Categories
antifeminism discussion of the day men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny western women suck

>The Stepford Solution

>From a discussion of feminist men on the perversely misnamed NiceGuy’s MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) forum. (Requires registration, so here’s a screencap.) There is so much wrongness packed into this brief comment; it’s really quite impressive.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

77 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tec
Tec
10 years ago

>Yeah can't imagine what's wrong with the ultimate objectification of women… eye rolls

John Dias
10 years ago
bishopsinister
10 years ago

>Better than being with a feminist that's for sure.Random Brother

Pam
Pam
10 years ago

>Actually, this comment, from a different thread on that forum, cracked me right up:"… but still i like the ladies shaved when i see hair that doesnt belong it is like they are trying to be like men, women with pit hair, pussy hair,etc are a symbol of feminism and female disobidience to their natural role"Don't you women know that having something as natural as pubic hair is being disobedient to your natural role?! Stop trying to be like men by having hair that doesn't belong!!

thevagrantsvoice
10 years ago

>You know, Mr. Futrelle, I think he does raise an interesting issue, though. This is just me, but I had a conversation with a futurist a little while ago (a futurist, for those of y'all who don't know, is someone who's very interested in the future–specifically, how advancing technology and science will change both society and daily life in the years to come).This fellow had been having a conversation with a woman about this new life-like female android thing that came out recently in Japan. It still has a ways to go, but she found it "creepy"–it was like a Stepford wife, essentially. When my acquaintance grilled her further, she said she was afraid it would be a replacement for real-life flesh and blood women.A good point, and one that some might say lies at the heart of feminist objections to not only "stepford wives" but also to less advanced sexbots, sex dolls, and (for some feminists, not all) pornography in general. But here's how my acquaintance responded:"Men had been threatened by androids taking male roles for years, by replacing us in the workforce. All those robots building cars and computers in factories? They are robot men. Do you have any idea how much misery men (and their families) endured as droves of (male) blue-collar workers lost their jobs to automatons who performed their "masculine" duties better than they were ever able to? Now we have robot women. It's inevitable."So I have to wonder–and you, Mr. Futrelle, or Tec, or a MRA or anybody can answer if they wish. If a Stepford wife–or sexbot, or whatever, is the "ultimate objectification of women," aren't the androids and robots we see on factory floors, which are doing the jobs actual flesh and blood men used to do, for the most part–the "ultimate objectifications of men?" If you're opposed to Stepford wives (or sexbots) because they either allow men a degree of freedom from women or "objectify" women in some way or whatever, should you oppose the sorts of automata my buddy mentioned due to doing the same to men?Genuinely not trying to troll or anything here, but it is something I've been thinking about. Guess that's what I get for hanging around a sci-fi forum…

Sandy
10 years ago

>Other computers aren't objectifications of men, the gender of the workers is incidental. The replacement of workers with computers is the objectification of the worker. It says that there is no value in the humanity of the worker, only his work, and that a computer sufficeintly provides what the worker could provide.So what is the value of humanity? Do we need it to fasten a bolt on an assembly line? Do we need it to draft a legal document? Do we need it to craft a novel? Do we need it in a lover?It's an interesting question, but I think most people would say it is needed for the lover and the novel. I would draw the line after the bolt fastening.

Sandy
10 years ago

>To further clarify, the role of life partner and lover (the role filled by a stepford wife) is a complete identity. When you replace it with a computer, you have completely objectified the person who acted in the role.A man who fastens bolts identity is only a small percent bolt fastener. When he is replaced with a robot, his skill as a bolt fastener is objectified, but the rest of his identity remains human be devalued as far as bolt fastening goes.

Sandy
10 years ago

>And finally, it is interesting that it has long been noted that factory work is dehumanizing. The conditions, the repetition, the boredom. The lack of space for human intellect or creativity.Perhaps it is the other way around, perhaps the men on the factory floor were doing the jobs of robots, and now that robots have caught up they must go back to doing the jobs of men, jobs that require humanity.Then again, factory work isn't the only work where humanity has been devalued.

