>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.
Category: antifeminism
>
Well, this is interesting. Last night, idly perusing the latest posts by blogs on my Enemies List I noticed a new post by Paul Elam. It was a doozy, and I don’t mean that in a good way. Under the seemingly innocuous title “Challenging the Etiology of Rape,” the post mocked and blamed rape victims for the crime of getting raped. I copied the most obnoxious bits onto my computer, planning to write a post about it.
Now it appears Elam has deleted the post, and the comments associated with it. [NOTE: Apparently the vanishing post was actually the result of an issue with the web host. It’s now up again. On to the content of his post.]
Here, minus a little of his rhetorical huffing and puffing, is the basic thesis of his post:
I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires so they can get shit faced on the beta dole; paying their bar tab with the pussy pass. And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes … these women end up being the “victims” of rape.
But are these women asking to get raped?…
They are freaking begging for it.
Damn near demanding it. …
[T]here are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.
What’s there to say to that? It’s odious, simply odious. Anyone who makes such an argument thereby destroys whatever tiny bit of credibility, whatever moral authority, they once might have had to speak about rape, domestic violence, or, really any violence at all against women or men. Anyone who makes such an argument forfeits the right to be taken seriously on the issue of rape, or, really, on any issue at all.
By Elam’s logic, any man who gets drunk and hooks up with a woman he’s only recently met is “damn near demanding” to be falsely accused of rape, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE [ACCUSE] ME neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”
Hey, he should have known better, right?
By Elam’s logic, any man who gets himself sent to prison through an act of his own is “damn near demanding” to be raped, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”
Hey, he should have known better, right?
By Elam’s logic, any man who works in a profession where occupational injuries are relatively more common is “damn near demanding” to be injured or killed, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH … neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”
Hey, he should have known better, right?
By Elam’s logic, any man who joins the Armed Forces is “damn near demanding” to be killed, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE [KILL ME] neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”
Hey, he should have known better, right?
By Elam’s logic, any man who crosses a busy street without waiting for the “walk” sign is “damn near demanding” to be hit by a car, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE [RUN ME OVER] neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”
Hey, he should have known better, right?
By Elam’s logic, any man who does anything at all that might possibly increase the odds of anything bad happening to him is “damn near demanding” to face horrific consequences, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE [HARM] ME neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”
By Elam’s logic, neither men nor women should ever leave the house.
Oh, but wait, most accidents happen at home (just as most rapes involve people already known to the victim, not random strangers at bars). So anyone staying at home is “damn near demanding” to trip and fall down the stairs, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE [INJURE] ME neon sign glowing above [his or her] empty little narcissistic head.”
I guess we’re all empty-headed conniving bitches. Each and every one of us on planet earth. But the only people Elam thinks to apply his logic to are female rape victims. That says a lot, and none of it good.
NOTE: Elam has (among other things) banned me from commenting on his site, and relagates all critical comments on his website to a special board for “feminists and manginas,” so any comments he makes here will be deleted.
NOTE #2: Just to forestall what could become an endless and pointless debate in the comments: Elam is not saying, as he puts it, that women “are literally asking men to rape them” — that is, walking up and saying “rape me please.” That would be absurd. He is speaking more colloquially, as am I.
Share this:
>
 |
| Bill O’Reilly secretly spreading Feminazi man-hate. |
The fellow behind the charmingly named Anglobitch blog — devoted to the notion that “Anglo-American Women Suck!” — has delivered up a rambling, loopy rant about hate crime legislation, which essentially suggests that the very existence of such legislation reflects an “inherent, all-pervasive hatred of men” in the “Anglosphere.”
For while Hate Crime is prohibited by each Anglo-American national state, pan-anglosphere misandry is actively promoted by each state against its male citizens.
His first example of this is … Rupert Murdoch’s media empire. I’m not sure exactly when Murdoch was promoted from media mogul to head of state, but never mind. Our Anglo-blogger is off and running:
The Murdochratic media ceaseless vilifies men as outcasts, misfits and sexual deviants while exalting women as paragons of virtue, beauty and intellect. This anti-male propaganda is at least as relentless as the Nazi media campaign against the Jews –– but even more insidious, since its agendas are covert and unstated. … And, as in the Third Reich, hatred of the outcast group (in this case, men) has been fully normalized since the rise of gender-feminism in the late sixties.
