most non-weenies who haven’t been branded on the cheek by the Progressive Collective are likely to react in kind. My warning: keep it up. Keep it up, Feminists. I dare you. Men are awesome too, you know.

You see,  either bigotry, chauvenism, prejudice and hate are innately and objectively wrong—you know, unethical–or they aren’t. They can’t be unethical for one gender and not for the other. If women want me to accept them and treat them as individuals and equals, they are not going to achieve that goal by behaving like this. They are going to achieve a backlash, and they will have no one to blame but themselves.

The anti-male rhetoric and conduct of the feminist bigots isn’t just unthical, of course.

It is also really, really stupid.


Pointer: Amy Alkon

74 thoughts on “Women Of America: PLEASE Don’t Make Me An Anti-Feminist By Talking Like Anti-Male Bigots!

  1. I don’t encounter th e worst of these, and I suspect some of this flame is growing out of the anti-boy child in education fads that began in the 90s. But now it’s gone meta. I really do not understand, don’t any of these people have fathers, brothers, or sons? Do they hate them that much? Are they that two-faced that they won’t admit there just might be a lot more like the admirable ones in their lives? And if so, why hasn’t anyone reminded them about fear leading to hate leading to the dark side?

    Being cruel is not linked to a gender or race and error, blind righteousness leads to far greater cruelties than things like a simple mugging. Thought police aren’t just limiting free will, but their controls are torture,

    • Even the Romans at the height of their power didn’t conquer the Capuans, Tarentians, and so on. They took them into the firm. Same with the English and the Welsh and the Scots. The English treatment of the Irish in the days following Cromwell might be akin to what the author of this article would like to see done to men. Prior to that time they hadn’t been treated objectively worse than other minorities. There’s more to it than simple hatred, of course, but, after Cromwell, the Catholic religion the Irish belonged to was suppressed, the franchise disallowed, and the Catholic Irish were excluded legally from all meaningful aspects of life. What usually doesn’t make it into the history books is that there was at least SOME basis for this (the Catholic Irish had taken the losing side in a civil war), excessive as the punishment was and as much as Cromwell didn’t think ahead to what would happen if these excessive measures were kept in place for generations and DID become a matter of simple hatred.

      What this woman wants is worse. She wants the disfavored group to not only be excluded from all meaningful aspects of life, but permanently stigmatized and shamed as not only hated, but deserving of being hated. Worse still, she wants the disfavored group to embrace this hated status.

      Well, sorry, bitch, we are not Henrys who will walk bare-footed to Canossa to seek the Pope’s forgiveness after we dared to challenge his self-claimed absolute power. We are not the French garrison at Louisbourg who will accept humiliation (and not all of them did) because we dared do our jobs a little too well for our conquerors. We are definitely not the post-Cromwell Irish or 1936 Jews who just decided to live within the new oppressive system as best they could, who still were shot dead by redcoats they didn’t move out of the way quickly enough for or put on a train to the place we don’t need to name the day they got too sick to labor.

      • The English treatment of the Irish in the days following Cromwell might be akin to what the author of this article would like to see done to men. Prior to that time they hadn’t been treated objectively worse than other minorities.

        Oh, yes, we were. See, for instance, how Munster was reduced in Elizabethan times, and how the poet Edmund Spenser recommended using such methods more widely in his A View of the present State of Ireland.

        … excessive as the punishment was and as much as Cromwell didn’t think ahead to what would happen if these excessive measures were kept in place for generations and DID become a matter of simple hatred.

        Actually, no, it never did become “a matter of simple hatred”. It often confuses people from other cultures, but much of the violence of the troubles – a hundred years ago in the south, and more recently in the north – really wasn’t done in hatred but tactically, in a spirit of indifference. Yet so many people somehow cannot comprehend that and insist on reading hatred into it, perhaps because they cannot see themselves ever doing such things casually. But time and space are too short for me to give anecdotes that illustrate this, like the late Earl of Arran’s truly horrible story of the young lady whose turn it was to drive.

        We are definitely not the post-Cromwell Irish … who just decided to live within the new oppressive system as best they could, who still were shot dead by redcoats they didn’t move out of the way quickly enough for …

        Um… no, that too wasn’t that simple. For one thing, for several generations they could and did leave to join the French or Spanish military, and for another that wasn’t how redcoats were used there (until quite late, they were used more to control the protestants, who were the ones controlling the mere Irish and who needed to be kept from going too far or striking out on their own).

