Post: #1

Worth reading for sure.

http://time.com/3028827/women-against-fe...-it-right/

Quote:The charge that feminism stereotypes men as predators while reducing women to helpless victims certainly doesn’t apply to all feminists—but it’s a reasonably fair description of a large, influential, highly visible segment of modern feminism.


The latest skirmish on the gender battlefield is “Women Against Feminism”: women and girls taking to the social media to declare that they don’t need or want feminism, usually via photos of themselves with handwritten placards. The feminist reaction has ranged from mockery to dismay to somewhat patronizing (or should that be “matronizing”?) lectures on why these dissidents are wrong. But, while the anti-feminist rebellion has its eye-rolling moments, it raises valid questions about the state of Western feminism in the 21st Century — questions that must be addressed if we are to continue making progress toward real gender equality.

Female anti-feminism is nothing new. In the 19th century, plenty of women were hostile to the women’s movement and to women who pursued nontraditional paths. In the 1970s, Marabel Morgan’s regressive manifesto The Total Woman was a top best-seller, and Phyllis Schlafly led opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. But such anti-feminism was invariably about defending women’s traditional roles. Some of today’s “women against feminism” fit that mold: They feel that feminism demeans stay-at-home mothers, or that being a “true woman” means loving to cook and clean for your man. Many others, however, say they repudiate feminism even though — indeed, because — they support equality and female empowerment:

“I don’t need feminism because I believe in equality, not entitlements and supremacy.”

“I don’t need feminism because it reinforces the men as agents/women as victims dichotomy.”

“I do not need modern feminism because it has become confused with misandry which is as bad as misogyny, and whatever I want to do or be in life, I will become through my own hard work.”

Or, more than once: “I don’t need feminism because egalitarianism is better!”

Again and again, the dissenters say that feminism belittles and demonizes men, treating them as presumptive rapists while encouraging women to see themselves as victims. “I am not a victim” and “I can take responsibility for my actions” are recurring themes. Many also challenge the notion that American women in the 21st century are “oppressed,” defiantly asserting that “the patriarchy doesn’t exist” and “there is no rape culture.”

One common response from feminists is to say that Women Against Feminism “don’t understand what feminism is” and to invoke its dictionary definition: “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” The new anti-feminists have a rejoinder for that, too: They’re judging modern feminism by its actions, not by the book. And here, they have a point.

Consider the #YesAllWomen Twitter hashtag, dubbed by one blogger “the Arab Spring of 21st Century feminism.” Created in response to Elliot Rodger’s deadly shooting spree in Isla Vista, California — and to reminders that “not all men” are violent misogynists — the tag was a relentless catalog of female victimization by male terrorism and abuse. Some of its most popular tweets seemed to literally dehumanize men, comparing them to sharks or M&M candies of which 10% are poisoned.

Consider assertions that men as a group must be taught “not to rape,” or that to accord the presumption of innocence to a man accused of sexual violence against a woman or girl is to be complicit in “rape culture.” Consider that last year, when an Ohio University student made a rape complaint after getting caught on video engaging in a drunken public sex act, she was championed by campus activists and at least one prominent feminist blogger — but a grand jury declined to hand down charges after reviewing the video of the incident and evidence that both students were inebriated.

Consider that a prominent British feminist writer, Laurie Penny, decries the notion that feminists should avoid such generalizations as “men oppress women”: In her view, all men are steeped in a woman-hating culture and “even the sweetest, gentlest man” benefits from women’s oppression. Consider, too, that an extended quote from Penny’s column was reposted by a mainstream reproductive rights group and shared by nearly 84,000 Tumblr users in six months.

Sure, some Women Against Feminism claims are caricatures based on fringe views — for instance, that feminism mandates hairy armpits, or that feminists regard all heterosexual intercourse as rape. On the other hand, the charge that feminism stereotypes men as predators while reducing women to helpless victims certainly doesn’t apply to all feminists — but it’s a reasonably fair description of a large, influential, highly visible segment of modern feminism.

Are Women Against Feminism ignorant and naïve to insist they are not oppressed? Perhaps some are too giddy with youthful optimism. But they make a strong argument that a “patriarchy” that lets women vote, work, attend college, get divorced, run for political office, and own businesses on the same terms as men isn’t quite living up to its label. They also raise valid questions about politicizing personal violence along gender lines; research shows that surprisingly high numbers of men may have been raped, sometimes by women.

