Feminism

15 Questions from a Feminist

ArgusEyes — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:45:49 GMT

Recently I was contacted by a feminist who asked me 15 questions. I rarely do so much typing without offering the end result for everyone else to see and criticise so here are my answers:

1. What is feminism to you? Is its position defensive or offensive? Do you think one could be sympathetic to its theories?

To me, feminism is the enemy. The existence of the men’s rights movement is owed directly to feminism and its influences on society. No feminism, then no MRA’s (Men’s Rights Activists). This is not to say that the movement has not achieve some good, but like most victim movements its inevitable end is depravity, and I’m sure MRAism will be the same which is why I am reticent to associate myself with any “ism” without due diligence. I am more anti-feminist than I am an MRA.

Feminisms position is primarily offensive, it is about imposing a political view on society. Even if I were to agree with the gender goals of feminism, I, as a Libertarian, would surely despise its totalitarian leanings. Most feminists are leftists, they have a plan for how things should be.

2. Because you believe in equal opportunity as opposed to material equality, do you think that little girls and teenage girls really have equal opportunity? Or are young boys disadvantaged?

What I have always said is that females have no less opportunity than males in our western societies. However, there are many areas where they have more opportunity/rights. See my video “men are more oppressed than women” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlWIfMjzBII) for examples of this. Boys are certainly disadvantaged when compared to women but I don’t want to come off as a whiner here. I don’t go around thinking “man, I’m so oppressed”. It doesn’t happen. I am a person who is opinionated and takes a visceral dislike to feminism and the ideas and attacks on men it represents.

3. Does patriarchy exist? Doesn’t the fact that men have more power, prestige, and influence in America confirm that patriarchy exists? What are your views on hegemony?

Yes. As a societal system in many countries around the world, it exists. Does it exist in the west? No. Words have meanings. If we look at the definition of patriarchy:

“a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.”

Males must have the ruling position by design for it to be patriarchy. I’ve had a feminist make the argument to me before that since most politicians in the UK are male then it’s patriarchal, but this is ridiculous of course, they’re there because they were elected, not because of their genitalia. If we were to have more women as politicians in a year’s time then would we live in a matriarchal society? No. It was another example of sloppy thinking by a person who desperately wanted to be the victim.

4. Considering about 60% of women in America self-identify as feminists, do you really think that feminism is all about the vilification/ emasculation/ castration of men? Aren’t they more subtle and nuanced than “wanting to blame you for everything”?

You are simplifying what I believe feminism to be. Hatred of men may be a common trait in feminists but it is not what feminism is about or what attracts women to feminism. I’ve not heard this 60% figure but it wouldn’t surprise me. Many people don’t know anything about feminism and have bought into the line that is stands for equal rights and all things good. The appeal to popularity isn’t a good argument. People can buy into crap and have done so many times throughout history.

5. What would have to change before men and women achieved true equality?

Societal: We would have to adopt the opportunity view of equality and mean it; we would have to get over this instinct of sniggering when “men’s rights” are mentioned and realise that women have no less opportunity than men do and now men and boys are suffering in many regards. We also need to drop chivalry and the need to protect women using the law. If we are going to have equal opportunities then we need to get over this primitive protectionist mentality.

Concrete examples: No different prison punishments for males vs. females. Shared custody as a default. No quotas (AKA positive discrimination). Equal retirement ages. No wage coercion. Equal opportunity for protection for male victims of DV. Plus some..

Also, more women than men in the workplace, politics or university is not an instance of oppression against men if they got there by their own choice on an equal playing field. If they got there by bringing men down with the coercive force of the state, then that is what I have a problem with.

6. How do men in today’s society feel about women in general?

As a misanthrope, I cannot tell you what “men” think. Many who I’ve talked to are as fed up as I am about many aspects of modern feminism.

7. Is there a difference between women and women’s roles in England and women’s roles in America? I’ve heard that women from the UK are more independent, and we are 93% religious.

Whatever differences there are will be small. I think that the two societies are largely similar and thus will be the gender roles.

8. (Do you still refer to us as “the colonies”?)

Nope.

9. Aren’t some (some) men’s issues irrelevant to gender discrimination? For instance, I was watching John Stuart, which featured some air time about a certain men’s rights group in Canada. Their leader voiced concern that “when a football player gets kicked off a football team, none of the cheerleaders would think to still cheer for him, in class, at school… “ and that “men don’t have a place to organize and be guys anymore”. I couldn’t believe it. He’s angry that girls don’t cheer for boys MORE than they already do? And what are bars, poker nights, gentlemen’s clubs, basements, auto mechanic shops, sports stadiums, and the US Senate for? Obviously men’s rights aren’t particularly concerned about these things, but what about others? Men’s circumcision, for instance? Or the fact that more men are dropping out of school? Or the prevalence of suicide, or the exemption of women in combat? None of these issues have anything to do with feminism or oppression, and yet they’re treated as such.

That guy was Warren Farrell, he is a luminary of the men’s rights movement and he has a lot of sensible things to say. I would take what you see on the John Stuart comedy hour with a pinch of salt, they are not above cheap editing and misrepresentation.

Some problems are an indirect consequence of feminism. Girls rise and boys fall in the wake of a massive political and social movement known as feminism which is dedicated to benefiting women and girls. Either girls have reached their natural superior status and boys have fallen for some other reason, or the social engineering over the past decades has had a bad effect, or some other reason. MRA’s and anti-feminists pick the middle one.

10. Don’t most men feel superior to women on some level?

On some level maybe. Like physically. However, I don’t think men stand around feeling superior about this, they understand that men are men and women are women, and both have their good and bad qualities.

11. Can men and women treat each other with mutual respect without pandering to the conventions of chivalry and femininity?

Mutual respect is easier without the knee-jerk manbashing that I’ve encountered from numerous young women I have lived with and worked with over the years. I’ve seen nothing like this on a similar level from the men I’ve known. It’s not 50/50. Female attitudes have been influenced by the societal zeitgeist over the years and this has been driven, in turn, by feminism. The gender war has been a one-sided war so far, we have a problem with manbashing media more than the other way around. Women need to let go of their resentments if relations are to become better.

12. Why do you accuse women of ‘destroying the family’? Wasn’t the 1950s family scene degrading to women? Isn’t it good that women are putting their careers first?

This one is bemusing. Could you point out where I said this?

13. How are little boys and girls socialized, and how does this affect their perceptions of gender?

One of the greatest socialising factors in our society is feminism. Richard Dawkins, in his book “The God Delusion” refers to the actions of feminism as “consciousness raising”. He states:

“It was the feminists who raised my consciousness of the power of consciousness-raising.”

...

“Man, mankind, the rights of man, all men are created equal, one man one vote - English too often seems to exclude women. When I was young, it never occurred to me that women might feel slighted by a phrase like "the future of man". During the intervening decades, we have all had our consciousness raised. Even those who still use "man" instead of "human" do so with an air of self-conscious apology - or truculence, taking a stand for traditional language, even deliberately to rile feminists.”

[http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=%22it+was+the+feminists+who+raised+my+consciousness+of+the%22&source=bl&ots=1ghH-2IhyR&sig=AESfS975FZ1wnnF0afu_IHNToOQ&hl=en&ei=d8NvS8TUBof8tAOWp-2xDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22it%20was%20the%20feminists%20who%20raised%20my%20consciousness%20of%20the%22&f=false]

I feel this when I use the generic “he”. We have indeed been affected by feminist in our western societies, they have formed our language and laws. I can tell you how it affected one little boy – me. I was hurt by the feminist slogans about fish and bicycles. I felt the manbashing on TV. Feminism has had free reign – there is no normative opposition to their views until the one that is growing now.

14. Wouldn’t implementing a ‘men’s studies’ department be redundant, due to the fact that every academic subject extols the achievements, conquests, and intellectual breakthroughs of men in history, art, science, etc.?

I do not think there should be men’s studies departments. My reaction to feminism is not to instigate the same policies but with the sex reversed to males instead of females.

However, I don’t agree with your representation of many fields to extol the achievements of men. They extol the achievements of great figures in history, some of these are women but the vast majority are men because of the nature of gender roles in the past. Fair or not, these men are extolled not for being men, but for being the great figures of history.

Also, extolling the achievements of men would not be the aim of a men’s studies course. The course would be a study of the male mind and role in society. To the historical courses take this approach to understanding men?

15. Is domestic violence really 50/50 in severity, domination, long-term effects, etc.?

I don’t know about 50/50, it probably doesn’t end up that way but I do think that DV against me is played down in our society. Whether it is 50/50 or not, men deserve the opportunity of protection that is being afforded women if they are suffering from DV.

It’s the attack of the feminist stereotypes!

ArgusEyes — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:03:13 GMT

Oh lordy, I’ve been sent three links in the past day that have raised an eyebrow or two. The first is from long time cyber stalker DianaBoston, who criticises me directly by name. I won’t spoil the video but the crux of it is a moral equivalence so vile and stupid that I almost vomited on my shoes.

Check out some of her comments:

MensRifleAssociation (2 days ago)
Reply | Spam
you sure did swing your club today.

DianaBoston (2 days ago)
Reply
Men use clubs, women use their brains and a sword. The sword of justicia!

Okaaay. Moving swiftly along. We have stereotypes B and C.

I would reply to some of these but I’m just too busy.

Can we generalise feminism?

ArgusEyes — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:24:56 GMT

I have been involved in an email dialog with a feminists, Jen, who bills herself as a “real feminist”, by which she means she is not like those radicals. Great. Her criticism of me is that I criticise feminism as some kind of monolithic entity and don’t pay enough heed to the real feminists like her. This discussion is so common in my email inbox that I feel it would be useful to include it on this blog. It is still ongoing so expect updates.

It starts with her original email to me:

I would be responding to your videos on your comments page, but unfortunately, there are way too many stupid people there for my taste, and no matter what I know I will be bashed because I don't hate women or feminists. This is sort of my response to the all of the videos from you I have watched.

I agree with a lot of your points on our culture's persecution of men. Fathers are just as vital to the family as mothers. Though I think it is unfair to blame only the feminists for encouraging things like no-fault divorce and fatherless families. The persecution of men began after WWII when the media portrayed responsible men, men who made sacrifices and supported families, as emasculated, mocking them, mocking the life of a "normal" man, portraying it as being shallow and unfulfilling. The movie Rebel Without A Cause embodies this perfectly. This fabricated portrayal of an empty fatherhood aroused feelings of boredom and discontent in young men who did not like what they had to look forward to. Hugh Hefner's motto of having ties to no one, including woman and family, became the popular manly ideal. This was still the 1950's. If society considered it unmanly to provide for one's wife and family, or even start one, normal, plain women were screwed. The male rebellion of beatnicks and greasers was prompted by fear of castration via fatherhood and responsibility. The female rebellion of I am woman hear me roar BS was also provoked by a fear a different one, of being left in the gutter, in exchange for Hugh Heffners more attractive, sexually active bunnies. Most guys are afraid of castration. Most women fear spinsterhood. Such is a fate worse than death for both. You know what followed in the 60's and 70's.

Since then, our society continually has two views of men: you are either a free man, a womanizing sex God who is a Chuck Norris protege - or you are the emasculated father who is literally drained by his controlling wife and whiny kids. Both are bullshit. Similarly, there are two views of women in society: you are either an attractive sex toy, or you are the ugly saggy-tit spinster, who if she were married, or someone's mother, would be a nagging volatile shrew. Also Bullshit. The true feminists, as well as the deranged psychotic man-hating ones are a mere product of this. But the heart of the evil lies in those who controlled (and still control) the fantasies of the masses in the first place.

These puppetmasters who support the psychotic feminists with their media coverage only do so, because they want to tear down those who pose an actual threat to them (fathers who love and stand by their families), not because they really care about justice or women's freedom. They want to make such men afraid to have families of their own, afraid to be responsible, to love fully, afraid to stand and fight. What these fools (the psychofeminists) don't realize is they are playing right into the traps of the tyrants they claim to oppose. Once they are done destroying the will of the only men with the courage to fight for those they love, there will be no men to protect their rights. I say it as a feminist: women's freedom depends on the state of civilization, and the support of good men. It always has and will. No amount of protesting, no law is going to change that.

I apologize for the mouthful. But it seems like you've never been exposed to a real feminist (the "men are pigs" psychos are a VERY LOUD minority, who are definitely more fun to rant about than us boring feminists who are straight, have boyfriends and love their dads), and think you know what real feminism stands for. Usually, we hold a lot more in common than we realize, but don't have the humility to want to listen to the other side. Oftentimes as soon as men such as yourself discover that I am female, or god forbid a feminist, that I can't be reasoned with or care deeply about their perspective.

I am often busy, but would gladly like to hear your response, as I believe you did want to get a dialog going. (Unless you are the male version of the psycho-feminist. I sincerely hope you arent.) :(

My first response to her:

Hi,

I can do a dialog, no problem, and I will address your points but if I may break this down a little bit to make it more manageable by asking you a question.

I realize you are young, but are you prominent in any organization or are you on the front lines of feminist thought promoting your views?

Sincerely,
Mark

Her response:

Hello again! I apologize for the late response - it is Thanksgiving here and I have been spending time with my family for the past week.

As for my "prominence" there is no official feminist organization that I see any need to join as of now, unless one counts forums and various websites and college groups. Honestly, I think one can just as much if not more accomplished through making films that reach a general audience, than by stopping traffic with a mob of annoying protesters - but that is my personal approach.

Yes, I am young, still in college, and have yet to make my grand contribution to humanity. I am not a public speaker or a politician. But I am a storyteller, and can thus reach just as many people through my work.

My response:

Hello again Jen,

I was beginning to think that you had forgotten about me.

Your answer was what I thought it would be. You're an interested individual, right? However, you're not a member of an organisation or on the head of N.O.W. I receive emails from many people who complain that I only attack the radicals and that I don't consider the "real feminists", to use you own term, but when I probe further then I find that they are people who have normal jobs and who don't push the field of feminism or steer its course.

I am not going to ask you introspect and ask you why you consider yourself to be the standard to be measured against for ideological pureness. In short, why do you consider yourself to be the "real feminist" when you are not prominent in the movement and the radicals are the ones behind the wheel? Doesn't it make more logical sense to call these feminists the "real ones"?

Sincerely,
Mark

Her response:

Unlike most movements, feminism is a loose collection of individuals. To think there is but one ruling dogma or only a few key feminists whom we all follow like sheep is outdated. Maybe a couple of older feminists, who mind you are starting to die off - but most feminists that I know, and virtually all feminists of my generation are not man-haters. Feminists do hold one thing in common: we believe that women are as fully human as men and should not be disrespected or poorly treated on the sole grounds that they are "women and therefore inferior".

Many of my ideas come from my mentors - who share my core values and HAVE made contributions to feminist thought. When I asked my mentors what it means to be a feminist, they told me what I am telling you now. As in any industry, those with the ability to succeed, those with the passion and dream to choose his or her own life, should be allowed to do so, man or woman of any race or background (provided they aren't abusing their freedom by oppressing others). Those who seek to punish and oppress men with such vehemence nearly always have some kind of emotional or psychological disorder.

Does Bill O'Reilly represent all conservatives? Does Michael Moore represent the majority of liberals in his country? They are certainly leaders of a sort and do have their following. That doesn't change the fact that most people on both sides think they are douchebags. That's why they are mocked. Likewise, radical man-hating fems are mocked. No one really takes them seriously except for the politicians who support them. Are Muslim terrorists true Muslims? Because they speak the loudest and kill people, I suppose that means they are the only true Muslims and the quiet family of Muslims next door who faithfully observe the five pillars are just a bunch of phonies.

Finally, because I'm guessing you will ask this:

Why aren't "real feminists" out there defaming those outspoken crazed feminists?
It is very difficult ground to tread. I use the Muslim terrorist example because that's a similar reason that other potential leaders do not speak up on public television and in the streets of San Francisco - because then the extremists will even attack their own. Lots of feminists (particularly younger ones) for this reason are quiet and reserved about their more relaxed (but still feminist) views. Instead, you will hear mostly from the trained apprentices of past extremists. Many people want to be leaders, or at least make some contribution, but are afraid to go against the established order - or don't know how to oppose it without being silenced forever.

This is my last response to her:

Hi Jen,

Believe it or not, your message is almost word-for-word verbatim from what many others have sent to me on a regular basis. I get this criticism all the time. They say I can't pin down feminism because feminists believe all sorts of different things. Yes they do, and so do conservatives, liberals, libertarians, communists, black liberationists and on and on..

If feminism is free-floating and nebulous then there is no point in the term is there? It has to mean something doesn't it?

I read a lot of liberal pro evolution blogs and these guys rip into conservatives all the time. But I realise that evolution denial is a common trend in conservative circles relating to their religiosity. I don't feel the need to defend conservatism against these attacks by saying that not all conservatives deny evolution, because I realise that the criticism is legitimate and fair.

There is an indiscriminate attitude that predominates in many people. What you said can be made a stock response to any criticism of a group or ideology. What you are essentially doing, whether you realise or not, is shutting down debate and it's a bad idea. Being discriminate and generalising is the essence of wisdom, if you cannot find patterns then you cannot achieve any valuable or accurate macro level picture of life. Whilst feminist do differ on things, you can generalise about the views they hold. I'll give you an example. I can think of no feminists I have encountered or heard of, apart from an ifeminist, who would accept the MRA view of the wage gap (yes we can generalise MRA's too). They would overwhelmingly say that this is proof of ground yet uncovered for women and would be activist on this issue. Criticisms of this attitude and association of it with feminism, like in the conservative example above, is legitimate and fair.

Sincerely,
Mark

Cherchez-le-Femme

ArgusEyes — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:10:02 GMT

Cherchez-le-femme means “Find-the-female” in French. It is a term that I got and modified from Charles Krauthammer where he mentioned “Klein's peculiar cherchez-le-juif motif” (find-the-Jew) in reference to the Time’s Joe Klein who decried the odious attempts of "odious attempts by Jewish extremists . . . to argue that the massacre perpetrated by Nidal Hasan was somehow a direct consequence of his Islamic beliefs.". I’m not touching that one now so don’t even try, but ever the thief, I will attempt to crowbar this term into the popular discourse, by which I mean i will use it a lot, so remember who came up with it first, alright?