        • Mmhmmm, and prior to that the Scots and Welsh had also been treated poorly as well – although things in Scotland, even after Culloden, never seemed to reach the levels they did in Ireland, possibly because the Protestant v. Catholic conflict didn’t become so deep, bigoted, and divisive, partly probably because the demographics weren’t quite so unbalanced.

          I don’t doubt the tactical aspect of things too, but, as an American, every account I read is suffused with the religious viewpoint of the writer.

          Ah yes, it’s not for nothing that the presidential sash of Chlie is called the Banda O’Higgins.

          800+ years of history is never “simple,” despite what anyone on either side would tell you. I still think the big English-haters here in the US are idiots, and one day I still mean to have my revenge upon a co-worker who I almost fought with over these very issues.

  2. **Instructive here might be the cautionary tale of one Dr. Judith Grossman, who helped craft a world that deems the Y-Chromosomal as a lower form of life.

    “I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms. magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive candidates committed to women’s rights. Until a month ago, I would have expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against Women Act.”

    The talented Dr. Grossman, her life’s work consumed with making this a better world for at least half of us (myself, as an evil male, part of the “other half”) received an epiphany that would be politely described as “poetic justice.

    Her own little bundle of joy was ensnared by the world she helped to craft.

    “But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of “nonconsensual sex” that supposedly occurred during the course of their relationship A FEW YEARS EARLIER. (bolds mine).

    “What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice’s looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment.”

    She was positively aghast that Sonny would not be afforded the presumption of innocence.

    The humanity!


    I’m reminded of what Major G. F. Devin (Peter Jason) presciently tells Gunny Highway (Clint Eastwood) in “Heartbreak Ridge.”

    “Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.”

    **reprinted with permission from an earlier EA (10/15/14 exchange: Ethics Heroes: 28 Harvard Law Professors).

    The testosterone/White Male Privilege/Y-Chromosomaliarchy made me do it…

  3. “So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from….”

    This is where the argument has to be stopped. It’s basically conspiracy theory, bits and pieces of evidence stretched to look like a system of oppression men participated and participate in. It’s a fraud.

    “Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down….Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. ”

    I have some sympathy for this point of view, but it has nothing to do with men and women. There are people in the world who grow up privileged. That’s not male privilege or female privilege – it’s just plain old privilege based on money and connections. I certainly support anyone who thinks they have such privileged and who thinks it’s unfair stepping away from career, sending their kids to inferior schools, and just generally getting out of the way.

    “Pledge to vote for feminist women only.”

    There was an old Polish-German communist named Rosa Luxembourg who became famous in Marxist circles through her statement, “Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.” A “feminist” cannot free women by voting the feminist line – that’s just being a progressive (or whatever). Ironically, a feminist can only help free women by voting for conservative women.

    • “Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down….Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything.”

      She just lost the entire argument for herself.

      “We’re better than you. Now you stop trying so hard so we can have a chance at succeeding.”

  4. Jesus H. Christ… even at the height of the women’s liberation movement no one wrote this kind of hate-spew. I spoke out four years ago when the Santa Clara murders led to a fair amount of anti-male writing, although it was mostly limited to stuff that said males are clumsy oafs who think too much with the little head and they need to step back from social situations, if women are interested, they’ll let them know. One comparison that particularly bothered me was the “candy dish” analysis in which men are compared to a bowl of M&Ms with one that’s deadly poison. The idea was that women should not trust any men because you never know which one in a hundred is going to be a rapist. Of course the women I know went through all kinds of mental gymnastics to defend it, however, there is no getting around the fact that if I applied the same analysis to any other group I’d be tagged as a hater. “Don’t trust blacks, you never know who’s a mugger.” “Don’t trust Muslims, you never know who’s a terrorist.” “Don’t trust Hispanics, you never know who’s here illegally.” “Don’t trust women, you never know which one is just looking to use you and lose you.” But somehow it’s ok to apply that logic of presumed mistrust to white men only, after all, we’re the patriarchy and no one should trust us, we’ve earned it through centuries of rape, oppression and wrongdoing.