For the most part, Women Against Feminism are quite willing to acknowledge and credit feminism’s past battles for women’s rights in the West, as well as the severe oppression women still suffer in many parts of the world. But they also say that modern Western feminism has become a divisive and sometimes hateful force, a movement that dramatically exaggerates female woes while ignoring men’s problems, stifles dissenting views, and dwells obsessively on men’s misbehavior and women’s personal wrongs. These are trends about which feminists have voiced alarm in the past — including the movement’s founding mother Betty Friedan, who tried in the 1970s to steer feminism from the path of what she called “sex/class warfare.” Friedan would have been aghast had she known that, 50 years after she began her battle, feminist energies were being spent on bashing men who commit the heinous crime of taking too much space on the subway.

Is there still a place in modern-day America for a gender equality movement? I think so. Work-family balance remains a real and complicated challenge. And there are gender-based cultural biases and pressures that still exist — though, in 21st century Western countries, they almost certainly affect men as much as women. A true equality movement would be concerned with the needs and interests of both sexes. It would, for instance, advocate for all victims of domestic and sexual violence regardless of gender — and for fairness to those accused of these offenses. It would support both women and men as workers and as parents.

Should such a movement take back feminism — or, as the new egalitarians suggest, give up on the label altogether because of its inherent connotations of advocating for women only? I’m not sure what the answer is. But Women Against Feminism are asking the right questions. And they deserve to be heard, not harangued. As one of the group’s graphics says: “I have my own mind. Please stop fem-splaining it to me.”

Post: #2

As we'd guessed, what it takes to criticize feminism is for women to appropriate male ideas and make them palatable enough to be published in Time.

I really, really hope the term 'femsplaining' catches on.

Post: #3

Like the article, but agree with Rotisserie and others who've said it: It's irritating that "misogynistic" views suddenly "deserve to be heard" when they come out of the mouth of the sanctified class of humans, also known as women.

That alone is evidence that feminism has taken a fat shit on any semblance of equality.

Post: #4

"Matronizing" - that's awesome. I like "momsplaining" better than fem-splaining, personally.

Post: #5

It's nice to see articles like this being published. This might be a turning point where feminism will start collapsing under its own hate.

Post: #6

(07-24-2014 02:15 PM)Rotisserie Wrote:  As we'd guessed, what it takes to criticize feminism is for women to appropriate male ideas and make them palatable enough to be published in Time.

I really, really hope the term 'femsplaining' catches on.

"As we'd guessed, what it takes to criticize feminism is for women to appropriate male ideas and make them palatable enough to be published in Time."

Did'nt and will not read for this reason.

Post: #7

(07-24-2014 04:24 PM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 02:15 PM)Rotisserie Wrote:  As we'd guessed, what it takes to criticize feminism is for women to appropriate male ideas and make them palatable enough to be published in Time.

I really, really hope the term 'femsplaining' catches on.

"As we'd guessed, what it takes to criticize feminism is for women to appropriate male ideas and make them palatable enough to be published in Time."

Did'nt and will not read for this reason.

Same.

Oh, the retards have decided to listen now that it's neatly packaged up for them? Fuck em.

Men are screaming from the mountaintops that feminism is horseshit and those men get labelled misogynists.

Women start a quiet little anti-feminism tumblr page and get featured in Time magazine.

Post: #8

http://takimag.com/article/catfight_gavi...z38Kcz1hx3

Quote:Good news, guys. Feminism is over. Sure, there are still women being stoned to death and a teenager might get butyric acid thrown in her face for rejecting an arranged marriage but as far as the Western world today goes, we’re done. Of course, when an object has been rolling through the patriarchy for half a century, it’s not going to stop on a dime. Women are still bitching. The difference now is, these complaints sound like the rantings of a babysitter about to get her period.

Women are not in constant danger. They are not seen as less valuable than men. They’re not objectified sexually. They’re worshipped and admired. When you include prison, men get raped far more than women. Men’s lives are in danger way more often than women’s are, especially in the workplace. The myth that women earn less than men has been debunked a thousand times. The only people insisting women look a certain way are gays and other women. As far as us guys are concerned, all you have to do to keep us interested is own a vagina. Men don’t insist women spend $10,000 on an Hermes bag. We don’t even know what that is.