Pam
Pam
10 years ago

>I don't know why women would be afraid of those replacements, I really don't. Real-life flesh and blood women should relish the moment when these replacements have been refined to the point where they can also reproduce real-life flesh and blood males and women can cease to exist and not have go through life trying to abide by men's contradictory rules of how they are supposed to be. Think about it…He could easily program his bot to not take away men's jobs, to stay home and cook, clean, etc., and then he could come home from work and berate it for being a parasite on the fruits of his labours, staying home on its butt all day while he worked hard.He could easily program his bot to be a virgin 'til they married, then program it to be Jenna Jameson in bed on their wedding night, and then after having the incredible orgasm that he had so longed for (don't worry, the bot won't be programmed to want an orgasm, too), berate it for being a lying whore and slut because it was able to give him such an incredible orgasm.He could easily program his bot to offer to pay for both, or at least its share, of the dinner and/or movie tab, and then berate it for trying to usurp his role and emasculate him. Later on, after requesting the obligatory blowjob in return for his having paid the tab, he could berate it for always expecting that he will be the one that has to pay for both of them.

Pam
Pam
10 years ago

>Oh, and the bot certainly won't have any of that nasty pubic hair to symbolize its disobedience, either. It'll know its place, by golly!!

Yohan
10 years ago

>From a discussion of feminist men …The link is broken, please fix it.

Eoghan
10 years ago

>I think that "futurists" and anti feminist tech are on to something in making the connection between gender roles and technology. What enabled the dual income family and the changes in the female role was technology – the pill, the surplus of female friendly jobs, the domestic mod cons that allow people to work a full day and still have a reasonable standard of living without a full time person at home … all down to technology.

Sandy
10 years ago

>Good point Eoghan. In fact, women leaving the home would not have been possible if there was no longer a full time job at home. No more bread baking, clothes washing, dish washing, floor washing, rug beating to fill up an entire day. Of course we could have reached a point where either men or women stayed home to do these things, or both worked part time, but social structure generally needs a kick like change in technology to change.Also ties in to what I was trying to say before. Saying that a factory worker is "replaced" by a robot is like saying a woman is "replaced" by a washing machine. The entire person is not replaced, the person's work is replaced, and whatever humanity the person lent the the work is lost. The more rote the work, the less need for humanities' touch.When a sex bot is developed, it does not replace a man or woman. If we buy that it is a replacement for a sexual partner than it replaces the man or womans sexual work, which some would argue requires quite a bit of humanity and much is lost by replacing the person with a machine. However, we could also see it as an upgrade from a hand rather than a replacement of a man/woman.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Link fixed. I actually have a post or two planned about MRAs and sexbots. But I think in this case the guy is talking about a real woman who would behave like a pliable, non-threatening, non-thinking, non-demanding sex robot.

Sandy
10 years ago

>Yeah, in the case of the Stepford wife the actual person is not only replaced but destroyed. It is the ultimate rejection of humanity in favor of machine.

Eoghan
10 years ago

>Well Sandy, women have been having sex with machines for quite some time, its a huge market. Alternatives for men are depicted as shameful and wrong, there is strong opposition to a normalized and safe sex trade from big feminism and the religious right and already there is opposition to sex bots from feminists, on top of that guys that are excluded from the sex market are given shameful labels .. "loser that cant get a date", "creep" and so on…One area of liberation from gender roles the MM seems to be interested in is liberating men from the sexual power that women hold over men, if there ever was to be a technology that negated the need for sexual relations with real women, it would be enormously liberating for men..and I suspect that some of the craziness that David finds on these sites is rooted in sexual scarcity.

Tec
Tec
10 years ago

>@Vagrant's Voice"So I have to wonder–and you, Mr. Futrelle, or Tec, or a MRA or anybody can answer if they wish. If a Stepford wife–or sexbot, or whatever, is the "ultimate objectification of women," aren't the androids and robots we see on factory floors, which are doing the jobs actual flesh and blood men used to do, for the most part–the "ultimate objectifications of men?" If you're opposed to Stepford wives (or sexbots) because they either allow men a degree of freedom from women or "objectify" women in some way or whatever, should you oppose the sorts of automata my buddy mentioned due to doing the same to men?"You completely misunderstand me, Vagrant's voice. I'm not opposed to sex-bots, or porn, or sex toys, or whatever. Men want to be with sex dolls go right ahead. No, seriously. And why not? You think women wouldn't want a man-bot?What do you think dildos are? Hell, man-bots would be pretty cool. In fact, get a man-bot that looks like Robert Pattinson and sign me up! (I would consider it a piss-poor replacement for a real human relationship though). I'm sex-positive generally and advocate anyone doing pretty much whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't involve animals or children or any other non-consentual sex(rape). Men choosing anything that makes them happy is fine by me and more power to them. But sex toys et al. – that's not what we're talking about here at all, and that's what needs to be clear because you don't seem to see the very, very big difference. In Stepford Wifes, women are literally replaced with an object and though not specified, they are killed, destroyed, no longer existing. If you haven't seen the movie I suggest you check it out (the original). It's a metaphor for the women's objectification and the commodity model. Characterizing it as simply men choosing to use sexbots over women (and, as I said, though not specified, the idea that women would use menbots) is a fallacy then. It is literally replacing women with an object and throwing away and destroying the original, simply because the original had sentience – original and ultimately uncontrollable thoughts, feelings, and actions. Objectification and ultimately, gendercide – that's what Stepford Wives are.