Before your brain drops out with my inconsequential wittering (hey, I’ve been away a long time), let me introduce this piece from the BBC, Poor women ‘bear climate burden’:

Women in developing countries will be the most vulnerable to climate change, a report from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has warned.

The agency said there was a disproportionate burden on those women and called for greater equality.

They do most of the agricultural work, and are therefore affected by weather-related natural disasters impacting on food, energy and water, it said.

Regular readers will notice similarities to the “Greener Gender: The Greener Gender: Are men worse for the environment?” essay that I wrote some time ago, in which I criticised author Gerd Johnssom-Latham for bandwagon jumping and using climate change to server her ideological agenda. The exact same thing is happening here. Notice the middle paragraph in the quote above. “The agency said there was a disproportionate burden on those women and called for greater equality.“. Call me a fool if you want, but that sounds like a roundabout way to solve the problem. If an deleterious phenomenon is going to disproportionally affect a certain group of people then one would think that the first order of the day is to mitigate the effect, not to propose a social solution targeted at the group of people, people like this are meddlers and they irk me.

This is where the term “Cherchez-le-Femme” comes in. This is the phenomenon we saw in the “Greener gender” report and in this report from the UN. People with an agenda are extraordinarily adept at linking a lot of things that happen in the world to their particular agenda. Certain people are obsessed with Jews, and everything that happens comes back to the Jews somehow, it really is quote boring talking to such people. This is why I am skeptical about climate change. I will accept that it is happening to a certain degree because as I know from defending evolution and science on so many occasions, that it takes a little bit of chutzpah to go against the scientific community. However, as an astute observer said on the Dennis Prager show one time, climate change has become catnip to a bunch of failed “isms”. It is a ripe fruit dangling in the faces of various political groups, to be picked and used to advance their purposes. The imaginary female that will be damaged by the next big thing must be sought by the feminist and identified as a victim to be solved by the medicine they offer. Hence the reason they say “more equality” is needed rather than “stop global warming” or even “raise the standard of living”.

I must also point out for people who don’t know my views. There is a problem in the third world, you’d have to be blind to not see it. Women in many countries around the world have less rights, some people say “therefore feminism” whereas I say “therefore equality”. Contemporary feminism as a solution the the plight of women in the third world is a bad idea. You can look to this and other blogs to advance that particular case. One last observance on this issue, the executive director of UNFPA is Thoraya Ahmed Obaid. If you go to her bio then you will see her dedication to standard feminist causes. I have highlighted the instances of the word “women” in the image below to show this. Now, I don’t normally dig into people’s past but it goes to the central message. Ms. Obaid is clearly a feminists who is looking to climate change as the catnip to sell her cause. It’s sneaky and veiled and will turn people off of her cause in the end.

The one-stop wage gap video repository

ArgusEyes — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:23:09 GMT

The “Why Men Earn More” playlist on my channel needs more maintenance then I have been giving it. As we all know, the wage gap argument is the most common retort in any argument with a feminist.

In a similar vein to many creationist/evolution debates. Their claims are simple – there is a gap and therefore sexism. Whereas our answer requires knowledge and understanding of markets and human nature, the viewpoint of the feminists has won in the popular culture – it is the commonly accepted “thought” despite having little thought in it at all.

A subscriber contacted me and told me about a dialog he had with a friend about the wage gap. We have all been in situations like that where, afterwards, we felt that we could have made a much better case for our side than we did. Or you think the classic “Damn! Why didn’t I say that?”.

Here is the playlist as it stands now. I have Warren Farrell’s videos in there and I have recently added Walter Block’s excellent lectures to it as well. If you know of a good video on the wage gap then email or comment on this thread and it will be added.

The proof for oppression against women: Still missing

ArgusEyes — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 03:29:00 GMT

This post garnered a lot of discussion in the comments thread, which I am happy to see, I started this reply to a poster named bob who makes the cases for why women are more oppressed than men are. These are oft-repeated arguments so I felt it was important to dedicate a new post to my reply.

“Women get beat, raped, and exploited more.”

Men are more likely to be the victims of a violent crime, if you’re talking about D.V. then some say it happens to men a lot too. I’m not going to commit to stats since I am not a stats guy but I’m damn sure it happens to men more than those paltry handful of D.V. shelters that accommodate males. Rape does affect women overwhelmingly due to the nature of the crime.

However, for both D.V. and rape the same answer applies. These things are both crimes, therefore how is this oppression against women? We continually push, as a society, for more laws and services for women who have been raped or battered so we realise that this is a problem. Consider a crime where men are more likely to be the victim, like violent crime in general, it is accurate to say that violent crime oppresses men? No it is not, since it is not perpetrated by the state, but by individuals on other individuals and is recognised as being illegal.

The important part is where you claim women are exploited more but you’ve merely changed the words you use. Women are oppressed, women are exploited.

Never a scrap of evidence on how. The nearest you came to it was when you said this:

“Look at Middle Eastern countries.”

We are living in the west, criticising feminists in the west, who complain about the west and try to affect legislation in the west, they claim that all these oppressions happen to women in the west and when I ask how, what do I get in reply? “Look to the east”. What a crock.

“Women get paid less, men don't get to retire as soon.”

You’re missing the importance of the retire issue. This is government policy which treats men differently based upon their sex. Why do we always restrict freedom of speech to the government? Because government is the necessary totalitarian mechanism of control over all citizenry, you cannot escape the government. However, if the bakery doesn’t want you to say certain things then you can always walk out, you can never “walk out” of the government.

I realise this important distinction which is why I distinguished between the types of oppression and state that the state mandated instance of oppression are surely the worst kind and if men win in this area then what is the point of going further? The things I pointed out involve government action or funding. Do the feminists have an example of where the government acts in this way? Lets see..

The wage gap is a common example. Does the government enforce different pay on people based upon sex? Well no, it doesn’t. In fact, there is legislation passed in 1970 (1963 in the U.S. I think) that says that companies cannot pay people differently based upon sex, so if this does happen then it is like in the rape and D.V. examples where individuals in companies are choosing to pay women less. It is against the law. Therefore no government oppression exists.

The wage gap is the most sheepish feminist line out there. You’ll hear it spouted again and again when talking about these issues. It seems strange to me that so many people view the world as being so systemically sexist through-and-through as to make such a gap so pervasive throughout society. Ever since I first heard about the gap I though it was B.S. since I am not inclined to believe such conspiracy theories.

Feminism has won the culture war, its effects and ideas are pervasive in society to the extent where people can get ostracised for misplaced comments and heretical thoughts. Yet despite this people are still such sexists?! Any man will know a number of women in his life, his mother, sister, aunt, grandmother. Do so many men want what is bad for women?

I don’t want to portray that I am simple minded to how convoluted humans can be, I know that nothing is simple, taller people earn more than others because people subtly prefer taller people. Will the position of an attractive person when compared to a similarly-abled unattractive person be better? I would put my money on “yes”. However, I honestly do not find the feminist line on the wage gap to be persuasive.

The economists I know do not support the mass sexism explanation for the wage gap, these are people who actually look underneath the underneath in matters of markets and wages. I have not seen thoughts which support the feminist line in what I have read in the works of Milton Friedman, Walter Block, Thomas Sowell, etc. I see again and again that the wage gap used as proof of victimisation is made by feminists and feminists-economists (effectively like a “creation scientist”) and other groups of the activist victimist mentality such as racial groups.

In fact, I would play the victim if I wanted to. Check this out.

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_503DRRB.pdf

Those Asian women sure did a great job of breaking through that glass ceiling didn’t they? Having studied computer science, I can tell you that for all their flaws, the Asian students had a fierce work ethic. It would be an unfair world that dictated that the rest of us who had not worked as hard had to be raised on a pedestal to their level to close this “gap”.

As Thomas Sowell so aptly puts it, Asians always kill the yarns that the victimists try to sow.

We've frequently heard, and will hear much more I am sure if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, that women make 76 cents for every dollar a man makes. Can you give us a basic rundown of why that discrepancy exists?

There are lots of reasons. Men and women do not work the same number of hours. They do not work in the same occupations. They do not work continuously the same, and so on.

You know, if it was really true that you could hire a woman for three quarters of what you could hire a man with exactly the same qualifications, then employers would be crazy not to hire all women. It would be insane to hire men. Not only would it be insane, it would probably put them out of the business because the ones that were smart enough to hire women would have such a cost advantage that it would be really hard for the others to compete.

There are lots of gross differences between men and women and other groups and some of them shocked me when I first started doing the research. For example, I found that young male doctors make considerably more than young female doctors. But, when I dug into it a little deeper, I discovered that young male doctors work an average of 500 hours a year more than young female doctors. Obviously, a doctor that works 500 extra hours is going to make more money than the other doctor.

One profound thing you said in the book, when talking about disparities between the wages earned by white workers and minority workers in this country was that there are differences between groups all over the world, so why should we expect different groups to make the same amount of money in the first place? Can you tell us a little bit more about those differences...

I think most people have heard that there are these differences, but I think that what most of them have not heard is that there are the same differences between Asian-Americans and whites as there are between whites and blacks. Asian-American families have higher incomes than white families; during downturns in the economy, whites get laid off moreso than Asian-Americans. Among people who apply for mortgage loans, whites get turned down more often than Asian-Americans. Whites have to resort to sub-prime loans more often than Asian-Americans.

But, most of the people who talk about these things leave out Asian-Americans because it really kills their whole story. Their whole story is that non-whites do poorly because of white racism. Well then, if you find that there is the same disparity between Asian-Americans and whites as there is between whites and other non-whites, that whole argument falls down.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/02/an_interview_with_thomas_sowel.php

It’s 4am and this is getting long. So I will end it there. I am truly interested in hearing rebuttals to my points here since I am interested in finding the truth on these matters. I have not heard the feminist come back with reasonable counter arguments to points like these. They usually make the claims and then these claims work their way into the zeitgeist. But as for not, that elusive proof for oppression against women is still missing.

O.K. Guys.. This is what it takes for the oppression against women to stop

ArgusEyes — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:36:33 GMT

Some people can believe crap that can make your head spin. Some chick (I honestly thought she was a boy until she spoke) is moaning the usual moan about how I said all feminists were a certain way and I cannot possibly criticise feminism ever because they’re all different. Yeah, the usual stuff.

It was the little exchange we had that was so delicious, I may very well take it down as an all time classic feminist line.

I wrote:

Yes, a person who thinks she is oppressed will likely become a feminist, and yes, viewing oneself as being oppressed will make one angry.

However, history is replete with people who deluded themselves into believing fantasies that weren't true, and didn't ponder their own fallibility or potential to be wrong. Feminists fall into this camp. Acting on faith with emotion is the cause of so much evil, it is in this way that the feminists perpetrate sexism and oppression upon other's heads whilst at the same time claiming that they are against such things.

If you can provide that final elusive proof of oppression against women, outside of petty grievances about wolf whistles or myths like the wage gap stemming from systemic sexism, then we can start to find some common ground. But until you do so then to decry yourself as being oppressed as a woman in the year 2009 is worthy only of contempt.

She replied:

Again it seems that you're solely speaking from your personal experience with feminists. you cannot say that all feminists do all these things you stated because you dont' know every feminist. this may be some trend you are writing about or w/e but to make broad blanket statements is pretty pointless.

i honestly dont feel like going through the trouble of proving the oppression against women but until the day where a woman can go out side and walk wherever she wants, wearing whatever she wants, no matter what time of day and feel completely safe, then oppression against women doesnt exist, or when parents start feeling safe about leaving their children with a male babysitter.
part of being a human being is constantly questioning your opinion and changing your opinion. i think its funny that you're falling back on to the "feminists have some deluded sense that women are oppressed" argument. ive heard it all

Hard to know what to say to that. I just left it at:

I wish you the best in your wait for utopia.

The Lies of a Female. Expanded

ArgusEyes — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:50:55 GMT

I made a somewhat quick post called “The lies of a female” which garnered a lot of negative feedback. It turns out that some text was missing and I should expand on what I meant back then, and what I still stand by now.

Original post is here:

---

Tattoo girl: 'I lied about my stars'

The girl suing a tattoo artist who left her with 56 stars on her face has admitted she lied.

Kimberley Vlaeminck, 18, claimed that she'd asked for three small stars but fell asleep during the procedure and woke up with a whole galaxy on her face.

But she has now confessed she knew exactly what tattoo parlour owner Rouslan Toumaniantz was doing but changed her mind later.

She said she lied because her father was "furious".

As I would be. It was a stupid thing to do. Why am I mentioning this? Because this incident made me think about how women falsely accuse rape on the same grounds.

Many times women use rape for some of the most flimsy and petty reasons. Such as:

Excuses.

On further questioning the woman confessed that she was spending time with her lover in his car near the Shanghumugham beach. She cooked up the rape story to excuse himself.

Getting back at family.

A woman was jailed yesterday after her false claim of rape resulted in an innocent stranger being arrested.

In an attempt to make her family feel guilty following an argument, Kerry Saunders invented a story that she had been sexually assaulted after a night out.

Revenge against an ex.

'It has been a nightmare and I would not be on this earth if it had not been for the support of friends and family. I would be six feet under.'

That's how Briton Andrew Tutty described the ordeal his ex-girlfriend, Louise Johnson put him through with multiple false allegations against him, including rape. Read the article here (Daily Mail, 7/25/09). Johnson was recently sentenced to 18 months in prison for her crimes which the judge called "lies of the most vile kind." "There was not a word of truth in what you said," he added.

It all started when Tutty decided to break off his two-month relationship with Johnson. She went immediately to the police with the fabricated claim that Tutty had raped her. He was arrested for that and only released after he had made bail.

And no reason at all.

"To this day, we have no clue why she made this up," says Bekele's attorney, Robert Flennaugh. While the charges were pending, Flennaugh had tried, as defense lawyers do, to come up with some reason why Clifton might have dreamt up a false claim—some motivation, a grudge. In rape cases especially, when it's one person's word against another's, jurors need to see some reason for the victim to lie, especially considering how painful it is to come forward with such a charge.

Clifton had once contested a grade from Bekele, thinking she deserved a 4.0 after receiving a 3.9. And she'd sent him one e-mail that seemed possibly inappropriate. But that was it, Flennaugh says. They'd had no other contact outside the classroom.

Flennaugh would have had a tough time raising doubts in jurors' minds about the accuser's motives, a fact that still makes him shudder. Had she not gone so far as to create the bogus e-mails, his client would likely be facing a possible prison term, Flennaugh says. "If she hadn't lied too much, where would we be? We'd be in trial."

I found these in a couple of minutes of googling.

The reasoning process that this young tattoo girl went through is very similar to false rape cases. When I read this story I immediately thought of some of the reasons I have heard false rape accusers cite*. In this instance, she was not accusing rape, but she was accusing an innocent man of incompetence that could have gotten him fired or banned from his profession (not actually knowing how the tattooing profession works, but follow me on this).

In response to a situation she completely negated personal responsibility and, in my personal opinion, the character trait of personal responsibility is more of a male character trait than a female one. In fact, when people say that males need to find their “inner woman” to become more compassionate, you should retort that more women should “find their inner man” and become more responsible.

Joking aside, this is not funny. Because of these unbearably petty excuses listed above, women who do this can effectively destroy a mans life. His freedom and liberty is taken away, he can be ostracised from family and society, he may be raped himself in prison and in the worst cases he may take his life. These are all possibilities that can occur and purely at the behest of an evil little narcissistic liar who couldn’t control her petty little emotions and decided to put another person to the sword because of her anger or her rage. I’ve known women like this, all that matters to them are their own feelings, they feel entitled to be the centre of the universe and inflict their emotions upon you, be it by pouting and stropping about and pulling faces, or going to extremes like this. They feel entitled to do it and they are the worst sort.

Why is this important?

There are ideologues in this country, and others, who operate under faith based delusions that women don’t lie about rape, or don’t do so in any significant numbers, and who are driving the political system. Look at someone like Harriet Harman, this person is a man hating bigot who occupies a position of immense power, the Orwellian “equality minister” who is rampaging through the system (whilst she still has the power before these bums are voted out) instigating her female supremacist agenda. Being the classic feminist, rape is on her radar. As is par for the course, more and more men need to be held accountable for rape. I.E. The standard of evidence must be lowered. This is an end run around the concept of justice and will only exacerbate the situation.

Harman doesn’t believe that women falsely accuse rape in any great way, or if she does then she doesn’t care. People who believe in justice and fairness need to stand up against this cancer. Some people are the bottom of the barrel, both men who actually rape and women who would put an innocent man in prison for rape. Our current system where a man can go to prison purely on another person’s word is disgusting and a system that lets a person who would try to deprive another of their freedom off with a slap on the wrist is double so.

We need to uphold standards of evidence crimes, we need to punish those who try to get innocents tried for a crime, to have the same punishment as the person who they falsely accused would have gotten.

*For news about false rape, one of the best sources on the web is the false rape society.

Bringing the sexes together – by denigrating one of them

ArgusEyes — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:33:38 GMT

Sometimes the letters from the luverly people who disagree with me make me all warm and fuzzy inside.

Now, since you do not believe in human rights (the same rights for every human being alike), I'm thinking you feel one of the sexes is inferior and does not 'deserve' the same rights as another.

I have not come across any factual, scientific books that prove the natural superiority of men. But I have come across a few concerning women. And one of them below is one that I feel will help you be more understanding of what feminism is TRULY about.

You seem like an intelligent man, but I just hate to see you put down feminism and claim it is just a silly woman-victimizing movement. Well, as a feminist, I can assure you it is not that at all.