    If the logic here was applied to any other group, you’d think the speaker was something like a neo-Nazi or worse. “Blacks, you had your chance and after a century and a half of freedom and more, you still can’t keep the basic family together and everything you touch turns to shit. Stop running for political office and get back to shining shoes, operating elevators, and peddling junk, that’s all you’re good for.” “Muslims, you’ve been the enemy of everything the West lives for and by for 1400 years, and the only difference between the radicals and the moderates is those doing the bombing versus those helping plan it, cheering it on, and terrorsplaining afterward. Get the hell back to whatever sandpit you came from, you are not welcome west of Suez or north of the Mediterranean.” “Hispanics, your love affair with the caudillos and innate laziness has turned every damn thing south of the Rio Grande into chaos and a whole continent still hasn’t reached its potential because of you. The continent that HAS doesn’t owe you a damn thing, go back south and make something out of your own place.” “Women, you’ve played manipulative games for centuries and, with a few exceptions, proven yourselves unreliable and unworthy of anyone’s trust. Hell, the first time you voted you elected Harding. Not to mention you pull old wrongs out when too much time has gone by to know the truth, seduce and then cry rape, and out-and-out lie to destroy those you can’t defeat otherwise. Go back home and resume your domestic role.”

    Harsh? You bet your bookshelf. Is a lot of it true but tactless? Yup. But please, especially Valky and Spartan, I challenge you to explain the difference between what I just said and the hate spewed by this faux academic. No, I won’t vote for feminist women only, I won’t “step away from the power” and I won’t be a warrior in the service of those who not only hate me but preen in the righteousness of their hatred. It’s no one’s duty to bow to those who hate him and validate that hatred, and any women who want it that way are welcome to build a modern Paradise Island if they can find anyone to build it.

    • War comes to Paradise island often enough, that is not a real solution. They trained in the arts of war too, not denial. The Amazons are not progressive, even if they are feminist. And banning men leads to a small and short-lived movement, ask the Shakers.

  5. Anti-male feminist chauvinism

    Holy shit! That just brought back a huge flood of flashbacks! Based on what just happened to me by the time I got to the end of Jacks second paragraph I can say that there might be a smidgen of PTSD related to this.

    This is going to walk away for now and take me some time to put this into words; I’ll be back when I figured out how to effectively communicate this.

    Catcha later.

    • Quick update. I’m doing fine and I’ve begun writing about this. It’s hard to explain, so I’m going to write some, walk away, reread what I wrote, write some more, and repeat until I’m done. When I’m sure that what I’ve written is accurate and reasonably relevant to this blog, I’ll post it. It’s already too long to post here so I’ll provide a link to it when it’s done.

      Be patient I’ll back when I’m done.

          • Z, a lotta years ago, I took a job on the Navajo Reservation as Chief Of Counseling Services for a BIA-funded boarding school. I am an anglo, and was hated almost from the first five minutes of the interview…primarily because I was very well qualified for the job and was not a Navajo. The situation was much the same, to the extent that the President of the School Board threatened my job if I didn’t certify his kid to graduate (the kid had not attended a single class his final semester), which I flatly refused to do. I came back to Texas after a couple of years. Like you, I still carry some scars. My belief though, is that you are strong enough to make it through this. If I can do anything to help, just holler.

  6. Professor Danuta sounds like every anti-capitalist who clothes it in identity politics. Victimhood and the liberating power from it needs oppressors they can pick on who fight back least. Who are the passive oppressors? The civilized people who built this country and economy for themselves and all to enjoy. The identity group victims prey on this known psychology.

    Before anyone jumps me, yes, there have been and still are victims. Yes, they were or are genuinely mistreated. But our system, even with its imperfections, has and continues to offer more opportunity for improvement and correction than any society on earth.

    These people are turning incidents, wayward processes, abuses and errors into a demand to overturn our political and economic system. Their plight is misdirection for revolutionary destruction.

    • Well duh. How the hell is a nation supposed to function if one half is to be thrown away because the other half hates them?

      • Anti-male, feminist bigotry is just one platform among many being employed to dismantle capitalism and our representative republic. This is my point.

        Didn’t realize my point deserved a “no-duh”.

      • Somehow, the latest left wing love affair, “The Handmaid’s Tale”, which supposedly represents what the anti-Christians think the world would look like with more Christian values or something, which supposedly some people think we’re actually on track for now with GOP leadership, is supposed to be a believable scenario.

