Notable Quotable:

Notable Quotable:

Remember, folks: whenever a woman says "die for me because you are a man," just look her in the eye and say "my body, my choice."

Tuesday, November 27, 2012


First of all, Bluurrrgghh!  It's 3:15 a.m. and I prefer to be heading for bed at this hour, but I just crawled out of it to work the day shift - yuck!  Plus it's spay day for Pooka; might as well get it over with.  She's fitting in well with us and the cats, and turning out to be a wonderful little dog!

Yesterday, Matt Forney linked my Anonymous Letter post, causing its hits to top 10,000, and the number of  sites linking it jumped from 9 to 25.  Thanks, Matt!  (To those of you who dislike Matt, watch that young man closely.  He's brash and he gets really obnoxious, but he's smart, he's courageous, and he's taking risks and educating himself.  I predict a bright future for him.)

AnyholycrapI'vegoneviral, I had an interesting conversation with rather insightful woman in the comments section, and then I noticed an odd little gem in my traffic stats:
Hmmm. Teh Grrlz are watching...
This is the brilliance thus far from the ladies who call themselves "Sheroes:"

I defriended someone who I had a huge crush on in high school. I used to respect him a lot and still thought well of him even though we've drifted over the last several years. He's gone all annoying white male libertarian in the last few years* and is now apparently a men's rights activist as well because he linked to this article:

And to that Fox article about the war on men that's been going around with comments about how right on they are.

Here's a sample from the first piece:
"They have the same job titles as you and they take home the same pay, but they work longer hours and they do harder work; they know that their productivity is why employers can afford to hire you to sit at a desk and shuffle papers. They know that if two drunken people have sex and both regret it in the morning, only one of them is a “rapist.” They know that “My Body/My Choice” actually means"My Body/My Choice/Your Wallet." They know that the minute they sign a marriage license, everything they own is yours, but nothing you own is theirs (except your debts) and you can walk away with cash and prizes, at any time, for any reason. Or for no reason at all."


"This is the gift that feminism has given to you – Independence. Scary, lonely, bitter, potentially impoverished Independence. For yourselves and for any children you may have. Most of you won’t blame feminism though; you’ll blame Male Privilege (which doesn’t exist.) You’ll blame The Patriarchy (which always gave women a far better deal than it gave men.) You will stamp your feet, flip your hair, and blame anything except the single cultural force that has devoted itself to suppressing and controlling masculinity. And you’ll go home alone every night to your cats, your Facebook Friends, and your vibrator. I sure hope that’s what you want."

I couldn't even bring myself to post a really annoying, trollish comment before defriending because I'm kind of sad that he's turned out to be such a douche. 

Do you have your own recent stories of jerks?"

"man that is a lot of stupid. I made the mistake of reading the whole article you linked to, and yeah, I don't really have any words. "

"Tell me about it! I am hoping so hard it was not a woman who wrote that because good grief."

"Pretty sure it was a woman! And on top of everything else (what the ####), she calls her son "kind of hot." Um, eww."

"I always get this feeling of "I really shouldn't click on this link. It's just going to make me angry"

I never listen."

">I couldn't even bring myself to post a really annoying, trollish
>comment before defriending because I'm kind of sad that he's turned
>out to be such a douche. 

I think you summed up your level of disgust nicely right there.

Also, that article you linked to? OMG WHAT. I JUST CAN'T EVEN.

I'm sorry he turned out to be a douche. How disappointing."


 Heads buried deep in the sand.  "Sheroes" indeed.  Pure irony.  


  1. When you're getting flak, you know you're over the target.

  2. The comment towards the end says it all: "I never listen."
    Yeah, we kind of had that figured out already.

    1. The mental vacancy there echoes rather loudly, doesn't it?

  3. Women say the same sort of thing to men all the time...sometimes even during a date. How is a feminist supposed to be looking out for her equal rights while a MRA is a douche?

    How is a woman to be sympathetic to her son WITHOUT bringing up real issues?

    Pushes like this are sorely needed.

  4. Hey, you know what you should actually do?

    Interact with our board in a forum where we're not just blowing off steam (which is the title of the folder, after all). We're really intelligent people (both women and men), and we're open to discussion since we are, you know, a discussion board.


    1. You probably wouldn't like much of what I have to say. I'll browse around a bit, but the post that linked me (and it's follow-up comments) was distinctly lacking in anything remotely resembling intelligence. It was little more than an immature girl complaining that some guy isn't what she wants him to be, and therefore he must be an eeeevil misogynist. (Because he couldn't possibly be right?)

    2. I don't think it's bad to complain in the proper forum, and we specifically designate that particular forum for complaining about how we're sad, confused, or disappointed because those are human things to feel, and we recognize and support the human experience. Frankly, I really think you did yourself a disservice by only looking in that particular forum, because that's our only no-foul zone where we aren't allowed to challenge each other and have a meaty disucssion about the assumptions behind what we're posting. Again, we respect each other as human beings and give each other space to have these feelings, but that's not all we're about.

      In short, if you just want to dismiss us without intellectually engaging with us, your loss and your misjudgement.


    3. Oh please.

      "...It kind of creeps me out that my rant showed up on someone's blog."

      (((OMG! This is the INTERNET???? People can see what I post????? Nooooooo! )))

      ....soooooo, what if I'm creeped out that my blog showed up on someone's rant?


      And this little gem:
      "She's annoyed that boys are treated the same way as girls sometimes."

      "Meaty discussion, you say?" "Intellectually engaging us?"
      Um, How can someone rip apart my logic if she can't comprehend my words? I am "annoyed" for quite the opposite reason: That boys are NEVER treated the same as women.

      Duh, again.

      Y'all are pretty young, aren't you? Don't feel bad, I knew everything when I was your age too.

    4. Did you read my previous post? Once again, that's not our debate forum. That's our blowing off steam forum, and it's explicitly not for discussion. It's for emotional reactions to things that are bothering us, because, as previously stated, we respect and support all aspects of the human experience. We have other forums for debate, intellectual discussion, etc. We'd love to have you explain yourself and your meaning further in those other forums, but the forum and thread you're reading is not the place in which to do it.

      We're a great group with members of all ages, backgrounds, and genders. It's really telling that you're making assumptions about us, namely that we're all young, inexperienced, and female. I honestly find it odd you're becoming defensive and condescending over me reaching out to you. Again, I invite you to investigate and come join us in the proper forum, where we can have a discussion and perhaps come to an understanding, or at least learn a bit about each other.

      And if you're not interested, I still wish you the best.


    5. Ma'am...
      If your son married one of the radical feminists who is apparently responsible for all the evils of the world, would you be disappointed in him? Sad for this decision? "But he was growing up so well!" "He was so promising, how did this happen?" What if he begins identifying as gay? Or any of a dozen other things.

      That wasn't an immature girl complaining that some guy isn't what she wants him to be, and therefore he's evil. That's a woman, regretting that someone she felt had more progressive views had shifted into such an extreme position, opposite of what she believes to be true and right. From what I'm understanding of your personality from this blog (and I understand it may not encompass your entire personality...for example, that dog and cat are really quite cute, and I'm led to believe that animals are decent judges of character, so it may be I'm getting the wrong idea from what you've written) you would have a similar reaction if your son brought home a young lady who promptly said "Hi! I'm So and so. I...oh, I remember you! You're right, he is cute, thanks for the suggestion! I'm one of those Grrrls over on Sheroes!"

    6. "would you be disappointed in him? Sad for this decision?"
      Sad? No. Concerned for his future and for the future of his children.

      "That's a woman, regretting that someone she felt had more progressive views had shifted into such an extreme position, opposite of what she believes to be true and right"


      "I couldn't even bring myself to post a really annoying, trollish comment before defriending because I'm kind of sad that he's turned out to be such a douche,"

      ...sound so reasonable and considered.

      Has it occurred to you that intellectual honest actually involves "reading those annoying, trollish comments," (hamsterlation: 'comments that make me feel icky') and assessing what FACTS may be behind them?

      Here's a thought-provoking scenario: She had a crush on him because he seemed genuinely masculine. Real masculinity isn't very common among young guys who are steeped in school-sponsored feminism, so such a guy would stand out. He has gone on to study the hypocrisy that surrounds him and he has the guts to say he doesn't like it. She doesn't see they hypocrisy, and isn't the least bit curious about it, so she now finds his attitude creepy, because she doesn't understand it.

      Possible? How will she ever know?

  5. Ah, I knew they were there somewhere. I haven't wandered our board for a while.

    *This* is what we mean when we say we have thoughtful debates and conversations.

    One page of "Why I am not a feminist" and one page of "Why I am a feminist"
    Everyday sexism, because some of us notice these things. Again, some don't.
    Here, we have a full debate that sprouted off of the first board there...the one about "Why I'm not a feminist". Otherwise known as "hey, we crazy radicals can indeed discuss and debate!"
    A nice little debate about whether women who choose to be stay-at-home moms are (wrong, setting back feminism, etc...) it may or may not surprise you to find out that several of the commenters said that there's absolutely nothing wrong with a lady choosing to be a stay-at-home mom, as long as it's her choosing.

    There is a huge difference between what can be found in a ranting space and what can be found in the general site. Just like (I assume) there's a gap between what you rant about on this blog and what you are like in real life. You are a mother. You have at least one child. You have adorable pets. In day to day life, I probably wouldn't think twice about talking to you, and you likely wouldn't start on a lecture about the evils of feminism (everything inside this parentheses is said in a quiet whisper...but do you realize the hypocrisy that all the feminists are evil, after you just lambasted someone as saying that her childhood friend was evil...something she never actually said?).
    Nobody is going to debate anyone on the Blowing off Steam board. If you go to a friend and specifically say "Look. I'm angry about something. I just want to yell about it. Either support me, or keep quiet. If you want to debate it, we'll do that some other time"...hopefully, they'll respect your wishes and either keep quiet or support you. Regardless of whether I agree with anything on that board, I will never challenge what someone says, because I've had days (the birthday where my family had no money and my supper was a peanut butter sandwich, for example) when I wanted to scream, and these women supported me. If you're looking for evidence of the ability of a Sheroe to debate, use logic, will never find it on BoS. That place isn't for logic. It's basically our padded, soundproofed room, so we can scream and cry and laugh and deal with emotions, without clogging up our other boards.
    I thought Sheroes was a bit too far out there for me until the day I was using my father's computer for homework and an instant message popped up from a woman, sorry that she wasn't in his soft warm bed with him. It's amazing how quickly one's attitude can change. I didn't need logic. Perhaps someday when your son comes home with that radical feminist or a puppy passes away or it's just a bad day, you'll be the one screaming into the internet, and we'll be the ones giving virtual *hugs* because sometimes, life just sucks, and stuff happens that we don't like, and we all need support at one point or another.

    1. "

      That one was interesting. I wonder how the author would respond to a less narrow perspective:
      1. The pay gap has been debunked by people who actually ANALYZED the statistics. It's closer to 7%, which is interesting in light of human nature and human abilities. The sorts of labor for which people pay, are the sorts one cannot (or would rather not) do one's self. Considering the differences between male and female brains and bodies, 7% is actually quite generous to women, and it indicates a great deal of surplus resource within our society. In other words, women in the US are doing pretty well.

      Regarding women in third world countries, has the author considered how MEN are treated within those countries? Even the utterly barbaric "Sharia Law" is as cruel to men as it is to women. And incidentally, it is in large part WOMEN who enforce it. Are you familiar with the recent publicity on "acid attacks" against women? The vast majority of those who throw acid on the faces of promiscuous women, ARE OTHER WOMEN! For Western feminists to use 'the treatment of women in undeveloped nations' as a justification to demonize Western men, is disingenuous at best. And "genital mutilation?" Horror of horrors!

      Male circumcision.

      This one is just naive:
      "I hate the idea of borders"
      That can only be said by a person who has never been threatened in a meaningful way, by an "Other." "Borders" are necessary to human survival, because humans must compete for survival resources. There can be no Us if there is no Them. Those who can't see the difference between Us and Them, will be overrun (and likely enslaved to the point of extinction) by the Them's who CAN see the difference. We don't compete to be mean, we compete to survive. We don't have to hate Them, but we must be wary of Them and we must be aware that there are plenty of Them's WHO HATE US, simply because we are not Them. Given the opportunity, those Them's would destroy us without hesitation.

      "The idea that it is somehow wrong that I connect feminism with racism, classism, discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender presentation simply infuriates me."

      I must ask if she is as infuriated by discrimination, both cultural and legal, against men. This is near the heart of feminism. Anti-male discrimination is supposedly justified by the 'lower class status' of women. But the truth is, women are one of the most protected classes on the planet. Even Sharia Law, misguided as it is, protects the human female so she can do the ONE thing the human male can't - produce more humans. Women aren't protected because they're special, women are protected because ova are more rare than sperm. Some people are immature enough to be offended by that fact, but how foolish do you have to be to become offended by human biology?

      "There are simply too many double standards in this country and around the world to say that gender is a non-issue."
      She got that right! (But she has no idea why...)

      It's too bad the post from your board is eight years old. I'd like to have a chat with the author today, to see if she has become aware of the deeply ingrained bias that has colored all of the "data" she quotes.


      That one was pretty interesting. It actually addressed some of the false premises on which feminsm is based.

    3. Well yeah, posts are old. We say what we wanna say, discuss it, and move on.

      But I can do the same thing with *any* blog or message board. I can go to every site I am part of right now and find boards that I don't agree with. And I can find boards that I do agree with. The point of a message board, or as they're commonly known, *discussion* boards, is to discuss things that you don't like, and things you do. I have a tendency to play Devil's Advocate on stuff that I agree with, simply to poke holes in their argument so that they strengthen it. We don't grow as people if the only people we speak to are those who agree with us wholeheartedly. Sheroes has atheists and Christians and I'm sure we've got some Wiccans, probably dozens of other religions our members just don't mention. We've got lesbians, straights, asexual, demisexual, pansexual, bisexual...basically, every shade of the rainbow and then some. Why do you think I'm posting here in the first place? I have a tendency to seek out those who support things I cannot understand, then try to figure out what twist of logic makes me believe what I do and they believe what they do (for example, my Twilight-loving friends). I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that He-Man is the epitome of attractiveness, and that for a lady to aspire to the status of Wonder Woman, she's ruining the world.
      To be entirely fair, I've got the entire series of Wonder Woman on DVD beside my bed and am in the process of rewatching it (my mom raised me watching TV shows she loved when she was young...The Equalizer, Knight Rider, Love Boat, Fantasy Island).

      To reply directly to your comments on the boards, though-
      Women shame and harm promiscuous women because there is a strong sense of "this woman must understand shame and pain for doing something so wrong". If women having sex wasn't seen as wrong, then, ergo, those attacks would stop.

      Males can still reach orgasm after male circumcision. In (which religion is it? Jewish? I've gotta go Google now) male circumcision is part of the religious rites. Having a flap of skin removed does not compare, in any way, to having a clitoris removed. That structure develops in the baby before biological sex begins to show. It either becomes a clitoris (where most of the organ is inside the body) or a penis. When male circumcision involves cutting off his entire penis, then they'll be analogous.