Men aren’t the only people smart enough to notice the complaint box is full of shit. Women are clueing in too. The hashtag #Idontneedfeminism was trending on Twitter recently and it included refreshing realism such as “I don’t need feminism because I am an adult who is capable of taking responsibility for myself and my actions.”

The most famous female face of this recent trend is Karen Straughan. She may look like a feminazi but she caused quite the tizzy last month when she denounced feminism at the Men’s Issues Conference in Detroit. She ridiculed feminist speakers for beginning every tirade with “he.” She said feminism has never been about equality and is almost solely focused on blaming men for all the evils of the world. Karen has been denouncing feminism for a while now on her video blog but she really came into the public eye when she debated Naomi Wolf a few months ago. Wolf was visibly shaken by the debate and it pushed Straughan into the forefront of the “women for men” movement.

I hate to sound misandrist but I suspect horny men have also had a lot to do with the scourge of “equality.” Free love has always meant more pussy for guys. Rejecting traditional marriage has the same results for single guys and who benefits from bra burning more than fans of tits? We may have started by saying women should be liberated from the kitchen but it was out of the frying pan and into the fire. Most young women I know would kill to get back to the kitchen. It’s easier than living the life of a man.

Modern feminism is no longer about empowering women. It’s about trivializing what makes women female and glorifying their male traits. Girls should be “kick-ass.” We need more female super heroes. Women should be more involved in the video game industry. Housewives are sellouts. We’ve gone from the Mother Earth hippies who love their femininity to the chick with the guns from Tomb Raider. Not only do these girls want to be dudes, they want dudes to be chicks.

The American Enterprise Institute’s Christina H. Sommers is a strong, proud antifeminist who has become as vocal as Straughan in recent months. She says the fight for equality has become less about promoting femininity and more about discouraging masculinity. She recently published a video called “War on Boys” that quickly went viral. The five-minute short has over 400,000 hits and discusses teachers and administrators (mostly female) who are not just discouraging young boys from being boys but penalizing them for it. When a boy drew some beheaded pirates, his parents were called in to deal with his violent tendencies. What’s the problem here? Pirates were beheaded. Boys’ grades are going down and part of it is the fact that behavior is now included in academic scores. What used to be seen as naturally rambunctious has become an inability to listen.

“Yeah right,” scoffs the college blogger. “Men are in big trouble. It’s not like the world’s top billionaires aren’t male or anything.” This is the same retort we hear about the war on Christmas or anything that appears racist toward whites. Sure, most of the winners are still men but most of the losers are too. Also, it doesn’t matter if Warren Buffet is rich. That doesn’t change the part where almost all of what modern feminists are saying is factually incorrect. Just because the Yankees are winning doesn’t mean they’re oppressing the other teams.

Feminism can’t complain about real suffering anymore so they create straw men to rail against. If you say some women like rough sex, they pretend you said “rape is cool.” When asked why we still need feminism they come up with totally incoherent reasons such as, “because our culture considers it normal to cut off part of an infant’s penis.” They tell us women want to give you permission for each level of sexual intercourse you instigate. I tried that. They hate it.

Feminists aren’t good for women anymore. They’re not about empowering. They’re about being catty. When HBO picked up the show Girls, feminists bitched about the privileged kids who got the show and said it was racist to boot. When Tina Fey became one of the most successful women in television comedy, they dug up ugly pictures of her. They complain about the word “pussy” being an insult. So? It’s a word used to insult a man. Men don’t want to be something beautiful and soft that you want to put in your mouth. Should a vagina be something men aspire to be? Is that equality?

For every anecdote about a woman suffering adversity, I can see with my own eyes the preferential treatment that balances it out. I dabble in stand-up comedy and have seen female comedian after female comedian rocket past males because the demand is so strong. Women tend to be less funny than men and I suspect it’s because, as John Cleese put it, “Comedy always works best when it is mean-spirited.” However, based on the assumption that women must be equally represented in every field, writers’ rooms, television shows, and comedy clubs are desperately clamoring for funny chicks.

I’ve seen this happen in TV news too. If you’re an attractive woman, you will get a paying position in a quarter of the time a man will. Men who want to discuss politics on TV are a dime a dozen. Pretty women who do are very rare. The funny part about this one is, I agree with it. I’ve seen women hired past me often in TV news and each time I think, “I’d rather look at her say the news too.”