Tec
Tec
10 years ago

>Just to be doubly clear, I'm not in any way advocating for the objectification and/or replacing of actual men – living human beings – with robots. It would be a piss poor replacement for a romantic relationship and/or sex with a real man.

Yohan
10 years ago

>As usual, 1 comment taken out of context from a long thread.The link changed and it is now from another MRA-forumThis thread is called:All American men are feminists just like the women and the OP is starting with:I realize now that American men have the women they truly deserve. Why do I write this? Because everywhere I turn, it is the men doing their best to push me into female-domination. When I criticize a woman or women in general, or, heaven forbid, American women, it is the men who admonish me, make fun of me, insult me and mock me. Therefore it's now my belief that the problem is that American men have no standards and simply buy into all the lies. And?One of my current coworkers claims to have spent 23 y in the Navy. I always wondered why he wasnt getting a pension. …..Then he starts claiming that I should get a Stepford wife or marry a Japanese life-like doll. I really brought out the mangina in him yesterday. …..Now I dont get upset at someone having a different point of view from me. What upsets me is people claiming I am a loser, etc, for not wanting to live their feminist lifestyle. Of course David is upset if somebody says something like that…

Sandy
10 years ago

>@EoghanYes, a vibrator is in the same class as a sexbot. Like I said, you can see it as replacing a sexual partner, in which case you are losing what humanity brings to sex (quite a bit). However, it can also be seen as improving the hand.I see it more as the second, but people do use sex toys in both capacities. Male sexuality has a long way to go in terms equality. Men are at once supposed to have insatiable sexual appetites and never supposed to resort to self stimulation. When they do it is seen as pathetic, because a man is defined by his conquest of women.While women need permission to be sexual, men need permission to not be sexual. They need permission to be defined by other qualities if they wish. And they need permission to engage in self gratification without shame.

Eoghan
10 years ago

>The man is shameless. And look what Tec is trying to say now, sexbots = gendercide?

Sandy
10 years ago

>What? That's not what Tec is saying.Tec says "I'm not opposed to sex-bots, or porn, or sex toys, or whatever. Men want to be with sex dolls go right ahead. No, seriously. And why not?"

Sandy
10 years ago

>Tec is saying that the Stepford Wives shows gendercide, because the women are actually replaced with robots. That is the women are destroyed and replaced with robots.Do you have trouble reading?

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>"The link changed and it is now from another MRA-forum"Huh? Scroll down. The quote is from comment #3 in the thread, posted by the OP.

Yohan
10 years ago

>(Sandy said… Yeah, in the case of the Stepford wife the actual person is not only replaced but destroyed. It is the ultimate rejection of humanity in favor of machine.)David changed the link already to another MRA forum, which does not require registration.Where does it say, that women should not be replaced but destroyed?Anyway, this is entirely wrong, as MRAs never support such crazy statements like 'to destroy all women', but they recommend to reject and to ignore certain groups of malicious and greedy women. MRAs also recommend men to refrain from any private relationship with women in some certain countries as their laws are biased against men.Simply said, MRAs advice men how to avoid some serious mistakes in their life.

Tec
Tec
10 years ago

>@Yohan"Where does it say, that women should not be replaced but destroyed?"When you use Stepford Wife to describe the sex-bot. If you'd seen this movie, that's exactly what happens."Anyway, this is entirely wrong, as MRAs never support such crazy statements like 'to destroy all women', but they recommend to reject and to ignore certain groups of malicious and greedy women. "Oh noes! Just like they're not rape apologists and abuser excusers…eye rollsYou actually are saying MRAs would NOT choose to replace all womankind with some sort of automaton – whether a robot or a 1950s-style housewife who is completely under her husband's control – when several of their comments indicate exactly that? Bullshitter.That being said, MRAs have every choice to "go there own way" just you know, without any raping or otherwise exploitation of women, please.

