Female Bigots

People criticise me all the time for the things I say against feminism, they claim that I am a woman hater and want to keep women barefoot and pregnant in kitchen. I always retort back by saying that most of my critiques are against feminism which has erroneously been made synonymous with women’s rights.

But I must say, that the things I say pale in comparison to the kind of demeaning pap one can find in the mainstream media which is written directly against men by females. As Fred Reed observed:

An industry exists today in the writing of pieces proclaiming the weakness of men and the superiority of women

I present two such recent cases to you now. The first is an article written by Laura Bennett called “Exactly how are men superior?”, you will find it on “The daily beast” I will read the opening of the article.

I love my sons—they’re funny, sweet, and full of surprises. But I don’t understand how a species incapable of feeding themselves—much less hitting the toilet—ever came to rule the planet.

Last week as I watched the 44th male take possession of the most powerful position in the world, I had to ask myself how men ever came to be in charge of the world. How did they surpass women in status, power, and wealth? I don’t hate men, I live with far too many of them to survive day-to-day harboring such feelings. I just know that women are the more capable sex. As early as the age of two, girls leave boys standing bewildered in their dust as they speed along the social, emotional, and intellectual racecourse of life.

I am not dealing with Einstein here, just regular boys, and besides, I bet Einstein had his mother tying his shoes for him until he was in college.

My daughter, Cleo, was self-sufficient and independent from the time she could walk; my boys can't take a piss without my help, and even then they can’t manage to get it in the toilet bowl. My boys have been slow to walk and talk, impossible to potty-train, and refused to give up breast-feeding. I had none of these problems with my daughter. When Cleo was five, I came home exhausted from work and fell asleep on the sofa. I opened my bleary eyes to find her eating pizza.

“Where did you get that?” I asked.

“I called Domino’s.”

“Where did you get the money?”

“Your purse.”

“Did you tip?”

“Twenty percent.”

I can’t imagine any of my boys, much less my husband, taking such proactive measures against personal hunger.

What I am not going to do with this article, is try to debunk it, it doesn’t need it. If you agree with Laura Bennett that a fully grow man does not have the cognitive capacity of a 5 year old girl then there is nothing that will change your mind because you, like Laura Bennett, are a reprehensible bigot.

It’s not too hard to prove. I will use the tired, shorthand tactic of saying imagine me writing such an article but instead of men I would be making comparable statements about Jews or blacks or women or Hispanics or any other protected group, then imagine how I would be received, let alone whether or not I could get my article published in any mainstream media outlet.

It is sad that people cannot take the correct message from all of our P.C. madness by assuming the attitude that prejudice against any group of people is not a good thing. Instead, people have absorbed the real meaning of P.C. which is a culturally Marxist class battle attitude towards groups of people who are the haves and other groups which are have-nots, and the redistribution of power between the groups. In this way Laura Bennett’s article is politically correct, women are a protected group and men are deemed as a legitimate target of ire as a group with too much power that needs to be taken from them, either by legislation or through the whip of words. This is why many who are on the pro men’s rights side of the fence are angry, look at the kind of bigotry we have to deal with here.

I will also say that it is a truth that I have observed that girls mature before boys do, both mentally and physically, this fazes me not since men and women are not the same which is a truth that does not send me into paroxysm's of despair like it does to the radical feminist. However, young women who have been raised on the radical feminist memes that men are essentially big clowns find that such notions are swept aside by the harsh mistress of reality as they enter careers where men turn out to be ambitious, resourceful and competitive. How does Laura Bennett figure that young immature boys will usually be the ones ruling the world? Answer: They grow up.

The second article I want to present to you is called “This mess was made by men. Now let the women have their say” and is written by Ruth Sunderland for the Guardian.

There was no shortage of women at the gathering of the global elite in Davos this year. It's just that most of them were either delegates' wives, there to enjoy the skiing at the Swiss mountain resort while their menfolk got on with the serious business of mending the world economy, or upmarket usherettes dressed in smart, air-hostess-style blue uniforms, helping people find their seats.

The heavy-hitting women present? There was a handful, including Angela Merkel, the German leader, and Valerie Jarrett, who came as Barack Obama's representative. Skim the handbook containing the names of the invitees and you had to pass 20 men before coming to the first woman, who just happened to be Princess Inaara, Her Highness the Begum Aga Khan. On the abridged list of about 170 business leaders, I counted five women. As a delegate put it: "Men in well-cut suits still come first at Davos."

Does it matter that women are not getting on to the guest list of the biggest male ego-thon on the planet? After all, most females of sound mind would far rather be anywhere else. But the truth is that it does. It sure does.

The big theme at this year's World Economic Forum (WEF) was "Shaping the Post-Crisis World". The idea that that can be achieved while excluding half the population is breathtaking in its arrogance and shows that the male Davos elite remains mired in its own preening self-regard and complacency. They have wrecked the world economy, but seem oblivious to the idea they may not be the best people to rebuild it. Ignoring the contribution women can make is ridiculous at any time, but how much more so when there is a clear need to reflect on the macho, tooth- and-claw brand of capitalism that caused the crunch in the first place.

I have a certain kind of contempt for those who will introduce their pet cause into situations that don’t need it. These are the actions of a fundamentalist. Also, the base assumptions that men are so inherently self-interested and bad that they will exclude women as a matter of course unless women are present, is projection on behalf of the author. Ruth Sunderland is the one who is displaying the breathtaking arrogance of self-regard here.