Film is another area where you see women treated like gifts from God. Directing is tough work because you need to understand the technical aspects of filming while simultaneously wrangling dozens of people to do very specific tasks. If an actor is screwing up, you have to whip him into shape or fire him. Men tend to gravitate to this position more often than women. What’s wrong with that? Everything, apparently. There is a huge push in film to get more female directors. A film student at NYU told me they have a 25% female quota for their department, but because so many fewer women apply, the women who get in tend to be way less qualified than the men. After they graduate, they can attend a program such as The Director’s Lab where Sundance puts a female director in residence for months and works with her for hundreds of hours helping her hone her craft. If she writes a shitty script, they will workshop it, have actors read it aloud, and eventually get it to a place where it could win at, say, Sundance.

The work world may have once been like that Dolly Parton movie 9 to 5, but today everyone tiptoes around women for fear of a sexual harassment suit. I’ve been sued for making a joke twice, been sent to sensitivity training twice, and am currently on a type of Double Secret Probation at one of my jobs for telling a rude joke. I have never hit on a woman at work, ever. Come to think of it, after three decades in the workforce, I have never seen a woman persecuted, objectified, or denied a position because of her gender. Businesses are too dependent on profits to deny themselves qualified personnel based on a hang-up. Prejudice is cost-prohibitive.

When I started my first company back in the early 1990s, I saw lots of unattractive 40-something women in marketing with a lot of money at their disposal and a lot of younger men they wanted to sleep with. I met guys in design who openly told us the only way to get record label contracts is to sleep with the marketing women (I also believe these same guys coined the term “cougar”). We tried it and it worked. I’ll never forget our top salesman’s response when asked how our company got so much business. “We ate our way to the top,” he said.

I’m not saying men are oppressed or our existence is in danger. I’m not saying we can’t survive this caterwauling and the false allegations. I’m saying it’s become annoying and now they’re not just getting on men’s nerves. They’re getting on women’s nerves too.

Post: #9

As Rotisserie said above, what is pathetic about this is that Time doesn't recognize as legitimate the criticism of feminism that comes from men; specifically, from young men.

The only valid criticism of feminism is female criticism, by definition. We don't officially exist.

So even this so-called "balanced" article is fucking bullshit. Why don't they have a complete article on the manosphere?

Could it be that it's because our criticism is far too effective? Far too dangerous to the established order, perhaps? I guess it's asking too much for the guardians of the official orthodoxy in the media to be intellectually honest.

Fucking chickenshit cowards.

It doesn't matter. The voices they want to ignore and marginalize will grow, year by year, into an unprecedented tide that will take them by brute force.

Post: #10

This if feminisms Nixon goes to China moment. Don't get too bent out of shape about it.

Post: #11

When reposting articles, please post bylines as well. This is important. Had we known who wrote this up front, the consensus would have been more positive.

The writer is Cathy Young, and she's been writing anti-feminist articles and papers since the 1990s -- before the manosphere was even around. I would even go so far as to saying that some ideas pioneered by Young -- who is also a contributing editor at Reason -- influenced the manosphere to begin with.

Her 1999 book "Ceasefire!" made her one of the few writers, male or female, who challenged feminist political correctness. She called it just as intellectually stifling as religious traditionalism. One of my pet things to do here is call feminists The New Nuns, so I get where she is coming from.

That book helped pave the way for female writers who built on her ideas, like Christina Hoff Summers, Charlotte Allen, and Wendy McElroy. Young's take was unique, though, since she was born in the Soviet Union (as Ekaterina Jung) and came to the US as a teen. This made her particularly sensitive to the encroaching political correctness movement, which had originated in her homeland.

So Time printing her article isn't so much "giving women a voice instead of men" as it is her comeuppance. In 15 years, she's gone from being dismissed as being an eccentric, libertarian wacko to making the pages of Time.

The ideas she forged are finally taking hold with women, despite years of brainwashing by the school system and the media. "Women Against Feminism" isn't so much a bunch of women riding the manosphere's train as it is the culmination of what Young was doing when a lot of the women pictured in the campaign (and in these parts) were babies. She's like the anti-Gloria Steinem.