Uh, yeah, that agenda is pretty … covert. I don’t remember there being a lot of Jews at the top of the Nazi party. But it seems like every time I turn on Fox News I see someone from “the outcast group (in this case, men)” spewing what to the untrained ear sounds like reactionary nonsense. (I mean, there’s Gretchen Carlson, but she’s got to share the set with Steve Doocy and that other dude.) But apparently I can’t see Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck for what they are: footsoldiers of our feminazi overlords. Er, overladies? Overwomyn?
Our Anglobitcher then moves from the anti-male evils of Murdoch to the anti-male evils of the law. Apparently divorce law is so biased towards women that
many Anglo-American women consciously plan for a ‘starter marriage’ to fleece some unsuspecting male [which] proves that malicious misandry is rapidly becoming a female lifestyle-choice.
After a brief denunciation of the welfare state — men pay the taxes and women benefit! — Anglobitcher comes to the US military draft, for which only males have to register “despite them being tacitly viewed as Untermenschen by law, government and the media.” Hey, I didn’t like having to register, and I don’t think any one of either sex should have to, but, uh, no one has been drafted in the US since the Vietnam war.
So the first of his examples of state oppression is based on the idea that Rupert Murdoch is The State, not to mention some sort of feminazi. And his last is based on guys having to sign what is for all practical purposes a meaningless scrap of paper. The Anglobitcher nevertheless concludes “that males represent the primary victims of ‘hate crime’ across the Anglosphere.”
Oh, but he’s not quite done. For what angry denunciation of hate crime laws is complete without, you know, some good old-fashioned homophobia, served with a side order of transsexual-bashing:
It is also telling that the only male groups effectively protected by pan-Anglosphere hate-crime laws are gays and transsexuals. This is entirely to be expected: such males simulate the female role which, as we have endlessly observed, is routinely and blindly exalted by Anglo-Saxon culture. When the only way for men to achieve protection from ‘hate crime’ is to adopt homosexuality (or female genitalia) the true nature of Anglo ‘patriarchy’ reveals itself. Only women and their mincing mimics can enter that charmed circle; the healthy, potent male never can.
Dude, you’re an Anglodouche.
EDIT: Mr. Anglobitch has responded to this post. His response is actually a bit more coherent than the original post, though, admittedly, that’s not much of an accomplishment.
Share this:
>
Men’s Rights Myth: The Pay Gap between men and women doesn’t exist, but if it does, it’s because women choose to take lesser paying jobs, or because they decide to have kids, or because men work more dangerous jobs, or something.
The Truth: It’s complicated. Some of those things do make a difference. But no matter how you crunch the numbers or spin the results, there is a persistent pay gap between men and women that can’t be explained away by life choices or any of the other factors that MRAs and others suggest may “really” account for the differences.
You want the gory details? Check out these articles, studies and blog posts.
AAUW (American Association of University Women): The Gender Pay Gap
Women have made remarkable strides in education during the past three decades, but these gains have yet to translate into full equity in pay — even for college-educated women who work full time. A typical college-educated woman 25 years and older working full time earns $50,000 a year compared to $70,000 for college-educated male workers 25 years and older — a difference of $20,000! …
For the entire full-time workforce, a typical woman earned $35,745 compared with $46,367 for a typical man, a pay difference of $10,622.
EXAMINING THE CRACKS IN THE CEILING: A SURVEY OF CORPORATE DIVERSITY PRACTICES OF THE S&P 100 (Calvert investments)
The “Glass Ceiling” is still a problem (emphasis added):
We remain disheartened by the glacial pace at which women and minorities are reaching the upper echelons of power. … Of the 100 CEOs represented [in the S&P 100], 92 are Caucasian males. While women make up approximately 18% of director positions within the S&P 100, they represent only 8.4% of the highest paid positions within the same group of companies, positions that provide the opportunities to develop the expertise and networks needed for future board-level appointments.