The book that many feminists use to argue their stance is entitled "The Natural Superiority of Women" by Ashley Montagu. Now, I know you may already assume it is a female-chauvinist book, but it's stated in this book many a time that the book is meant to being the sexes together instead of widening the already gap between them. The author of the book uses only facts and science to prove how women are naturally superior. He also clearly says in the epilogue that he uses no personal opinions or rhetoric.
If you do so choose to read this book, you will better understand feminism for what it really is and not judge it based on what you think it is about or from what you read off of "feminist" websites.

I can only *hope* that you will read this book, I can't and won't try to 'convince' you to go out and invest a few dollars to widen your horizons and to understand feminism. Whenever you wish to read it is a good enough time.

Thanks for reading this.

The lies of a female

ArgusEyes — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:50:18 GMT

I have expanded on this post in a new post, I reccomend that you read that version instead of this one as it explain my point in more depth. You can find it here.

The girl suing a tattoo artist who left her with 56 stars on her face has admitted she lied.

Kimberley Vlaeminck, 18, claimed that she'd asked for three small stars but fell asleep during the procedure and woke up with a whole galaxy on her face.

But she has now confessed she knew exactly what tattoo parlour owner Rouslan Toumaniantz was doing but changed her mind later.

She said she lied because her father was "furious".

Link to article

As I would be. It was a stupid thing to do. Why am I mentioning this? Because this incident made me think about how women falsely accuse rape on the same grounds. Many times they

We need to eradicate the ridiculous idea that women and girls don’t cry rape when it didn’t happen. Why even suggest such a common sense notion? Well, because there are people who adhere to faith based belief systems, not facts, that say that women do not falsely accuse rape. The most prominent example of this that comes to my mind is the Duke Lacrosse rape case, where the young men were assumed to be guilty.

But feminists and left-wing activists will dismiss these studies as biased because men where involved. For instance, one feminist, Wendy Kaminer, stated that "it is a primary article of faith among many feminists that women don't lie about rape, ever; they lack the dishonesty gene." Anyone believing women lack a dishonesty gene never dated women. If they do lack that gene, then someone out there is performing miraculous surgery to implant that gene. What's so amazing about such statements is: they are not based on any scientific evidence -- it is a sexist premise.

John O'Sullivan, a left-wing social scientist, discovered a widespread defense of the belief that "no woman would fabricate a rape charge. Feminists themselves admit as much."

Law Professor and left-wing political activist Susan Estrich stated that "the whole effort at reforming rape laws has been an attack on the premise that women who bring complaints are suspect."

Duke Rape Case All Too Common

For tales of false rape accusations, one of the best resources on the web is the False Rape Society.

Men's Rights: The Core Issues

ArgusEyes — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:19:23 GMT

The Schools Vs. Boys

ArgusEyes — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:46:22 GMT

This hostility to boys comes out of feminism, which is the belief that if you can't do squat yourself, keep anybody else from succeeding, and that way you'll look good by comparison.

I’ve mentioned Fred Reed before. Hell, I've probably posted this link to “The Schools Vs. Boys”. Written in his normal no B.S. style.

Patriarchal Society via Socialization versus Personal Responsibility

ArgusEyes — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 06:47:15 GMT

The Dogma of Feminism

ArgusEyes — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:20:07 GMT

Hi BoundlessEyes, thanks for the video response. For those who don’t know, I contacted BoundlessEyes in the first place to see if she wanted to make a response to my video “what is feminism”. I did so because she seemed to engage in discourse to a greater degree than many other YouTube feminists, which is not difficult seeing as no other group seems as reticent to explain and defend their views.

There is a talk show host I admire called Dennis Prager who has a saying that goes “I prefer clarity to agreement” and that is what I thought we could do here. Clarify where we differ as opposed to just battling it out to win. To do that effectively we I want to address the most important points where we differ. These topics will be on patriarchy, on gender differences and on Harriett Harman.

On patriarchy: I do feel that your video lacked clarity as it seemed like you were less interested in explaining your position and more interested merely reciting dogma.

[see video]

Answering questions in this way will get your fellow feminists nodding in agreement but I fear it has less effect on the rest of us who haven’t swallowed that blue pill. Far be it for me to get in the way of your intellectual masturbation but could you please define your terms more clearly. Patriarchy would be rule by males, at least according to the dictionary that I know you like to use. How can a democracy be a patriarchy? We have had a female prime minister and we have women in government. Iran and the Catholic Church are patriarchal systems. Western democracies are not.

Far from being a solid concept the term seems to encapsulate whatever feminists want it to, and yes I have read a number of opinions on the subject and in doing so I have encountered raises the bar for decedent writing quite a bit. Take one particular view

Feminist writer Marilyn French, in her seminal work Beyond Power, defines patriarchy as a system that values power over life, control over pleasure, and dominance over happiness.[1]

This is not a rational argument. It is an emotional and religious one. And, to be quite honest, it reeks of conspiracy theory.

On gender differences: I believe that we should all examine the things we believe to honestly assess whether they are true or not.

Take for example the common claim that women use more words per day then men do. The numbers you will hear cited differ in each case but they always cite that women use more words than men do.

As a man I am not insulted by this claim, it is either true or it is not.

If we take these studies and add on top our understanding from other research [3] that different areas of the male and female brain are used in sounding out words along with our plain and common sense observations of our sisters and mothers and female friends talking more on the phone and in the office.

Given thus fact it is not a huge leap to posit that the actions and careers that men and women take could be influenced by our differences. I see an obvious nurturing advantage in women, evolutionarily programmed to aid in the protection of young no doubt. Would this have any effect on more women wanting to be nurses for example? It might not but as us scientific sceptics like to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Could we have the evidence that this is societally constructed and by whom and to what ends?

What evidence you have presented would get you a failing grade in any science class for lack of proper isolation of variables. Yes a girl who was raised by dogs, as some sort of proof that humans are a tabula rasa to be scribbled upon by a conspiracy of white males intent upon god knows what. Are you familiar with the phrase “non sequitur”.

You can’t shame me with such dishonest tactics. I have always held that humans are the product of a mixture of nature and nurture as I specifically said in the original video. It surprises me not that being raised by dogs will be a profound effect on a developing child’s behaviour. The difference between the sexes is a fact and if humans can be manipulated so easily then the question of David Reimer still stands? Let’s see the intellectual honesty with which you approach this issue.

That. Was particularly loathsome. Let me read to you how David Reimer described his experience.

"It was like brainwashing. I'd give just about anything to go to a hypnotist to black out my whole past. Because it's torture. What they did to you in the body is sometimes not near as bad as what they did to you in the mind - with the psychological warfare in your head." [4]

David Reimer is now dead, he committed suicide.

I think your supercilious little dismissal about being teased on the playground is a sham. And you need to be honest with yourself about how easily you grasped onto any little scrap of information that you could use as a plausible deniability mechanism to not have to deal with the obvious black eye that the David Reimer case gives to feminism. If you ever want to know why people like myself get angry at feminists then just think about what you just did.

On Harriett Harman:

Remember at the beginning when I mentioned clarity instead of agreement? Well this is the perfect example of a clarifying moment. I don’t need you to explain how the things that Harriett Harman believes leads to her actions. I know how she thinks and why she is doing what she is doing. People who commit bigoted actions frequently do so on twisted belief systems and believe themselves to be in the right. If I may quote Mr. Prager again.

Victimhood. A lifelong study of good and evil has led to me conclude that the greatest single cause of evil is people perceiving of themselves or their group as victims. Nazism arose from Germans' sense of victimhood — as a result of the Versailles Treaty, of the "stab in the back" that led to Germany's loss in World War I and of a world Jewish conspiracy. Communism was predicated on workers regarding themselves as victims of the bourgeoisie. Much of Islamic evil today emanates from a belief that the Muslim world has been victimized by Christians and Jews. Many prisoners, including those imprisoned for horrible crimes, regard themselves as victims of society or of their upbringing. The list of those attributing their evil acts to their being victims is as long as the list of evildoers. [4]

And to that list we can add you and Harriett Harman.

A woman whose mind has become so twisted as to act like women are oppressed by some nebulous patriarchal force whilst occupying a position of immense power and using that power to actively give a governmentally mandated superior status to women.

You have no excuse, from now on, whenever you open that dictionary and say that feminism about equality know that you are participating in a massive lie. For what you actually come to support in reality is sexism and oppression by the very definition of those words that you’ll find in that same dictionary. For in Harriett Harman’s own words:

'It is about saying, "because you are a woman I'm going to put you in this promotion".' [6]

If you read that and like what it says then you can pat yourself on the back and join a very select club of totalitarians who use their grievances to push for tyranny over liberty. Who masquerade under the banners of changing for the better but who in turn bring more misery onto earth. Who push their small minded dogma onto all.

The “What is Feminism” video encapsulated all of what modern feminism means today and the Pièce de résistance is you, a young feminist coming along and proving everything that I’ve said:

Feminism is a movement with a gendered name that claims to stand for gender equality but really is an activist political movement and sexist belief system which, in its worse forms, denies reality, suppresses women’s choice, tramples liberty, hurts men, infantilises women and fosters animosity between the sexes.

Sources

[1] Patriarchy: Encyclopedia II - Patriarchy - Feminist view
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Patriarchy_-_Feminist_view/id/5367497

What is patriarchy?
http://www.essortment.com/all/whatispatriarc_rhsf.htm

[3] Men and Women Use Brain Differently, Study Discovers
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/16/us/men-and-women-use-brain-differently-study-discovers.html

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/09/24/sex_on_the_brain/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-419040/Women-talk-times-men-says-study.html

[4] The true story of John/Joan
by John Colapinto
Rolling Stone December 11, 1997
http://www.healthyplace.com/gender/inside-intersexuality/the-true-story-of-john-joan/menu-id-1427/

The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl, Glenn Sacks
http://www.hisside.com/6_6_04.htm

Death by Theory? Wendy McElroy
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120914,00.html

Told to Act Like a Girl, Carey Roberts
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0519roberts.html

[5] Why Do People Do Evil?
http://www.creators.com/opinion/dennis-prager/why-do-people-do-evil.html

[6] I'll put women in charge of banks: Harriet Harman's plans to use equality laws to challenge macho City culture
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1178140/Ill-women-charge-banks-Harriet-Harmans-plans-use-equality-laws-challenge-macho-City-culture.html

Ramping up the Video War

ArgusEyes — Tue, 12 May 2009 00:25:48 GMT

Well, my “What is Feminism?” video has gotten a lot of views and 1menaregood1 has released an excellent video called “21st century equality”:

Whilst feminism continues to have trite videos about feminism meaning you can “be yourself” and warbling how it is a “state of mind”. Our site has the arguments and our side has the facts.

May more videos like this come.

What is Feminism?

ArgusEyes — Mon, 11 May 2009 01:22:47 GMT

This is about as intellectual as many discussions on feminism get. I focus on feminism in my videos so much because no other political movement is so demonstrably wrong and stupid as I believe feminism to be, and yet people still swallow the blue pill and whisper comforting myths to themselves as to the true nature of feminism. This video is a very condensed description of feminism as it exists now, in the modern world, there is not time to cover the history of feminism and I am speaking about the people who form the academic and activist vanguard of the movement.

The first step is to deconstruct the term “feminism”. When we put “ism” on the end of a word we do so to denote a belief system. So apparently feminism is a belief system of the feminine or of acting in the interests of the feminine, as is confirmed by the dictionary definition of the term:

1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

3. feminine character.

This sounds perfectly reasonable, and the early feminist movement has done a lot to raise awareness of the need for women and men to have equal rights but it has been perverted, as most movements eventually do. Here it is mentioned that feminism is a doctrine advocating equal rights but a lot of people mention it as advocating equality. These things are not the same and words have meanings and it is important that we go beyond the beyond to examine how these philosophies play out in real life.

We understand equality, in terms of mathematics most clearly, as two sides of the equation being the same. But a lot of us understand that humans cannot be made uniform, we vary naturally as a species in ability and drive so when using the word equality, libertarians and classical liberals refer to the equality of opportunity and the non-discrimination of law. Whereas socialists and collectivists use the word equality to denote equality of outcome or sameness. Therefore the libertarian definition of equal rights is closest to what this dictionary definition says and the actual feminists are farthest from it.

The feminist stands for the socialist collectivist model, you can see this in the types of arguments they make. When a feminist argues that the fact that women earn less than men and therefore this is proof of discrimination, they never try to explicate whether or not women are making personal decisions which result in less pay, as Warren Farrell proves in his book “why men earn more”, or whether or not this is really discrimination. Feminists assume that the existence of a difference is, in and of itself, proof of discrimination and that is the end of the story for them.

This un-academic and simple minded treatment of a complex subject betrays the religious nature of what feminism actually is. It is a system of beliefs that are not open to examination, they are faith based. Nothing is more faithfully held to the feminist than the belief that the roles men and women assume are socially constructed, that is that the differences between the two are largely due to conditioning and that the main difference is physical.

As much as feminists will try to deny this, the wage gap argument that so many feminists make is one proof for the veracity of this argument. If you assume that an outcome in numbers is all that is needed to prove discrimination then you are tacitly admitting that the two sexes are the same but of course this is not true, any reasonable person can understand this through his or her interactions in the daily world. Male female difference is one of the favourite topics of comedians because it strikes at the heart of the differences between us and our angst at those differences.

The feminist meme that gender is socially constructed, whilst true in some, is ultimately a denial of science. If one is to admit that men and women differ physically and that the brain is a physician organ like any other. Then it stands to reason that men and women have different behaviours due to different brain compositions and hormonal balances and this is exactly correct. As a science geek myself I have read numerous studies about the differences between men and women. I know of not one peer reviewed scientific paper which claims that men and women are the same. Feminists simply do not back up their claims like their detractors do, such as Steve Moxon does in his book “The woman Racket”.

A good example our innate differences is the case of David Reimer who was raised as a girl after a botched circumcision left him with no penis. David rejected his indoctrination and changed his gender back to male but suffered mentally and eventually committed suicide. The case was hailed as a success in the media but after the truth came out, Dr Money, who suggested the change, rejects criticisers as being part of the “anti-feminist movement”. [1]

Numerous surveys report that young woman want to stay at home, put more emphasis on the family, prefer male bosses, marry up to men making more than they do and have a different sexual nature to men. However, this evidence does not get incorporated into feminism because they already have their conclusion and they use evidence like a drunk uses a lamppost – for support rather than illumination, this is a prominent feature of many other pseudosciences such as creationism and homeopathy. A good example of reality falling on deaf feminist ears is this extract from the BBC’s women’s hour program.

(please see the video for audio)

The outcome based view of the feminist makes them an enemy of liberty. Since, in liberty you have the opportunity to fail or to have the effects of your actions affect the standing of the social group you are in. Such things are reprehensible to the collectivist so the solutions they propose are always to push for big government intervention into all of our lives.

This is happening constantly, the latest event I am aware of is of “Harriett Harman” the “minster for women and equality” proposing an “Equalities Bill” which would force companies to publish average hourly rates for their male and female employees. In very recent news she will now use this bill to force banks to hire women.

'Sometimes we have to take scary methods in order to achieve worthwhile results,' she told a mainly female audience. 'It is about saying, "because you are a woman I'm going to put you in this promotion".'[5]

I must use brevity in light of the fact that I am physically shaking with anger and rage whenever I read the latest fascist proposal from this worm of a human being. But the next time you hear a feminist squawking about what whatever is disturbing their system at that particular time then just remember this, this is what they believe in and this is what they will do. Female supremacy, sexism and socialism bordering on fascism.

Despite Harman’s efforts to put women on a pedestal, one of the big myths around feminism is the notion that it acts in the interest of women. In fact not many things are more disdainful of women than feminism is. This is exemplified by a famous quote from Simone de Beauvoir in reference to stay at home mothers:

"No, we don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make it."[3]

The arrogance of this is staggering. Surely the person who should be acting in the interest of a woman is that individual woman. One of the actions the left performs is that it monopolises a group and pretends to be the only legitimate and allowable moral voice in representation of that group. A woman who subscribes to feminism is making a serf of herself to a particular political agenda.

Apparently a woman cannot choose whether to appear in pornography or to prostitute herself as there is a strong feminist opposition to such things. Why is this so? This is a clear cut case of where feminism acts to restrict the choices of women and as the Simone de Beauvoir quote alludes to, there is an agenda about what the feminists want women to be doing. The objection to pornography comes from being anti-male. Their problem with it is that women are being sexually submissive to males but there is also strong evidence that an increase in pornographic proliferation leads to less instances of rape.

The leftist activism of feminism is inherently anti-conservative. Old models of femininity are seen as being created by and for the benefit of men therefore the aim is to break the bonds between the genders. The example of the wage gap is an example of the disdain for women’s choices; another good example is how things such as Rape and domestic violence have their meanings skewed to include more and more women in their folds.

Does this attempt to broaden the meaning of rape help young women or hinder them? Feminism continues to exist as long as it has a bill of victim grievances to sell. By keeping young women angry and scared they ensure the next generation of young feminists through their paranoid conspiracy theories. I met young women like this at university not too long ago and they had chips on their shoulder that were at complete odds with their status in the 21^st century. Never before have has women had so much choice and freedom and never before have they been so angry.

The truth is that feminism is an identity which people with an activist mindset can slip into like a warm slipper. Their modes of acting and though are not too dissimilar to what one can see in black activism and gay activism and if a feminist was born a black man then she would be following Jesse Jackson instead of Gloria Steinem. Same walls, different wallpaper. These movements start with noble causes but as they succeed the membership is whittled away to the radical members who are left with the task of manufacturing grievances to legitimise their own existence.