      Also, yeah, this is snarky, so you'll probably wanna ignore it, but you just fell victim to your own preconceived notions about Sheroes. I assume you're talking about the "Why I am a feminist" post (by the way, only four years old...that was posted in 2008. The user joined in 2004, so it's easy to get mixed up though). But, I decided to click on the user's name (Manteli Apulainen, right?) and nearly choked on my apple juice. Manteli is actually male. Ragnarok, who posted about Not being a feminist, is a woman.

    4. Yep. I missed that date thing, and I'm fully aware that society has become far more polarized in the last four years.

      If I may nit-pick, "If women having sex wasn't seen as wrong, then, ergo, those attacks would stop."

      Who thinks "women having sex" is wrong? What's wrong is female promiscuity in it's varied forms, because it undermines the family unit. It is more harmful to the family than male promiscuity, for a number of reasons I won't list here (but I will explore them in my book.) At the core of those reasons is this: Humans of both sexes will sacrifice anything, including their own lives, continue their genetic lines, but when push comes to shove, nearly all of us will favor the survival of our own progeny above the survival of someone else's progeny. In essence, for a man to be motivated to make the necessary sacrifices (read: work himself into an early grave) to support a family, he need to be assured that his children are actually HIS.

      A promiscuous woman will gladly (and selfishly) acquire orgasms and sperm from an Alpha who won't commit to her (because she's not high-status enough to merit the outlay of his resources) and then marry a reliable Beta who will raise the Alpha's children securely, believing they are his own. If all of society were to give in to those urges, that's a lot of sociopath/predator/parasite DNA being spread around in the population - not a good thing for the future of the species, let alone the family unit.

      As for circumcision, for a while in recent years, there was a trend in the US to "symbolically" circumcise infant girls by barely nicking their genitalia to "draw blood;" this practice satisfied MANY people who practiced female circumcision for religious reasons. Just like male circumcision, it was a considered a reasonable "no harm-no foul" solution. However, feminist groups put a stop to this harmless practice because it violated the PRINCIPLE that (female-only) genital mutilation is Bad. Nary an objection was raised about principles and male circumcision.

      Additionally, why are there so many women who have no problem defining and dismissing, the harm done to men by circumcision? And is the ability to achieve orgasm the only legitimate measure of sexuality? Is genital mutilation acceptable if the mutilated person can still have an orgasm and produce offspring? See above paragraph.

    5. I'd never heard of that happening before. I suppose the situation is that male circumcision is looked at by many people as an issue of functionality, health, etc (I'm not gonna debate on it, cause quite honestly, I don't know anything about it and I prefer not to seem silly by debating things I don't understand). It seems counterintuitive that an extra piece of skin is useful, when all sorts of bacteria and such could get in there, but again, I really don't know. I would expect the problem people have with female genital mutilation is that it's such an incredibly charged issue. In many countries, female babies are cast aside to die, because they aren't as useful as boys. In our country, circumcision is seen by many as the default option. The default option for ladies is to leave everything alone. If circumcision hadn't been happening for thousands of years, it'd hit a whole lot of stigma too. But when there is suddenly something being done that isn't common and has no cultural background to justify it, yes, it'll be attacked.

      Because women aren't men? Because when I hear genital mutilation, I think of a girl who is now a baby factory, not a wife. I don't think of a piece of skin tossed in the trash. So when my attention is called to that, I dismiss it as a lesser concern, compared to what genital mutilation tends to refer to. I would think of that guy whose wife went at him as genital mutilation. Not circumcision.

      How do I phrase this...
      When you vote for a president, what issues do you base your vote on?
      Does this mean that the issues you don't base your vote on are useless? Obviously, they are very important to those directly affected by them, but you vote, most people vote, based on what directly affects them.
      For gays, gay marriage and gay equality is a huge problem.
      For a straight gun owner, they don't give a crud about gays. They want a president who won't take away their guns. They'll fight tooth and nail to keep their guns. If the gays benefit, sure, that's good. Yes, it's an issue. Yes, it's a problem. But they have no way to relate to this problem. And when someone says "Big government is interfering in our private lives!!"
      They run for their guns. Stealing the rights of gays involves interfering in public lives too, but that isn't what matters.
      How many of the men of this movement really care and understand that a woman, subjected to my concept of genital mutilation, will never be able to have an orgasm? That's she's just a baby factory, not an active partner?

    6. "When you vote for a president, what issues do you base your vote on?"

      We all have different priorities, but one thing unites us - the the rights withing the Constitution. I will never again vote for a presidential candidate who thinks ANY of those rights should be compromised. Without those rights, it's nothing but a toss-up, which gang of despots will oppress us.

      That was some awesome insight on genital mutilation - it IS a VERY emotional issue. That's how we are manipulated into maintaining a double standard. Male circumcision is so routine most people don't give it a second thought, but female "circumcision" horrifies everyone for whom it is not routine. Politicians prey on our emotions, and set us into an Us vs. Them tizzy, so we won't stop and think logically about the policies they propose. If surgically altering genitalia is wrong as a matter of principle, what is that principle worth if it doesn't apply equally to everyone?

    7. And you notice, it's becoming more of an issue these days now that people are mentioning it, and more parents are choosing not to circumcise, except for those for whom this is a necessary part of religion. The times, they are a-changin. Have you seen the movie "What to Expect When You're Expecting"? A friend of mine got it the other day and we had a movie night. It was a great depiction of pregnancies, I felt...there was the young lady who had a fling with her sometimes-boyfriend and ended up miscarrying, the married woman who was trying to conceive for ages and then an unplanned night with her husband did the trick, the old man whose trophy wife excitedly told everyone "I'm pregnant! I feel like I'm glowing, I have so much energy, everything is wonderful!"...even the couple who went for an ultrasound, were told that their baby was male, and a few minutes later, found the wall of info and a pamphlet called "The circumcision controversy". An entire subplot of the movie revolved around a couple deciding whether or not to circumcise. That probably did more for the situation than a whole bunch of random people angry about it...because as I said, circumcision has been going on since biblical times, it's the default, and many people who watched that movie were probably shocked that this is actually a thing.

      Also, it's a really, really funny movie, except for the subplot with the young woman and her boyfriend, which made me cry.


    That entire issue is a straw man invented by feminists. It's simply ludicrous for anyone to suggest that it's a bad idea for someone to choose a life path that is rewarding and productive.
    Feminism has a problem with females who choose to do what the majority of females were designed to do. MOST women are born the mental an physical traits that are conducive to raising children in a relatively sheltered environment. Feminism finds it appallingly selfish that any woman might want to do what would satisfy her (not to mention, it would make some MAN happy, and it would likely produce happy, capable children) if it goes against the feminist demand that the majority conform to the minority.

    1. And you read the comments there, right? Like all the people who said that whatever a woman wants to do, as long as it's her choice and she's not being forced into it, is perfectly fine?

      Feminism, as I see it, is giving women the same opportunities as men and men the same opportunities as women. If Joe wants to be a stay at home dad while Jill works, that should be fine. If Jill wants to be a rocket scientist, she should be able to take the classes and get the job.

    2. "Feminism, as I see it, is giving women the same opportunities as men and men the same opportunities as women."

      But it doesn't give men the same opportunities as women. It gives women more opportunities than men. It literally takes opportunities from men and gives them to women, regardless of merit.

    3. [Citation needed]

      Like how we have to bust up those unions, because they steal jobs from non-union workers, and drive prices up?

    4. No citation necessary. It's called Affirmative Action. It may possibly have been justifiable, decades ago, as a temporary program, to kick-start more equitable practices. But it has become nothing more than discrimination, as evidenced by drastically reduced opportunities for qualified, hard-working men.

      The Unions are a completely separate issue, although there are parallels. Unions have become so corrupt that workers need unions to protect them from their unions.

      On a related note, consider this can of worms: When women entered the workforce en masse, the labor supply nearly doubled, nearly overnight. Whatever the moral implications, the undeniable fact remains that this drove wages down. It is not a coincidence that long term wage stagnation in the US, began at the same time as "Women's Liberation." Doubled competition for jobs is one of the primary reasons why few families can live on one income anymore. This hurts lower income families by reducing their options. It's also worth noting that like most feminist initiatives, its primary beneficiaries are middle and upper class women who have never been at risk for poverty. (The feminist "benefits" to poor women are that they don't have to starve, but they will remain poor.) I don't know the solution to this labor market issue, because there are millions of women who can and should be in the labor force, but I do know it's simply stupid to ignore it or pretend it has no consequences.

    5. OT, but noteworthy to you as a college student. You might want to share the entire brouhaha with your peers. Especially your male peers.

  7. Sassygirl, come on over. I'm researching these topics for a book, and I'd love some constructive, logical criticism. I'll leave out the emotion if you will.

    Serious civil debate. For the sake of intellectual honesty, I fully intend to explore variables that mitigate or even contradict my theses. However, over 200 comments in, the only logical criticism I've seen is of my tone, not my theories. You may have noticed that I will dismiss with extreme prejudice, non-logical arguments that hide behind trigger words like "misogyny," "bitter/angry," "mother-son issues," "NAWALT," NAFALT," etc.

    1. I've been to multiple years of a writing camp and regularly send stuff out to my friends for critiquing. And they do the same to me. I *love* constructive criticism.

      Yeah, I don't actually know what those last two mean, so you've completely lost me. But on the bright side, it means I won't try to use that in an argument...whatever it is...

    2. "Not All Women Are Like That," and "Not All Feminists Are Like That." If you want to understand the dynamics of male/female politics, you should take a look at it from the male perspective, not just the female perspective which has dominated our culture and politics since before you were born.

      You seem intelligent, yet informed by subtle bias, which is why I presumed you to be rather young. If you want your eyes opened, go browse the archives and comments of these sites.


      Here you will find a lot of the irrefutable facts behind the rantings of so many "angry young men" on Facebook and in the Manosphere.

      Also, read this seminal piece:

      It's not perfect, but it offers a startling perspective that cannot be dismissed.

      Oh and go to Youtube and watch just about anything by

      I have sympathy for your chronic pain - I have fibromyalgia w/ chronic fatigue. My mom and sister have it with chronic pain, and I'm grateful to have the "easier" variety.

    3. Ugh, yes, I've got friends with fibro. I'm one of the lucky ones in terms of my issues...there's a young lady I know who is barely 15 and fighting with insurance to get a motorscooter because she can't handle walking. I'm sore (and worse since my brother is about 6 and decided it'd be funny to grab my cane and hide it, meaning I forgot it at home two hours away when I came back from my Thanksgiving break) but I know I can push through it. I just pay for it later. Have you ever looked up the Chronic Illness Cat meme?

    4. Re: Misandry Bubble (just gonna post my thoughts as I'm reading this, rather than trying to sum up)

      Women with longer life expectancy-
      Well yes, women tend to not do such dangerous things. Having a longer life expectancy is good! Having a longer life expectancy at the expense of living that life is bad! The men went out to hunt, fight, etc, because men are strong and brave and women are weak and passive and good only for watching the children. It feels like this is saying that Rapunzel is the epitome of womanhood...after all, those princes kept trying to rescue her and getting killed, and how could she say anything against her life when there are these men getting killed and she's locked up safe in that tower? She doesn't get to do what she wants, but there's a price that must be paid for living longer. That price is that you do absolutely nothing with that life (I will never again be able to think of Rapunzel without remembering Tangled. One of my favorite movies ever. The animation was beautiful).

      Would you like men and women to switch outcomes?
      My mother is a military veteran, as is my father. One of my classmates is in the Air Force and another friend of mine is getting ready to head to basic training for the Army. Obviously, there are some women who wouldn't mind risking death, capture, all sorts of horrors in order to be able to actually live the sort of life they want.

      Voting rights's right there! In the constitution! In Schoolhouse Rock! "No woman here could vote no matter what age, 'til the 19th amendment struck down that restrictive rule". In 1920! That' can that be argued??? That's right there in the constitution! Nobody can be discriminated against because of sex. Until that amendment, NONE of the states allowed women to vote, with the exception of New Jersey, who revoked the right of women to vote in 1807.

    5. Doggone it, I had a big long reply and it made me remove half of it. So yeah. This is a continuation.

      Women laughing over a man being...ah...yeah. Ow.
      I'll see women laughing about a man being robbed of his manhood, and I'll raise you Facebook pages about how hilarious rape is
      And I'll even mention that they aren't doing anything, and toss in a freebie of a guy explaining how hilarious it'd be if a female audience member was gang-raped right there in the theater.

      We have no strong men in media these days
      I've seen old stuff (for example, Mr. T and Bill Cosby are mentioned. Fat Albert drives me bonkers, after my brother would leave that theme song on for hours, but The A-Team was great) and I've seen new stuff. I would argue that the definition of strong has changed, that a man no longer must reek of sweat and be covered in muscles to count as strong. Maksim Chmerkovsky is ridiculously masculine, complete with the dressing nearly all of his partners in tight black leather or as little as possible. A majority of the men on Dancing with the Stars (the pros, that is) are hetero (Louis van Amstel is the only one who is not). They can also carry these ladies (who are also quite strong) with ease. They're got killer schedules and still manage to do something awesome.
      This might be a good time to point out that I'm gay, so sexy man as a concept is confusing. However, the concept of oh my gosh, that is impressive, he is awesome, is not. I see someone who can do something I can't, or don't want to do, and I am impressed by them.
      Also, as a country girl, I feel obligated to point towards Trace Adkins, Toby Keith, Tim McGraw, Big and Rich...they are definitely in the media, country is getting bigger every day, and they are about as masculine as you can get. I'd list more but I'd have to look up names cause I'm terrible at names and having some brain fog to boot. It's interesting, though, how Big and Rich weren't diminished by having Gretchen Wilson, a heck of a strong woman in her own right, sing with them.

    6. And again. Dangit. Sorry for the novel here.

      Teach girls to devalue the importance of their fathers
      I love my father. My daddy, though? My daddy is the person I started not trusting when I was seven and he was playing a game online with someone who had a ladies name, and they were talking really nice to each other. I was seven. When you play a game against someone at seven, it's trash talk. Not polite. Could my daddy be doing something bad? No, never. My daddy wouldn't do that. Then came the day when my mom got a call at work. I was sitting in a chair, reading, and she called my dad, and then she came and got me and he drove me to my granny's house and then him and mom had a talk. I was a perceptive kid. I knew the general gist of what must've been going on. I was maybe 12 or so. My mom refused to say a word about it to me. I found out recently that her ex-husband...her gay ex-husband...had a female friend who called to tell him that she was talking to this guy online and thinking about setting up a face to face meeting. She was talking to my daddy. When mom asked if he would've gone, if she hadn't found out, he said he didn't know.
      My mother didn't do anything to ruin my opinion of my father. She specifically never said a word to me, because that's my father and I need to respect him. TV didn't do anything either. Media in any form. I never had TV growing up. My dad screwed it up all on his own.