        My gut tells me, in reality, where we all exist, the quickest way to finding a society where government must mandate and regulate breeding new generations will arise in a society where the genders absolutely hate each other. Like the hatred these virulent feminists seem to espouse.

        I mean, I don’t remember seeing too many lectures from people in authority about what ways women were inferior back in the days when men were in charge…I mean, those arguments started making their appearance in modern society via Darwinist *scientists*…but before them, I just don’t recall seeing too many lectures about how and why women were inferior.

        Now it seems vogue for women in authority positions to make the arguments describing male inferiority.

        I mean, there were various writers who described notions about individual roles in society which, interpreted from one world view or another, could be seen as relegating women to an inferior status, whereas interpreted from another world view or others is not seen as inferiority. But there didn’t seem to be essays on how or why there was inferiority.

        (Hint: because the attitude didn’t exist in any real, tangible, mainstream form)

        • I’m not sure there were lectures pre-Darwin about being inferior, but there were a lot of significant spheres that women were considered ‘unsuited’ for, starting at the top for things like kings and bishops. Talking about it requires that people be consciously aware of the issue and the suffragettes WERE obnoxious most of the time. Being considered as a large group to be unsuited for important work is inferior. That doesn’t mean they are automatically superior in these new areas, we can screw things up just as often. People have to prove themselves as inferior by their actions and words, and I meet just as many females as males who prove they’re incompetent.

          • In the pre-Christian Roman Empire women were considered quite literally inferior; basically they were imploded or dysfunctional males, not to be taken seriously.

            And the movement responsible for securing women’s votes were known as “suffragists,” and were generally peaceful, pious, and broadly supportive of the political process, using it to secure themselves the vote. They gained many powerful male allies. The “suffragettes,” while romanticized today for their similarity to modern radical protestors, were mostly useless and probably hurt their cause far more than they helped.

  7. Having a lifetime of experience being a female, when I read all this feminist B.S., I ask myself “who in the heck are these women associating with anyway?”. The men I associate with are nothing like this. My dad is a gentle soul, who taught me to stand up for myself, catch fish, shoot a gun, camp, play softball, fight for the underdog, drive a car, and to replace anger with patience. He always thought I could do and be more, even when I didn’t see it.

    My brother and my partner are both kind, thoughtful, protective and supportive men. I’ve worked it various fields, and encountered lots of men who are wonderful people. Some men aren’t so great, but brace yourselves, some women aren’t so great either. It’s a human condition, some days I’m not so great.

    I just can’t jump on the anti-male bandwagon. Overall, life has taught me that no one gender, race, religion, etc. is bad. To say that men should step aside is ridiculous. So even if a man is the best candidate for a job or political function, he shouldn’t be considered? As a woman, I shouldn’t have to work hard and earn anything, it should just be given to me? I sincerely hope this isn’t what our world becomes.

      • Other man-hating women, cowardly, metrosexual hipster partners to these other man-hating women, lesbians, and hag fags (a reverse of the politically incorrect expression “fag hag” for a hetero woman who has a lot of male homosexual friends). It’s no different than black militants hanging out with other black militants, and saying stuff like the “black fist” rant from the movie “Higher Learning,” or English-hating Irish drinking with other English-hating Irish and loathing a whole nation they’ve never even met for things that happened centuries ago.

        • Call me silly but I just assume the vast majority of these virulent feminists are lesbians and really do not particularly like men. They’re just finding their voice(s) as well as an audience and a megaphone.

          This whole “women are wonderfuller than men” thing reminds me of the gay marriage campaign where a big part of the plan seemed to be to portray gay couples as not just equal to heterosexual couples, but actually as vastly superior to heterosexual couples. Must be in some play book for “rights” campaigns.

          • Of course they were. To the left, homosexuality is now not just another way to go, but a special state of blessedness, so blessed, in fact, that the homosexuals are appointed as our judges, to approve or disapprove our every action. It’s a terrible sin against the blessed class to eat at Chik-fil-a, especially during Pride Month, when we must all bow and kiss the rainbow rings of our betters.

            • Honestly, Steve, I sometimes wonder whether the domestic relations bar wasn’t a moving force behind the gay marriage thing. You know what follows gay marriage, don’t you? Gay divorce. It must have annoyed DR people that they weren’t getting any of that market because it didn’t exist.