The majority of people who call themselves “feminist” have bought the notion of feminism meaning equality and thus call themselves feminist without too much thought as to what feminism is, but these people do not sit on the payroll of feminist organisations or on women’s study faculty or try to pass feminist inspired laws. They are simply a rather convenient human shield for the radical feminists who are doing the damage. Feminists like this:

“The National Organization for Women-NYS stands in solidarity with NYS Assemblywoman Patricia Eddington in support[sic] legislation that will once and for all state clearly that violence against women must be regarded as a "hate crime."”[4]

Believe me, I have a long list of laws and proposals like this. Another good example is gender quotas. There is another name for a philosophy whereby you look at the world through the lens of sex, where every situation must be examined in how many women are in it and how it affects women. The name for this is sexism and that is ultimately what feminists are, sexists. Any man who says comparable things about women would be branded as a sexist and bigot and sent packing in short order.

So in short: Feminism is a movement with a gendered name that claims to stand for gender equality but really is an activist political movement and sexist belief system which, in its worse forms, denies reality, suppresses women’s choice, tramples liberty, hurts men, infantilises women and fosters animosity between the sexes.

Sources

[1] When Feminist Dogma Met Dr. Mengela - Carey Roberts

http://mesarchives.blogspot.com/2004/05/when-feminist-dogma-met-dr-mengela.html

[2] Bill set to expose gender pay gap

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8019605.stm

[3] Chapter 12: The Gender Wardens

http://blog.enlightenedwomen.org/2009/04/06/chapter-12-the-gender-wardens.aspx

[4] NYS Lawmakers Must Rethink Violence Against Women as a Hate Crime
February 26, 2009

http://www.nownys.org/pr_2009/pr_022609.html

[5] I'll put women in charge of banks: Harriet Harman's plans to use equality laws to challenge macho City culture

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1178140/Ill-women-charge-banks-Harriet-Harmans-plans-use-equality-laws-challenge-macho-City-culture.html

[not referenced] Intelligence in men and women is a gray and white matter

http://today.uci.edu/iframe.php?p=/news/release_detail_iframe.asp?key=1261

[not referenced] Women's brains are different from men's – and here's scientific proof

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/womens-brains-uareu-different-from-mens-ndash-and-heres-scientific-proof-870849.html

BBC: Bill set to expose gender pay gap

ArgusEyes — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:44:04 GMT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8019605.stm

That wicked and wretched woman Harriett Harman is marching forward as she has done in the past with her collectivist agenda.

Many employers will be made to reveal how much male staff are paid compared with their female colleagues, under a bill being published later.

The Equality Bill aims to tackle discrimination against a range of groups including women, the elderly and those from lower social classes.

It will also make it a legal duty of public bodies in England and Wales to address social inequalities.

The Conservatives have described the plans as "class war attacks".

Minister for Equality Harriet Harman pledged the bill would help to "narrow the gap between rich and poor and make Britain more equal". The result of this [bill] will mean that it will take longer to get out of recession and companies will be loathe to take on more employees
David Frost
British Chambers of Commerce

Ministers say the need for new measures is borne out by evidence showing that by the age of six, bright children from poor families are overtaken by less able children from wealthier homes and that people in deprived areas tend to suffer more from ill health.

The government had promised the bill, which will also ban age discrimination outside the workplace, in its manifesto before the last election.

Ministers also want to tackle the fact that - 40 years after the introduction of the Equal Pay Act - women in the UK still earn on average 23% less per hour than men.

The new bill will require companies employing at least 250 staff to publish their gender pay gaps by 2013. If too few have done so voluntarily, the government will use laws to make it happen.

It’s the usual stuff. Equality really mean sameness. The government will be expanded, the power it will have in intruding into our lives and businesses will increase.

People like Harman do not change their tune or their blinkered views of the world. A demonstration of this can be seen in her following words:

David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, will tell its annual convention on Monday that the government too often sees the answer to a problem as being more legislation.

"The result of this will mean that it will take longer to get out of recession and companies will be loathe to take on more employees," he will say.

But Ms Harman said there was "no excuse for having unfairness when times are difficult".

"The economies and societies which will prosper in the future are not those that have rigid hierarchies, where women know their place and where you can't go forward because of the colour of your skin," she said.

"That's a very backward-looking argument."

The usual rot: The gap is proof of unfairness (it is not), women have their place (they do not, what age does Harman live in?). She bangs on about race like the leftist is wont to do and then sums up her ridiculous straw-man by saying "That's a very backward-looking argument.". Yes, yes it is Harriett.

As for Mr.. Frost. I’m glad that some people get it but in all honesty this country is fucked. i consider Britain to be fascistic. A good story that was sent to me by a viewer is this:

Thought police muscle up in Britain

BRITAIN appears to be evolving into the first modern soft totalitarian state. As a sometime teacher of political science and international law, I do not use the term totalitarian loosely.

There are no concentration camps or gulags but there are thought police with unprecedented powers to dictate ways of thinking and sniff out heresy, and there can be harsh punishments for dissent.

Nikolai Bukharin claimed one of the Bolshevik Revolution's principal tasks was "to alter people's actual psychology". Britain is not Bolshevik, but a campaign to alter people's psychology and create a new Homo britannicus is under way without even a fig leaf of disguise.

The Government is pushing ahead with legislation that will criminalise politically incorrect jokes, with a maximum punishment of up to seven years' prison. The House of Lords tried to insert a free-speech amendment, but Justice Secretary Jack Straw knocked it out. It was Straw who previously called for a redefinition of Englishness and suggested the "global baggage of empire" was linked to soccer violence by "racist and xenophobic white males". He claimed the English "propensity for violence" was used to subjugate Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and that the English as a race were "potentially very aggressive".

In the past 10 years I have collected reports of many instances of draconian punishments, including the arrest and criminal prosecution of children, for thought-crimes and offences against political correctness.

Countryside Restoration Trust chairman and columnist Robin Page said at a rally against the Government's anti-hunting laws in Gloucestershire in 2002: "If you are a black vegetarian Muslim asylum-seeking one-legged lesbian lorry driver, I want the same rights as you." Page was arrested, and after four months he received a letter saying no charges would be pressed, but that: "If further evidence comes to our attention whereby your involvement is implicated, we will seek to initiate proceedings." It took him five years to clear his name.

Page was at least an adult. In September 2006, a 14-year-old schoolgirl, Codie Stott, asked a teacher if she could sit with another group to do a science project as all the girls with her spoke only Urdu. The teacher's first response, according to Stott, was to scream at her: "It's racist, you're going to get done by the police!" Upset and terrified, the schoolgirl went outside to calm down. The teacher called the police and a few days later, presumably after officialdom had thought the matter over, she was arrested and taken to a police station, where she was fingerprinted and photographed. According to her mother, she was placed in a bare cell for 3 1/2 hours. She was questioned on suspicion of committing a racial public order offence and then released without charge. The school was said to be investigating what further action to take, not against the teacher, but against Stott. Headmaster Anthony Edkins reportedly said: "An allegation of a serious nature was made concerning a racially motivated remark. We aim to ensure a caring and tolerant attitude towards pupils of all ethnic backgrounds and will not stand for racism in any form."

A 10-year-old child was arrested and brought before a judge, for having allegedly called an 11-year-old boya "Paki" and "bin Laden" during a playground argument at a primary school (the other boy had called him a skunk and a Teletubby). When it reached the court the case had cost taxpayers pound stg. 25,000. The accused was so distressed that he had stopped attending school. The judge, Jonathan Finestein, said: "Have we really got to the stage where we are prosecuting 10-year-old boys because of political correctness? There are major crimes out there and the police don't bother to prosecute. This is nonsense."

Finestein was fiercely attacked by teaching union leaders, as in those witch-hunt trials where any who spoke in defence of an accused or pointed to defects in the prosecution were immediately targeted as witches and candidates for burning.

Hate-crime police investigated Basil Brush, a puppet fox on children's television, who had made a joke about Gypsies. The BBC confessed that Brush had behaved inappropriately and assured police that the episode would be banned.

A bishop was warned by the police for not having done enough to "celebrate diversity", the enforcing of which is now apparently a police function. A Christian home for retired clergy and religious workers lost a grant because it would not reveal to official snoopers how many of the residents were homosexual. That they had never been asked was taken as evidence of homophobia.

Muslim parents who objected to young children being given books advocating same-sex marriage and adoption at one school last year had their wishes respected and the offending material withdrawn. This year, Muslim and Christian parents at another school objecting to the same material have not only had their objections ignored but have been threatened with prosecution if they withdraw their children.

There have been innumerable cases in recent months of people in schools, hospitals and other institutions losing their jobs because of various religious scruples, often, as in the East Germany of yore, not shouted fanatically from the rooftops but betrayed in private conversations and reported to authorities. The crime of one nurse was to offer to pray for a patient, who did not complain but merely mentioned the matter to another nurse. A primary school receptionist, Jennie Cain, whose five-year-old daughter was told off for talking about Jesus in class, faces the sack for seeking support from her church. A private email from her to other members of the church asking for prayers fell into the hands of school authorities.

Permissiveness as well as draconianism can be deployed to destroy socially accepted norms and values. The Royal Navy, for instance, has installed a satanist chapel in a warship to accommodate the proclivities of a satanist crew member. "What would Nelson have said?" is a British newspaper cliche about navy scandals, but in this case seems a legitimate question. Satanist paraphernalia is also supplied to prison inmates who need it.

This campaign seems to come from unelected or quasi-governmental bodies controlling various institutions, which are more or less unanswerable to electors, more than it does directly from the Government, although the Government helps drive it and condones it in a fudged and deniable manner.

Any one of these incidents might be dismissed as an aberration, but taken together - and I have only mentioned a tiny sample; more are reported almost every day - they add up to a pretty clear picture.

Scary scary stuff.

An adventure in intellectual vacuity

ArgusEyes — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:57:22 GMT

Let’s have someone who has no idea of what feminism is ask a guy who has no idea of what feminism is. He is right, though, to not subscribe to an ideology he has no idea about.

Female Bigots

ArgusEyes — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:34:11 GMT

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.

The Greener Gender: Are men worse for the environment?

ArgusEyes — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:24:22 GMT

In 2007 an author by the name of Gerd Johnssom-Latham penned a report to the Swedish environment advisory council entitled “A study on gender equality as a prerequisite for sustainable development” [1].

The premise of this study is given in its abstract which I shall read to you:

What we know about the extent to which women globally live in a more sustainable way than men, leave a smaller ecological footprint and cause less climate change”

I have read this report through and I can tell you that it is barely about climate change at all and it is mostly about gender politics. The main point that Gerd is making is that men on average cause more environmental damage than women do by consuming more and leading less sustainable lifestyles. Or as I like to summarise “woman good, man bad”.

The author makes many points that testify to this fact but the easiest one to demonstrate what she is talking about refers to the kinds of vehicle I am sitting on right now. Cars, men drive more than women and thus release more of that dastardly C02 into the environment. And this is the main problem with her report, there is no way that someone can deny that this is true. When I was reading the report I lost track of the amount of times I was saying “well of course that’s true” in my mind. So what could be the problem? The problem is her premise leading on to her true argument – which is to advocate for gender feminist based ideals of equality.

The problems with Gerd’s argument are three-fold. I wish to demonstrate the first problem with the following example.

Say if you were to hear a virulent anti-capitalist espousing how women cause more capitalism. If he were to say that women are by far the greatest purchasers of goods and this was used as evidence for whatever ends he had in mind..

A person who would be making this argument would be technically correct but would be suffering from bad premised, like this study also does. That bad premise is to make the underlying assumption that men and women can be assessed as isolated “units” that instead of living lives together can be treated like they are really apart.

Anyone from the real world knows that this is not so. When men and women do everyday things, they don’t do it in isolation. When a woman shops she shops for the family, when a man commutes for 4 hours a day he is doing it for the family. When a man buys a nice car then part of the reason is to make him more attractive, when a woman puts on makeup part of the reason is to make her more attractive. These are generalisations to be sure and men and women don’t always act in tandem, but in this report Gerd simply adds up the column under “men” and adds up the column under “women” and compares the result. This is a tactic that is so unsophisticated that I am amazed that she made no attempt to counter it.

The second problem I find with this report is the baseline assumption that gender equality is a prerequisite to “sustainable development”

She in no way proves that gender equality leads to a world which is in any way more sustainable than it is now. Her argument that because women are better than men for the environment then this is some kind of prerequisite fails to acknowledge that “better” does not mean “good”. Presumably any kind of human is going to consume in some amount and therefore the methods by which we do so are what we should focus on. Hating the rich because they consume that much more (a perfectly fine side effect of a free capitalist society by the way) is not constructive. You cannot completely regulate the lives of people to make this utopian view that many environmentalists have come true. I’m sure that people like Gerd would like to stop me from owning this car, but it isn’t going to happen.

A table on page 39 of her report details a number of differences between what men and women consume, and contains this quote.

Supplementary data to the above table show that men/boys to a much greater extent than women use and own large leisure boats that consume large amounts of petrol. On average they also eat more red meat, drink more alcohol and use more drugs compared to women.

I’ll tell you what. Why don’t we all live in grey boxes, never moving. Wouldn’t that be the most sustainable of all? In gerds world, you wouldn’t be able to do this..

“Sustainability” may well be on the way to becoming one of the most overused buzzwords of the year. It basically means to keep up or keep going. In terms of the environment this refers to things such as using renewable energy sources and recycling. I don’t think that anyone in their right mind would be against these things.

A prerequisite is an action that is required before hand. We can pass all the socialist laws we want to try and change the behaviour of people, if we are still using non-renewable energy sources at the end of it then it is all for naught! Human kind is defined by the technology we create and that is what creates our environmental problems. If technology is the cause then technology is the cure!

But Gerds jaw-dropping proposition is that gender equity is a required before anything else.

So we cannot achieve 100% solar dependency without first achieving gender equality? Rubbish!

The inanity of the idea is breathtaking. It is wrong, simply wrong. End of story.

The third little point I would like to make about this report is that the author fudged its premise. And in its tireless advocacy of equal outcomes fails to address the consequences of these having a negative impact on the environment.

At many points throughout the study Gerd laments on the inequality of women, especially women from third world countries. In chapter 6.B she states:

“In sub-Saharan Africa, only 5 per cent of the population have ac-cess to electricity. This often affects women more than men, as the home is usually their workplace (even when they also have paid employment), and in the absence of electricity they have neither water pumps nor lighting. Lack of electricity and of safe, accessible transport also reduces women’s chances of obtaining education and training, medical care, or a paid job, or of being part of a network etc. Above all, lack of energy means that women’s work is heavy and time-consuming, which reduces their chances of taking part in decision-making on the same terms as men, who often have more leisure time than women.”

As is usual for her, whenever some social blight is described that case is always made, with the regularity of clockwork, of how this particular social blight affects women more then men. She even states on page 14 that women suffer from a greater “time poverty” than men. This kind of endless dissatisfaction with the choices that women make for themselves in a free society is starting to grate somewhat. As endless gender demagoguery tends to do.

But that aside I am confused as to her African example. Does Gerd want to decrease energy usage or increase it? Because what she seems to be advocating here is more consumption. Any moral person when faced with the choice between helping people gain access to energy or to deny that for the sake of the environment would do the former. You don’t need to wrap up your motivations in the first place to jump on the sexy global warming bandwagon in order to make the case for helping people.

In the end, this is my impression of this report. It is not a thoughtful treatise on sustainable development but rather a gender feminist agitation to argue for 1) the superiority of women and 2) the downtrodden status of women. Unfortunately I see it as an attempt to cash in on global warming hysteria to support the author’s gender politics.

What really struck me about the report is its divisiveness. Environmental change is a human problem, both men and women contribute to it. Humans contribute to it. I have stated before that the one true way to cure our effect on the environment is by good science. You could probably quibble about who is “better“for the environment but this is not a constructive way to approach the issue. I and many others are fed up of this continuous “battle of the sexes” and framing this issue in this way is not useful or constructive.

Sources
[1] A study on gender equality as a prerequisite for sustainable development.

A feminists response to men’s suffering: “You brought it on yourselves”

ArgusEyes — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:25:24 GMT

I get a reply to my video “men are more oppressed than women”. I consider it to be one of the most important videos I have made since it succinctly makes the case for why I care about men’s rights activism and it is the video to which I desire feedback and rebuttals the most. To this day I have not received a satisfactory rebuttal. “Bri” has tried and has failed.

I know, a world where you remain a first class citizen no matter where you go, people take you more seriously, you get paid more for the same job, people don't soften their tone because they think you are a glass doll, and you are objectified to sex is so oppressive right?

Anyways...

Oh boy, Bri didn't listen to a word I said did she? Well let’s dive in.

"Men in the UK have to work until 65 to qualify for a full pension, women have to work until 60 and generally make less and have more paternity leave."

You're complaining about making way more for a tiny bit of extra time?

You’re going to see this a lot, it’s called the red herring and it’s where a non-related point is presented to try and distract me from the real issue at hand. Bri. Whether or not men make more than women do does not excuse sexist standards in law against them. In a world where we are to be treated equally, there is no places for differences in retirement like there is now and you cannot possibly disagree. So stop trying to be contrarian and grow up.

"How about the right to reproductive control."

You have one, and soon to be more. It's called a Condom.

Bri. You are a stupid stupid person. The field of reproductive control is about more than birth control methods. Do you think this is my argument? Do you think I am stupid? Do you think I am so stupid that I am literally saying that there are no birth control methods for men? Everyone else not intend on hating me and everything I say understands what I mean there. Women have more options to cancel their pregnancy and parentage, men have none. Fraud, if a man is defrauded by a woman and his sperm is stolen then does he get any rights or does he have to pay?

"How about divorce?"

The man is usually the cause. Read up on statistics.

What the hell does that have to do with anything. This is starting to sound like an illogical overly emotional tirade from a bigot and a man hater.

"A man is more likely to be convicted and convicted for longer periods of time than a woman for a similar crime, like murder."

You did this to yourselves being the blood-letters of the world that males are.

Is there any part of this filthy piece of hate that isn’t a logical fallacy. Yet again, I must ask, what is the point. All men must suffer because men on average are more violent? I guess the idea of equality is well and truly out of the window is it?

"Health spending, for every £1 spend on men’s health care, £8 is spent on women’s health care [3]."