      Feminist myths, such as women being the only abusees.
      Posted by a feminist sex-positive body-positive organization, Scarleteen. By the way, yeah, Scarleteen is pretty much awesome.

      Media attemps to normalize single motherhood
      Yes, they do. Because in our culture today, single motherhood is normal. It's not like the media is trying to normalize rape. Being a single mother happens. How does it make a situation any better to make a child feel strange and abnormal? By your logic, these kids are already losing something vital by not having a father around. How does it make it any better for mom to turn the TV on and see that she needs to have a father for her kids? JK Rowling took her little girl and left her husband when he became abusive. When she was trying to get a job and finding out that the welfare benefits she was living on would end if she did that, she asked how, why...and they told her that she should have thought of this before she left her husband. How does it make a child's life better for a woman to stay tied into a marriage where one party is a punching bag, or where one partner isn't happy? Kids are more perceptive than you'd think. That goes for men, too. If he's the punching bag, or he's not happy, then he should get out. The benefits of having a given parent around go way down if the kid can tell that the parents are only staving off a divorce for her, and that they would both be happier if they weren't married.
      Yes, kids think about that. Again, perceptive.

    7. " She doesn't get to do what she wants,"
      Most women DO want to have children. "Having it all" is impossible unless you have someone else to take up the slack - someone like a babysitter or a husband. That means that women should choose either/or, not both - career and children. And women have the right to chose either/or, but most women still try to choose both, and everyone suffers for it. She CAN do what she wants, but she has NO RIGHT to expect anyone else to do it for her. One of the lies of feminism is that women have no obligation to commit to either/or.

      "Nobody can be discriminated against because of sex. Until that amendment, NONE of the states allowed women to vote, with the exception of New Jersey, who revoked the right of women to vote in 1807."

      You are aware, right, that most MEN didn't have the right to vote until shortly before women got the vote? Are you also aware that most women DIDN'T WANT the vote until they were assure by politicians that the privilege would not be accompanied by the obligation to serve in the military? I'm not of the opinion that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, but I want to make it clear that women not having the vote was NOT a result of male oppression.

      "I'll see women laughing about a man being robbed of his manhood, and I'll raise you Facebook pages about how hilarious rape is"
      How much mass media outrage do you see when a man makes a disgusting comment about rape? (I'll give you a hint: it cost Republicans more that one seat in congress earlier this year.) How much media outrage did you see when a studio audience laughed and cheered as Sharon Osborn said she found the mental image of a man's penis in a garbage disposal to be "hysterical?"

      "Media attemps to normalize single motherhood
      Yes, they do. Because in our culture today, single motherhood is normal."
      First of all, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Second, and closely related, would single motherhood have become "normal" if feminist policies and feminist family court didn't mitigate the costs to women, for becoming single mothers?

      These are thing to seriously consider. I know you are young, and you simply don't remember when men felt free to be masculine ALL THE TIME, because there was nothing shameful about masculinity. I know you don't remember a time when it would be considered shocking to blatantly disparage men as a class on TV, but it really wasn't that long ago that women were actually civil, and most women were pretty damn happy to be that way.

      Just keep reading. Not all of these MRAs are 100% right all the time, but their perspective is at least as valid as any woman's. You have been taught that it's not, because men are cavemen and general-purpose idiots, but what you have been taught by society, is precisely what I am bitching about in the Anonymous Letter. It goes against biology, it goes against morality, it goes against civil stability, it goes against the social structures that brought mankind out of caves and put us in skyscrapers.

      Here's a radical thought for you: Look at the overall structure of society and the family as prescribed in the Bible. Don't dwell on too many picky, weird customs, just the general structure. I'm a Christian but I don't see the Bible as God's Holy Word; I see it as a blueprint for a very successful civilization. (One that just so happened to go on to dominate most of the planet.) Be an anthropologist and look at the Bible as a newly discovered text, without the spiritual and emotional baggage. Then compare it to modern feminism, which is a parasitic social model, fast running out of "host" after only a few decades.

    8. Re: genital mutilation

      Yes, because Sharon Osborne is a TV personality. Politicians make laws. If some lady was running for a political office, trying to get the power to make laws, and she said that we need to hack off penises, then that would get attention and ads and there would be a big flap about it. There is a big difference between a principal at a school saying "these rotten little snots need to learn some manners" and one of the students, maybe a high schooler, looking at the rest of the students and going "these rotten little snots need to learn some manners". One of these is in charge of making policies and obviously hates the people he is making policies for. The other has no power, aside from people looking up to him. Sure, it says to the other high schoolers "It's ok to call these kids horrible" and that's bad, obviously, but it pales in comparison to a man whose job involves dealing with those people saying horrible things about said people.

    9. Well for goodness sake, it yelled at me again. Sorry. I really like to talk. Darn character limit...

      So, by don't dwell on picky weird customs, you mean ignore the number of wives.
      If feminism is gonna self destruct, why don't you sit back and wait for it to happen, then come out waving your flag and screaming "I TOLD YOU SO!!!", rather than making a big hullabaloo about it now? Republicans didn't think their comments were that big a deal and nobody could convince them that all those women and poor people vote, so maybe they should shut up. They lost a bunch of elections this year. If you're certain you're right, just sit out of it, construct a fort if need be, and wait for the impending apocalypse. Why try to convince people of something if you're sure that it'll be obvious eventually? You are right, we are be happy in that belief. I'm a Christian, I'm sure that I am right in that belief, but I also know that it is very difficult to convince anyone of something they don't want to believe. So I don't preach to people...I serve as an example of a Christian, and I wait for them to convert or not on their own. I'm not trying to convince you to become a feminist, because honestly, I've never enjoyed running into walls (and I should know, I've done so multiple times, sadly. It really, really hurts). If feminism is going to collapse the world (perhaps 2012 signified feminism AND Obama's re-election AND Hostess going bankrupt! Yes, that was snarky. Oops) then why not let it? You aren't going to convince the feminists, just like they won't convince you. Just sit around and see who wins.

      Which came first, black people getting married to white people, or the idea that black people marrying white people was fine? They forced it to become normal because it was becoming normal. That is how the world works. It changes. We didn't have CHRISTianity until we had Jesus CHRIST. Nothing will change without some form of impetus.

      What about the women who don't want children?
      My health issues mean that pregnancy would be dangerous, difficult, and immensely painful. That is without the coin-flip chance that my kid would have the same painful condition I do. When this condition gets traced through the family line, each child of an EDSer tends to be more affected than their parent. My grandma is worse than my great-grandma, my mom is worse than my grandma, and I am worse than my mom. Even if my kid is healthy (and assuming I could manage with a young child, when I have random flare-ups of pain..."yes, honey, I'll pick you up. Oh, that's just my shoulder dislocating. Gimme a second, I'll slip it back in") I can't imagine telling them that I wanted a kid so much that I flipped a coin...heads, you're healthy, tails, you have a painful incurable condition and you will someday have to make the same choice.

    10. So how is it fair that a woman must choose either/or, but a man doesn't? Or does he choose career, and not family, and those people at home are just a female money-leecher and mini-leeches? Why is a father so important to the family if he chose career, but still fathered children, which, from what I can understand of your argument about mothers, means he will neglect them for that career?
      Basically, how can you say that a woman has more choices, when she must or family...but a man doesn't? You said that a woman can't do it all without a nanny or a husband. So...why can't she have a nanny or a stay-at-home husband? How is it socially frowned upon for that mom to have a career, and children, and a stay-at-home husband, but the same thing is fine for a father with a stay-at-home wife? And what exactly is the problem with a nanny/babysitter/whatever? I was a better caregiver to the kids I babysat than their own mother was (as in, I forbade them more DVDs, candy, etc than she did, and this woman's daughter still tried to leave her possessions with her mother and climb in our car when we told her that we were moving away). Why is it ok for children to go to school, but not a daycare or have a babysitter come over and watch them? A genetic bond to a child is no guarantee that the child will be treated well. You can find dozens of examples of abusive parents (fathers, mothers, and both together) out there. I'm sure you can find abuse by babysitters, daycares, nannies, foster and adoptive families as well, but the thing is, nobody and nothing is perfect. But very little is pure evil. And just because a large group of people have done bad things (soldiers abusing their power. Feminists. Republicans. Democrats. WHOEVER.) doesn't mean that the example can be generalized...or...reverse generalized? Something like mean that every member of that group is horrible. Just like a large group of people are good...that doesn't mean that some can't be bad. Mothers and fathers are both good, in a broad sense. But in the individual sense, there are plenty of bad ones. There is no one catch-all rule. It's individual.

    11. Anywho, to specify about age real quick, I'll be twenty-one in March. Short for my age. Old for my age. Read way too much for my age. Too argumentative for my age. That's why I love the internet. Unless I tell someone, they can assume I'm as old as they want, and judge me based on what I say, not how many years I've been in the world.
      But I feel as though I'm being seen as a teenager, and I wanted to have a quick, stereotypical hissy fit. I might be short. But I'm not a teenager. I fought for nearly all of these twenty years I've gotten through, and I am...hmm, phrasing...well, you've got a link to The Bloggess, we should be good...I am damn proud of those twenty years. No, it doesn't come close to my mother's forty-five, or my grandmother's seventy-one. It's not far from my friend's twenty-two, but not quite there yet. But it means that every time I sat in my room sobbing and wishing I wasn't around, I fought through that. It means that I am the happiest person I have ever been in my life. It means I made it through elementary and middle school, and one year of high school, as a punching bag, and I came out of it alive. For a long time, when I was younger, I honestly wasn't sure. For eighteen of those years, my brother has been around. I have survived every day, every meltdown, every time he hit and kicked and lashed out because he's six in his head and this is ok. So yes, I'm young, but damn it, I am not giving up even one of those years.

    12. Wow, that 's a lot, and it's a good start. Some specific points:
      Flip the script. Regarding Sharon Osborn,imagine the outcry if a male TV personality said the same thing about women's genital's. He would be out of a job due to pressure from advertisers, within 24 hours. In this culture, it is acceptable to publicly denigrate masculinity. It is NOT acceptable to publicly denigrate women. To you, this is natural, because it's all you've ever known, but trust me. It's not natural.

      I can't afford to wait for feminism t self destruct. There are innocent men in prison right this minute, accused of crimes against women, that they did not commit. There are young men expelled from college and incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of legal costs, because they have been falsely accused of rape. There are children of both sexes being abused and even killed, because our corrupt family court system LITERALLY PROFITS from putting with their female parents, whether those parents are dangerous or not.

      "Which came first, black people getting married to white people, or the idea that black people marrying white people was fine? They forced it to become normal because it was becoming normal. That is how the world works. It changes."
      If that is in reference to single motherhood being "normalized," here are the straight-out facts. There have always been single mothers all over the world. Until very recently, the vast majority of single mothers were destitute. The prospect of such poverty kept a WHOLE LOT of women from becoming single mothers. Throughout history, single mothers have always been a small segment of the population Until two things happened in the US: 1. No-fault divorce. And 2. Welfare and other public aid. It's simple economics. When the consequences for divorcing frivolously or having a child out of wedlock, were very very harsh, not many women did either. When the consequences for divorcing frivolously and having a child out of wedlock, became milder, more women did it. The number of children living with one parent, did not shoot up to around 50% (was not a phenomenon to be recognized and normalized) until AFTER "pro-female" (at the cost to males) laws were enacted. Incidentally, economics and market forces are yet another reality denied by feminism. No surprise there.

    13. ...continued...
      "So how is it fair that a woman must choose either/or, but a man doesn't?"
      That's a strawman and you know it. In most families, men's and women's careers are not anywhere near equal. And in childless marriages, considering how technology has made homemaking so much easier, there's very little reason for a wife not to work. HOWEVER. Children need to be raised by their parents, not daycare providers, and not teachers. I just read a blog comment by a woman whose daughter in law was complaining that her husband doesn't do half of the housework, after 10 hours on the job. M-I-L suggested a cleaning lady, but D-I-L is simply appalled by the idea of a stranger cleaning her house. Yet D-I-L intends to work after she has children, even though she doesn't need to, and she has already picked out her future children's daycare. How fucked up must a person's priorities be if she won't let a stranger clean her house, but she knows exactly which stranger is going to raise her children? My point is this: ONE parent (usually the mother, whose income is usually the smaller one) needs to stay home MOST of the time to raise any children they have. Accidental pregnancies happen, but nobody has any business intentionally having children they don't intend to raise. Feminism tells grown women that their desires are more important than their children's needs. Another lie. Children are not objects. They are not accessories. They are not bargaining chips or hostages to be used for personal gain.

      You are actually pretty bright for your age, perhaps in part because you have been exposed to a reality that can't be denied, in your brother, and in your illness. You're also emotionally strong, which makes you a threat to feminism. Feminism's social and legal leverage is entirely based on the notion that women are victims who can never overcome their victimhood without assistance. Assistance that is "owed" to them by those man old oppressive men. If you, a woman who has started out "behind the 8 ball," can succeed in life without mooching off of society, then anybody can. Even women. Which totally belies the "need" for everything feminism demands.

    14. Haha, no...actually, I'm a complete emotional wreck. I keep bawling for absolutely no reason (you can see the Sheroes boards, and you figured out my username...I posted a big long rant on that Blowing off Steam board about my stupid emotions driving me bonkers right now). I am not emotionally strong in the slightest. I've just been raised by a mom with two older brothers, who enlisted in the military fresh from high school, got married at 19 and divorced a couple years later when her then-husband realized he was gay, married my father when she found out she was pregnant with me, and has stayed with him for twenty one years, because despite how he behaves now, they got to know each other by writing letters as soldiers, stationed in different places. She saved the ones he wrote her (nothing can make him blush faster than pulling them out). Mind you, she also worked the entire time I was growing up. I spent a lot of time at my grandma's house. I still remember one night as a child, my brother was coughing like a seal and could barely breathe. My dad rushed us both out of the house and into the car (I in my underthings and nothing else), attempted to drive it, and when it stalled, he ran to our neighbor's home, called 911, and got our elderly neighbors to watch me. My mom was at work at the time. She came home, picked me up, and we went to the hospital (croup, I guess? Something like that. I was maybe 6, so my memory isn't great). My mom worked during my entire childhood, but when she was there, she made sure she was there. My dad is distant, even when he is in the same house. My mom wasn't around all the time, but when she was, she was actively there. I think the biggest reason I'm so close to my mom is that when I was in third grade, she got me the first couple of Harry Potter novels. My grandma set up a fit, so my mom (who didn't have much of a concept of "age-appropriate reading") decided to get her own copies and read them too. If they didn't bother her, she figured I'd be fine. And, well, I was. And am. So, we shared this book series together. When the first movie came out, we went to it together, to make sure it wouldn't scare my brother. By the time they started having midnight releases, my brother was old enough that it wasn't a concern, but we still went together, without anyone else, to every single one. I felt my mother's presence more than my father's, despite how often he was there and she was not. Time is not the only factor in raising a child.
      By the way, she went back to college a few years ago and graduated in 2011 with an Associate's in Accounting. I graduated high school in 2010. We had money left from taxes, and we spent three days in Orlando Florida, at Harry Potter World. My father has never tried to involve himself in my life. Instead, he takes me along while he does what he wants. I'm my mother's child. I'm my father's talkative accessory.