So the moral here is that before we get outraged about the media throwing out the red carpet for female writers, let's look at the source. And let's also remember to post bylines and/or look into who the writer is before passing judgement.

Post: #12

Thanks for digging up that info, DoBA. It's good to know that Ms. Young has been on our side for as long as she has. Sounds like she should indeed be given due respect and accord.

Post: #13

(07-24-2014 07:39 PM)aphelion Wrote:  Thanks for digging up that info, DoBA. It's good to know that Ms. Young has been on our side for as long as she has. Sounds like she should indeed be given due respect and accord.

A wolf in sheep's clothing. She concedes a few points to the manosphere and is applauded for it. Sit her down and try to discuss feminism a la RVF and she'll react just as any other femdyke: with scorn and rage.

Post: #14

(07-24-2014 02:21 PM)Texas_Tryhard Wrote:  Like the article, but agree with Rotisserie and others who've said it: It's irritating that "misogynistic" views suddenly "deserve to be heard" when they come out of the mouth of the sanctified class of humans, also known as women.

That alone is evidence that feminism has taken a fat shit on any semblance of equality.

I agree, and I think it's a testament to how effectively feminism has shut down any sort of real debate when the criticism is coming from a man. However, it looks like the dam is springing a few leaks, and the holes that will be the hardest for feminists to plug are the ones being opened by other women.

Post: #15

I hate to rain on the parade, but women never have a discussion within the frame of what might be mutually beneficial to men and women and contribute to a balanced, just and productive society.

When women rail against feminism and call for a return to traditionalism, what they are really doing is arguing the merits of the various options available to extract resources from men. The changes in society thanks to feminism have been so wide sweeping, that women who are anti-feminism don't even have to give up very much to considering themselves "against feminism."

Without reading the article, I'm completely confident that it isn't a rallying call to end women's ability to screw a man in divorce court.

Anti-feminist or not, when will always want a back door option "in case he's abusive."

Post: #16

@DOBA:

I see your point and it's well said.

But I still think there is an unspoken subtext with the mainstream media's treatment of feminism. And this subtext says that criticism of anything female is allowed to take place only within certain boundaries. Stray outside those boundaries, and you'll be punished.

And even then, the criticism can only come from female mouths. Any male daring to challenge the established thinking is put on lists by the Southern Poverty Law Center, blackballed from polite discourse, and subjected to intense scrutiny.

That dynamic is so overpowering that it has, for me, made suspect any female who espouses red pill views.

Post: #17

I would be very, very skeptical of any article like this. Yes, there's some bastardized red pill stuff in here. But keep in mind that Time is (like most print media) dying off. Stuff like this is print journalism's version of clickbait. Whether or not she actually believes these things remains open for discussion.

Post: #18

(07-24-2014 10:46 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  @DOBA:

I see your point and it's well said.

But I still think there is an unspoken subtext with the mainstream media's treatment of feminism. And this subtext says that criticism of anything female is allowed to take place only within certain boundaries. Stray outside those boundaries, and you'll be punished.

And even then, the criticism can only come from female mouths. Any male daring to challenge the established thinking is put on lists by the Southern Poverty Law Center, blackballed from polite discourse, and subjected to intense scrutiny.

That dynamic is so overpowering that it has, for me, made suspect any female who espouses red pill views.

You have a point about the larger issue of the mainstream media being partial to women's voices (though my mini-history of Cathy Young as a manosphere should be noted).

Back to your point: in 2006, Forbes writer Michael Noer penned an article titled "Don't Marry A Career Woman," which outlined the ways marrying a woman dedicated to her job is detrimental to men personally and professionally.

The response was so overwhelmingly negative (i.e. women screeched so loudly), they retracted it from their Web site, then put it out again alongside a rebuttal. Read the whole thing here: http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/23/Marriag..._land.html

This should give you an idea as to why editors don't go with more anti-feminist writing. Editors like to pretend they like to "shake things up every day," but they only want the "correct" type of controversy, not the bad kind like that article generated.

This is also why men shy away from writing anti-feminist screeds for mainstream media. It earned you a rep as a woman hater and if you're straight, well, that's not good. Women can do this, though, for obvious reasons. I had some bad experiences with feminists writing for a mainstream Web site/media group. Women just seem to be more vocal about complaining than men -- either that or just women's complains strike a chord with people, probably for both emotional and financial reasons (women are bigger consumers).