              • It also opens all kinds of avenues for more civil rights litigation, which often contains fee-shifting provisions. Make of that what you will.

  8. If she has to ask men to “stand down” then she’s implying that men are indeed her superiors and can only lose by throwing down their arms.

    Of course her entire premise is flawed, if she seems to see men and women as competing against one another. Men compete almost exclusively with other men, and that to the general benefit of women.

    It therefore makes sense that the people to whom this gender-warfare message appeals most are those who are far from the mean- extremely masculine women and extremely effeminate men.

    • Found on Twitter, paraphrased as I don’t recall the exact wording:

      “Of course men are superior at everything. We even proved it by having a man win Woman of the Year a few years ago.”

  9. I think a good exercise for the people who would defend the author, because of course there will be people who defend her (Her sex organs are on the inside, and she’s making fun of the other people. This is important.) To try to picture what the gender reversed article would look like.

    Why Can’t We Hate Women?
    By A. Smartass
    June 13

    A Smartass, who actually works for a living, and specifically avoided the happiness sinkhole of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University, was just passing by.

    It’s not that Nancy Silberkleit (the current, because these people never get fired CEO of Archie Comics, accused of abuse by multiple male employees) pushed me over the edge. My edge has been crossed for a long time, before The Queen of California, Hillary Clinton, who tried to ride to the presidency on the all important merit of being a woman, before Toni Van Pelt, Mary Koss or Anita Sarkeesian, before terms like “mansplaining” and “incels.” Before family court disparities and title IX and blue pill feminist groups and rape allegations as a tool of destruction and the deadening banality of female entitlement.

    Seen in this indisputably true context, it seems logical to hate women. I can’t lie, I’ve always had a soft spot for the radical MRA smackdowns, for naming the problem in no uncertain terms. I’ve rankled at the “but we don’t hate women” protestations of generations of would-be redpilled men and found the “women are not the problem, this system is” obfuscation too precious by half.

    Pretty much everywhere in the world, this is true: Men experience violence at significantly higher rates than women, and the threat of that violence permeates our choices big and small. In addition, violence is not restricted to intimate-partner attacks with frying pans or crockery but plagues us in the form of terrorism and mass gun violence (because those things exclusively effect men, didn’t you know?). Men are underrepresented in educational jobs, animal husbandry, sociology, psychology, feminist basket weaving, and control of disposable income, but they are overrepresented in suicides and homelessness. Men continue to make up about 95% of workplace injuries and fatalities, they currently make less than 45% of university populations, and that imbalance isn’t changing while the focus is on getting women into STEM and the proliferation of educational Kangaroo courts continues unchecked.

    The world has little place for male emotion. Men are supposed to work, not think, offer money not insight. We’re supposed to feel… nothing, because women can never decide whether they want men to show their vulnerabilities or if they’re whiny pissbabies, who’s tears they’d like to drink. We are told we don’t need support, that by the grant of some divine spark nestled squarely in our testicles (I think I felt it once, it was tingly), that we’re OK. That #MeToo has no place for male stories because well… We have penises, and we’re talking about the women now. Which takes us down the neverending spiral of the female victim complex, the constant, consistent grinding trainwreck of bitching and moaning about terms that google gleefully puts red squiggly lines under. Seriously. “Mansplaining”? Who thought that was a good idea? How about you quit “Womanbitching” and do whatever the hell you want to do, because there aren’t any barriers to entry you couldn’t actually overcome if you really put your mind to it. If Matt Taylor’s gaudy shirt can keep you from realizing your hopes and dreams, than how pathetic were they to begin with?

    So women, if you ready to enter the world of grownups and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Develop some actual empathy. Stop waddling up to the polling booth, standing up on your tippy-toes, nestling the ball of the voting lever squarely in your crotch, rocking back on your heels and literally voting with your vagina for anyone else on the ballot with a vagina. Pledge to vote for competent people only (the men). Don’t run for office, make us sandwiches. Good ones. Throw out the Mayo. Don’t be in charge of anything, you aren’t good at it.. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t sway us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #Hastags. It is long past time to play hard for Team Penis. And win.

    This is, of course, bullshit, it had enough real issues sprinkled in to get a little bit of empathy before diving right off the deep end…. But it’s still bullshit. Aut it’s bullshit on about the same scale… You can nitpick on the relative seriousness of individual issues all you want, but the fact of the matter is that this kind of misogynistic garbage would *never*, *ever* get printed in The Washington Post.