My response to Ruth Sunderland is the same response that I give whenever a feminist claims that we should increase the numbers of women in whatever field they’re talking about that day, be it computer science or politics, my reaction remains the same. If we “put” women into roles then we are doing so according to ideology, where someone at the top is deeming what fields need women and how we should insert them. This is totalitarianism which runs the gamut from suggestion to coercion to outright tyranny such as the case in Norway where companies which don’t have a 40% of the board of directors be female, can face closure. I love freedom, which included, by necessity, the freedom to choose the career you want, if women don’t want to be in the field of economics then who are we to tell them they need to be, or to castigate men for choosing to be in that field? Does Ruth Sunderland think that by coercing women into this field then we will be in a better situation to deal with a crisis?

I am portrayed as being an extremist a lot of the time, but it needs to be said that a lot of what I address is reactionary. That is, that I need to spend the time refuting the bigoted words of people such as the two authors I have been discussing here. This can range from large scale assaults in the law and media to small scale assaults such being confronted by a young woman at a party who feels that she can partake in limitless man-bashing in front of a complete stranger. Men’s rights activists are here as a response to the man haters who are, by far, worse.

Posted on: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 9:34 AM
Share this post: email it, bookmark It, digg It, kick It

Comments

  1. Posted by: D on 3/25/2009 12:55 AM
    Gravatar
    Such balanced retorics!

    Reactionary bliss!

    Go man go, im a fan!
  2. Posted by: A on 4/12/2009 5:24 AM
    Gravatar
    You make very compelling points, and I agree that both authors are outright bigots.
    However, the need for feminism, or a modern-day woman's movement has not vanished. In countries like the United States, where the woman's movement has come so far, it may seem that feminism is simply reverse sexism. Some fundamentalist feminists, as you rightly referred to them, take the idea and translate it to man-hating and viewing women as superior. This is not what third wave feminism or feminism in general have ever been about. Women are still, in many respects, exposed to many injustices with issues such as reproductive rights and social limitations/expectations. Additionally, men are faced with many limitations as to what constitutes masculine behavior and are often forced to live up to unfair gender-specific expectations. I think the injustices faced by both sexes mainly stem from a religious, right-minded society that is rooted in and encourages patriarchy.
    This sociological trend is harmful and discriminatory to both sexes in different ways. Much of third wave feminism, particularly what is known as liberal feminism, is meant to challenge traditional gender roles. Feminism is not the source of bigotry, but fundamentalist, radical 'feminists[man-haters]' are. Feminism is meant to be beneficial to everyone, not just women.
    Always nice to read your thought-provoking point of view, and I hope you see where mine is coming from.
  3. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 4/13/2009 3:18 AM
    Gravatar
    I do. I think you're a bit naive but you seem like a nice person.

    You don't work for a feminist organisation do you?
  4. Posted by: A on 4/13/2009 4:09 AM
    Gravatar
    Haha, no I don't.
  5. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 4/13/2009 8:14 PM
    Gravatar
    I didn't think so. That is because, in my experience, people who are moderate reasonable feminists are merely normal people who don’t have an activist mindset.

    Feminism affects us all through the activists and organisations and the organisations contain people who don’t have the moderate and sensible views you hold. It’s nice that you are not like the radicals but what you are essentially doing with your exculpatory excuse making is acting as human shield for the radicals. And you are also slowing down people like me who want to call them on their B.S.
  6. Posted by: Pankaj on 4/14/2009 2:41 AM
    Gravatar
    "Feminism is meant to be beneficial to everyone, not just women."

    Oh yes, and Nazis were trying to help everyone, even Jews!

    You invent new gimmicks every single time. Why don't you just label a hammer as a head-integrity device or a knife as throat massage device?
    If people are stupid enough to buy your ideas about feminism, you might as well ...
  7. Posted by: Martin on 5/15/2009 5:09 AM
    Gravatar
    More on «Feminism is meant to be beneficial to everyone, not just women.»

    As a feminist leader here in Feministan said (free translation) «I'm a feminist,I don't care about men, I care only about women.» this is the size of the universality of the feminist dream (nigthmare).

  8. Posted by: Isabelle on 7/1/2009 12:50 PM
    Gravatar
    " Feminism is meant to be beneficial to everyone ,not just to women"

    What a wonderful lie! Feminism has nothing to care at all with men as its one and only goal is to emasculate and get rid of men!!

    Feminism and its so-called gender equality is based on an awful lie because gender equality just does not exist and never will!
    Why not? Simply because only patriarchy includes both sexes with two separate and complementary functions. How malicious is it to make people believe that,out of a patriarchial pattern,there could be an egalitarian one! Are we stupid? Has our brain been taken off ? If society is not patriarchy,then it is matriarchy ;there is no intermediate!! And matriarchy is being recreated with the dreadful amount of divorces instigated by ...women ,of course and the incredible partiality of the judiciary system (which is based on iniquity ,not on fairness) tha systematically gives the children to the mother,in the name of ...equality!!!!

    All that stinks, our society is falling apart because men still believe those lies. They have fallen away in fear at feminist charges of sexism,tyranny,repression,as a coward would wither before the charge of an enemy on a battlefield.
    Anyway,if men don't take their male responsibilities back,at home and in the society,things will get worse, civilisation will not be far from collapsing.

Post your comment




(this will save your form settings for the next time you comment)

Please add 1 and 7 and type the answer here:

The umbrella in particular is remembered as the symbol of the nineteenth century’s disturbing obsession with individualism. In Bellamy’s utopia, umbrellas have been replaced with retractable canopies so that everyone is protected from the rain equally.
“In the nineteenth century,” explains a character, “when it rained, the people of Boston put up three hundred thousand umbrellas over as many heads, and in the twentieth century they put up one umbrella over all the heads.”