Guys are afraid to go to the doctor, so a not as big storm is brought up and brought to attention. Again, did this to yourselves.

What a kind soul you are. Health care spending has nothing to do with “going to the doctor”. This is spending on health issues and disease. Is there a brain in your fucking skull?

"We as a society should abandon the feminist hegemony and adopt men’s rights activism as a tool to reach true equality in law. "

We already have, and it has led to the screwed up world we live in now, and the most inhumane atrocities committed ever in human history.

Ever notice the countries where women have little to no involvement due to oppression, the true oppression, are in the shitter? Only when women started having a say did we as people become more civilized and peaceful, interrupting a males brutal rule.

You did this to yourselves, and now you are paying up.

Ah, so you subscribe to the “revenge” school of feminism do you?

Even thought the men who would have “done it” are dead or old now and you young men who exist now are largely sympathetic to feminism and women’s rights. Doesn’t matter, we deserve hell because we are men, which is really the attitude that shines through in your “writing”. Bigotry like this is scary to behold.

Men's Right's News - The Pendulum Effect Episode 4

ArgusEyes — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:54:04 GMT

Man must pay support though twins not his

http://www.thestar.com/article/563571

Every now and then those who are sympathetic to men's issue need to pause and take stock of just how egregious the instances of anti-male courts can be. In this piece from the Toronto Star entitled "Man must pay support though twins not his".

An Ontario Superior Court judge has ordered a Toronto man to continue paying child support even though a DNA test shows he is not the biological father of his ex-wife's twins.

In her ruling, Madam Justice Katherine van Rensburg decided that even though Pasqualino Cornelio did not father twins – now 16 – with Anciolina Cornelio, he must continue to pay child support because "he was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage.

Source: Precious Yutangco http://www.thestar.com/article/563571

At the end of the article it states:

The judge concluded that the children should not suffer because of the parents' wrongdoings.

Source: Precious Yutangco http://www.thestar.com/article/563571

The parent's wrong doings?! I see only one part has committed any wrong here, and it is the mother. Naturally this is all for the children. Apparently you can sell men down any river if the shibboleth of "it's for the children" is there to allow one to do so.

Situations like this are a dime a dozen, and it's a downright shame. It must be the only instance where the defrauded must, by court order, pay the person who defrauded him. And before you say the money goes to the children, I must point out to you the factual inaccuracy of that statement. The money goes to the mother who has no accountability over how she spends it, and can take the father to court to demand more money apparently.

Sorry, but the "it's for the children" line does not allow you to completely stamp on and abuse another human being. Even if that human being is one of those inferior males.

Anyone looking at what the feminists have been up to these last years will notice a certain trend, the expansion of terms and labels to include more and more men under their cover. It happens with the expansion of the term rape and here, with the expansion of the term father.

To all the young men who might be listening to this, if you were thinking of helping out a friend of yours with kids by letting them stay around for a couple of months. Well now it's time to think twice, because you might end up being the only father figure they've known and thus.. daddy.

Only in situations like this do people seem to get all dewy eyed over the important need of fathers... As a wallet.

In related news the blog Psychology today reports that:

On Jan. 1, Massachusetts adopted new child-support guidelines that will likely raise the amount paid by non-custodial parents, usually fathers.

Source: Paul Raeburn http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/about-fathers/200901/child-support-how-much-is-too-much

Dennis Prager Responds

http://townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=81ddddf7-6fc5-4d7d-a3da-e00fc33d38fe

As a follow-up, last week, I mentioned the reaction to a column written by Dennis Prager entitled "when a woman isn't in the mood". In short, Dennis suggests that women who do not feel in the mood to have sex with theirs should reconsider if they actually do so to help their marriages. In a large part, the feminist reaction on the blogosphere was to call Mr. Prager a rape advocate. Since then, Prager invited two of the columnists Jeff Fecke and Megan Carpentier onto his show. This is part of what he had to say (watch clip).

Bravo Mr. Prager.

In related new, this story from the Toronto sun entitled "Hey ladies, just do it".

For her husband Brad's 40th birthday, she gave him the gift of sex -- for an entire year.

It took energy, tenaciousness and focus, but the couple stuck with the experiment, even when they were exhausted, not in the mood, and overloaded with to-do list items.

"One day, the light bulb went on," says Charla, who chronicled their story in a book entitled, 365 Nights.

Source: TANYA ENBERG http://www.torontosun.com/life/sexfiles/2009/01/22/8105766-sun.html

...

Now happy with a regular sex life, the Mullers have held onto one long-lasting lesson: The importance of maintaining intimacy.

"It was, without a doubt, the most transforming year of our marriage," she says.

Source: TANYA ENBERG http://www.torontosun.com/life/sexfiles/2009/01/22/8105766-sun.html

For a woman who was raped for 365 days in a row, Charla sure does seem upbeat.

Women and children first on the Hudson crash

http://www.true-equality.net/archive/2009/01/21/the-hudson-crash---women-and-children-first.aspx

After reading and hearing far too much credulous talk in the news about God and miracles in relation to the crash of flight 1549 into the Hudson River. I encountered a news story that I had not heard anywhere else, which seemed to me to be far more important. The BBC and Associated Press report that women and children were the first onto the life rafts after the plane crash landed, then people who had fallen into the river and been plucked out.

I think that chivalry has a place in a world less hostile to men. But in 2009 with the equality of outcome of feminism prevalent in society I think men damage themselves by capitulating to chivalrous attitudes. Chivalry is the main reason male judges oppress fathers and pass anti-male laws. Throw chivalry into that icy water where it belongs.

NOW President says "Obama cabinet level picks so far under represent women"

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2009/01/14/now-president-says-obama-cabinet-level-picks-so-far-under-represent-women/

As if we need more proof that to modern radical feminism, equality of outcome has become the goal as opposed to equality of opportunity. From fox news comes an interview with Kim Gandy, the president of the National Organisation for Women.

Synopsis: The President of the National Organization For Women complains that while divers racially, the Obama cabinet-level picks so far under-represent women. She calls it 'disappointing' and says "twenty-five percent seems a little low." She says there is still time to improve that record by appointing a woman to the now open Commerce seat and creating a cabinet level office of Women's Affairs.

Source: Greta Van Susteren http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2009/01/14/now-president-says-obama-cabinet-level-picks-so-far-under-represent-women/

Hopefully the president will not capitulate to supremacist groups such as the National Organisation for Women who would promote that you assign a woman to a post purely because she was a woman. When it comes to the people who will be running the country, I would want the best person possible irregardless of if they were male, female, black, white, Asian, Christian or Muslim.

Grandmother Climbing Mount Kilimanjaro on Behalf of Shared Parenting

http://www.acfc.org/site/DocServer/Sheila_Peltzer_Kili_Release_Final.pdf?docID=1701

Not all news is bad news though, this is a heart-warming report from the American coalition for fathers and children.

Charlotte, NC - 70 year old grandmother, Sheila Peltzer, will climb Africa's tallest peak, 19,200' Mount Kilimanjaro raising awareness for Shared Parenting and Familial Dysautonomia. Peltzer, departing January 21, 2009, will make the ten day trek up the western route where sub zero summit temperatures are expected.

Peltzer's coach for this grueling climb is former 3-time Super Bowl Champion and motivational speaker, Tim McKyer.

Many people ask me how a former professional football player and a retired school teacher became involved in this effort," Peltzer said. "It's simple. The family courts in this country are broken. Children are being denied an equal relationship with both parents. I'm unable to be a part of my grandchildren's lives because the courts denied their father enough time for shared parenting. Two of my grandchildren have FD (Familial Dysautonomia), a rare and fatal genetic disease, resulting in recurring intensive care hospitalizations. Because my son has limited access to his own children they are being denied the love of their grandparents, as well as their dad.

Source: ACFC http://www.acfc.org/site/DocServer/Sheila_Peltzer_Kili_Release_Final.pdf?docID=1701

That about sums it up. I wish that the "it's for the children" crowd, like the judge from my first story, will stop and consider the destructive effects that their "beating up on fathers" antics will actually have on children. Doing it for the children mean more than wringing every last penny out of a dad.

How dare she generalize feminists?!

ArgusEyes — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:23:15 GMT

Take a deep breath folks.. I want you to see this woman blatantly stating what "feminists" (her word) like and don't like. I mean.. what a generalization! I want all the people who bitched at me for generalizing feminists on my videos (the problems with feminism in particular) to come out and make the usual bland bleating about how "not all feminists are like that" or "you're generalizing!".

In case you're wondering, yes, that was sarcasm. But this woman gets it fairly right with her generalizations about what feminists like and don't like. It's pure gold. We feminists are not man haters but we do hate some men.. conservatives mainly. And we don't like all woman like.. say.. conservatives.

So I present this video to the jury in the case of "feminists are leftists". Court is in order.

This is what a feminist looks like - A censor

ArgusEyes — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:16:56 GMT

There is a silly little vacuous propoganda video on youtube entitled "this is what a feminist looks like".

It's what you'd expect. Feminists believe in smiles and rainbows and gumbdrop lollipop trees! It's a load of rot. But if you were to examine the comments on the thread below the video then you'll see something all too predicable.

This is why I disable comment voting. It is a cudgel for the majority to beat down the opposition. It is a tool that is overwhelmingly used by intellecual thugs and doesn't serve a valid purpose apart from that.

Who is willing to guess that those grey comments disagree? Are they all obscene? I doubt it but youtube isn't giving me a way to view them.

Here is the video.

The Hudson Crash - Women and Children First?!?

ArgusEyes — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:04:06 GMT

Asked how he got out of the plane he said: "At first chaos, but everyone was kind of orderly, man. You know after a while everyone, we just, I just kept saying relax relax, women and children first. And then it just started filling with water, quick."

Source: BBC Airbus crashes in New York river

Heading toward the forward exits, and then standing on the wings, the passengers developed their pecking order. Women and children went first into the rafts, then people who had fallen into the river and been plucked out.

Source: Associated Press Survivors offer praise, gratitude after NY crash

But that's the point, isn't it: people almost died! And they didn't die! And as interesting as semantics are, and as much inherent patriarchal nonsense there is in the fabric of society coming out all the time, I for one am not going to get exercised about something someone said — maybe off the top of his head — in an effort to successfully save several hundred lives. I agree that if this is indeed the airline protocol it bears questioning, or at least cogent, non-anachronistic explanation beyond some hoary gallantry. But yesterday what could have been a tragedy, wasn't. We know women and children were evacuated first because they — and the men who followed — lived to talk about it. I would be curious to hear what the women on that flight have to say about it — maybe in, say, a week. But, as Ecclesiastes and the Byrds would have it, for everything there is a season.

Source: Jezebel Flight 1549 Survivors: Let's Talk About "Women And Children First"

The Pendulum Effect

ArgusEyes — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:13:25 GMT

I have been asked to contribute a regular segment to a new podcast “the pendulum effect”. I’ve linked to it on the left so please check it out. I think you’re going to like it. The latest episode has an interview with none other than Warren Farrell himself.

The pieces that I will be contributing to the podcast will be focused mainly on gender related news items. I will also be recoding these segments as videos and putting them onto YouTube. This particular video is featured in the show, but it is something I have always wanted to address and what a fortuitous situation to finally do so.

I would like describe what I understand the term “the pendulum effect” to mean. I myself have used this analogy in the past and it about time I expand on what I believe it to mean. I have broken down the pendulum effect into chronological stages and I have cited feminism as an illustration of the effect, even though it could be applied to other civil rights issues such as black rights and homosexual rights.

Step 1: A civil rights need is born

For complex historical reasons beyond the scope of this article, a civil rights need is identified on behalf of a group. The pendulum effect is viewed as bipolarity between two groups. With the group on the left deemed as being the oppressed group and the group in the right as being the oppressors. The relationship may be between women and men, blacks and whites or homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Step 2: The legitimate phase of the movement

The oppressed group does indeed suffer from legitimate grievances. They become aware of the need to change their standing and push the pendulum of equal rights with their actions, to correct these grievances and to improve their image in the zeitgeist.

They face some resistance from either side, but they also face a lot of support from the oppressor side, who truly emphasises with their plight. This is the legitimate stage of the movement as the oppressed side gains the rights that they clearly should have. Luminaries of the men’s right movement such as Glenn Sacks and Warren Farrell freely admit that there are genuine gains that feminism has achieved, things such as legislation that codifies the right to equal pay such as the equal pay act of 1963 in the U.S. and 1970 in the U.K., the right to own property and to object to genuinely misogynistic attitudes as can be seen in the old style advertisements and public service announcements. I agree with this attitude personally. There is no such thing as a civil rights movement that has done no good. This is the legitimate and honourable stage of the movement. The pendulum is even.
Step 3: The illegitimate phase of the movement

The transition between this step and the last is hard to identify as the oppressed group transitions from generally doing good to doing bad. The oppressed group now has a respected and powerful lobby acting on its behalf that can affect the law, at this point no reasonable person could describe the group as being “oppressed” anymore, but the movement has turned into an industry of grievance mining, looking under every rock for signs of oppression and slights.

It is important to emphasise the members of the group are not lying to keep up the appearance if being oppressed, they truly believe it, but they are in too deep and lack the ability to holistically view the progress that their group has made, to take “yes” for an answer. The “oppressions” that their group supposedly suffers become more and more academic and created out of whole cloth. The goals of the group come more from the radical activist members, who mostly reside in academia. Issues that they choose to fight for include things such as redefining language, redefining history, redefining their definition of oppression and re-characterising the successes of the movement into further examples of oppression.

A prime example of manufacturing problems is to me, one of the most reprehensible aspects of modern feminism. This is where feminism has achieved a world where women have no less opportunity than men, can take any degree they want to and choose their own career. And then when women do not flock to careers that feminists want them to, they cites this as proof of work that still needs to be done for women’s rights. I think that women who feel empowered to enter the fields they want to enter means that the work of women’s rights is mostly done. To spin the liberation of women into an attempt to further victimise them is a disgusting act that is to spit in the eye of the good achievements that feminism has made.

The worst effect of this illegitimate phase of the movement is to brainwash the younger members of the group into hating men. The feminists have already refined history and distorted the facts to where, as a feminist said in an email to me, half of women are raped and the fraction of feminist haters dwindles in comparison to the number of men who hate women. Yeah, we sure are terrible.

None of this has any relation to the truth but what is to be the expected outcome if a young woman is told that men as such beasts? I’ll tell you the outcome because I saw it firsthand when I graduated in 2005. The young women I went to university with were angry, they were petulant and a hostile and felt the need to partake in constant belittling comments and man bashing. With an angry youth, the road is paved to the next step.
Step 4: The oppression of the oppressors

The discourse has become one sided. The feminists are seen as the authorities in the problem of equality as the status quo is viewed as being sexist and thus un-needing of representation. The feminists are now running a dictatorship of opinion and with a background noise of resentment and manufactured oppressions they start to act in a very hypocritical way. The true idea of equality has been lost, they have a new definition of the word. Equality of outcome. Sameness.

Departments of women’s health spring up, ministers for women are appointed and special programs for women are created. All of these are designed to help a beleaguered minority get the leg up they apparently need. With a population of hostile women some truly horrendous laws are passed, men’s achievements are deemed to be on the back of women. If girls are underachieving in school then they are being underserved whereas if the girls are overachieving then this is a sign of their natural superiority and empowerment. There exists no compassion for the suffering of males, many feminists will come straight out and tell you tough shit – they’ve been oppressing us for so long that it’s our turn now.

Witness the most obscene situation. The generation of women who have never had it so good being the most aggrieved and punishing the generation of men who have oppressed them the lease and want to commiserate the most. The pendulum is well and truly on the other side now.
Step 5: The backlash

The so called oppressors are now the oppressed and the cat’s out of the bag. Men are hit hard, their children are taken away whilst they are treated like criminals and are told when they can see them. They die younger, have to retire later, get shafted in divorce, suffer harsher sentences, are lagging in school, graduate less and are assaulted everyday by man bashing.

They can be sentenced to 18 years as a serf if a woman steals their sperm, they have no choice about being a parent, less is spend on their health concerns, they spend more on insurance, they can get passed over in lieu of a less qualified female at work and every morning on the tube ride to work they get tut-tutted at by adverts as being a bunch of boozing wife beating misogynistic rapists.

Then they have to listen to some snarky little co-worker tell them that.. “It’s a man’s world!”.

It’s enough to make a fellow turn to drink. More and more guys mutter heretical thoughts at the pub. When in the company of men I get favourable reactions to my material. Organised groups like fathers for justice start up and men start voicing their opinions on youtube and through podcasts like this one.

The reaction of the feminists? In one word, hysterical. They cannot react with ideas because their belief system has long been a barren intellectual wasteland populated with unproven hypotheses, conspiracy theories and falsehoods. So they react with shaming tactics, calling us “women haters” and claiming that we want to “turn back the clock” on women’s rights. Well, I don’t want to turn back the clock, but I certainly want to push back on that pendulum.

What remains beyond the backlash step remains to be seen, people who are fighting back against the ideas of feminism might instigate a whole new pendulum effect in the opposite direction. Perhaps we are doomed to endlessly push back and forth in perpetuity. I certainly hope not. Allow me to tell you what I hope the effect of the backlash against feminism will be.

We all know that a political system in which only one side is represented is not a good thing. If one side has complete control to implement their ideas then history tells us that we can end up in a horrific situation. There are two sexes and so far we’ve been letting feminism represent all issues pertaining to gender by itself. What I want to see in the future is a two party system where both sides are represented by movements that actually represent its members. I don’t pretend that I understand a woman’s point of view I am a man not a woman, let the feminists speak for themselves and men’s rights activists speak for ourselves. This two party system will also keep the other side honest, feminism has grown sloppy and overly academic in the face of no opposition so let us shine the light of scrutiny onto feminist ideas and let the ones that don’t stand to reason scuttle from sight.