    This. Gets. Printed. When. It’s. About. Men.

  10. Me, too! I had a wonderful father, grandfathers, uncles, cousins, have a loving husband and a son…I can’t imagine hating men as a group, I know too many good ones!

    I asked that question (‘what about your fathers?’) on many feminist blogs as I was really curious. They either launched into instant histrionics and accused me of being a rape apologist, or they wrote scathing posts about their absent fathers (usually due to divorce). I’ve begun to think of man-hating as a form of cult religion, with it’s own dogma that must not ever be questioned, lest you be attacked or shunned.

    • I think if you look for the worst in people, you’ll always find it. These women seem determined to be victims of their own making. Everything bad that’s ever happened to them has been some mans fault. Never the result of bad choices, mistakes, or lack of understanding on their part. If they weren’t so hell-bent on pointing fingers at men as the root of evil, maybe they’d have time to be happier people.

      I find myself thankful for the men in my life…especially when a spider needs squashing, or a heavy thing needs to be moved. Sure, I could do it myself, but frankly, I love that I don’t have to.

      • And then there’s always parallel parking!

        Read Gloria Steinham’s autobiography to see what she thought of her father. I also wonder sometimes whether these twenty and thirty and forty something angry women aren’t to a large extent the product of no fault and ubiquitous shame free divorce.

    • Hey’re the same people who insisted in the 70s that divorce didn’t hurt children, and in the 90s insisted that fathers were not necessary. Now they’re miserable, in many cases because they didn’t have a good Dad. They’ve also made men miserable, causing boys to grow up with only single Moms and female teachers as role models. And when one of these fatherless, effeminate boys shoots up a school, they’ll blame “toxic masculinity” as if the average American is too stupid to piece together that school shootings weren’t unthinkable back when boys grew up playing cowboy and hunting with their Dads.

  11. Again, this is not new, it is just more widely covered. One example is college admissions. In 1973 or 1974, the number of men and women in US colleges reaches equality (depending on numerical or statistical equality). Every year, since then, the percentage of women has increased. During this time, there has been a continual ‘we need more women in college’ movement. If, year after year, we decreased the percentage of women in college to the point that there were 50% more men in college, women would be screaming bloody murder. Do it to men and feminists complain there are still too many men. In 20 years at 4 schools in multiple states,I have taught perhaps 6 college science classes total with more men than women and they scream that we need more women in science. Look at how boys are treated in the public schools. Look how they belittle them and try to medicate them away. Look at how the academic achievement of boys has gone down over 40 years. This is not new, you were just looking away so you wouldn’t see.

  12. So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.

    Speaking of feckless c___s…

  13. Pingback: Surprise, Surprise, Surprise | Zoltar Speaks!

  14. For those that don’t want to wade through my nearly 3000 word blog (I shared the link above) here’s an excerpt, this is the part that is more inline with what Jack was talking about.

    What this puts in the forefront of my mind is how the terrible, hateful, bigoted, anti-male attitudes that I faced in that very contained facility were not main stream socially accepted attitudes back then, but now I’m seeing the same kinds of attitudes not only becoming socially acceptable but socially expected and if you don’t share their attitudes and feelings then you’re smeared as being the evil they hate and moreover they simply hate you because you are a man and somehow that’s acceptable. The extreme feminist anti-male attitudes we are seeing now are right inline with what I saw in the past, they are not only destructive to those they target with their hate but it’s also psychologically self-destructive, I’ve seen it first hand. These extreme attitudes may still seem to be relatively limited in their scope but all things extreme are becoming much more mainstream acceptable in our society and that is really, really bad. This self-destructive bigotry and hate can be seen and heard throughout our society, it’s infecting everything! We have some real psychological problems in our society and I’m not too sure these psychological issues are fixable by people standing on firm logical ground and saying I’m not going to take it anymore!

    All choices have consequences, period. The choice of some extreme feminist to resort to the kind of bigotry and hate they are exhibiting will totally consume them and those around them.

    The choices of the hateful bigoted people in today’s society are more than self-destructive they’re becoming so common that they are being perceived as “normal” but they will destroy us one piece at a time.

Leave a Reply to Jack Marshall Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.