Pam
Pam
10 years ago

>There are sex toys that are made specifically for men, too, and they've been using them for quite some time. Vibrators for women came into being at a time when women were thought to be (and prized if they were) completely asexual, aside from "for reproductive purposes".Guys that are excluded from the sex market are given shameful labels as are girls who are included in the sex market.Men are shamed for engaging in self-gratification whereas women not so much. However, men are cheered for their sexual conquest of women (not referring to conquest in a rape sense) whereas women are shamed for their conquest of men. And from what I have read at MRA sites, they don't seem to mind that double-standard……well, as far as keeping slut shaming alive, that is.

Sandy
10 years ago

>"Where does it say, that women should not be replaced but destroyed?"What I said was: Yeah, in the case of the Stepford wife the actual person is not only replaced but destroyed. It is the ultimate rejection of humanity in favor of machine.That's what happens in the movie Stepford Wives. The women are destroyed and turned into robots.

Katz
10 years ago

>The sad tragedy of all this is: the guys who actually need these lady droids will not be able to afford them. We know that for a fact. Think George Clooney (or any normal male) will want one of these?Please, please, can we start a Make-a-Wish for Manboobz organization?Dork and droid: it's a love match!

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Yohan: "David changed the link already to another MRA forum, which does not require registration."No it's not. The link was originally wrong, now it's fixed.

thevagrantsvoice
10 years ago

>Okay, now I get what you're saying, Tec. My apologies for misunderstanding you. However, in defense to the OP, I don't think he meant to imply gendercide, I think he was just talking about wanting an artificial woman and didn't know about the murder part in Stepford Wives.

Yohan
10 years ago

>(TEC: Oh noes! Just like they're not rape apologists and abuser excusers…eye rolls…..Bullshitter……That being said, MRAs have every choice to "go there own way" just you know, without any raping or otherwise exploitation of women, please. I recommend TEC to consult a psychiatrist and to stop to look horror-movies about zombies etc…It seems you are suffering severely of hallucinations – you see too many MRA-rapists day and night, in the street, in the supermarket and even in your own bedroom. About going our own way, yes, we MRAs are doing this. Whaaahhh, the MRAs… they are going their own way.About rape apologists and abuser excusers, you should better look up the sad story of male feminist Kyle Payne.

Sandy
10 years ago

>Yohan, every comment you make repeats one of two tired points:1. Feminists are bad too, see X feminist.2. You're all haters. I hate you.Maybe you can save yourself some trouble and create a fillable comment template.

Yohan
10 years ago

>Sandy said… Yohan, ….. You're all haters. I hate you…… Maybe you can save yourself some trouble… You still don't get it. We told you many many times, MRAs do not hate anybody.I feel sorry for you, you must be a very lonely bitter person trolling the internet. And now I am going home, and have dinner with my family… bye for now

Eoghan
10 years ago

>Sandy.I wonder if that double standard that you mention is all that relevant now? I also notice that women are often the first to slut shame and attach value to the male that is attractive to many women. As for double standards, thats the only one we hear about but when we think about it, there are far more sexual double standards that effect men and work in favour of women than there are the reverse.Some examples, man with a younger woman is pathetic and a pervert, woman is liberated and a couger. Woman with a faux penis is liberated, man with a fauz vagina is a pervert and a loser. If a man cheats he is wrong if its a woman cheating the man must be doing something wrong. Male sexuality is often portrayed as dirty and dangerous, female sexuality is portrayed as beautiful. Rape and sexual abuse are ok when its female on male, when its male on female its the crime that trumps all crime. When a female school teacher is with an underage student, its labelled seduction or an affair, when a male does its labeled predatory rape. When a woman is jealous she just is protecting her relationship, when a man is he is a controlling psycho, and men aren't really supposed to talk about the double standards that affect them, where as women are encouraged to talk about the one sexual double standard that doesn't work in their favour..You'll notice that a lot of those double standards I mentioned are enforced by women.Katsthats a good point, if a man is not well off enough to have value in the sexual market, how are they going to afford a sex bot? At the same time, a sex bot might be cheaper and easier in the long run for someone looking to avoid litigation and personal relations with a female.Kats when these guys are talking about separatism and sex-bots, its in reaction to women like you that equate the sexual and human value of a man with how much material and social value you stand to gain from having sex with him. Many guys are now conscious enough to reject this objectification and gender role that is by and largely enforced by females, many view female to male objectification as darker and more sinister than male to female. Sandy, can you see Kats sexual double standard re. objectification?