Why Do Women Still Earn Less Than Men? by Laura Fitzpatrick (Time magazine)
U.S. women still earned only 77 cents on the male dollar in 2008, according to the latest census statistics. (That number drops to 68% for African-American women and 58% for Latinas.) …
Once you control for factors like education and experience … women’s earnings rise to 81% of men’s. Factor in occupation, industry and whether they belong to a union, and they jump to 91%. That’s partly because women tend to cluster in lower-paying fields. …
But industry doesn’t tell the whole story. Women earned less than men in all 20 industries and 25 occupation groups surveyed by the Census Bureau in 2007 … Female secretaries … earn just 83.4% as much as male ones. And those who pick male-dominated fields earn less than men too: female truck drivers … earn just 76.5% of the weekly pay of their male counterparts.
Women’s Earnings: Work Patterns Partially Explain Difference between Men’s and Women’s Earnings (GAO report, 2003) (Emphasis added)
Of the many factors that account for differences in earnings between men and women, our model indicated that work patterns are key. Specifically, women have fewer years of work experience, work fewer hours per year, are less likely to work a full-time schedule, and leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men. Other factors that account for earnings differences include industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure. When we account for differences between male and female work patterns as well as other key factors, women earned, on average, 80 percent of what men earned in 2000. While the difference fluctuated in each year we studied, there was a small but statistically significant decline in the earnings difference over the time period. Even after accounting for key factors that affect earnings, our model could not explain all of the difference in earnings between men and women. … we cannot determine whether this remaining difference is due to discrimination or other factors that may affect earnings.
Blaming Women’s Choices for the Gender Pay Gap, by Hilary M. Lips
The language attributing women’s lower pay to their own lifestyle choices is seductive—in an era when women are widely believed to have overcome the most serious forms of discrimination … Women work in lower-paid occupations; on average they work fewer paid hours per week and fewer paid weeks per year than men do; their employment is more likely than men’s to be discontinuous. …
However, a closer look reveals that the language of “choice” obscures larger social forces that maintain the wage gap and the very real constraints under which women labor. The impact of discrimination, far from being limited to the portion of the wage gap that cannot be accounted for by women’s choices, is actually deeply embedded in and constrains these choices.
See also:
The Gender Wage Gap: Debunking the Rationalizations, by Hilary M. Lips
Confronting the Gender Gap in Wages, by Deborah Kolb, Judith Williams, and Carol Frohlinger
Barry Deutsch at Alas, a blog has written a series of excellent posts analyzing various antifeminist pay gap myths. Let’s take a look at some of the highlights:
Wage Gap Myth: The pay gap only exists because men work so many more hours than women.
[T]he argument is generally that the pay gap … has nothing to do with discrimination. … Women are paid less because they work so many fewer hours …
According to a [Department of Labor] web page in 2001 … comparing only hourly wages, women were paid 83.2% of what men were paid in 2000. 83.2% is a noticible difference from the 76% figure for weekly full-time wages – but it still leaves the majority of the pay gap unaccounted for.
Myth: The pay gap only exists because women take time off from work to raise kids.
[T]he average female worker has 12.79 years of full-time experience, while the average male worker has 17.41. This difference accounted for between 26% and 30% of the total wage gap.
Myth: The pay gap only exists because women haven’t been in the workplace as long as men
In this view, the pay gap is only still around because women only recently entered the workforce; as such, women haven’t had as much time to work their way up the employment ladder to the well-paid positions. …
[E]xactly how long must we wait…? A woman who had been in the workforce five years when the Equal Pay Act was passed [in 1963] might well be retired by now, and the pay gap still hasn’t gone away.
Myth: The best way to measure the pay gap is to consider only the young and the childless
[T]he effects of discrimination add up over a lifetime. So, for example, losing a single job offer or promotion usually won’t make a big difference; but dozens of such small losses over the course of women’s careers eventually add up to a big wage gap.
Some industries have, in effect, saved money by gradually replacing a male work force with a female work force. But there are many reasons employers might retain a male workforce, even though … men are paid more on average.
[E]xamples that clearly demonstrate that economic discrimination against women, contrary to the claims of the anti-feminists, is a real problem.