    15. No, it's not. It's turning a situation around. If we can turn around the situation of a woman making a joke about a guy losing his manhood, why can't we turn around the situation of the parent who must choose?

      And regardless, you are saying that the father is spending several hours at work. You're admitting that he is exhausted when he comes home. Exactly what is his function in the family, besides ATM? It sounds like he chose career and simply delegated the family part. There are two paths, kids and career. If one gender must choose, then why mustn't the other? The pay of the job doesn't have any effect on the situation itself. It's still a choice between working or kids. No matter how highly that father is paid, he is unable to afford technology to put him in two places at once. If a father is that important to the family, why is his main role to not be there at all? You're saying that the father is undervalued as being important to a kid, but in the same breath, the father is the sole breadwinner. He can't afford to take time off to spend with Timmy, because Timmy needs shoes. It's The Gift of the Magi, or a paradox, not sure which. Maybe both. It's 2am and terminology is messing with my head. I just...
      Men are getting the rotten end of the deal. They barely see their kids, they're derided as being useless, their wives don't appreciate them and -cut because I'm not going to snark here-
      Someone needs to stay home with the kids. A woman's job makes less money. She should stay at home.
      My argument is, if we stop stereotyping exactly what a woman can do (lawyers? doctors? managers? all the high-paid positions. Heck, lawyers especially. I've been here debating with you for how long now? Women can argue and find a loophole in something like nobody else. Even you must admit that, right? That's half your argument) then women will be hired for a highly-paid position. Then men will be able to spend time at home. Children will benefit from this important interaction. The pivot here is that we stop assuming that a job is specific to one gender or the other. Secretary and female do not mean the same thing. Nor do doctor and male. Lawyer and male. Astronaut and male. The stethoscope is used by the ears. Having a penis isn't necessary. But try this one.
      Ask someone to replace the words in this sentence with pronouns.
      The doctor informed the secretary that they spoke to the lawyer about the astronaut's lawsuit.
      And check how many say "He told her that he spoke to him about his lawsuit".
      When a job that is not gender-specific (so...actually, I can't really think of any that are gender specific. Help me out here?) has a specific gender attached to it, there is a problem.
      And yes, I'm just as annoyed that teacher, librarian, dancer, figure skater, gymnast and the like are all "her" and "she". Though I guess I'm not helping, as an Elementary Education major who wants to be a Children's Librarian. The thing is, I chose those. Nobody pressured me into them. Actually, people keep trying to pressure me out of them, for financial reasons. But women on a med school track, or law school (it's even a movie! Legally Blonde! I just thought of that, dang!) get mocked and informed that they need to quit, that it'll be too much. I'm getting this directly from pre-med friends. Unless they want to be a nurse, in which case it's ok, cause nurse is +female.
      Gimme a sec, I have to submit this or it'll yell at me, then I want to go over some linguistics things real quick. Bear with me, I've become incredibly annoying about this stuff since taking a linguistics course this semester.

    16. Alrighty, back again! Again, I am sorry, I'm writing absolute novels. But...well, I like novels. Dang, I should've signed up for NaNoWriMo last second, I bet copy-pasting all this would've gotten me to 50,000 words. Shoot.

      Ok, so here's the thing. There is this stuff called Semantic Features.

      It's like 1984, George Orwell. Doubleplusgood. Stuff like that.

      But it's interesting to analyze words we use with this.

      For example.
      Doctor vs Nurse

      What is the big thing separating those terms?
      They're both +medical, and +professional. Those don't need to be pointed out.
      Is one +feminine and the other +masculine?
      In some contexts, boy is +human, +male, -adult.
      In other contexts, it's simply -power.
      For example, a white male policeman who stops a black adult male walking around. He asks "What's your name, boy?"
      The black man is a highly respected professor. "I'm Dr. So and so."
      The policeman says "What's your first name, boy?"
      This is, clearly, a power situation, not an age situation.

      But now, we go through some things that reveal information about our culture.
      Slut vs Stud
      A stud, of course, is the male animal that you breed to all the females, to continue the line. As in, it's a male who gets lots of ladies.
      A slut is the female who gets lots of men.
      One of these is +good, or +neutral at best. The other is +bad.

      The way we think about people can be seen when something that is +bad, is also +a certain group of people. Try thinking of all the horrible things you can call someone. What are your worst insults, reserved for the most evil of evil people? If you're too polite, ask your son to check with his friends. They're college students.
      How many of those are +female? Not gonna type them all out, because, again, insults, rude, and I do try to be polite when I can. But seriously. Why aren't we calling women "female studs" when we want to insult them, if men are a lower class and this has been happening for years? Language shifts dramatically very quickly. Why is it "male sluts"? And why must we specify male? Have your son check with his friends, if you get a chance, and see what the term is for a man who does anything another man tells him to. See how many people start talking about female dogs. Interesting. Female dogs.

      I don't feel like I'm getting the better deal out of the world, when I'm the one who is used as an insult. The lesson here, in our language, is that if you are a man, being referred to as female is shaming and degrading. But a woman being referred to by male standards (you used this one yourself, when you thanked the woman for saying you write like a man) is a compliment. Why aren't you ashamed of that, if men are the ones slipping down the ladder? Why is being masculine a compliment? And more importantly, why is being feminine an insult?

    17. Humans come up with concepts for things that are worth noticing.

      Things that are boring, commonplace, we don't bother to name. Can you remember the name of the little plastic piece at the end of the shoelace? I couldn't. I had to Google it. "Aglet", by the way.

      So, I'm gonna repeat one of the things that I said in that last post, and then play with gender some.

      A man who does everything a man tells him to do is his _____. Start with B. Ends with H. (Beach, of course)

      A man who does everything a woman tells him to do is _______. Seven letters. Often used in a phrase "_____ and chains". Ask the college students. My class popped out with this one instantly. No thinking. At all. And we didn't think about the last one, either, once the teacher pointed out that we are in class and discussing curse words as part of linguistics is ok.

      So, we flip these around, keeping in mind that we have words for things that are out of the ordinary. Commonplace things, we don't bother to create a word specifically for it.

      A woman who does everything a man tells her to? My rather snarky mumbled answer was "wife". There were a few people who said "submissive". Neither one applies specifically and only to this situation. Can you come up with a word? If so, please tell me, that one has been bugging me.

      A woman who does everything a woman tells her to? My straight and engaged friend's snarky answer was "a lesbian", but she promptly covered her mouth in horror and apologized, and I was too busy laughing at her horror...not offended at explain what I had said to the last question. Fair is fair. But seriously. "Friend"? "Best friend"? Maybe you'll answer lesbian like my friend did, and I promptly mentioned that she...again, straight as an arrow...walked me into her church the first time I met her, when I was too nervous to go alone and asked her to. She gave me a ride to a party, a ride to the local store to get a medication refill, she took me to IHOP when the public bus didn't go there, and she took me to meet the cat and dog she was petsitting for afterwards. All because I asked her to. So, friend isn't descriptive enough, and lesbian is incorrect.
      We have no word for a woman who is submissive to anyone.
      But a man who is submissive to anyone has words to describe him. Cultures don't use words to describe something that is common. We only need to describe the things that are rare. Our very language says that women are submissive and men are dominant.

    18. "The pivot here is that we stop assuming that a job is specific to one gender or the other."

      As a society, we no longer do that, and we haven't for decades. We're not allowed to. An no, women are NOT told to quit law school and med school. Women are actively recruited to those schools, indeed with quotas. Do you understand what that means? It means that a man with greater aptitude, higher entrance exam scores, a higher GPA, will be excluded so that a woman with lower qualifications, can get in. It also means that while a better qualified man may be accepted to the program, scholarship money will be made available to women but not men, so the men still won't get in. There is currently a mad rush in colleges across the country, to recruit women into STEM departments. But there aren't enough women who are either qualified or interested, to fill the classes. You can't fake math; you can't make it easier. A person who can't or won't learn physics, is not going to be a qualified engineer. If women in these programs are being mocked, I guarantee it's coming from people (primarily men) who had to work much harder, have higher test scores, and higher GPA's, to get in to the same programs. I would mock them too, if they assumed that they were as good as everybody else simply because they were accepted to the program. I would also mock the many "George Bush types" who are accepted into the best schools because their parents made it happen.

      You said that gender should NOT be a consideration in professional occupations, yet gender is the PRIMARY consideration that feminism demands. The I've discussed the military more times than I can count in recent months. Since "too few" women could ever meet the men's physical fitness recruitment standards, feminists demanded that the standards be lowered, but ONLY FOR WOMEN, not for men. Feminists also demanded that women receive the same pay and benefits as men. Even though women in the military can't and don't do all the same work that men do. Did you read last week's flak about female Marines trying out for combat? 80 women in the entire Corps were qualified to try out. TWO showed up. One washed out the first day, and the other washed out due to injuries.

      Please tell me how this discrimination against men is justified.

    19. Then why aren't you heading the white rights movement? Affirmative Action, which is a lot of what you're talking about, does the same thing, but with minority races. That white person got booted so that the college could fill the quota of black people. Or asians. Or hindu, arab, whatever.

    20. " Why aren't you ashamed of that, if men are the ones slipping down the ladder? Why is being masculine a compliment? And more importantly, why is being feminine an insult?"
      Great questions. Men aren't "slipping" down the ladder, they are being pushed.
      The reason I consider it a compliment to be told I think like a man is that overall, men are more rational and consistent in their thought process, than women. When someone tells me I think like a man, it's because of my frank approach and my logic. (Except some women. To them it's because I'm "mean.")

      Thinking like a man doesn't make me masculine, and I wouldn't consider it a compliment if someone called me masculine. In fact I would consider it an insult, because I find few things less attractive than a woman who tries to be just like a man (or a man who tries to be just like a women.)

      Incidentally, it is feminists who consider feminine traits to be unacceptable. Women are naturally more submissive and less assertive than men. Feminism rejects that long proven fact with all its might. Feminists utterly despise submissive women, because feminists have redefined "submission" to mean "weakness." Trust me, submission is hard work, and weak women simply aren't capable of it. We used to have lots of words for submission, words like gentleness, supportiveness, nurturing, helpmate, feminine. Feminism took that away.

    21. Shoot, I've gotta run. I have work in twenty minutes. UGH.
      But on the bright side, money!

      Dunno what time frame you're in, I'd guess Pacific? Based on the times this blog is showing. Either way, I'll let you go, you probably want to get to sleep too. Internet at my place of work is sketchy at best, so I usually watch Wonder Woman or listen to Pandora.

      Speaking of which, you're saying that media portrays men as useless and inept, etc? Go back to Wonder Woman, during the golden age of men. Wonder Woman's creator was a man who believed that a matriarchy would be great for society. He had a wife and a female partner, and the men in that show are the most ridiculous bumblers I have EVER SEEN. Seriously. I am a feminist and the blatant, ridiculous sexism, from both ends, bugs even me! Wonder Woman is hugely pandering to anyone attracted to ladies, she's wearing a bathing suit. Steve and his boss make ridiculously sexist comments ALL THE TIME. When they get captured they are completely useless. Literally, the bad guys grab him and he STANDS THERE and lets himself be tied up. I mean...seriously! That show is a zillion times worse than anything on TV today. When I'm honestly feeling bad for the portrayal of guys in this thing, there is a problem.

      And now I only have fifteen minutes to get to work. Goodnight!!

    22. Naturally submissive...
      As I said. If I wanted anything to happen, I had to fight for it, kicking and screaming. I'm not submissive in the slightest. I get pissed off. If you were naturally submissive, you'd be sitting back, saying "Ok, I don't really want to debate this. You can leave believing you're right". Quite obviously, you aren't all that submissive either.

      Submissive means
      inclined or ready to submit; unresistingly or humbly obedient: submissive servants.

      marked by or indicating submission: a submissive reply.

      Copied from
      What you're saying is that from birth, a woman is genetically designed to bow her head and say "Yes, sir". I like that "Unresistingly obedient" bit. Again, bull. The first doctor I saw for my medical issues diagnosed me with something called "Benign Joint Hypermobility Syndrome". Aside from having the most misleading name ever (nothing "benign" about joints screwing up constantly) that condition differs from what I knew I had in one important doesn't allow for internal issues. My condition is a result of defects in the collagen my body produces, making my body fall apart way too easily. The Physical Therapy that doctor sent me to made me worse than I had been in years. It was horrible.
      So I fought tooth and nail to try to make this doctor see the light. When he wouldn't, and I moved to a new town...I talked to my GP, then tracked down a geneticist myself who knows about this condition, had my GP write a referral for him, and got myself diagnosed. My medical records from there actually say "The patient diagnosed herself with EDS after looking at information on the web site. After examination, I confirmed her diagnosis."
      I have never, not even as a child, been the type to bow my head to anyone. When I was angry, I would hold my breath, pass out, and go into a seizure. I didn't and still don't give a hoot about what the rest of the world thinks about me. I dress up because I like my body, finally, and I want to make myself smile when I look in the mirror. I am still the weird girl who ignores peer pressure and sits in a corner with a book and a TV show that was old before she was born.
      And as I said. You, arguing here with me? Arguing against dozens of people, in various forms? You're not submissive either, as much as you like to talk about it.

    23. No, I'm not completely submissive. In fact being a submissive wife is hard work for me. However, you are swallowing the feminist negative connotations attributed to submission. Submission is not weakness, nor is it being a doormat. To submit to something completely is to give yourself over to it entirely. That takes trust, which requires courage. To submit also requires the will to fight ferociously against those who would undermine that to which you have submitted. Fighting ferociously doesn't sound very submissive, does it? But look at a real life example. Say you are an attractive woman who has submitted herself completely to her husband and her marriage. Some Other Guy decides he wants you for himself, and he sets out to seduce you away from your husband. If you give in to him, how completely were you submitted to your husband?

      If it sounds like I'm conflating submission and commitment, that was my intent. Submission is not mindless; it is a form of commitment - not for weaklings. This was once common knowledge.

    24. I'm not going with the "feminist negative connotations"...I'm going with the dictionary definition.

      Also, if I want to see an example of a submissive, I'll go read 50 Shades of Grey (or one of a zillion stories online that are actually well-written with engaging characters and interesting plotlines and the same submissive undertones...well, overtones, actually).

      So how is a woman naturally submissive if she has to fight to be submissive? You said just a bit back that women are naturally submissive and men are naturally dominant...
      " Women are naturally more submissive and less assertive than men."
      ...but now you're saying that a woman isn't naturally submissive, she has to fight to be submissive, which feels like an oxymoron but I'll go with it. So why and when did we decide that the only partner who has to fight for that submissiveness is the woman? Why doesn't a man need to be submissive/committed?

    25. I said MORE submissive, relative to men. Additionally, there is the not-so-natural life long training women receive (feminism) which tells us that submission is bad and we should never submit to anyone.