Christine
10 years ago

>It is perfectly fine with me if MRA's practice "going their own way" as there will be less risk for women to become involved with a man who is out to expoilt her for their own needs based on ridiculous ideas of what they should be, do, say, think, etc.. There will be less risk of a woman becoming involved with a man who will pop her around for not meeting the MRA's unrealistic expectations and resisting his control. Women will have better odds of finding a partner who understands women and knows how to have healthy relationships with them. The drawback is those MRA's who practice "game" in order to exploit women for sex and other benefits.

Christine
10 years ago

>I shouldn't have said exploit women for their own 'needs' in comment above…it should have been for their own 'wants'. The bot would be a good substitute for MRA's seeking to rule over a woman and have her submit to him and serve him. They don't recognize women as human anyway, but as a tool to serve them…clean their homes, cook for them, raise their children, give them sex, agree with them, and otherwise submit. What selfishness.

Eoghan
10 years ago

>ChristineIm not sure that many of these guys want to rule over women at all, "going their own way" is a rejection of legal and social inequality and increased personality disorder related behaviour eg. narcissism, abuse… you will find the odd ejit saying something to the effect of wanting obedience, but using those odd comments to stereotype the meaning and members of the whole movement is just the same fallacy that David repeatedly uses here on this blog And women wont have better odds of finding a partner. When monogamy/marriage breaks down, what we have is a PUA paradise and unofficial harem system or a system like any of the great apes have.. 20% of the males (the ones with resources) having sex with 80% of the women (hoping to gain socially and financially), thats evident in the casual sex scene and from what I know, the distribution of stds. Whats more stereotyping men engaging in casual sex as "The drawback is those MRA's who practice "game" in order to exploit women for sex and other benefits" is just another way of saying, men having causal sex without paying women some long term price for it is shameful and wrong, isn't it? So here you are openly trying to use shaming tactics to enforce objectification and gender roles.

Eoghan
10 years ago

>while I take it that you support women in having casual, no strings sex…Sandy, see the sexual double standard?

Christine
10 years ago

>@eoghan…many, many MRA's are quite open about their "superiority" over women and their desire to exercise control over them. It's a common theme throughout the MRM community.

Eoghan
10 years ago

>PamIts not, and the idea that men have an inherent need to control women as a group, is feminist political rabble rousing, that myth was arrived at by taking the characteristic of a minority of people with personality disorders, pretending that only men with PD have these characteristic and then mapping them on to men as a group. You dont seem to contribute anything here bar backing Davids false premises and I think before you throw stones at other's attitudes to gender roles and sexual double standards you should look at how women enforce them, as I said to you above."Whats more stereotyping men engaging in casual sex as "The drawback is those MRA's who practice "game" in order to exploit women for sex and other benefits" is just another way of saying, men having causal sex without paying women some long term price for it is shameful and wrong, isn't it? So here you are openly trying to use shaming tactics to enforce objectification and gender roles, while I take it that you support women in having casual, no strings sex…"Men shouldnt have to pay women for sex and there should be no same in having casual, no strings sex. If you are saying that men should pay a long term price to women for sex, and that seeking casual sex is somehow dirty or wrong you are no different from some oddball on an obscure blog saying so crap about traditional domestic roles for women, same crap different perspective.

Tec
Tec
10 years ago

>@Vagrant's VoiceIt's pretty clear that many MRAs would want an automaton – whether flesh or metal – with no free will. If you want to give them the benefit of the doubt though, go right ahead. Personally, I've done that for a long time, and now I don't because always, given enough interaction time, they leave no doubt. Take a look at Eoghan and Yohan's rants about false rape and male victims and then their rants recently illustrating that they don't respect consent…@Yohan – with regards to MRAs being rapists and apologists, in your own words, "the truth hurts don't it?"@EoghanThere are so many things wrong with your posts. Let's look at a small snippet of the underlying assumptions, just of the top of my head:1) A majority of men would prefer sexbots to women2) A majority of women would NOT prefer sexbots to men but in fact3) NO women would prefer sexbots to men so that4) There will be a large disparity between men and women looking for partners and this is the result of5) The tired "men want sex/women want intimacy" meme that goes a little further to say6) Women don't have sex for enjoyment, in fact 7) Women don't enjoy sex at all it is just8) Women are gold-diggers looking for a man to exploit which are part of 9) The exact stereotypes you go off on are part of feminism* because10) All feminists are anti-sex and anti-male*In fact the stereotypes you describe are part of the whole slut/virgin dynamic that is you guessed it – the Patriarchy (TM) and feminists are trying exactly to deconstruct those stereotypes.MRAs on the other hand, have no problem espousing said stereotypes against women, so really you're raging against the flip side male stereotypes that you yourself support and proselytize… doublethink or what?