Thou Shalt Not Criticise Women

ArgusEyes — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:21:04 GMT

I listen to and read podcasts, blogs and news sites from a variety of perspectives. From hardcore atheists and liberals such as P.Z. Meyer's Pharyngula to secular humanists, scientific skeptics, libertarians and religious right wingers. One person on the right I greatly respect is called Dennis Prager. I do not agree with everything he says but he speaks a lot of truth on many issues including issues pertaining to men and women.

Dennis Prager wrote a two part column recently that set the feminist blogosphere alight with indignation. I want to retell this event to you as it is an important illustration of the reaction one can receive when they take an oppositional stance to feminism.

His column is a two parter called "When a Woman Isn't in the Mood" (part 1 part 2). I shall read you a couple of opening paragraphs in order to set the tone.

The subject is one of the most common problems that besets marriages: the wife who is "not in the mood" and the consequently frustrated and hurt husband.

There are marriages with the opposite problem — a wife who is frustrated and hurt because her husband is rarely in the mood. But, as important and as destructive as that problem is, it has different causes and different solutions, and is therefore not addressed here. What is addressed is the far more common problem of "He wants, she doesn't want."

It is an axiom of contemporary marital life that if a wife is not in the mood, she need not have sex with her husband. Here are some arguments why a woman who loves her husband might want to rethink this axiom.

Source: Dennis Prager When a Woman Isn't in the Mood: Part 1

At the end of part 1 he writes:

I conclude Part I with this clarification: Everything written here applies under two conditions: 1. The woman is married to a good man. 2. She wants him to be a happy husband. If either condition is not present, nothing written here matters. But if you are a woman who loves your husband, what is written here can be the most important thing you will read concerning your marriage. Because chances are the man you love won't tell you.

Source: Dennis Prager When a Woman Isn't in the Mood: Part 1

Allow me to summarise. In these two columns Dennis Prager presents the argument that a wife who cares about having a happy husband rethinks the idea that if she is not in the mood then that means she must not have sex. Prager shines a light on the differences between men and women, sex is far more important to men than it is to women and that a man knows his wife loves him by the fact that she has sex with him. Does mood always determine our actions? No. Are you always in the mood to get up and go to work in the morning? Are you ever in the mood to get up in the night and feed the baby? Take out the trash? Sometimes we have obligations to do things that we don't feel like doing because they lead to good consequences down the road. Prager mentions that, of course, there are times when this advice is inappropriate. It is general marital advice and I agree with it.

Let's see what many feminists had to say about this.

Our first stop is the blog pandagon.net, and a post written by Jesse Taylor. Entitled "Shit you shouldn't say". Where the very first paragraph is:

Dennis Prager says that marital rape is a-okay:

Source: Jesse Taylor Shit you shouldn't say

Taylor is not lying here. He truly believes that in an example like Prager illustrates, where a woman isn't in the mood but makes the decision on her own to have sex with her husband is rape. What feminists believe about rape as compare to what most normal people believe is very worrying, most people would agree that it is forced sex one an obviously non-consenting person. The dictionary definition is replete with words like "force", "violent seizure" and "violation.

What Jesse Taylor is actually proposing is that in a situation where a man wants to have sex with his wife and he indicates this need and she although not feeling in the mood has sex with him, is an instance of rape.

What a loving sense of marriage in the 21st century.

I hope that all married men who are listening to this are sure that their wife was in the mood for one hundred percent of the times you had sex, because you're a rapist in the eyes of the feminists otherwise.

For all the women who are listening to this, I have a question. How do you feel about this? That the movement that supposedly represents you as a woman wants to infantilise you to the point where your own decisions are irrelevant?

Taylor's characterisation of Prager as a rape advocate is disgusting and wrong. But maybe it is a one off? We continue…

The next stop is feministing.com with a post by Jessica Valenti called "Dennis Prager: Nothing says "I love you" like marital rape".

Written in Valenti's own juvenile style, she rarely stops blockquoting enough people to write any original material. But here is some of what she says:

It takes a certain je ne sais quoi to unabashedly argue in favor[sic] of marital rape. Of course columnist Dennis Prager doesn't call it that. No no, he prefers to use some sort of bizarre high school logic about how ladies who really love their man will "give her body" on demand.

Source: Jessica Valenti Dennis Prager: Nothing says "I love you" like marital rape

There is a lesson here about people who have become radicalised filter what they read or see though a dogmatic belief system and re-translate the result and then hold that to be reality. Valenti's comments bear so little relation to what I read in Prager's article that either she mistakenly read something else, is so deep in the fetid pool of fundamentalism as to be unamenable to genuine reflection or change or she didn't read it at all. I suspect the latter.

Our next stop is jezebel.com with a post written by "Megan" called "Conservative Dennis Prager Knows It's Not Rape If His Wife "Submits""

The first paragraph reads:

Conservative pundit and marital rape apologist Dennis Prager has some advice for you ladies with faltering marriages: don't think that just because you don't want to have sex your husband shouldn't try to fuck you.

Source: Megan Conservative Dennis Prager Knows It's Not Rape If His Wife "Submits"

Again, this bears no relation to reality. At this point I must apologise for the profanity in this piece. I thought, initially, that I would try to mask it but I think it is important to realise how the people on these blogs write about people they disagree with.

The feminist blogs are characterised by their vacuity, indecency and sheepish dedication to radicalism. Is there a more reasonable critique? Yes, in fact there is. Ed Brayton's skeptical blog "Dispatches from the culture wars" featured a post on Prager's column called "Prager: Just Lay There and Take It". Brayton stays away from analogising Dennis Prager to a rape advocate, which I am happy to see, but he has still re-interpreted reality in places by claiming things such as:

…married women should always have sex even if they're not in the mood to do so.

Source: Ed Brayton Prager: Just Lay There and Take It

This is not true, in fact Prager specifically says that in certain instances his advice is inappropriate.

All the onus is on women, whom he wrongly presumes want sex less than men.

Source: Ed Brayton Prager: Just Lay There and Take It

Are we to presume that both sexes, who are biologically different, want sex in equal measures. Anyone I know from the real world would agree that men have a higher sex drive than women do, are more visually stimulated and have sex drives that drop off at a lesser rate than women's do. Yet Brayton brays at such un-progressive views of human sexuality, he is operating from theory instead and let's not let reality intrude.

The most important part of this statement is the first part, where Brayton states that "all the onus in on woman" this is true, for this particular article. I suspect that none of these writers actually listen to Dennis Prager's radio show. I do. And I can tell you that he has plenty of criticism for men as well.

I'm sure that they would all nod in appreciation when at one time on his show he lambasted husbands who go to sleep immediately after sex. He said that husbands who do this should stay awake, holding and kissing their wives after sexual intercourse has finished. And I agree with that. After all, you might not want to do it, you might want to go to sleep immediately. However, because you don't feel in the mood doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, because you show her that you love her by doing so and a happy wife leads to a happy home. Would feminists argue with that? I doubt so.

What ruffles these people's feathers the most is the fact that Prager's article is an unaffronted criticism of women. And that it actually places responsibilities and obligations upon them, the horror! The writers seem to be tied up in knots of anguish that Prager doesn't have qualifying language at every step that criticises men in equal order. Such an article would be bloated, boring and would lose all semblance of meaning. I've noticed that the feminists themselves don't mind writing articles and blog posts that singularly criticise men above women.

Download the episode of the "pendulum effect" podcast that this piece appears in.

I get email: 'Real Injustices'???

ArgusEyes — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:26:36 GMT

Okay, for some reason I could not post this in the comment section even when breaking it down into little pieces. If you can, please do in the name of free speech:-)

Feministing.com could spend their time on more important things.

But your argument seems to be that one is a coward if one does not address the biggest and most challenging problem of ones cause first. If I was to follow this line of reasoning I too could say that YOU are a coward for taking on Feministing.com as an easy target in this respect surely there are bound to be more pressing issues out there for a stern liberal conservative than a feminist video blog, or?

Feministing.com often relies on very trivial information (which is why it is not exactly respected for its academic inquiry in feminist circles), but it DOES serve the purpose of making known the day-to-day women’s issues that we otherwise don’t hear about in the media. If you are really for women’s rights then lets appreciate Feminsiting.com for what it is.

While I’m at it, why is it that you blame Feministing.com for NOT dealing with bigger women’s issues while those of us who DO devote our time to fighting the evils of for example prostitution or pornography (under which millions of women are suffering world wide) still have to suffer your stigma of ignorance?

I might as well tell YOU that being against Islam because it is oppressing to women while simultaneously being against the work of radical feminists, who spend their lives fighting for women’s rights in different battlefields is a hypocritical self-contradictory load of crap. However, I am not going to.

It is as if you believe that the Islamic world is the only world in which oppression of women is taking place? Freest does not necessarily mean free and thus saying that the western world is the freest society for women in the world does not make inequality in the western world magically disappear.

Remember: Your cause to secularise the Islamic world (I’m on your side there!) is not the ONLY topic related to women’s issues out there. And since you have not experienced what inequality really is, being a white middle class male living in a western society, I would be very cautious using the phrase real injustices.

I am almost inclined to not answer this email as it ascribes imbecility to me, but since I have far better things to do I might as well give it a shot. First of all, your email makes many claims as to what I believe that are out and out lies since I did not make these points, you made them up and then assigned them to me, in many ways this is worst than a lie. Consider this a tip on how to write decently. Address the points of your opponents only, bunch of strawman logical fallacies does not a good argument make.

But your argument seems to be that one is a coward if one does not address the biggest and most challenging problem of ones cause first.

This is an accurate summary of my position. As pertaining to Feministing. However, I would not treat this as a rule to be applied to all people who meet the criteria. There are a few extra things about Feministing that makes me call them cowards. They censor opposing view, they are obtuse and fling obscenities at their opponents, they seem to deal only with trivial crap and they pretty much symbolise the modern feminist sandy vagina method of complaining about nothing legitimate. Given all this, I have no doubts about calling them cowards.

If I was to follow this line of reasoning I too could say that YOU are a coward for taking on Feministing.com as an easy target in this respect surely there are bound to be more pressing issues out there for a stern liberal conservative than a feminist video blog, or?

Only if I don’t take on any larger issues. I do. Also there is a marked difference between an individual person passing comments on youtube as compared to an organisation with the goal of (supposedly) helping women. Given this your comparison of my situation to Feministing’s doesn’t hold up. People can focus on trivialities, we cannot go at 120mph all day, but if triviality is all you do, then I look down on that. This is why I have a certain disdain for people who read trash magazines all the time and never pick up anything better.

Feministing.com often relies on very trivial information (which is why it is not exactly respected for its academic inquiry in feminist circles), but it DOES serve the purpose of making known the day-to-day women’s issues that we otherwise don’t hear about in the media. If you are really for women’s rights then lets appreciate Feminsiting.com for what it is.

We hear a lot about women in the media, if the superficial crap that Feministing peddles doesn’t appear then there is a reason for it. Perhaps you could elaborate on what these issues actually are? Anyway, I content that a lot of silly commentary like Feministing’s does appear out there all over the place.

While I’m at it, why is it that you blame Feministing.com for NOT dealing with bigger women’s issues while those of us who DO devote our time to fighting the evils of for example prostitution or pornography (under which millions of women are suffering world wide) still have to suffer your stigma of ignorance?

I cannot address reams of points of view in one video, that would make it long and unwatchable. The remit of the video was to make a point against Feministing so let it stand for what it attempts to do. I’ll make other videos on other days about some of what you said there.

Also to brand things such as pornography evil is an arrogant presumption that will not be left standing here. A man stamping on his daughter’s neck because of his religion and bigotry is inherently evil and thus I label it as such. Whereas a woman in a free society making her own decisions as to what to do with her own body and choosing to be filmed having sex and making quite a bit of money doing so.. Is not being oppressed. And to label a situation such as this “evil” is to display your real contempt for women’s choices. I, like many other MRA’s don’t want to “turn back the clock” and remove women’s rights like you apparently want to do.

I might as well tell YOU that being against Islam because it is oppressing to women while simultaneously being against the work of radical feminists, who spend their lives fighting for women’s rights in different battlefields is a hypocritical self-contradictory load of crap. However, I am not going to.

That was clever. Ooh, but I cannot complain because you didn’t tell me this apparently. I might as well tell you that you are a presumptuous unwise dishonest fool who has bought a pack of lies.. But I’m not going to. (beat that)

It is as if you believe that the Islamic world is the only world in which oppression of women is taking place? Freest does not necessarily mean free and thus saying that the western world is the freest society for women in the world does not make inequality in the western world magically disappear.

This is what I mean by ascribing imbecility to me. To believe this I would have to be an idiot, and I didn’t say this but you assume I am an idiot because I hold different beliefs to you. This is a character flaw of collectivists and you need to get it sorted.

Remember: Your cause to secularise the Islamic world (I’m on your side there!) is not the ONLY topic related to women’s issues out there. And since you have not experienced what inequality really is, being a white middle class male living in a western society, I would be very cautious using the phrase real injustices.

I wouldn’t say that I have such a cause, but more importantly your statement that “you have not experienced what inequality really is” is the most presumptuous thing you have said so far, you know nothing about me and whilst I have suffered no serious oppressions, men are certainly more oppressed than women in modern western societies. You need to watch my video “men are more oppressed than women” for this proof.

Sincerely,
Mark

In politics, does race trump gender?

ArgusEyes — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:21:41 GMT

From politico is a story called "In politics, does race trump gender?". The abstract of the story is essentially that Roland Burris has had an easy time getting into the U.S. senate whilst Caroline Kennedy has had such a hard time, is proof that race trumps gender.

How come Roland Burris has had such an easy time getting to the U.S. Senate while Caroline Kennedy has had such a hard time?

Could it be that the race card trumps the gender card in U.S. politics?

Well, yes. It could be.

Source: Roger Simon, Politico In politics, does race trump gender?

Of course, I don't know how anyone who at least casually observes the modern zeitgeist can not have come to this conclusion a long time ago. The feeling of Barack Obama as a black man far outweighed that for Hillary Clinton as a white woman. Race and gender have political civil rights movements which advocate for them. For blacks it doesn't have a colloquial name but for women it's feminism.

Feminism is generally given less shrift than black civil rights because anyone with the brain power of a plum can identify that the pandered middle class women of the mid 20th century who started the movement were about as oppressed as my big toe. The blacks had far more genuine and repressive acts committed against them in the past whereas the egregious oppression against women I can think of would be the denial of suffrage and even that does not compare to slavery or the enforcement of the lower status of your entire race. Also, blacks are a genuine minority whereas women are a literal majority whose supposed oppressions are actually benefits that raise them above men, such as chivalry.

People who commit anti-pc acts against blacks suffer far more repercussions than those who do so against women. I hope I shouldn't need to belabour this point. Would an anti-black version of Tom Leykis be allowed to exist in our modern cultures? There are examples on both side but I think that the outrage at anti-black comments (real or imagined) is far larger than for anti-women comments.

So blacks have more advocacies for them and you don't need to look at Roland Burris to realise this. The point that is not mentioned in this article is that both groups have a "victim card" over white males. We have so many victim groups that we can judge the degree to which cards they play can act over the other victim groups. Enough of this rubbish already!.

Oh, and if anyone needs more proof that race trumps gender, may I present my final and definitive evidence.

Proof by star trek bitch!
B.T.W. the guy at the beginning should be at the end if you want to consider it from the perspective of the chronological making of the T.V. series. Is this a portent for the men's movement?

Hate Bounces: How man hating and man bashing harms women

ArgusEyes — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:13:58 GMT

http://www.geocities.com/rainforest/vines/3951/noback/hatebounces.html

Misogynists are not born they are made.

Once, a long time ago when the world was young, I loved women with all my heart and soul. I grew up among strong competent women who understood that all living things need to be taken care of and will flourish if that happens. The men I grew up with knew that as well. Everyone knew that people must live and work together and find ways to cooperate and just deal with the inevitable differences that arise and keep them in perspective. They knew that people are not perfect, but that most of them try to be as good as they can manage. They took the measure of a person in wholeness, and if there was more good than bad to a person, they accepted that person's faults as being part of the package which was still valuable, if a bit flawed. After all, nobody really is perfect. We all knew that.

Then, something happened. And that something was called feminism. I remember the early days of the movement when it was called "Women's Liberation" which was a high sounding and noble cause in a country which is founded on a document which cites liberty as one of 3 inalienable rights that every person has. No one with a sense of fairness and an understanding of civics could be against women being liberated and treated fairly. And, there was also the promise that some of the ways men were being treated unfairly would change along with it.

And, as the old joke goes: if you believe that one, then I have some lakefront property in the Mojave Desert I'd like to talk to you about.

I learned very quickly that feminism wasn't about liberating PEOPLE from their previously too restrictive roles which were assigned to them based on the plumbing they displayed at birth, but rather was founded on a number of absolute falsehoods which had nothing to do with freedom, equality, or fairness. The fundamental premise that men had MORE power, not just a different kind of power and in a different area of society as a whole, but MORE power in a complete and absolute sense was something that I vehemently disagreed with. I could come up with thousands of examples of circumstances in which women had more power than men did. And in every example they gave of where men did have any power, I could easily point out the uneven distribution of power among men, and how a few men at the top of the wealth/influence pyramid had a lot of power, but that the vast majority of men had very little.

The strangest thing was that most of the situations in which I was being told I had or was exercising "power" seemed absolutely ridiculous to me. When I was a college freshman, one day I was walking across campus toward the student union. I reached the door about a half step ahead of a female student so, as I had been brought up to do, I hastened my last couple of steps and held the door open for her. Instead of the smile and nod that I had been used to in response to such simple acts of social courtesy, she flew into a rage and started screaming at me about how what a male chauvinist PIG I was, that she was perfectly capable of opening that door for herself and didn't need any g-- damned MAN to do it for her, and kicked me in the knee.

"Shock" is a totally inadequate word to describe my response.