Myth: The Wage Gap is Caused by Men’s Higher Pay for Dangerous Jobs
It’s true that men are much more likely to die or to be injured on the job than women. Surely no one would be willing to risk their life without getting paid a premium for it; and no reasonable person would argue that extra pay for extra danger is unjust. …
The problem is, there is no premium for dangerous jobs. And since the “danger premium” doesn’t really exist, it can’t explain the wage gap.
Myth: The CONSAD report clearly refutes the notion that there is pay discrimination
There are important kinds of direct employer discrimination which CONSAD’s methods cannot measure or disprove. For example, some employers are more likely to hire women to lower-paid positions and men to higher-paid positions. (Empirical testing – by sending male and female testers to apply for the same jobs — has proven that this sort of sexist occupational sorting sometimes happens.) …
[P]robably the most important kind of sexism going into the wage gap is the sexism of unquestioned assumptions; unquestioned assumptions about who does the housework, unquestioned assumptions about who does the child-rearing, unquestioned assumptions about innate ability, and most of all, unquestioned assumptions about how jobs are designed for people with wives at home.
I call this last factor the “Father Knows Best” economy; most jobs implicitly assume that workers have wives at home who are taking care of the kids and house, so that these responsibilities never need to be accommodated by employers. Maybe that assumption made sense half a century ago, but it doesn’t make sense now; and by continuing to implicitly make this assumption, our economy is making it unfairly difficult for caretakers (who are usually women) to have careers.
Share this:
>
 |
| Oops. Wrong picture. |
A fiftysomething British woman is seduced and abandoned (and ripped off to the tune of £40,000) by a twentysomething con man, and it’s all the fault of … feminism? The Elusive Wapiti, a right-wing Men’s-Rightsy blog, writes about the case of one British woman let herself be charmed by a sweet-talking young fellow on Match.com and, despite an endless stream of obvious lies from him which should have kept the alarm bells in her head ringing continuously, agreed to meet him in South Africa, and ultimately hand over a huge chunk of her life’s savings to him. Her actions were incredibly stupid; the story is pathetic and sad.
And according to The Elusive Wapiti, feminism is to blame. And it actually kind of is. But not for the reason Wapiti thinks:
Today’s exhibit is a Brit named Caroline Gates-Fleming, a twice-divorced middle-aged woman desperate to maintain her relevance in a culture that, thank you feminism, shackles feminine worth to her ability to attract a man.
Huh? Apparently I’m not up-to-date on the latest anti-feminist stereotypes. I thought feminists were all supposed to be man-hating lesbians, living alone with their cats and their “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” posters. But apparently it’s feminism — not, say, our sexist society — that makes women feel like they’re nothing without a man. Wapiti continues:
Hilarity ensues when a being that is accustomed to easy-come-easy-go male attention since the age of 15 experiences the shock of watching her attractiveness slowly die, after decades of taking it for granted and kicking perfectly good men to the curb.
The “perfectly good men” are her ex-husbands, though I’m not sure how Wapiti has determined that she cast them off for no good reason. No matter, Wapiti is just warming up. He returns to his main theme: Feminism bad!
[T]hanks to feminism, the old morality that once protected women from the siren song of their gonads has been stripped away. Used to be that women in their late 40s / early 50s were respectable housewives and grandmothers in stable if somewhat less than satisfying marriages, and slut-shaming and other social conventions kept them there, safely ensconced.
Ah, the good old days, when women stayed married, no matter how miserable they were, and gave up their sexual desires once they hit, say, the age of 47.
Now we discover that supposedly mature women instantly morph into priapic young boys–subbing vulvas for penises of course–given the right stimulation to their egos and hopes of emotional intimacy long since gone.
Damn you, evil feminism, for convincing women they might possibly have sex in their late 40s or — gasp! — older! Quite possibly with younger men! I mean, it’s not like men in their late 40s ever want to have sex with women younger than they are. I have never, ever heard of that happening, ever.
EDIT: Added a sentence in the second paragraph to make my point clearer.