Yohan
10 years ago

>Christine said… @eoghan…many, many MRA's are quite open about their "superiority" over women and their desire to exercise control over them. It's a common theme throughout the MRM community. It depends what you consider as superiority or control. Maybe you can explain. I got more the impression over the last 30 years or so, that most feminists are very unhappy and lonely people, who envy and even hate the existence of functioning families.Of course, if a family – often 3 generations sharing the same rooms – should function over decades without falling apart, there are rules to be respected by everybody in this family regardless if it is the husband/father, the wife/mother, the children or the grandparents.Within a family you cannot just do what you like, you have to consider the other ones next to you. – This is something what feminists do not understand. Their response is often so-called shaming language.MRA = superiority, control over women etc… – that's nonsense talk.MRA means to say NO to feminist unreasonable demands.

Eoghan
10 years ago

>Only problem is Tec, I didnt make any of those assumptions in the first place, with one exception maybe, I say that most women practice hypergamy meaning that female attraction and objectification of men involves the mans having material and/or social resources, as a few of the feminist confirmed with their posts.As usual you are making a large post based on things are aren't true.This whole blog and 99% of what the feminists here say, is based on misrepresentations and fallacies.

Sandy
10 years ago

>Eoghan, I would disagree that a lot of the double standards you posted are realities. But for the sake of common ground: there are sexual double standards against both men and women and they are enforced by both men and women. The fact that women enforce double standards against women and men enforce them against men does not make them less relevant. In fact, if it were not for the help of men in oppressing men and women in oppressing women, sexism would much more easily be overcome.

Sandy
10 years ago

>Yohan, when you say hateful things like "you must be a loser" it shows that you are hate. Or at least dislike or have disdain towards. I was being flippant with the "You guys are haters, I hate you."

Sandy
10 years ago

>Yohan, also it is really funny that your response to my "template" post flips the template. "You hate MRAs. You are a pathetic person." I think I will design the fillable template for you.

Eoghan
10 years ago

>SandyWith respect, I think that you will only see the double standards that feminism promotes as the double standards, when double standards that are not given feminist approval are discussed they are deemed not to exist, but only by feminists as you can see with the out of hand dismissal of everything and every piece of independent research that does not conform here. Men discussing their roles and the enforced roles that women and feminism promote is deemed incorrect speech and thought. I think that is demonstrative of just how far behind men are of women in terms of gender role liberation and addressing the double standards that affect them. As for the women needing permission to be sexual, its mainly just left over rhetoric from the last century thats no longer relevant in todays world or media. If women hold back sexually, its generally done for self serving reasons as opposed to following societal norms that dont really exist any more. It also serves to keep feminism going, the sexist wage gap, gendered abuse and this idea that women are some how more sexually restricted than men are all outdated, now falsified and political.

Sandy
10 years ago

>Eoghan, that is not true. I see many double standards that hurt men, just not all of the ones you list. I think some of your "double standards" are overstated. For example, a woman who uses a strap on is seen as a pervert in many circles.I agree that men are far, far behind women in terms of liberation from their gender role. Even acceptable dress of men demonstrates this. A certain vein of homophobia also demonstrates this: the vien that focuses on effeminate men.However, you have overstated the advances in female liberation from gender roles. Women are still no free to be as sexual as men (while men are not free to be anything but fanatically sexual). There is still stigma against women for sleeping around, engaging in one night stands, etc. Furthermore, there are still societal norms that injure women every day. An assertive woman is a bitch, an assertive man is simply assertive.

Sandy
10 years ago

>(Also I'm not a feminist, in the sense that I do not frequent feminist blogs, although of course I am concerned with gender equality. As a divorce attorney, I'm actually a disillusioned men's rights supporter. I am extremely frustrated with the ineffectiveness of the men's rights movement.)