I was at a loss to understand any of her reaction. She couldn't have been any more totally, completely, and absolutely wrong about my motivations and purposes. I instantly assigned her to the categories of "mentally defective", "hate filled", and female. Over the next several years, a lot of women joined her company.

A couple of years later, a woman that I was dating described her feminist "consciousness raising" group as consisting of "perfectly satisfying man hating sessions." Again, I was bewildered. I asked why she found hating me(n) so "perfectly satisfying". I don't remember the answer she gave, but she soon proved to me just how true that statement was of her. Like the knee-kicker in response to having a door opened, it seemed that anything and everything I did was proof that I deserved her hatred and rancor. At least 10 years later, she called me out of the blue to apologize. She said she realized that she had just gotten swept up in a group consciousness of hatred and had finally realized what had happened and that I had not deserved the bile she had spewed on me.

It was, I suppose, better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but it was too little and too late. Because, by then I had encountered so many other women who acted in pretty much the same way that it had simply become part of my view of what women were. Somewhere, deep down inside, either hidden or proudly displayed, women hated men. Women came in a variety of sizes and shapes, most had breasts and female genitals, but they all seemed to come with a hatred and fundamental contempt for men. One woman I dated while Jimmy Carter was still president, spoke of "my hatred of men" in the same mattter-of-fact tone that she might say "my nose". It was just an integral part of her.

Needless to say, this presented me with a significant paradox and source of internal conflict. Being a healthy heterosexual male, I had the natural and universal desire that men have to have a love relationship with a woman. But, how is it possible to love someone that returns hate for that love?

So, over time I began to develop a wary distrustful posture toward women. I still dated them, but I had become so conditioned to expect hatred from them that I simply accepted it as part of the price I had to pay in order to be involved with one. My desire for a relationship was still strong, but was opposed by a distrust and unwillingness to let someone who hated me get the upper hand over me. Thus, in my mind the concept of "commitment" became one and the same as "trapped in a relationship with someone who hates me." I was indeed one of those men who "wouldn't make a commitment."

The worst part of this, for me, is that it blinded me to the warning signals of some truly sick personalities. The hostility which I had become accustomed to enduring from women became only a matter of degree - greater or lesser. And, with a baseline of being kicked in the knee for the courtesy of opening a door, and learning how "satisfying" man hating is to some women, I had no yardstick to sort out the seriously sick and deranged women from any of the rest. As a result, I ended up in some relationships that were truly horrible and very damaging to me. And, of course, each of these left scars which over time built up so much emotional scar tissue that I began to lose all the positive feelings I once had for women.

That is the personal side. And, I won't bore you with the details of all the stories. But, there eventually got to be so many that I developed the attitude that the question was not "whether" a woman would burn me if let her get close enough to do so, but "when" and "how soon" it would happen.

On the political side, things were just as bad if not worse. About the same time I started becoming the target of violent physical attacks by individual women for what I perceived as courtesy, I also became the target of vicious verbal attacks by women collectively - just for being a man.

I remember the first time I saw the slogan "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle", I knew knew my face had just been spit in. Men were not just useless to women, we were irrelevant. We had no purpose in a woman's life, and did not belong in her world at all. It was a message of hate, dismissal, and refutation. But, I also saw it as a warning of what was to come. It was like seeing clouds on the horizon, and knowing that it is time to get under cover because a storm is brewing. And, since it was obviously smearing shit in my face, it was going to be a shit storm.

Soon it became apparent that women could say any damn thing they wanted about men - no matter how wrong, no matter how hateful, no matter how unfair - and that was fine, but every time I stood up to that and said "no, that is wrong, there is another point of view" I'd get some little fem-bot harpy in my face shrieking the same old tired slogans, like a mindless Chatty Cathy doll, about how I was threatened by losing my power, wanted to keep women "in their place", was probably violent, and was a misogynist. The dull predictability and regularity of it all was only kept from being terminally boring by the shrillness and sheer vehemence of the attacks.

There is a belief among those who believe in magic that one must speak a spell 3 times in order for it to become binding and true. It took being called a misogynist a lot more than 3 times to become true, more like 300+, but in time it did become true.

I began to see women as vicious creatures whose only agenda when it came to me, or any man, was to see how much they could get from the man - then when he had nothing left to give because they had taken it all, toss him out with yesterday's garbage. In short - as nothing but users. Feminist author Wendy Dennis came out with a book in the early 1990s called "Hot and Bothered: sex and love in the 90s." Among many other astute observations in the book was that nothing was more classically typical of the state of male/female relations than the woman who complained bitterly about every aspect of men, then couldn't figure out why she couldn't get one of these awful creatures to fall madly in love with her. I had observed the same thing so many times that I had simply concluded that such women were simply not very bright. In stark contrast to the mythology of how socially adept women are, I was baffled that such women were so stupid that they didn't realize that no living thing will respond to such projections of distaste, contempt, and hatred with anything except return animosity.

I took to avoiding women, particularly groups of them, because I could never sit quietly and put up with the bashing and would always challenge it, which ended me up in a lot of fights and added greatly the count of times that I got called "misogynist." I noticed that women seemed to do it habitually, without thinking, and would confront my female friends over and over until they learned not to do it in my presence.

And, after 3 decades of listening to it, and hating it, and trying to keep the animosity which had been building in me over it - when the husband of a woman friend of mine (who had been very dishonest about her motivations for our friendship and had been trying to harass me into turning our friendship sexual) threatened to kill me and she said "I don't know why you are making such a big deal about it", I caved in and began to really hate women.

Most of the time this hatred lies dormant. I figure that the best thing I can do for myself and for women is to keep the contact I must have with them to a minimum, and to keep as much distance between them and myself as possible. It is rather like hanging a sign on a fence that says "Beware of VERY bad dog." Stay outside the fence, and everything is fine. But, come through the gate at your own risk. Leave me the hell alone and I will leave you alone.

Misogynists are not born, they are made.

I am still baffled at all the women who seem to expect men to live on a steady diet of hatred and man bashing, and somehow magically metabolize this toxic diet into "love" for women and a desire to see good things come to them. When I work real hard, I can make the anger cold and take no joy when bad things happen to women, simply regard it with indifference. When I hear a woman whine about being victimized, I simply tune her out and go elsewhere.

When a woman smiles at me, I think of an old ethic bashing joke - "What does a ______ say instead of 'fuck you'?" answer "Trust Me.

I will not allow most women in my house unless I have known her a long time and she is old enough to have escaped being infected with the plague of man hating or is escorted by someone I trust, nor will I enter theirs except on the same conditions. If I pass a woman stranded on the road, I will not stop to help her because it is as likely as not that she will be afraid of me. That's fine. She's a fish without a bicycle - I have no place in her world, nor her in mine.

Man bashing and man hating harms women, because it makes men hate them back - eventually. A puppy returns love for love, but if you beat it will eventually turn mean and will one day turn on you when you raise your fist or your stick (or the club of words) to hit it. Men are no different. When women talk about treating men like dogs, I wish they would. It would be an improvement. Most women treat their dogs far better than they treat their men.

Somewhere along the line, I went through a metamorphosis. I changed from a man who loved women and thought they were just about the greatest thing in the world, to a man who can't stand them, or anything about them.

I'm sick and tired of the lies that women tell about men, I'm sick and tired of their victim games, I'm sick and tired of hatred and bashing I have to put up with when I am around them. I am sick and tired of the arrogant contempt in which they seem to hold me and all other men. I am sick to death of the way that some of them feel the need to seek me out to piss me off. A couple of years back, at the funeral of my uncle, as fine a man as I have ever known, some woman felt the need to start a conversation with me as I sat with my private grief. She wanted me to agree with her that men don't ask for directions.

How could anyone be so stupid and socially incompetent? When men came up to me to talk, it was always with something like "Your uncle was a fine man", not "aren't men headstrong and stupid?"

Invariably, when I tell a woman about all this, she tries to argue with me and say something like "get over it", or "why don't you take the gender out of it?" In return I ask, "why the hell don't you women get over it, and take the gender out of it?"

I would like nothing better than to be left in peace, and allow women to enjoy the absence of my company which they find so annoying and unpleasant. Every day, a few more men got through the transformation and become like me. We don't get our guns and shoot a few women; we don't beat them up; because what women have been saying about us all these years is just flat wrong. But, there's no point in trying to tell women that because they have become so certain of their superiority that the best way to deal with them is to leave them to it, and the company of their other fishy friends.

I Was Banned From an MRA Site: A response

ArgusEyes — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:52:35 GMT

http://punkassblog.com/2008/09/24/i-was-banned-from-an-mra-site/

This post highlights the principle problem with most blogs on the internet, we get a breakdown of the amount of time that glen mentions feminists, a disclaimer he posts on his pages and an account of a banning from some unnamed MRA blog.
Great. Mental diarrhoea straight from this persons brain to your eyes without the bother of editing in between.

But there was a slightly more pernicious message between the supercilious filler and that is exemplified by the following passage:

"I could do this all night, but I’m disinclined to. The examples are extraordinarily numerous. The point being, these are the guys that love Glenn, that feel Glenn speaks for them, that religiously read his articles and vigorously support him. What does that say about Glenn?"

I have this to say to Lisa Kansas:
To dismiss the reasoned body of work of a man who, in my experience, tries to be reasonable and fair at all times and to instead judge him by the cherry picked comments of the people who read his blog is nothing more than intellectual thuggery.

Latest friday feminist fuck you. Can you guess who it is? Go on, guess..

ArgusEyes — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:59:40 GMT

To feminists, gender is more important than skill.

ArgusEyes — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 17:34:07 GMT

British men - You also need to wake up!

ArgusEyes — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:08:00 GMT

Boycott relationships. Your country wants you to do it apparently.

To be a feminist's daughter

ArgusEyes — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:43:58 GMT

A very interesting article.

How my mother's fanatical views tore us apart

She's revered as a trail-blazing feminist and author Alice Walker touched the lives of a generation of women. A champion of women's rights, she has always argued that motherhood is a form of servitude. But one woman didn't buy in to Alice's beliefs - her daughter, Rebecca, 38.

Here the writer describes what it was like to grow up as the daughter of a cultural icon, and why she feels so blessed to be the sort of woman 64-year-old Alice despises - a mother.

Shit like this almost makes me want to become a feminist

ArgusEyes — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:28:13 GMT

I kid.. We know that the feminists don't fight against the real evils against women. Which, seem time and time again to be Islam.

Watch these and then buy the book

ArgusEyes — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:48:59 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DD40D63DBCDFCA94

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell/dp/0425181448/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215776892&sr=1-1

My reply to MarquisMongaga

ArgusEyes — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:54:28 GMT

Note the thoughtful pose.

When feminist don’t care about the murder of women

ArgusEyes — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:33:44 GMT

A while ago I read a story to you about a young girl in Iraq who was horrifically murdered by her father and then thrown into a makeshift grave whilst her family spat on her body.

I have been sitting on this information for a while but I have a sad follow up to the story. The girl who was killed was called Rand Abdel-Qader, and now her mother Leila has been murdered also.

It was two weeks after Rand's death on 16 March that a grief-stricken Leila, unable to bear living under the same roof as her husband, found the strength to leave him. She had been beaten and had had her arm broken. It was a courageous move. Few women in Iraq would contemplate such a step. Leila told The Observer in April: 'No man can accept being left by a woman in Iraq. But I would prefer to be killed than sleep in the same bed as a man who was able to do what he did to his own daughter.'

Her words were to prove prescient. Leila turned to the only place she could, a small organisation in Basra campaigning for the rights of women and against 'honour' killings. Almost immediately she began receiving threats - notes calling her a 'prostitute' and saying she deserved to die like her daughter.

Even her sons Hassan, 23, and Haydar, 21, whom she claimed aided their father in their sister's killing, disowned her. Meanwhile, her husband, a former government employee, escaped any charges, and even told The Observer that police had congratulated him on what he had done.

It is not known who killed Leila. All that is known is that she was staying at the house of 'Mariam', one of the women's rights campaigners, whose identity The Observer has agreed not to reveal. On the morning of 17 May, they were joined by another volunteer worker and set off to meet 'a contact' who was to help Leila travel to Amman, where she would be taken in by an Iraqi family.

'Leila was anxious, but she was also happy at having the chance to leave Iraq,' said Mariam. 'Since the death of her daughter, her own life was at serious risk. And this was a great opportunity for her to leave the country and to fight for Iraqi women's rights.

'She had not been able to sleep the night before. I stayed up talking to her about her plans after she arrived in Amman. I gave her some clothes to take with her and she was packing the only bag she had. She was too excited to sleep.'

Mariam said that when she awoke Leila had already prepared breakfast, cleaned her house and even baked a date cake as a thank-you for the help she had been given. After the arrival of 'Faisal', the volunteer (whose identity is also being protected), the three left the house at 10.30am and started walking to the end of the street to get a taxi. They had walked less than 50 metres when they heard a car drive up fast and then gunshots rang out. The attack, said by witnesses to have been carried out by three men, was over in minutes. Leila was hit by three bullets. Mariam was hit in her left arm and Faisal in her left leg. 'I didn't realise I had been shot for a few seconds, because as I heard the gunfire I saw Leila falling to the ground and saw blood pouring from her head,' said Mariam. 'I was so shocked, I didn't immediately feel the pain.'

Since February 2006, two other activists from the same women's organisation have been killed in the city. One of them was reportedly raped before being shot. The other, the only man working for the non-governmental organisation (NGO), and a father of five who was responsible for the organisation's finances, was shot five months ago.

Read the full article.

I’m going to stop there. I recommend that you read the full story which I shall link in the video description and in my blog. It goes into more details of how Mariam had to take sedatives to help her sleep at night because of continuous nightmares, and how the police stated that her death was just a coincidence. I don’t buy it.

Here’s what gets me.

Feminists, apparently, are THE people who beat the female drum more than others do.

Apparently, they’re THE cheerleaders for the woman crowd.

This is to the feminists.. Doesn’t this shit piss you off?

When I made the original video all I got were dismissals to the argument, not one feminist stood up to the plate and rebuked this behaviour. Which was what my original point was, that feminists take pot shots at their own culture which reveres women above all others, and fail to criticise a truly misogynist oppressive culture.

They mainly said things like “the fact that there is oppression in other cultures doesn’t mean that we can ignore the problems in ours”. I’m fed up of being asked to defend a position I didn’t posit. This was not the point of my original video.

But I know why they made this point, the idea of criticising Islam so frightens these politically correct cowards that they will grasp at any straw that they can to avoid the real issue, this ranges from making strawman arguments like I read to you or discussing the wage gap. If you do this in response to this video then you are avoiding the truth because the truth is so ugly that it burns to look at it. It’s like the sun, it’s so painful to stare directly at that people will cast their glance askew to avoid it.

It hurts to look at abject evil, but we need to do it.

Also I want to say. Making a comment along the lines of “these oppressions exist in other cultures and doesn’t apply to our own” is not sufficient…

Do the Dutch not have to deal with the religious sensitivity of the Muslims because the Muslims are only in the Middle East? No! The Muslims are there in their own country.

Did the riots in France not happen because the Muslims are another culture? No! The Muslims are in France.

So the evils of Islam are applicable to western cultures. Because they are IN those western cultures. Maybe feminists want to reconsider their attitudes to Muslim immigration if the rights of women matter to them so much. Here in the U.K. the Muslims are gravitating towards implementing Sharia law into the law of the U.K. How does that bode for women’s rights?

Anyone of any stripe who does not have his or her head in the sand, needs to discuss these issues.

So I must reiterate, doesn’t a story like this make you angry dear feminists? It made me furious, I’ve not seen a feminists rebuke this and if you know of one then please let me know:

Rebuking bad behaviour is not difficult, all it takes is a little testicular fortitude. I rebuked the use of the term “feminazi” in a video. I rebuked the commenter who said that Wendy McElroy was just another evil feminist who was tricking us all. Wendy does good work on men’s rights issues and I value her contribution.

And I find it interesting that the one highlighting these issues is a Men’s Rights Activist, it should show you how far feminism has come. And of course, I’m pandering to the bigoted ideas of the radical feminists here because being a Men’s Rights Activist doesn’t mean you’re a misogynist. In fact, after the reactions I got to this horrific event I think we actually care more about women then the feminists do.

And if you want to help women, don’t donate to the western feminists, donate to this women’s charity in Iraq which helps women leave the country, I’ll try to find their identity. That’s all I’ve got to say. This video is in memorandum of Rand and Mariam Abdel-Qader, may they rest in peace.

The story from the other side of the fence.

ArgusEyes — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:21:19 GMT

Links:
http://uk.askmen.com/toys/top_10_300/327_top_10_list.html
http://www.glennsacks.com/campaigns-detroit-news.php
http://www.glennsacks.com/volvo.php
http://www.davidandgoliathtees.com/index.php?mode=HCGT

Do as I do Jessica valenti

ArgusEyes — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:25:29 GMT

From Feministing (again):

"Yeah, a bunch of misogynist trolls have swarmed the site. I'm sorry to Feministing readers for the nonsense. I'm going to shut down comments for the weekend until they find something better to do (because I just can't spend all weekend online deleting and banning).”

“But in the meantime, this serves as a pretty good reminder as to why feminism is so needed! (Even if it does kill my Friday night occasionally.)"

Read: Thos icky boys are invading our little girl’s club and I need to expel them all. It’s the patriarchy!

Sorry Jessica, when you talk shit about people they tend to want to defend themselves. Not all defences are what I would call “cogent” but I’ll give you some tips to show you the kind of nice guy I am.

When it comes to opposing views. You can save yourself time and effort by not being a comment dictator and just letting them on there.

Your head is probably reeling right now, so I will try and say it again a little slower.
Just. Let. Them. On. There.

You’re faithful minions will have fun replying and saying things such as “you’re afraid of women” or “you’re not real men”. The furore will drive your traffic up.. It’ll be a regular internet bonanza!

And most importantly of all. You won’t come off as a prissy little girls who cannot handle opposing views.