      What is the point of a dictionary definition, if that's not how a word is most commonly used? can assure you that what women mean by "creepy," is almost always a very broad stretch of the dictionary definition.

      Submissiveness is not a masculine trait. The male type of commitment is usually defined by chivalry - protection, leadership, etc. And "we" didn't decide; we're designed that way. Women are sexually attracted to dominant, masculine males, and repelled by submissive males. (We call them "creepy...") Men are sexually attracted to submissive, feminine women. While men are more "visual" than women, most men are attracted to "less beautiful" women who have feminine personalities and attitudes. (That's a MAJOR issue that women just don't get. We like to say that men are "intimidated" by "independent" women. They aren't. The only women who intimidate most men are the ones they personally love, because those are the ones who have the power to hurt men. The others simply don't turn them on. Men who are attracted to dominance are usually gay.)

      There are anthropological/biological reasons for our being attracted to these traits. A dominant man is more likely to be capable of providing survival resources, and is also more likely to provide superior DNA so our children will likely be strong, and survive. A submissive woman is more likely to be faithful, increasing the chances that her mate will bust his ass to provide for HIS OWN children, not his neighbor's bastards. A submissive woman is also more likely to be cooperative in the mutual goal of raising healthy productive children. Defiance is a luxury early women could not afford.

    26. Creepy, to me...the creeps, the guys, girls, and anyone else who just triggers my creepy button...are people like the old man who leered at me while I was talking about my niece, and when I described her as an absolute doll, interjects "the same could be said about you, you know..."
      THAT is creepy.
      Or the person who sits too close to me in class. Or is trying to be the dominant person in the group, starting off a ocnversation, when I'm obviously uninterested and have asked them to leave. People who disregard what I want and proceed to do what they want are creepy. My younger brother is creepy and VERY MUCH non-submissive.

      And that is why we are no longer in the dark ages. We have things that cavemen didn't. Defiance wasn't something allowed to blacks, either, until it was.

      (Sorry I've been poofed. I finally recovered from overtaxing myself on Saturday, and I'm at work right now, signing people into their dorm, except that on the 4-8AM work shift it's like Willy Wonka's chocolate factory...Nobody ever goes in, nobody ever comes I'm using the staff computer)

  8. Except that I'll have to come back later and debate. I will, I'm just exhausted-first semester of college with a chronic pain condition (Ehlers Danlos Syndrome, type 3...I simplify it to chronic pain because I'm sore and lazy right now) and it decided to pick this morning to flare up. My hips and knees are screaming and sleep seems like the easiest way to go numb for a while.

  9. "Then why aren't you heading the white rights movement? "

    That's a cinch, because I believe that EVERYBODY'S rights should be equal. I believe in honest, blind justice. There are a few white supremacists on the fringes of the men's movement, and most of us despise them. They claim to support men's rights, but they support only SOME men's rights. All men, and all women are entitled by the US Constitution, to the exact same rights, yet we have thousands of laws, customs and policies which violate those rights. It's really that simple.

    1. But you didn't answer the question. You're angry about Affirmative Action, because it discriminates against men, to the benefit of women. Affirmative Action also discriminates against whites, to the benefit of minorities. When you decided to take a stance on a situation that you saw and felt was unfair, why men's rights? Why did you choose to say that men are being discriminated against, instead of whites are being discriminated against? Both are equally true, in terms of Affirmative Action.

      Basically, everyone's rights should be equal, but the ones whose rights are being murdered slowly by colleges are whites and men. You decided to argue for men, not whites. Why?

      Is it because arguing for men is more socially acceptable than arguing for whites, despite the fact that both are discriminated against by the same policy?

      Also, on Affirmative Action, to soothe any concerns...yes, my high school GPA was terrible. But, I kicked the ACT's tush with a score of 32 and got a very firm acceptance from my admissions counselor as soon as I told her that. Also, if I may say so myself, my application essay was pretty awesome. So I'm not at college at the expense of Billy getting to go where he wanted. And the only aid I'm getting is federal loans and some money from my state that came to me automatically for my ACT score, as a resident of this state who is going to college in the same state. I am working a minimum wage job on campus so that I can afford to be here.
      Which brings me back to submissive people don't fight tooth and nail. They wait for it to be handed to them. I am female. I am anything but submissive. I am polite, and kind, but I fight for what I want or need. Sitting back, arranging my skirts, and waiting has never appealed to me much.

    2. Men, not whites, because not all whites are discriminated against as badly as all men are. To fight for white rights is to fight for white women's rights. Trust me, we white women don't need anyone else fighting for our "rights." To fight for white rights is also to ignore the plight of black men, who are routinely channeled from single mothers and slums, straight to prison, BY THEIR OWN POLITICAL LEADERS. I have said before that feminism isn't the cause of all of our problems, but feminism makes most of them much, much worse. Feminism's desire to make it so easy for women to be single mothers, makes men more disposable. Black men in this country are the single most disposable segment of the population. Preserving men's rights will strengthen the institution of family, which is why so many MRA's won't hesitate to say the Men's rights serve children's rights.

    3. But white women would get ignored by the college in favor of black women, right? Just as a white man would get ignored for a white woman?

      What do they get sent to prison for? As far as I remember, you do still need something to say they did. Stealing can be proven. And saying that the women lie about rape undermines the fact that many women are raped. Noncensensual sex is rape. And when a man hears "You need to be dominant, she'll like that" and interprets that as "Aw, she keeps saying no. She's just playing hard to get" then there is a problem here. Dominance and respecting a woman might not be mutually exclusive, but I've never seen a situation in which they weren't.

      If a woman wants to be a single mother, there is obviously a reason for that. So...what reasons can you come up with for why she would want to be a single mom? It's still frowned on by a fair chunk of society. Maybe she realized she doesn't want to stay in a loveless marriage. Maybe there's abuse, on either side. A cheating husband. Child abuse. There are reasons for divorce, and it's not fair to tell a woman that she must stay in a relationship no matter what. All that will do is make more single mothers, because people will still want to have sex, but it'll be one night stands, because who wants to get married if you could find out you're completely incompatible, or one partner or the other has issues, and you have no way to survive outside of that marriage. Most men I know would be horrified if I told them that they are dependent on their wife. If she dies, they're screwed. If she abuses them, cheats, abuses their children, whatever, they cannot leave. Try it. Tell a man (one of those with a wife who works, who has children) and tell him he's not allowed to have a career, and if anything happens to her, he's on the streets (because he has no career) with their children. If she is abusive or does anything harmful, again, he has to stay in the marriage "for the sake of the children" who are also being torn apart by this.
      I'm assuming here that all other attributes have swapped as well, in the hypothetical scenario. Women score higher in math and science, men in spelling, reading, and the like. Women tend to be qualified for and hired for higher-paid jobs. It's interesting...I've proposed this situation to friends before, and I doubt you'll do what they did, but it's worth mentioning that they bristled at the concept...even though I specifically said that this is a world in which all our male attributes are female, and vice versa. The logic of saying that the man is wholly dependent on his wife strongly bothered them, while the reverse (in your perfect society) didn't.

    4. "But white women would get ignored by the college in favor of black women, right? Just as a white man would get ignored for a white woman?"
      This is why I believe all affirmative action is unconstitutional. I personally choose fight for all men rather that white men and white women, because white women have so much power over all men, that they don't need my help.

      "Dominance and respecting a woman might not be mutually exclusive, but I've never seen a situation in which they weren't."
      You're mistaking dominance for domineering. A genuinely dominant man loses nothing by respecting women. A dominant man won't give the time of day to a woman he CAN'T respect. Dominant men are very secure in their masculinity. Domineering men re not.

      The reasons why so many black men are in prison are too numerous to even touch. I will say that only a very tiny minority of the black male prison population, is there because of proven rape.

      I have no idea why any woman wants to be a single mother, but millions of them choose it, either directly or indirectly. Those who choose it indirectly, do so by making choices that put them at increased risk for it to "happen to them." (It's never their fault.) Nobody in our legal history has ever said women must remain in bad marriages. But until recently, women (and men) were required to publicly give valid reasons for depriving their children of a stable home. Dalrock has an excellent post on this - I'll try to dig it up.

      In the modern world, nobody thinks women should have no job skills. A sensible woman is prepared to take over the support of her family in case her husband dies or becomes disabled. Parents must put their children's needs first. That means one parent, usually the mother, stays home most of the time to raise them, if possible. If it's not possible, of course it's in her kids' best interest for her to work. Do you see my focus here? I'm putting the needs of children above the wants and preferences of individual women. To feminist, the is heresy. anathema. Feminists will say that children will be happy if their mom is "fulfilled." And the world has learned to quake in fear of the threat implied by the phrase, "If Mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy!" God forbid Mama suck it up and be responsible for the children she chose to bring into this world.

      "The logic of saying that the man is wholly dependent on his wife strongly bothered them..."

      That right there is Gospel. It is instinctive for a human male to be utterly repelled at the notion of dependence. In some males the instinct isn't as strong, and our dependence-saturated society has conditioned men to further suppress that instinct, but it is the essence of dominant masculinity.

      I have to work in the morning, so I need to hit the sack, but you're bringing up some very important issues that are central to how feminism manipulates society into unnatural, upside-down behavior. This is good stuff.

    5. Not enough energy for big well-thought-out debate at the moment. This is where we differ the most, I think. You feel like instinct is a thing. I feel like instinct is limited to the concept of "pointy things and heights=bad" and that as human beings, we don't work by instinct, we work by logic and reason and the concept of "every person is created equal". I'm not gonna argue evolution, no idea whether you're for or against that, but no matter whether evolution is a thing or not, we are not apes.

      Off-topic, noticed you're very pro-gun-rights, thought you might find this cool. Random internet wandering is fun!
      Another article I found does mention that her mom dropped everything and started home as soon as her daughter called, but when she got there, the cops were there and they had the intruder. Regardless, I just find the article pretty awesome.

      But if backspace didn't exist, this comment would be a mass of typos, and considering I touch-type and kick butt at spelling bees...this is a sign that I need to lie down now. Have a nice night!

    6. Instinct is real, although instinctive urges can certainly be partially repressed through the use of reasoning. (Or through conditioning/brainwashing.) Our frontal cortex (the part of the brain that reasons and thinks in the abstract) evolved and developed after our amygdala, but did not replace it. Our instinctive/reflexive responses still exist, and they are enhanced or ameliorated by our reasoning abilities.

      When you're sitting in class and suddenly you need to pee, your forebrain enables you to hold it until you can get to a restroom, rather than wetting your pants at your desk. But there's a reason that you have the urge to pee - your body has a biological need. Just because you can make decisions about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

      Reproduction is one of those needs that exists whether it is convenient or not. (Any species that doesn't need to reproduce, is extinct.) Sexuality is not a choice; you have the sexuality you were born with, no matter how you choose to express or repress it. And as a woman with several gay friends, I can assure you that repressing your natural sexuality is a guarantee of sheer misery.

      As a future teacher, you should study up on neuroscience. The field is advancing at a phenomenal pace and there is a lot of literature out there that explains it in layman's terms. The "tabula rasa" theory has been completely disproven. We are nature AND nurture, and probably more nature THAN nurture. Don't take my word for it, go see for yourself. It's fascinating.

      I saw the story about that girl, and of course I'm pro gun-rights - I'm pro-ALL rights. And BTW, not depending on the government (as in the police who can be there within minutes when seconds count) THAT is female empowerment! That little girl is NOBODY'S helpless victim. She will do just fine without assistance from feminism, whether she wants to get married or not.

    7. I have yet to encounter the reproductive urge, though again, this could be related to my own sexuality and the fact that I've planned on adopting since I was very young. I don't feel that a biological need to pee, which consists of a bladder filling up and alerting you to that fullness, compares in any way with what you are arguing, that instinct is real and that men have an instinct to be dominant, while women have an instinct to be submissive (except when they don't, in which case, they use that reasoning to override that bit).

      And who says that without feminism, her parents would have trusted their sweet little girl to be around a gun? Shooting, hunting, fighting...aren't all of those Man Things? That's been mentioned multiple times throughout this are the hunter-gatherers, men are the ones who go off to war. Without women fighting to say that they aren't Little Miss Priss and they can shoot just as well as any man, that young lady might not have known where the gun was in the first place, her mother might not have told her to grab it, etc. Traditional gender roles say that she shouldn't be anywhere around that gun. For example, my grandpa, uncle, and father, all shoot. They didn't even think to teach me how until I was fourteen. When my younger brother learned how, he was about nine. Feminism, from years ago, is the reason why a woman cocking her pistol is socially acceptable now. (On which note...just realize that it's referred to as "cocking" a pistol. Why? Could a nickname for a man's manhood have influenced a term for something traditionally male? Or, the reverse...could something associated with men throughout time have begun to refer to the part that makes a man a man?

      You're talking about instinct, so we have an interesting situation. What about people who are born genetically and biologically male, but feel that they are female, or vice versa? How do they work?

    8. Regarding sexual "outliers," the are exactly that - outliers. They have always existed, and in varying degrees they have always been allowed to exist. It is evil for any society to restrict their rights, but it is simply stupid for any society to structure itself around the preferences of it's non-reproducing members. In the modern world where we produce faaaaar more than we need to survive, there is no need to pressure them to conform.

      For years now, I have compared every sociological situation to what it might have been like in a primitive, relatively geologically isolated village or community. Example, gays. Gay men who didn't want to reproduce, most likely weren't required to. Sperm is much more plentiful than ova, and men can reproduce (technically) at a rate of thousands of babies per year. Gay men would are most likely to be as strong as straight men, and capable of contributing meaningfully to the survival of the community, on top of being able to provide for all of their own needs.
      Gay women who'd prefer not to reproduce are another matter. Even those with weak "maternal" instincts, might be pressured to mate and bear children. Nuclear families were all but unheard of, so extended family could take on the greater burdens of nurturing her children once they were weaned. Being weaker than most of the men, a gay non-reproducing woman would probably be capable of meeting most, if not all, of her own survival needs, but her contributions to the community would naturally be smaller than the contributions of (stronger) non-reproducing men. Except in unusual societies where gays are revered as "seers," gay women would necessarily have low social status. When survival resources (and therefore surplus resources) are scarce and hard won, there would be no social structure in place to artificially elevate the status of gay women.

      Thousands of isolated tribes of varying sizes survived, prospered, and eventually populated the entire planet because of this social structure. To vary from this in any great degree, would invite extinction, either from starvation or invasion by socially efficient tribes. This could not have happened by accident, and with inter-tribal communication being extremely limited, there wasn't much exchange of ideas in man's earlier millenia. We had to be biologically designed to survive, just like all the other animals.

      This also addresses the issue of a well-armed adolescent girl. Here's how. In the primitive world, wombs were highly valued, so women were protected. However, men had far more strenuous duties to accomplish than only protecting women. Therefore women were NOT coddled and treated like precious, fragile objects. And in poorer societies, women still aren't coddled; they are expected to face hardship head on, just like men, and contribute. Women have only been presumed weaklings in societies with enough surplus resources. Being able to have a wife who isn't required to labor, either in the home or out of it, has ALWAYS been a sign of extremely high status among men.