Share this:
>
 |
| Feminist witches have captured Jack Nicholson! |
Today’s tasty helping of antifeminist crackpottery comes from Len Hummel, courtesy of henrymakow.com. In an article titled, for reals, “Satanists Seduce Women With Wicca,” Hummel asks:
Are you aware of the close connection between feminism, lesbianism, wicca, and goddess-worship? It is rampant and getting worse by the minute.
Vast numbers of women today have been seduced into the occult, satanism, and various forms of witchcraft and wicca by the evil spirits behind those movements and feminism. …
Consider these insights from a Christian researcher who has investigated these very disturbing developments among modern-day feminists: …
“Much of what is currently published under the guise of New Age “enlightenment”, is nothing less than Old Age doctrines of nefarious invisible hosts. As in antiquity, so in modern times, those who practice paganism are guilty of worshipping “devils”…
Share this:
>
 |
| Actual Father’s Rights Demonstrators |
This is the first in what will be a series of “Further Reading” posts that will provide links and brief excerpts/summaries of posts, articles and books useful to critics of the Men’s Rights Movement. They will all be permanently listed in my sidebar. I will add more useful links as I run across them.
I’ve also started adding a series of pages that offer information and links rebutting more specific claims typically made by those in the Men’s Rights movement. These will also be permanently listed in my sidebar under the heading “Anti-MRM Info and Resources.”
Here are some useful general critiques of the Men’s Rights Movement:
Kathryn Joyce: “Men’s Rights” Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective”
These men’s rights activists, or MRAs, have long been written off by domestic-violence advocates as a bombastic and fringe group of angry white men, and for good reason. … But lately they’ve become far more polished and savvy about advancing their views.
A generally useful overview, with one caveat: Joyce considerably understates the amount of domestic violence that is perpetrated by women. See here for my thoughts on the subject.
Jezebel and Salon have pieces commenting on Joyce’s article. Amanda Marcotte offers some blunt opinions on the piece, as well as some reflections on her general experience dealing with MRAs.
Michael Flood: Backlash — Angry men’s movements (pdf)
In general, “men’s rights” is an anti-feminist and sometimes misogynist (woman-hating) backlash. Its analysis is wrong, its strategies are misdirected and sometimes harmful, and ultimately it does not serve men well. There are legitimate aspects to the issues it raises, but they will not be addressed when surrounded by its hostile and sexist agendas. … Feminism is a movement and set of ideas to which many men’s rights men show venomous and semi-hysterical hostility. … Men’s rights men in fact offer a bizarre caricature of feminism, a highly ignorant and selective misrepresentation.
A shorter, non-pdf version of the article.
Michael Flood: How the fathers’ rights movement undermines the protections available to victims of violence and protects the perpetrators of violence
While fathers’ rights groups often claim to speak on behalf of male victims of domestic violence, these efforts undermine the policies and services that would protect and gain justice for these same men.
Fathers’ rights advocates also: Make excuses for perpetrators; Act as direct advocates for perpetrators or alleged perpetrators of violence against women; Use abusive strategies themselves; Work to undermine and harass the services and institutions that work with the victims and survivors of violence.
More pieces by Flood and others on MRAs at XYonline.net.
Hugo Schwyzer: Masculinity and the failure of the Men’s Rights Movement
The problem with the men’s rights movement is that they confuse men’s unhappiness with oppression. They assume that if men were in control, they would be happy, because patriarchal oppressors ought to be happy. Therefore, if a man isn’t happy, he isn’t oppressing. Newsflash, folks: Just because you don’t know you’re privileged doesn’t mean you’re not. Just because there are aspects of your power and privilege that you find alienating and burdensome doesn’t mean that you are any less a beneficiary of an oppressive system!
Other useful pieces:
The use of violence by fathers’ rights activists: A compilation of news reports
Jezebel: Should Feminism Be “About Equality For Males?”
Jezebel: In Canada, Men’s Rights Groups Gain Power And A Blogger Supports “Femicide”
Alas, a blog: Men’s Rights Activists, Anti-Feminists, And Other Misogynists Comment On George Sodini
Amanda Hess: Can’t Feminists and Anti-Misandrists Just Get Along?
Amanda Marcotte and Alas, a blog on MRAs’ legitimate complaints.
Blogging Molly: The misguided, embarrassing war against feminism rages on