Women have also written the major books critiquing feminism, which is why they get airtime and articles published. Most book agents are women, and they're partial to other women.

So, you're right in your premise. But this situation reminds me of the indie music scene in the late '80s. All the bands with the original ideas recorded for indie labels like SST. But eventually the indie scene got so big that it became the mainstream.

My feeling is that if the manosphere writers keep at it with their indie books, this will create a sea change. You can't ignore numbers. Hell, I had a mainstream book published last year and from the looks of things, both Roosh and Captain Capitalism far outsold me.

What could have jacked up sales for my book? Me outing myself and promoting it in the manosphere. Publishers and agents are going to realize this eventually. I did when I saw the Amazon.com rankings.

Post: #19

(07-24-2014 10:43 PM)Suits Wrote:  I hate to rain on the parade, but women never have a discussion within the frame of what might be mutually beneficial to men and women and contribute to a balanced, just and productive society.

When women rail against feminism and call for a return to traditionalism, what they are really doing is arguing the merits of the various options available to extract resources from men. The changes in society thanks to feminism have been so wide sweeping, that women who are anti-feminism don't even have to give up very much to considering themselves "against feminism."

Without reading the article, I'm completely confident that it isn't a rallying call to end women's ability to screw a man in divorce court.

Anti-feminist or not, when will always want a back door option "in case he's abusive."

This is right on the money. Those promoting "traditionalism" place traditionalism in approximately 1990, 1985 for the real paleo crowd. I would say that this is true also at a broader level in society. After the last federal election in Australia when a centre right party won, tons of people on the left actually made the claim that we were going back to the 1950s because the PM-elect was a raging misogynist. I just about laughed out loud for two reasons. Firstly, because the centre right party wanted to institute a fairly extensive paid maternity leave scheme, the irony being that even the most radical left winger in 1950 would have thought that idea crazy. Secondly, it was because we're at such a point where history literally doesn't exist beyond people's own lifetimes. Thus, 1950, 1750, 1050...shit it's all some vague period when, like, Julius Caesar stole some land from the aborigines and built the Eiffel Tower and stuff, because no one actually knows anything about history anymore. As such, ideas that in their time, and for thousands of years before, would have seemed batshit crazy are taken as a baseline beginning for "civilisation".

Abandon all hope! Run for the lifeboats if you can!

Post: #20

More and more man realizes modern marriage is a scam, so cunning women try to look like they are traditional and so on...They just want to catch a man.

After swallowing the red pill I will never ever trust a woman. I know they only look after their own good.

Post: #21

I think some of you guys are too hung up on the fact that a man couldn't have a written this article in TIME magazine.

Is it really that important? A major media outlet that is being read all over the world and has a certain influence on public discourse publishes an article that exposes the fallacies of feminism. That is the only crucial thing and should make everyone happy here. Does anyone honestly believe that TIME would publish a ROK-style piece with a red pill agenda? Of course they wouldn't because that is not what their target audience and their editors could handle. A non-controversial and logically argued article with a mild tone like the one by Cathy Young is far more effective in convincing people that Jezebel & Co. are wrong.

Also, the overwhelming majority of men (except über-liberal omega herbs) deep down already know that feminism on the whole doesn't make sense. Why preaching to the converted?

I see this article more of an invitation for women with anti-feminist proclivities to come out of the closet.

Post: #22

(07-25-2014 02:05 AM)Flint Wrote:  I think some of you guys are too hung up on the fact that a man couldn't have a written this article in TIME magazine.

Is it really that important? A major media outlet that is being read all over the world and has a certain influence on public discourse publishes an article that exposes the fallacies of feminism. That is the only crucial thing and should make everyone happy here. Does anyone honestly believe that TIME would publish a ROK-style piece with a red pill agenda? Of course they wouldn't because that is not what their target audience and their editors could handle. A non-controversial and logically argued article with a mild tone like the one by Cathy Young is far more effective in convincing people that Jezebel & Co. are wrong.

Also, the overwhelming majority of men (except über-liberal omega herbs) deep down already know that feminism on the whole doesn't make sense. Why preaching to the converted?

I see this article more of an invitation for women with anti-feminist proclivities to come out of the closet.