      However, for the vast majority of the world population, (except in modern industrialized cultures) women have needed to be relatively self-sufficient. Let's revisit my primitive hunter-gatherer tribe. When most of the able bodied men leave to track game for weeks at a time, who protects the women, children and elderly from starvation and invasion? A few men who have been specifically assigned the task, and (primarily) the women. It the able bodies women who gather and store food while keeping the children safe (with assistance from the weaker adults.) Who protects them from invaders? do you think the hunting party took all of the weapons? No. In civilizations which lack surplus resources, women enjoy the "privilege" of working just as hard as men, and doing works that is every bit as essential.

    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    10. more...
      My grandmother was born to a pioneer family. In 1903, she was born in a dugout on a dried-up creek bank, and she lived there throughout much of her childhood. (One of her brothers spend YEARS collecting nails so that he could eventually build a house for their parents. The parents considered a house to be an unnecessary luxury.) Gram could competently ride a full-size horse by age four. She could shoot any gun the family owned, but that was a rare privilege because ammo was expensive. As a small child she helped feed the family by working in the garden and by helping her siblings hunt rabbits, but not with guns. They had set up an area where they could "herd" the rabbits into a sort of funnel which ended with a hollow log. (where do you think cartoonists got the idea for all those cartoons?) Gram's job (by age six) was to crouch by the opening of the log and catch the rabbits as they ran out, grabbing them by the head and swinging them around to break their necks.

      Like most women throughout history, she had no use whatsoever, for feminism. Yes, the stronger male members of her family did most of the physically difficult work, which protected her from many injuries, and in case of a "human predator" attack in their isolated home, the men were prepared to fight off danger. But so were the women.

      Do you see where I'm going with this? Feminism doesn't make women strong and independent, real life does that. Ironically, feminism is not really a rebellion against male privilege, it's a rebellion against female privilege. Even more ironically, feminism seeks to replace one form of privilege?protection, with another. A well-armed and trained twelve-year-old girl was not a rare phenomenon before feminism. It was the norm until society grew so large and safe that it became unnecessary. It became unnecessary when (and where) mankind produces enough surplus to support it's non-productive members. (a hundred years ago there were no "teenagers;" there were young adults training in their parents; occupations and attending school IF THEY WERE LUCKY.) Feminism feels that female privilege is actually restrictive to female accomplishments. And it would be if all women were required to marry, keep house (which was once a full-time occupation) and have children, but that has never been the case. Not only has feminism incorrectly identified its "enemy," calling it male privilege when it's really female privilege, feminism's solution is UTTERLY DEPENDENT upon the very same surplus that enabled the female privilege it claims to despise. In times gone by, there were no inflated wages for women because women had to compete to win their jobs. Employers were free to hire the most competent workers who would accept the lowest wages. And before industrialization, a woman's "wage" was the food and shelter she and her family could produce and accumulate. Feminism does not promote female rights, it promotes female privilege, privilege that can only be paid for with surplus - which is produced by men. More males than females pay taxes, and more female than males, consume tax revenues. Feminism only exists because men are willing to pay the cost.

    11. (Come to think of it, I think Gram's siblings herded the rabbits UNDER a log, on which she perched, waiting to grab them. ??? Memory is an odd thing. Dad could have told the "hollow log" version. I wouldn't put it past him - he always loved those old cartoons!)

    12. BTW, to clarify, the social structure to which I referred (the one that permitted small societies to grow into large ones) is one in which women are protected more than men due to their reproductive rates. Survival of the group was dependent upon pressuring as many fertile women as possible, to produce as many children as could be fed. Any woman who could not or would not contribute to the society in the way in which only fertile women can, would be required to earn her "keep" and her status in other ways. You can bet your last dollar that there were no easy occupations for them, paid for by the resources earned by other people. Unless such a woman had a rare and extremely useful talent, her status would be very low in her society. That's no arbitrary patriarchal oppression, that's survival in a dangerous world. That's reality. Feminism is so far from reality it's laughable.

    13. That is your grandma's reality. We are alive! We change! We have a word for things that don't change...we call them DEAD! Our society is still alive, so it evolves throughout time. That is how society and time work.

      And you brought up my biggest problem with society. Women are not wombs with legs and built-in baby bottles! I am more than the fact that I can reproduce. I want to be protected because I am a human being, not because I have a vagina. There are a lot of political battles concerning that very thing. Abortion, contraception, and the like are being threatened. Why? The obvious answer, to me at least, is that a woman is nothing more than a baby machine. But, of course, if those women are having babies, they aren't continuing their education, getting into an excellent college, or being offered an amazing job. For that matter, Holly Housewife with three children under the age of four isn't gonna be going to the polls. For women to have any power in the world, we have to stop being looked at like baby factories and nothing more. This is particularly important to me because I've hit double jeopardy. I'm accidental condom-break pregnancy for, with my medical issues, a pregnancy likely wouldn't survive, it'd mess with my own body to a point where I'd be on bed rest for most of it, any child who did survive would have a 50/50 shot at being in chronic pain themselves, and if I were to be raped, and become pregnant, I would likely get an abortion. Being a biological mother is simply not going to happen for me. So with the mindset of a portion of the country, I am worse than useless.

  10. I'm on the east coast, and it's way past my bedtime!

    1. Haha, oops! Sorry. I work mornings...that is, EARLY mornings, my only work hours are between midnight and 8am, so despite it being way past my bedtime as well, I had a shift from 4-8am and didn't have much of a choice. Around 8 I start becoming a zombie. And the reason it took me so long to post this is that I have been asleep all day. And it was LOVELY. Sleep is wonderful.
      And then tonight I get to go to a crafting club I'm in (I'm a knitter, we've got a bunch of crocheters, one or two who both knit and crochet, and the boyfriend of that engaged friend I mentioned earlier makes jewelry. It's pretty awesome jewelry, too. They were newlyweds for Halloween, and he actually handmade their rings for the costumes). We're a service organization, so our service project this semester has been making "granny squares" and we're going to watch movies and eat pizza and sew them into blankets for donation tonight. We're thinking of watching Tangled. It's so darn cute, and the animation, and her "when will my life begin" song mentions crafting, in various forms, like a zillion times.
      And then tomorrow I'm going ice skating with my church, so if I come post tomorrow night that something is broken, you'll know why. I have never ice skated before. I have balance in, give me a drunk test (feet together, arms out, eyes closed) and I fail dead sober. And my joints go out more often than I do. I had an ankle I managed to knock out of joint a couple nights ago and didn't realize it was still out until I was stretching and it slipped back in. Hurt like heck, too. So...this should be an interesting experience.

    2. I usually work evenings, and I'm a night owl. Be careful skating. I always thought ice skating was easier than rollerskating, but it's hard on the ankles.

    3. Thankfully, the church postponed the ice skating to do volunteering. I wouldn't be able to manage it...I missed the street I needed when I was going to my club tonight, so I walked probably an extra mile, maybe mile and a half, plus I walked around the apartment complex area, up and down countless stairs, trying to find the right apartment...for an hour. So everything hurts, I managed to put raw spots on both feet, and I'm going to be an old lady tomorrow, and probably for a fair portion of next week. There's a concept called "The Spoon Theory" (you have a chronic condition, as do some family, so it might be worth a read. It's an excellent way to explain chronic conditions to those without them) and right now, I basically threw away all the spoons I had left for Saturday, as well as all my Sunday spoons, and borrowed against some of them for the next week.

  11. This is interesting. I am completely exhausted, but wandering tumblr because of the stupidest paradox ever, the concept of want to sleep but hurt too much. One of my friends blogged this and it seemed relevant so I'm gonna post it and then I'm gonna lie down and try to not feel. Probably won't be around today.

    1. That looks like a whole new blog post; I'll take a closer look after work.


  12. "...while women have an instinct to be submissive..."
    This something I want to address, because it speaks to the modern, warped understanding of submission. Women have a natural instinct to be submissive to dominant men. Not to weak men, not to other women, not to children, and not to malicious men. It is essential to survival that the female be completely submitted to the man who feeds her (and her children) protects her (and her children) and who's DNA is most likely to produce strong intelligent children. Her submission to him must be physical and deeply emotional, because when he's not at her side, she must be willing to NOT submit to the influence of others - people who, unlike her mate, would not risk everything to protect her and her children. Female submission and male dominance are the two halves of mutual devotion. They cannot be "equal partners" because NO ENDEAVOR IN HISTORY has ever succeeded without a primary leader. It's actually possible for a dominant woman married to a submissive man, to have a successful and productive marriage, but it'a a rare exception. It works because there is only one leader acknowledged leader, and no destructive power struggles. It's incredibly rare because most men are more dominant than most women.

    That's what I was talking about when I said submission requires strength, and absolutely precludes any weakness whatsoever. Submitting to a dominant husband is noting more or less than submitting to the family unit, and allowing him to lead without attempting to undermine his leadership. It also requires a woman to use damn good judgment when selecting a mate, doesn't it?
    For her own well being and the well being of her future children, she must select a man who is either already a good "leader," or is well on his way to becoming one. She must then support his leadership 100%. Even when she doesn't feel like it.

    1. And what bothers me about this scenario is that, to me, it says that what that woman wants doesn't matter. She must never change her mind, fall out of love...

      "Half a league, half a league, half a league onward...
      Forward, the Light Brigade!
      Was there a man dismayed?
      Not, though the soldier knew
      someone had blundered.
      Theirs not to make reply
      Theirs not to reason why
      Theirs but to do and die..."

      Realize that her husband is making a really stupid decision...
      Nobody is infallible. Not woman, and not man. Why does the man get the immunity to being called out on his stupidity?

      Also, I called up that poem for the "someone had blundered" reference, and the fact that a whole bunch of that Light Brigade went on to die, but realized while typing it in that military consists of a bunch of men submitting to another man, and that what the argument consists of, to me, is that a perfect family is basically a military unit.

      For most of my childhood with military parents, I reflected on how military people shouldn't reproduce. They expect immediate, unswerving obedience, and children don't do that. My brother acts about six or seven. My dad cannot cope with that. As the child, the one that men's rights are supposed to be helping, I would've preferred my father to have been calm. Then maybe I wouldn't have the post on my Facebook from my 18th birthday, commenting that I was afraid my 19th birthday was going to be the first anniversary of my brother's death and my father's imprisonment.
      A few months ago, my father raised his hand to me.
      Had it hit, I wouldn't be going to that home for my Christmas break.
      But when my mother married him, he was a good guy. People change. And a good leader, a good military man, doesn't mean he's a good father.

    2. "And what bothers me about this scenario is that, to me, it says that what that woman wants doesn't matter."

      For the most part, what men want has never mattered. Oh sure, he may hog the remote or want sex more than his wife does, but the things men "get" to do because they "want" to do them, are pretty small potatoes when compared to the things men MUST do.

      Of course men make mistakes. That's why a smart man marries a smart woman who shares his priorities, and considers her opinions. But ONE PERSON should have the final say. And most often that person should be the man, because most men are more logical than most women. Most men are less capricious and and less influenced by fleeting emotions than most women, and therefore better able to focus on long-term goals.

      Since your brother is mentally disabled, he is a verified outlier, not CAPABLE of conforming to the norm. I agree with you that a "military personality" might not be the most patient and flexible parent, which is important to such a child. On the other hand, such a child likely benefits from a highly structured and orderly environment. It's also possible that your father is disillusioned by life. What if he is secretly disappointed that there is "something wrong" with his son, even though he loves him. Can you imagine how guilty his disappointment might make him feel?

      Disillusionment is something to note about aging men who "change." It's subtle, and even they are usually unaware of it, but many men, especially masculine He-Men, get badly beaten down by modern society, and feminism is a big part of what beats them down. Masculinity is frowned on, demonized and mocked in this society. If a man's masculinity is a strong aspect of his personality, try to imagine what it's like to live in our society. Imagine being married for decades to a person who challenges you at every turn, simply because she can, and her peers encourage her to.* Imagine knowing that every woman you meet automatically sees you as a potential rapist - even the ones who desire you. Imagine being required to refrain from expressing your opinions at work because those opinions might "offend" someone, even if they are demonstrably true. Men really do carry the weight of the world on their shoulders.

      I don't know your dad or your mother, but I can almost guarantee that your dad's life is much more emotionally difficult and stressful than your mom's (unless your mom manufactures drama, which is a luxury a LOT of modern women can afford.) What's the point of trying to do everything right when much of society automatically presumes you to be wrong. All this just to be permitted to participate in a society that you are perfectly capable of RUNNING? No thanks. I wouldn't be a man in the modern world if you paid me a billion dollars....

    3. ...more...
      *Here's an example of the overdeveloped feminist reflex for challenging men unnecessarily:
      My husband moved to the east coast from Indiana back in January. Due to a 3 month probationary period and the cost of rentals in this area (our mortgage on a 3 br 2,000 sf house is about half of the rent on his 1 br apartment) we didn't start house-hunting until April, and I kept my job until May. All winter we browsed real estate listings online, and we found a realtor to work with. During that time, my husband "drove by" a LOT of homes and explored several towns. The market here is weird and changing, and we were fairly limited in what we could consider. I flew out for a weekend in April and we looked at several houses and put an offer on one. The offer fell through, and by then, the other houses we liked were no longer available. We also knew that when a good one came on the market, we needed to act FAST. He ended up viewing and making an offer on a house in a town we had barely driven through. Since the mortgage was a VA loan in his name only, I didn't even have to show up for closing. I never saw my new home until the day I moved in.

      My (VERY feminist) boss in Indiana, when I mentioned that this was how we were going to have to do it, was stunned and appalled. How could I trust him to choose a house I would like? In a town I would like? What about the shopping and services available? She just didn't get it when I explained that we had discussed it for months, we have very similar priorities, and he knows my tastes (if we would be fortunate enough to be able to consider such preferences.) Not many of the women I knew were as outspoken as she was, but I sure got a lot of raised eyebrows when I said that after 24 years together I completely trust my husband's judgment. And incidentally, except for the traffic noise from a nearby interstate, which we discussed when he viewed the house, I absolutely love it. Great town, agreeable neighbors, an easy commute to plenty of job opportunities for me, we could not have done much better.

    4. *roadblock*
      Asperger's =/= mentally disabled.
      Asperger's = Developmentally Disabled
      Development gives the clue. He's perfectly healthy. And I'm sure I've mentioned this, but he is freaking brilliant. He is a genius by any IQ test he has been given. As in, IQ score in the 180s, genius. I'm fairly intelligent, my score is usually around 130, maybe 140, but I've never gotten near him. The two are very different.
      Also, we've been told by multiple psychologists that my father likely has the same condition. Meaning a few things. One, again, my brother is not mentally disabled. He is perfectly capable of wooing a woman, marrying her, and fathering her children. Two, there would be a big difference between "secretly disappointed" and "threatening physical violence on his child". Not a spanking. A closed fist. And when I dared to say something he didn't like, that open hand was swung back and as I said, if it had landed, the last he would've seen of me would be me packing, because I would rather live on the street than with someone abusive.

    5. Imagine knowing that, statistically, at least one of the men you walk past in a day has had sex with someone who didn't want it. Imagine being told that it is your responsibility to not be raped...that you are supposed to wear a burqa, and if that doesn't work, you apparently must fight him off. If you get pregnant, you have to give birth to that man's child, and allow him visitation rights, let him back into your life after he (at the very least) shredded your trust, assuming you knew him. If a man was walking around wearing a shirt that said "Kill me", and you took out your gun and shot him to death, would "Well, his clothes! He was asking for it!" be a valid excuse? Would that keep you out of jail? It works for the rapists.

      If men want women to stop looking at them as potential attackers, they need to stop the attackers. When a guy makes a joke about rape (what about that comedian who thinks it'd be hilarious if that one woman just got gang-raped, right there in the theatre?) then other guys need to stand up and say that this isn't right. Call the guy out on it. Once we've got men who are vocally saying that rape is not a joke, and they're calling out that guy who's talking about this chick last week that got so wasted, so he offered to take her to her apartment and then did whatever he wanted, then that problem will be solved, simple as that.

      Men challenge women in that marriage just as much, and you're telling me his buddies don't cheer him on when he tells them about telling his wife exactly what position she has in their relationship? Most of this argument relies on "but it's so much more traumatic for men than women!" but that's not what you focused on...all you spoke about was a partner in a marriage, and the other partner challenges your authority. Women in the marriage? According to this, women have no authority at all. I guess, technically, that does solve the "challenging of authority" problem, to simply say "You have no authority here. At all. If I want your opinion, I'll tell you what it is."

    6. Imagine knowing every man you meet regards you as a manipulative bitch (apologies for language), even the ones who desire you. Imagine knowing that you are the butt of the joke...that when someone laughs about a lady, the underlying assumption that everyone understands is "this is funny because women are dumb". Imagine that when a portion of the population looks at you, they see an incubator and a couple baby bottles, or else a playground, with a big sign saying "Men Only". Imagine that that "feminist interpretation" is also what a vast majority of the population feels "submissive" means, and that there are plenty of people out there who will get offended that you aren't conforming to their idea of femininity. Imagine that your idea of feminine doesn't correspond perfectly with the world's idea of feminine. I feel feminine with short hair and no makeup and unpainted nails, with a dress that covers my bosom and bottom entirely because I'm still iffy about my own body. The accepted idea of feminine either involves pregnancy, or, with the stereotypical model version, long hair, makeup, a size zero body, and clothes that show it off. And you're the one that the world thinks needs to change. Imagine that if the family goes wrong, it's on your shoulders. As long as your husband gave the family money, then his part is done. If he turns out to be abusive, or cheating, then you chose him wrong (but you must still support him!). If he cheats, oh, that's rough. If you cheat, your family will implode.
      In my family's situation, imagine that your husband is shit (again, sorry, language!) at budgets. Imagine the responsibility of making sure rent and bills are paid falls on your shoulders, because left to your husband, you'll go out for supper every night, but you'll end up evicted. Imagine that your husband regularly tries to start fistfights over his son's behavior, blatantly favors his daughter over his son, and doesn't care how obvious this is or how hurtful to both children. Imagine you're seeing your own mother struggle with this, and maybe you'll understand why putting all the responsibility on the wife/mother bothers me so much. I am her child. I am her sole confidante. Maybe if the father is meant to have some responsibility beyond a job, that would be different.

    7. You have completely lost me; I no longer know what you're writing about. I do know you have clearly ignored most of what I wrote and you are now responding, somewhat incoherently, with standard feminist sound bites. You claimed to be capable of reasonable debate and rational discussion; I'm not seeing it in your recent comments. You bring up new-but-related "objections," showing that you haven't extrapolated the logic I have presented. Logic does that, you know. It applies across the board; it's not arbitrary or piecemeal.

      "That was your grandmother's reality." ??? No, that IS reality. Society has evolved a lot over the past 10,000 years. The human brain and the human body, have evolved VERY LITTLE, if any, during that same time period. And right up until about 50 years ago, inter-sex relations were pretty closely matched with human biology. Do you think feminists were the first people ever born who envisioned a "different" model? They weren't. However, like every other model of society that doesn't mesh with human nature, it fails. You might not think it's failing, because you personally benefit from it. But it can't sustain itself. Period. Chip away at inconsequential details around the edges all you want. You can't change facts, and it sounds like you have been taught by feminists to reject critical thinking and to ignore facts that fit into your narrative.

      I have given you a ton of information; if you explore it you will find that it's true. Do you think I haven't heard (for my whole life) the garbage feminists spout? Your assumptions are not new to me, because I once share a number of them. Then I grew up. You have been presented with facts. Do with them what you will, but if this is the level of debate you're so proud of at sheroescentral, I'm not impressed.

    8. I'm sorry if my recent comments are a problem. I'm not going to apologize for them, but I will say that at 20 years old, and with a brother at 18, I've been dealing with people misinterpreting him as mentally disabled since I was about 8. It's probably a fair portion of why I was never the popular kid-I was the one pointing out that my brother had been put in the gifted program and placed at our county spelling bee...beating out the girl who is trying to confide in me that she thinks my brother "is retarded" "well sure, but he's also completely brilliant" "no, I mean stupid-retarded". He annoys me, majorly, but that doesn't mean I sit down and let his condition be misinterpreted by people. Especially when that condition is shared by my father, but my brother is the one who catches flak for doing the same things his dad does. I tend not to defend myself, but as much as I hate my brother on a daily basis, he is my little brother and I will defend him with my life. So when I was typing all of this, I was already pretty riled up. I also got annoyed that you're trying to put me in the mindset of the modern man, without assuming that anything might apply to the modern woman. You've mentioned here that men are catching on that women are manipulative witches. That point stands. It'd be like me starting a feminist site and writing a letter to men, explaining that women are being taught that rapists are everywhere and it's their responsibility to protect themselves from them. CONSTANT. VIGILANCE. (Harry Potter reference, whoo!!)
      The way to stop women from assuming all men are rapists stands as well. Just as not all men are rapists, not all women are manipulative witches. The way to stop that generalization from happening is for that sex to stop the members of their society from engaging in it.

    9. I think the big reason why women are cheered for being cruel to men is the rebound effect, or rebel effect, whatever you want to call it. When a woman posts on Facebook (seen this before, on Sheroes, where many of us bashed it...not gonna forum-search, cause I'm tired) "Yes, my man has supper on the table waiting for me when I get home! You women cooking for your husbands are pathetic!" it's because that husband is seen as such an outlier that she has to point it out. By the way, it seemed like a silly thing to cheer about, to me. My father is the cook, and has been for most of my life. My mom can follow directions on a dad can find all the random food we have sitting in the house and make something edible with it. He also makes the best Snickerdoodles and Deviled Eggs EVER. He made Deviled Eggs for Thanksgiving and omigosh it was so great. Heck, he's good at cookies in general. So the concept of a man cooking supper as a new thing confuses me, but if it weren't so strange to other people, they wouldn't feel the need to point it out and act like they conquered Mt. Husband. The Facebook update would be more like "Oh, thank God for my husband. I was exhausted today and came home and he had supper ready for me already. I love him so much!" It would be bragging about the husband, not about the perceived flaunting of social rules.

      Do you see how, if those social rules were gone, that woman's attention would've gone to the caring husband? And then, the days when the wife cooked supper, it'd be a kind gesture, not fulfilling the role they're assumed to have. Both sexes would be getting the appreciation for doing a given task, because it's not assumed to belong to either one. The man who watches his own children is often praised and referred to as "babysitting" his kids. If being the kid person isn't a woman-only club, then either both parents get lots of praise, or neither one does (which seems logical, since it's their own kids).

      Also, you generalize a LOT. Do you see this? I have debated logically for about a week. You agreed that I was being logical, bringing up points that you found interesting, etc.
      One day, I post things that you don't like or find logical. Suddenly, all of my prior posts mean nothing. This is the quality of debate they have over at Sheroes? When you admitted that I was debating perfectly well until a day when I had six hours of sleep in 48 hours, was working a boring job and typing frantically to get the post out before my replacement got there, and perceived a slight to a family member of mine. I explain to everyone here at college that I love my family, and heaven help anyone who hurts them, but it's easier to love them from two hours away.
      Well, I'm two hours away, and though you didn't mean it, your comment struck nerves that got tenderized during the years I've been defending that boy.

    10. Anywho, I was explaining there, it may have gotten lost, how my mother gets drama in her life without manufacturing it. My dad cannot function on a budget. He does not comprehend that we have limited funds and it would be good if we paid what must be paid first. The problem is that he is a dominant man, but he's not very good at life. I mentioned that he's basically got the same condition as my brother. How many young children do you know who understand money? Right. My dad spends money on whatever shiny thing happens to be there. My mom has no wedding ring, that got pawned years ago. A ring my father bought her in Kuwait, with her name written on it in both English and Kuwaiti, went a few years ago. The only jewelry she has left are things of no value. When her things ran out, my dad started sulking before finally taking his gun and fishing poles to the pawn shop. My mother has finally gotten to a point where she takes my father's bank card away from him before he gets paid. When she does so, we magically have enough money for food, rent, and bills. It feels like your argument puts all of the weight of the marriage on the wife...I've read where you said if the husband is abusive or cheating, then she chose the wrong man. And also where that wife's infidelity is more harmful than the husband's. That all of the children's happiness depends on their parents being around, so mom cannot get a divorce. I automatically bristle at this, because I've seen a marriage where the weight of everything staying together is on the wife, and it's horrible. If the husband was assigned responsibility other than financial support, perhaps it would force my father to assume some of that responsibility.

    11. "Mentally disabled" is only rarely "retarded." If a chronological adult cannot function normally without constant supervision, it'a a disability. It doesn't make them stupid or useless or non-functional.

      "Just as not all men are rapists, not all women are manipulative witches."

      Yes this is true. What you're missing is one of the primary points of my original post: Feminist laws and social customs ENCOURAGE all women to be manipulative witches, and feminist laws and customs PUNISH men who are perceived to have the potential to be rapists. And it's women whose "perceptions" measure that potential.

      And as is human nature, when bad behavior is permitted, it increases. There are women who would NEVER take advantage, manipulate, or be mean. But most people will do what they can get away with, if they have something to gain from it. The result of feminism is countless innocent men in prison (or even "just" expelled from school on a false accusations) being remove from their children's lives for no reason (except as coercion to hand over more money) and losing jobs or promotions to women who are less qualified than them. It is also countless women who make false accusations, because they can get away with it, hold their children hostage to get "revenge" or more money from their exes, because they can get away with it, and take jobs for which they were unqualified until the qualification standard were lowered, because they can get away with it. Feminism encourages women to manipulate the government, employers, and individual men, in order to gain what they have not earned. Feminism rewards anti-social behavior in women, and punishes men for that behavior by requiring them to pay a price for it.
      Just one example that I won't go into in detail because it's truly exhaustive: VAWA-financed rape culture. You know that famous statistic -1 in 4 women will be raped? It was debunked, and the author of the "study" on which it was based, admitted she was wrong. More men are raped EVERY day than women. But women's far of rape is big business. The Violence Against Women Act dishes out billions of tax dollars every year on programs that encourage women to fear rape. This manufactured fear justifies the existence of those programs. VAWA also gives money to states for jailing and prosecuting "domestic abusers." The incentive is there, and women take advantage of it every day.

      Until a few decades ago, it wasn't like this. Men and women were not enemies. Men cooperated with women and women cooperated with men. Both sexes compromised in order to get along. Both sexes policed themselves and each other, to build the stability that makes prosperity possible. (Did you know that in the past men would print and post handbills publicly shaming wifebeaters, and the men in a community would band together and literally run a wifebeater out of town? Do they teach that in Women's Studies classes?) Then the feminists came along and whispered in women's ears, "You can take more than you give if you can convince everyone that you are victims, deserving of special privileges." In order to convince society that women deserve special treatment, feminism had to demonize men as the Evil Oppressors.
      Every tenet of feminism is a lie:
      "Women are just as professionally capable as men."
      Well, yeah, a tiny minority of women are.
      "Patriarchy is a system built by men to benefit men at the expense of women."
      No. It's not. It is a system built by the wealthy to benefit the wealthy, at the expense of MOST men, which protects MOST women, because a man with a family to support is unlikely to rebel against the powers that be.
      "Gender is a social construct."
      Bullshit. At least 90% of the population has male or female sex-specific mental characteristics (including drives and aptitudes) with SOME variations.

    12. .....Everything I have discussed here, addresses these issues and more. It is the exact opposite of everything you have ever been taught. And there is far more proof for my assertions, than there is for NEARLY ANYTHING feminism asserts. The facts exist. You have two choices: you can continue to say the same things over and over again, and you can continue to try to prove them by using anecdotal evidence, or you can look beyond your own experience and begin to consider that the evidence against feminism is FACT BASED, not anecdotal.
      There is a short list of arguments feminists use, and I've heard them all.
      "You just hate women"
      "You're bitter/a loser/a failure."
      "You just want to go back to when men controlled women."
      NAWALT. (Ignore the majority.)
      NAMALT. (Ignore the majority.)
      NAFALT. (Ignore the majority.)
      "Things are different now."

      Emotional appeals are not going convince me that overwhelming evidence is wrong. Bring me a preponderance of evidence.

    13. Mmkay, real quick-

      You're arguing against me with the assumption that I have been taught all of this, indoctrinated to believe this, and that's why I believe the way I do. If the brainwashing is broken, I'll see the light. You have good points, but there are many things you've said that I disagree with, and will probably continue to disagree with, because I came to those conclusions on my own. Nobody told them to me. There was no secret indoctrination ritual. I grew up with plenty of male friends, and due to a lack of romantic attraction, I'm more comfortable hanging out with men than women.

      No Women's Studies class. I've met a few very nice people who teach Gender and Women's Studies at my college, but I've never taken one of their classes, nor do I plan to.
      I don't think you hate women, or feminists. It's feminism you hate, and that's a rather obvious argument and not really an insult, to you.
      Also don't think you're bitter, a loser, or a failure. That's likely because I read through a bunch of this blog and I can't properly bash someone or de-humanize them after they post about their pets.
      I wouldn't phrase it as "when men controlled women", because to me, that feels like BDSM or an RC car. I would phrase it as ye olden times.
      Not All Men Are Like That?? Like what? Seriously, all of the initial-only arguments elude me, and explaining doesn't help. The only time I said anything about men was when I said not all of them are rapists, and from what you just finished saying, that's me considering the majority, not ignoring them.
      The thing is, they are. I don't feel that people are slaves to their genetics and impulses, and I do feel that those same things can change. We no longer have cavemen bashing their woman over the head with a convenient club, for example.