Flint: People have been trying this approach for decades and yet, unsurprisingly, the leftist agenda marches onwards. That is precisely the problem we are talking about. The Overton Window is so far out on the left that when we get thrown a scrap, everyone thinks we've won a major victory. The entire debate/agenda is framed by our opponents, so that even when we "win" we lose. Hence, people say "screw this" and stop playing. Once that reaches a tipping point, the whole edifice comes crashing down because there aren't enough beta herbs to keep the house of cards up. Of course, that kind of collapse also inflicts a massive amount of collateral damage on everyone else at the time, so it is somewhat of a Pyrrhic victory for society at large.

Post: #23

(07-24-2014 04:59 PM)DetlefMourning Wrote:  http://takimag.com/article/catfight_gavi...z38Kcz1hx3

Quote:Good news, guys. Feminism is over. Sure, there are still women being stoned to death and a teenager might get butyric acid thrown in her face for rejecting an arranged marriage but as far as the Western world today goes, we’re done. Of course, when an object has been rolling through the patriarchy for half a century, it’s not going to stop on a dime. Women are still bitching. The difference now is, these complaints sound like the rantings of a babysitter about to get her period.

...

The most famous female face of this recent trend is Karen Straughan. She may look like a feminazi but she caused quite the tizzy last month when she denounced feminism at the Men’s Issues Conference in Detroit. She ridiculed feminist speakers for beginning every tirade with “he.” She said feminism has never been about equality and is almost solely focused on blaming men for all the evils of the world. Karen has been denouncing feminism for a while now on her video blog but she really came into the public eye when she debated Naomi Wolf a few months ago. Wolf was visibly shaken by the debate and it pushed Straughan into the forefront of the “women for men” movement.

I found the video of the debate he alludes to here:





I think it's worth watching, but unfortunately Naomi Wolf manages to cut-off and talk over Karen Straughan a number of times. I see this more as a failing of the panel's moderator, but also indicative of the way feminists tend to approach "debates". And that is, a lot of feminists like Wolf just can't stand to let any other voices through, and I imagine it's because they are fundamentally insecure about the merits of their own arguments.

One point in the video that was especially interesting to me was Wolf trying to assert that feminism cares about men's problems too, and that it's "gender neutral" and more concerned about individual rights than those of a specific gender. In the video she makes this assertion in regards to domestic violence of all things. I imagine most men who hear this portrayal of feminism will find it laughable that anyone could seriously expect us to believe it. And yet, I think this is the direction that we'll see going forward as feminism tries to reimage itself as less of a special interest group for women (which it is) and more of an equality-for-everybody movement (which it never will be).

Post: #24

Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Back to your point: in 2006, Forbes writer Michael Noer penned an article titled "Don't Marry A Career Woman," which outlined the ways marrying a woman dedicated to her job is detrimental to men personally and professionally.

The response was so overwhelmingly negative (i.e. women screeched so loudly), they retracted it from their Web site, then put it out again alongside a rebuttal. Read the whole thing here: http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/23/Marriag..._land.html

This should give you an idea as to why editors don't go with more anti-feminist writing. Editors like to pretend they like to "shake things up every day," but they only want the "correct" type of controversy, not the bad kind like that article generated.

This is also why men shy away from writing anti-feminist screeds for mainstream media. It earned you a rep as a woman hater and if you're straight, well, that's not good. Women can do this, though, for obvious reasons.

That article was quite something. Here's a paraphrase:

Man's article:Argument. Summaries of rigorous, statistically significant studies 1,2,3. Reference peer-reviewed journals. Fact, citation. Fact, citation. Fact, citation. Hence, conclusion. BOOM!

Woman's rebuttal: "Studies aside..." (Yes, that's how it opens) Personal anecdote. My personal experience that I generalize to all women with a broad stroke of the pen. I'm happy at work and in my marriage, so all women are happy. Feel-good happy feelings. A few more anecdotes passed off as gospel. Men need to man up and take more responsibility for keeping us haaaaappy in the marriage, if a man marries a career woman who isn't happy, he clearly needs to pull more weight. One more feel-good happy anecdote about me. Please don't cancel your subscription. Yay!

Post: #25

The damage feminism has done, is going to stay here for a while. Unless there is a full on dismissal of this and those who hold such hate filled views are boycotted, you are not going to see any changes for a while.