    14. My evidence is what I see happen in the world. That is what shapes my beliefs, just as what you see in the world shapes yours. And my evidence won't convince you, just as yours won't convince me. Things that hit me hard, that make me feel like I am nothing more than a second-class citizen and that I want to fight, that I want to be treated with the same amount of respect that is automatically accorded to men based on their dominant status. The fact that my sex life is what gets fought over, because I have the capability to make babies. The reason my evidence won't convince you is because I say that I feel like I'm second class and that my uterus is the only important part of me, and you say that this is what the primitive society model is meant to be. My status is based on either my uterus or a truly amazing feat that will counterbalance my reluctance to put that uterus to work. I find this to be a bad thing. You don't. Our base assumptions differ, and neither one of us can convince the other, because of those base assumptions. You interpret evidence one way, and I interpret it another.

      When feminism blows up, I'll be sure to come back and apologize. Until then, I am a woman, and I'm going to keep fighting for people to assume that I am worthy of respect based on more than a functioning vagina. Maybe it's different when you've had children and are in a happy marriage with a man you've committed/submitted to. Maybe there's a different factor at play class, or the type of men each of us know. Maybe, at 20, I'm just too young to understand the subtle intricacies of the argument, and I'll understand it when I get older. I don't know. I'm not going to theorize about why my hackles rise when I read your evidence, because after a certain point, I've matured to the point where I know exactly why I believe in feminism still, and I know that none of my emotions and instincts...huh...I'll grant you a point for the instincts argument...will change your mind. My mind and beliefs were shaped by my life, and they won't touch anyone but me. I am a feminist not because I'm talking about women needing jobs, or better paychecks, or anything of that sort. The only jobs I've ever had were door-to-door newspaper subscription salesgirl (And I do mean girl. I was about 13, and being a young girl who looks younger than she actually is and has a pretty smile got me plenty of sales. Plus the occasional random boy who would open his front door after I left and yell to me, two houses down, "YOU'RE HOT!!!!") for which I got a commission on my sales, and during which the girls usually did make more than the boys, because we had more girls than boys, and because girls are much better at smiling sweetly and looking innocent and adorable than boys are. I still have fond memories of that job. We worked in pairs, and I always paired up with one of my best friends. The camaraderie, the knowing you had a partner there who had your back...I love working with people I trust. There were days when we'd be working a skeevy-looking street, and without having to discuss it, we'd go to every house together, rather than each taking one side of the street.

    15. And my current job, as a desk clerk at night. That's what I'm doing right now, actually. Anyone working a desk clerk shift makes minimum wage, seven and a quarter per hour. I'm working my tail off right now, I want to buy a new LadyCup for myself for Christmas.
      I am a feminist because I don't think that I've found a good enough reason why girls are useless, or have worth based solely on their ability to reproduce, especially these days, when we definitely don't need a bigger population. I don't like that a woman's worth is tied to her number of sexual partners or her virginity. And I'm annoyed that women are being denied control over their own bodies. Also, I'm still up in arms over the fact that being a woman means the words that are gender-specific to me are also non-gender-specific insults.

      All that this boils down to is thank you for helping me to clarify my beliefs, and more specifically, WHY I believe that way, by tearing them apart. I truly appreciate it, because it made me look inside to try to understand what exactly made me feel this way. Thank you for arguing your point calmly and clearly, and I'm sorry for my rant the other day. Like I explained, a long day and familial pride are a difficult combination. I'm going to bow out of this, because I'm not one to run into a wall repeatedly...maybe once or twice, but no more than three times, certainly...and I don't believe that you are, either. I think you're genuinely trying to reach people. And so am I. But both of us are way too set in our beliefs.

    16. I hope you have a lovely Christmas, and good luck with presents...I just got my paycheck, so I've got mine ordered for direct family (parents and brother). My brother and dad are getting soaps, because I hope they'll use them (brother's is bacon-scented, father's is caffeinated) and my mother is getting a Pacman blanket. She used to love that game, and I think she'll like the nostalgia of it. Plus, a warm blanket is always nice. I've got multiple scarves to make, so my needles aren't going to get a rest for...well, probably the rest of the month. I'll probably swing by and say hello every now and again, because despite not agreeing with most of what you say, I don't have any particular enmity towards you, and I want to keep up with how Pooka is doing and the rest of the family. You're a fairly decent person, I love small dogs, and a joke about nuts made me chuckle. So I hope you have a nice day, week, month, and rest of the year, and wish you best of luck in your endeavors. Especially handling Christmas, because if you have anything in common with most of the people I know, this season is also known as the most stressful time of the year.
      Related: Have you ever heard of Piers Anthony? He writes a series called "Xanth", and there are ghost horses in it (it's a straight-up fantasy, with awful puns, but it likes to poke fun at itself, and I enjoy it) and the ghost horses are actually called the Pooka. So the cute puppy's name made me smile.
      Related: My brother and father are both able to be left at home alone. They just suck at entertaining themselves and whine about it constantly. The gap between what they can do and what they want to do is huge. When I go home, I'll be doing the laundry for the family again, because my brother knows how to operate a washer but won't, and my father does up what he needs and ignores everyone else. We're trying to convince my brother to join Job Corps. It'd give him money, which he so desires, and he's a chunky kid that developed muscles very quickly...he could definitely handle manual labor. He will, someday, be on his own. He doesn't need a home, or a caretaker. What he needs is to grow up, in a completely non-derogatory sense. Once he does that, once he has a job and responsibilities, he'll never be normal, but he can function. He's just completely beyond weird.

    17. (I know he can function, because I've tried it when babysitting him so my parents could have an anniversary dinner. They left us money to walk to Walmart...two blocks away, which was awesome...and get food. I handed him five dollars and told him to get whatever food he wanted, but if it doesn't fill him up, no whining. If he's still hungry later, he can eat what's in the house. I gave myself the same limits, bought a couple of Lunchables and a four-pack of pudding. He saw the puddings and put back a couple of the microwave sandwich things he had grabbed to get a couple things of pudding. I checked to make sure he understood that this was his supper and he doesn't get to yell about wanting more if he's not happy with it, and he agreed, so we checked out and true to his word, he didn't yell about being hungry for the rest of the night, and even saved some of his puddings for our parents. He can work with a budget, he just hates it. But, again, so does my father, and well...he enlisted in the army, served for twenty years, met and married my mother, and fathered two children. He has a job, he's a brilliant cook, and on a good day, he's a great guy. A couple of my fondest memories were when my mom was on a brief business trip and my brother and I finally drove my dad nuts. He ordered us into the car and drove, silent. I was an overly anxious child, so I was planning how to get away when he stopped in the deserted field and pulled out the cleaver. We ended up at a pumpkin patch and wandered through the grass maze together and took a hay ride. Another time, we went to the Omaha Nebraska zoo, which was pretty amazing. The aquarium goes over your's truly intimidating to have a shark swimming over you).

      Oh, dear. I just realized, I wrote another novel. I really am sorry!

    18. "We no longer have cavemen bashing their woman over the head with a convenient club, for example."

      The fact that you believe we HAD such men (more than we do now) is just one tiny piece of evidence that you (and all of society) have been brainwashed. Society didn't have that pervasive attitude about men until recently. Society didn't smugly assume that it is civilization that turned men into decent human beings. We understood that men have ALWAYS used reason to manage their instincts. But until recently, society had more sense than to assume we could or should DENY our instincts.

      "That is what shapes my beliefs, just as what you see in the world shapes yours. And my evidence won't convince you, just as yours won't convince me. Things that hit me hard, that make me feel like I am nothing more than a second-class citizen and that I want to fight..."

      Another bit of evidence that you have been indoctrinated by feminism, is your belief that YOUR OBSERVATIONS, on which you base your beliefs, are a valid measure of objective truth. Objective truth requires looking beyond your own observations and considering verified facts. Feminism treats personal perception as fact. After spending your childhood in feminized public schools, you are an adult who still believes it.
      Two years ago I would not have written this letter, because this is not how I interpreted my own observations. My opinions changed when I looked at OTHER PEOPLE'S observations, and more importantly, looked at the statistical and objective data. This is called critical thinking, and schools no longer teach it because facts sometimes hurt kids' feelings. Children feeling good about themselves is more important to our education system, than knowledge. Did you know that 40 years ago "education" majors were mostly for grade school teachers? Middle school and high school teachers majored in academic subjects, and then earned teaching certificates. And we were still leading the world academically.

      Have you noticed that you consistently defend your perspective with the words, "I feel?" You were raised to believe that what you "feel" is a legitimate basis for facts. It's not. Your emotions are a personal reaction to stimuli. As you receive more stimuli, your emotions will likely change. Feminism strictly limits the amount of stimuli to which you are exposed.

    19. "The reason my evidence won't convince you is because I say that I feel like I'm second class and that my uterus is the only important part of me, and you say that this is what the primitive society model is meant to be."

      By this standard, men have two important parts: their penises and their muscles. Do you think men have always been emotionally validated by being diminished to that?

      "I am a feminist because I don't think that I've found a good enough reason why girls are useless.."

      It is feminism that told you that girls were treated as useless. Women have always worked. Before the industrial revolution, men and women did a great deal of their work together, cooperatively, including raising children. Industrial jobs took men out of the home. This put a greater burden childrearing burden on women; at the same time it put a greater earning burden on men - their wives were not working beside them. The division of labor caused by industrialization isn't ideally suited to human nature, but on the bright side, it led to greater prosperity - and a bigger population. Feminism wants to pretend that women are the primary victims of the industrial division of labor, because women didn't get to do the "fulfilling" jobs. But feminism has never fought to ensure that more women could dig coal and be maimed by machinery. Feminism has always fought for women to be allowed to have the safe and fun jobs.

      Have you ever learned about the "scientific process?" It is essentially this: propose a theory, then attempt to disprove it. If you can't disprove it, it is likely true. Keep it in mind throughout your life, and never trust that anything you are taught has been held up to this standard. Including what I've told you. If you're curious, do the research. Find the statistics, follow the money.

      And Merry Christmas to you and your family.

  13. Trust me, I realize that everything I said used "feel". Like I said...the problem is that you and I have different notions. You look at your evidence and see a compelling argument for one side...I look at the same evidence and see a problem, and a compelling argument for the other side. The evidence is the same, but the interpretation differs, and until my own base assumptions and interpretation changes, you can toss all the evidence at me that you want.

    Decided to pop by cause I thought this was cool...don't know if it's a blog entry or just a weird study, but perhaps it explains a bit of why women are trying to emasculate the men and end up marrying betas.

    Basically, the more masculine a man appeared, the higher a woman rated him on his likeliness of cheating. And the real kicker is, they were right. There was a noticeable correlation between the men they thought cheated and the men who reported actually cheating.

    1. That's old news. Masculine men are desirable; they have many opportunities to cheat. Doesn't make it right, but it brings up two questions:

      How likely is a man to cheat when his woman acts like she really, truly values his masculinity, instead of vying with him for power within the relationship? (And if he's that hot, he does have more power, aka sex rank.)

      Why do women marry these men in the first place? Did "somebody" teach women that they could "change" such men? (You know, like a fairytale frog-and-prince story?) Did "somebody" teach women to expect men to suppress their masculinity, even when those men's masculinity is so strong that they are among the few men rewarded for it? (cuz they're hawt?) "Somebody" forgot to tell women a thing or two about human nature.

    2. Trust me, the Disney-princess-Beauty-and-the-Beast-change-the-bad-boy story bugs the heck out of me. The only thing I liked about Beauty and the Beast was a princess who had brown hair and read books and was exceedingly underwhelmed by the village annoyance who thought he was God's gift to women (Gaston, although I met several real-life Gastons who also think that the way to a girl's heart is to bug her...if she sounds annoyed, you're doing it right! Ugh. Can I file a complaint against guys who, without any teaching at all, think that they can change a lesbian or a wallflower into the exact opposite?). Also, the singing household appliances and fine china were great. The actual story, less so. The frog and prince story brings up memories of The Princess and the Frog, which annoyed me and quite frankly frightened me at times. Seriously? Mega-creepy-voodoo-guy in a children's animated movie? Gotta be kidding.

      The study specifically said that the masculinity didn't equate to attractiveness. An ugly lumberjack counts as plenty masculine.

      But these women are trying not to marry these ultra-masculine men, because they view them as more likely to cheat. So they marry the men that are less masculine, the "betas" as you put it, because they see them as more trustworthy. I remember once I saw an article that women have an increased "gaydar" for gay men after they become pregnant, and the theory is that it's because once they're pregnant, they want to find a man who won't take stupid risks with his life or cheat or whatever, and the more masculine a man appears, the more likely he is to do those things and leave her alone.

    3. Yes, women want Alpha sperm and Beta stability. Sucks to be a beta, doesn't it? Marry Sumdood's leftovers and raise Sumotherdood's children. Moral codes that tempered (but never contradicted) those instincts, rewarded beta's for their diligence in building civilization. That was the primary reason for demanding that women remained virgins until marriage. While a man could rarely supervise his wife's every move after the wedding, if she came to him as a virgin, he has a better chance of ensuring that at least "his" first child, was indeed his. Most men are willing to work their asses off to support their own kids. Someone else's? Meh, not so much. Look around.

    4. And if we managed to fix that issue (men not wanting to raise children that were fathered by someone else) then our society would be a lot better off. There are THOUSANDS of children in foster care who could use homes, but people would rather bring another kid, or two, or three into the world, because if they're gonna screw up a kid, by goodness, it's gonna be made out of their own genetic material! Seriously...adoption is not that big a deal, and that's what this equates to. If the kid is legally adopted as his own, then there's that kid to Carry On The Family Name, regardless of parentage. I guess, maybe because of being female, I dunno, that I can't understand what makes it such a big issue that the kid's DNA syncs up with his. It seems so stupid. If you raise the child, then that is your child, DNA be damned. Why can't society shift? If kids will be healthier fathered by the alpha male, and raised by the beta male, then what is the situation here? Woman marries beta male, they maybe go on to have children, or not, they have a perfectly healthy life together. You talk about human nature being yadda-yadda, how it worked in primitive society, and acknowledge that in primitive society, woman slept with whoever would give her the best babies, then stayed with whoever could be their father best. Why are we trying to change that part of society, but not the part where woman has the subordinate role?

      As long as she doesn't lie and tell him he's the father, I don't see the problem. Why not have the men use some of that reason and let them look at a kid, go "Oh, what a great kid", and raise them? It feels like the trope shouldn't be the evil stepmother, it should be the evil stepfather (but women are evil, so...) because he's marrying into a family and being handed a kid that is obviously not his that he is supposed to be a father for.

    5. The first three priorities of any species are food, shelter, and reproduction. Why would we expect ourselves to abandon the reasons our species is not extinct? Why would we want to?

    6. Yeah, so he gets food, he gets shelter, and he can reproduce perfectly well (or, rather, perform the actions that are likely to lead to reproduction unless the partner is uterus-less or on birth control). Why can't there be another child there? A child in the home does not mean that there is no chance for another child. Any and all non-single-children are proof of that. He's willing to work to support his kids, but not another man's, because he wants to reproduce?

    7. When resources are plentiful, raising another man's children isn't a problem, and most men are perfectly willing to do it. I'm referring again to instinct, an instinct women share. Our brains evolved at a time when one's next meal was ALWAYS in question; we feed our own children first.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.