Also. The line that “this shows why feminism is needed” is used to death by Jessica. As you should know by now, I read her bloody book and read her bloody blog and trust me – this is overused. EVERYTHING show that feminism is needed.

A word to the wise Jessica, one asshole or a bunch of assholes does little to prove systemic oppression of women which needs a left-based sexist socialist ideology to counter it. You make a living talking smack about men and when we reply in kind it is used as a proof of some societal evil. Pay heed to these words from a wise man.

Any loon feminist can accuse men of being rapists, killers, sadists, and Marines. These are pretty serious charges. A fellow could take exception to them. But if I say something comparatively innocuous in return, such as that I weary of being harried by a rat-pack of diesel-fired tarantulas who mostly look like Rin Tin Tin's littermates--why, they get mad. (Yes, I know, that was a three-animal zoological-automotive metaphor. Patent applied for.)

I figure if radical-feminist ladies can talk ugly about us, then we can talk ugly about them. And we're probably better at it, which they might bear in mind.

Another good slam of Feministing

ArgusEyes — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:39:36 GMT

I was sent this link to a good blog post that further demolishes the ladies at feministing.com

http://daltonator.net/durandal/blog/?p=122

There are some very good bits:

One source of these steaming shovelfuls is Feministing, a web site run by self-styled “feminist” writer Jessica Valenti, author of Full Frontal Feminism. While the site bills itself as a blog for young feminists, it is in fact a “me too” web page where Miss Valenti’s sycophantic friends and cultish followers get together to recite dogma, honor the sacraments, pledge their devotion and excommunicate or anathematize the unbelievers. Any who dare to disagree with or mock the more ridiculous dogma are branded heretics (or “assholes”) and abjured with the magic words “Fuck You!”, a devastating show of wit, no doubt.

And...

It is the act of pointing out that such thinking is harebrained that is unforgivable, according to what they call “Feminism 101″, the mere mention of which is believed by the faithful to counter all facts, reason and logic in much the same way that fundies counter all arguments with “The Bible says so!”. In fact, the denizens of Feministing draw “Feminism 101″ like Randolph Scott drew his six-shooter in his old Westerns, but like Scott’s revolver, it’s full of blanks.

But go and read it for more good stuff.

The article also raises some interesting points. At the beginning he raises a dictionary quote such as this one.

fem•i•nism –noun 1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

And then goes on to basically say that people who agree with this should reasonably be called feminists. I agree that most decent people agree with these principles. And if that is the case, do we need a term for us? Or do we merely need to shame those who don’t believe these things. I.e. we call people who don’t believe in equality between the races racist, we don’t call people who do believe in equality between the sexes pro-race. It’s not needed.

And we don’t need the term feminism, by the same logic. But, I would also like to say that the modern feminist movement is a political movement that has been very successful in appropriating this definition for themselves. So much so that if you go and ask a good young woman who would call herself a feminist such as this, and you ask her why she is a feminist then she will say something along the lines of “because I believe in equality”. The irony is that if you truly believe in equality then you have to go against what the modern feminist movement believes.

Just disgusting...

ArgusEyes — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 00:18:10 GMT

Where is ZenPriest now?

ArgusEyes — Fri, 30 May 2008 19:24:30 GMT

In my video about true equality, I made reference to an essay called "hate bounces". I don't think that ZenPriest has updated that site in a while and what I would like to do, is to read this piece in its entirety as a youtube video.

I don't know about anyone else but the piece really hit home with me when I read it for the first time. Does anyone know where I can contact him, the email address from his site does not appear to work.

Welcome to True Equality

ArgusEyes — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:26:54 GMT

Until now I’ve called my channel a susurration of a shibboleth. It was about standing out from the norm. That particular message has had its time and I think there is a new message I want to convey. My thinking over the past months has definitely been tending towards on thing and that is the continuous difference between those in the men’s movement and feminists in our ideas about equality.

This was pretty much encapsulated in my last video. Which, really, should have been the first video I made for youtube. It would be right at the top of my MRA 101 list because it encapsulates why us strange creatures called Men’s Rights Activists do not call ourselves feminists. I mentioned the differing idea of equality which is given by the following blurb:

What is equality? We in the men’s rights movement believe in equality of opportunity, that as long as the playing field is level then the outcomes should not matter. The feminists tend to believe that equality of outcome is what matters, that the columns under men and women must match for there to be no more sexism. So what really matters at the end of the day is what you are comparing. Rights or outcomes? This is the foundation of our debate.

Now, certain problems have nothing to do with this, I acknowledge that. However, this fundamental disagreement is present in so many arguments between men’s rights activists and feminists. Here are three examples of what I’m talking about when I talk about the feminists view of equality of outcomes.

Feminists use the gap between men and women in pay to support the idea of the supposed oppression of women.
Feminists use the gap between men and women in collegiate sports enrolment to support the quota-based law called title nine.
And, feminists use the differences between men and women in many professions. To make a case for the forceful insertion of women into those professions. A prime example of this is the FASCIST law passed in Norway where companies are forced to have 40% of their board of directors be female.

What does it take? What does it take to believe in these foolish ideas, and they are foolish. They hurt men, and they infantilise women. How can the neurons in the brain misfire to such a way so that people can support such idiocy, not only in practice. But to the extent that it gets encapsulated into law?

It takes the belief that men.. and women.. are basically the same. That apart from their physical appearance that they think in the same basic ways. This is foolish and any remotely normal person who has usual interactions with men and women will notice that we are fundamentally different.

Modern feminist may say. Oh no, I don’t support that idea. Well no shit. It’s untenable. But back in the heyday of feminist thought they tried this. They stigmatized raising boy children differently to girl children, they said that if you give the girl a truck and give the boy a Barbie then you can switch the roles. Nothing demonstrates the fallacy of this better than the case of David Reimer who was tortured in the name of feminist theory. His story will be made in a separate video. But needless to say that the theorising of the feminist fell down when empirically tested. It also falls down in the light of common sense.

I hope by now, that I have demonstrated fallacy inerrant in the idea that men and women are the same. We are not. So in this light the feminist ideal of equality is flawed. But what about my own ideal? Why do I think my own standards of equality are sufficiently better in order to make the claim that they represent “true equality”?

My system says, what you want to achieve as a society is equality of opportunity. This means that you do not deny anyone the opportunity to apply for a job, and a job is defined by a set of criteria. You want to become a fire fighter or a soldier? Great then there are a number of pre-requisites that you’ll need in order to do that job. You’ll need a certain level of fitness and you’ll need to be able to lift a certain amount of weight. No one is intrinsically blocked from applying but due to the requirements of the job you will see a number of patterns in who makes it in. Be it more men or more women, depending upon the particular job of course.

Now take the feminist model. I as a man am not fit enough to become a fire fighter but a women who is weaker than I might get in on the back of positive discrimination. What does this achieve? Well first of all it fills a slot with someone who is not able to do the job, it puts pressure on the other people in that profession to pick up the slack after her. Nothing demonstrates that point more than this article from Fred Reed about women in the military.

Fred--Your article "The Realities of Women in Combat" really struck a chord with my experience in the Air Force. I was a shop chief with the 28th Avionics Maintenance Squadron in the 1980s. There were two women assigned to my shop. One was really sharp at her job, but she couldn't change an RT-274/APN-81 without male assistance. The other couldn't even carry her own tool box to the flight line!

Supposedly, we supervisors were assured by the brass, these women were screened before being allowed into avionics maintenance by having to pass weightlifting standards. Yeah, right. They had to be able to lift 50 pounds. An RT-274 weighed in at 125 pounds plus. I don't know what the problem was with the woman who couldn't carry her own tool box. But I couldn't get rid of her due to pressure from the brass. So, I put her in a weight training program at the base gym. Until her honorable discharge and a pat on the back for a job well done, she never carried her own tools. She, therefore, was never able to pull weekend duty alone; there had to be a male assigned as well to carry her end of the job as well as his own.

Saving lives, fighting fires, fighting wars and protecting citizens are not areas where I want social experiments run. When you are being mugged, or your house is burning down you want the best person to save your life. It is beyond me why we give feminists credence in their clearly bad and erroneous ideas.

I also want to give a shout-out to my new blog I am creating. In the theme of this video I have called it true-equality and you can find it at true hyphen equality dot net. I have improved it so that I can more easily add blog posts and I will try to add a new post every day.

RE: Friday Feminist Fuck You

ArgusEyes — Wed, 28 May 2008 23:47:03 GMT

There is a youtube channel out there called Feministing, named after the famous feminist blog of the same name started by Jessica Vallenti.

On Fridays one of the Feministing team makes a video called “Friday feminist fuck you”. Which is basically a rant about some person or institution which has committed some sexist act which has irritated them.

Here is a list of the Friday feminist fuck you topics on chronological order, from the first to the most recent:

Grover Cleveland High,
Academy Awards,
Anti-feminism in the media,
Dr. Laura,
Fox and Other Race-Dumb Outlets,
Miss Bimbo,
Public Perverts,
The U.S. Army,
WNBA Public Relations

Dear women of Feministing. You are all cowards!

There is no courage in saying fuck you to the institutions and people in the freest country in the world who have committed some pathetic infraction that has offended your delicate feminist sensibilities.

There is one overriding and prominent evil that oppresses women in the world today. And it’s called Islam and most Feminists ignore the plight of women who need them the most.

Where is your “fuck you Saudi Arabia” video? Where women are not allowed to drive and are banned from voting.

Where is your “fuck you Hojatolislam Hassani”. Who is a top Iranian cleric who said that women who do not wear the Hijab should die. And not only that. The women, their husbands and fathers should die. So three people should be killed when a woman fails to wear a piece of cloth over her head.

Where is your video “fuck you Abdel-Qader Ali” who, well, let me read you this little story...

Two weeks after The Observer revealed the shocking story of Rand Abdel-Qader, 17, murdered because of her infatuation with a British solider in Basra, southern Iraq, her father is defiant. Sitting in the front garden of his well-kept home in the city's Al-Fursi district, he remains a free man, despite having stamped on, suffocated and then stabbed his student daughter to death.

It was her first youthful infatuation and it would be her last. She died on 16 March after her father discovered she had been seen in public talking to Paul, considered to be the enemy, the invader and a Christian. Though her horrified mother, Leila Hussein, called Rand's two brothers, Hassan, 23, and Haydar, 21, to restrain Abdel-Qader as he choked her with his foot on her throat, they joined in. Her shrouded corpse was then tossed into a makeshift grave without ceremony as her uncles spat on it in disgust.

'Death was the least she deserved,' said Abdel-Qader. 'I don't regret it. I had the support of all my friends who are fathers, like me, and know what she did was unacceptable to any Muslim that honours his religion,' he said.

Yeah, no, you’re right. Fuck you Dr. Laura. Fuck you Miss Bimbo. These are the things that matter.

And I want to hive a shout out to some honest feminists. In the UK there is a radio station called radio 4 and they have a program called women’s hour. I disagree with what is said a lot of the time but they are worlds more honest about the issues than Feministing is and they regularly feature segments about women in other Islamic countries.

Some of these Feministing videos deal with legitimate issues. For example, the one on the U.S. Army, although I find it interesting that you dealt with a legitimate issue in a cack-handed way that was about as deep as most feminist treatments of issues. Others in the series are just pathetic. For example, one of the videos was entitled “Friday feminist fuck you: public perverts”. I remember seeing that and thinking. “wow.. What a cowardly” sentiment. And it is. Do you think there are any people out there who defend perverts? No! Everyone is against perverts and you simply want to obtain the cheap heroism of gaining a knockout victory over such a decrepit target.

The annoying thing is that feminists use examples like Iran when you argue with them and they want to justify their existence even though they do no real work in fighting these injustices. Citing places like Saudi Arabia to back up your arguments which are primarily about the western world is a deeply dishonest act. Look at the titles of the Feministing fuck you series. Are any of them about real injustices that women around the world face?

At least Men’s Rights Activists fight proper injustices in the societies in which they exist. I, a men’s rights activist has done more to shine a light on the true oppression of women than any feminist I have seen on youtube to date. Western societies are the most free in the world for women, women in these societies have more rights than the men do so stop pretending that this is where the atrocity lies and point your efforts where they rightly belong.

Why I am NOT a Feminist

ArgusEyes — Wed, 28 May 2008 23:41:55 GMT

Not a day goes by without me getting a message in my inbox or a comment on one of my videos saying something along the lines of:

I am a feminist because I believe in equality and what’s wrong with that!?

Let me say something now that, for some reason, isn’t said enough. Apart from a few nut-jobs here and there, we all believe in equality. OK? It doesn’t need to be said.

People who say that feminism is about equality have some major misconceptions about what feminism actually is. Feminism is not a state of being. It’s not something you just are like you might be an jew or a homosexual.

It is an ideological movement. Ideological movements are movements that are concerned with ideas. Feminism is comprised of ideas and theories and hypotheses. These ideas can be evaluated on their individual veracity and then accepted or dismissed. And over time common threads are observed in the ideas of the feminists that testifies to the character of the movement. This is what I consider my primary role to be... To evaluate the ideas and trends of feminism. As I’ve made quite clear before, I don’t think feminists are bad, I think that in general they have bad ideas because they base them on false premises.

Why don’t I call myself a feminist? As I have stated before. Feminism is not a state of being. So you can believe in equality and not call yourself a feminist. And that’s what I and a lot of other men’s rights activists believe. In fact, a lot of us feel that feminists do not believe in the kind equality that we, and most rational people, believe in.

For those who are actually able to think, you will realise that the word equality doesn’t have a meaning that is a clear as people intent it to be when they bleat it out. To me, men’s rights activism versus feminism is about two conflicting models of what the word equality means.

To most feminists equality means equality of outcome. That if you add up the numbers at the end of the day, if the column under men and the column under women don’t match exactly then this is proof positive that women are being oppressed.

To most Men’s rights activists, equality means equality of opportunity. In that you should face no discrimination based upon your sex, race or sexual preference in a civilised society. And that if the system is fair, then the outcome vis a vie women vs. men, white vs. black. Etc. Doesn’t matter at the end of it because your own choices led to that particular outcome.

Which one of these views is correct? Obviously I am going to say the second one.

Life is rarely a dichotomous choice between two different ideas. But this is one of those times. You cannot have a completely fair system and then have the government stick its nose in afterward in an attempt to fiddle the numbers to make it appear fair. Fair is giving everyone the same chance. Fair is not raising those who didn’t put in the effort up on a pedestal to the level of those who gave a damn.

Unlike the two models of equality which I have mentioned. A lot of the time I believe in situations where you have a choice between two views, the truth lies somewhere along the middle path between the two choices. When you have two views of society which are given to you by two special interest groups, each of which represents one half of two possible sides, then each represents a side that the other will find it hard to relate to. In my opinion the Men’s rights movement grew from the extremes that feminism created and exists to present the problems that affect men. I’ve always been honest that I believe that. It’s time for the feminists to come clean and admit that they have a female-centred agenda as well. Instead of the usual B.S. about representing what is best for both of the genders.

Feminism is our ticket to true gender salvation? Salvation for both genders from a movement with a gendered name. Bollocks! Modern feminism, which is far from its more noble roots. Has had a total reign and has been having the say for both sides for far too long now. And the damage should be clear for everyone to see. They have damaged men, women and society. We need the other voice now. We need to hear the other side of the story. This is the main reason why I don’t call myself a feminist. Feminism does not speak for me! Feminism does not speak for me...

I recommend a brilliant essay which I shall link to on the left called “hate bounces: how man hating and man bashing harms women: The making of a misogynist”. The essay details the life story of a man who grew up to hate women due to feminism. It says so much that I want to say and it says it so well that I implore you to simply read it yourself. For now, I will read a part of the essay that applies directly to my life experience:

I remember the first time I saw the slogan "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle", I knew my face had just been spit in. Men were not just useless to women, we were irrelevant. We had no purpose in a woman's life, and did not belong in her world at all. It was a message of hate, dismissal, and refutation. But, I also saw it as a warning of what was to come. It was like seeing clouds on the horizon, and knowing that it is time to get under cover because a storm is brewing.

Now before you start psycho-analyzing, the quote made me angry and hurt my feelings a bit, but it did not have as much of an effect on me as it did on this guy. But when I first heard the famous feminist slogan coming from the mouth of a young woman on my university campus then I realised that part of feminism was hateful to men and it was seeping into the mind of young women and poisoning their view of men then I realised that I could never call myself a feminist. After realising this, I pondered the strange creature called the male feminist. How could one embrace an ideology that was so hostile to them?

Needless to say, the quote doesn’t even make sense. I have never met a woman who does not consider a relationship to be an very important part of her life. The reason I never took the quote too seriously is because I saw right through it to what it really was. It was posturing. It was the angry outburst of a foot-stomping child of a movement trying to convince itself that it didn’t need to rely on men, lying to itself to try and deny the truth, that men and women do depend on each other. It spoke to me of an immature movement driven by emotion rather than logic. A movement striving not towards truth, but towards anger, victim-hood and demagoguery.

So. Apart from the spit-in-the-face hostility to men, the one-sided treatment of gender issues and the flawed idea of what equality is. Why else don’t I call myself a feminist?

For the answer to that question, watch my older videos and stay tuned for the new ones because what I offer is the voice from the other side of the aisle. And that is a voice you are not going to hear from a feminist anytime soon.

Don't vote for sexism in 2008 Hillary Clinton is bad for men

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:15:56 GMT

I have a dirty little secret. Hillary Clinton scares me, I was always aware of her feminist leanings but now that she is running for the president of the united states I think it's time to focus on Hillary.

And of course this makes me a chauvinist pig. If there is one thing that Hillary is using to death it's the female victim card, standard feminists phrases such as "glass ceiling" and a completely gynocentric campaign.

From what I've heard from Hillary Clinton over the past months. It seems to me that she is completely banking on the female and emasculated male voting base. Whether or not this will work - remains to be seen. But one thing is sure, that this is a small minded strategy, completely lacking in wisdom and sophistry. Of most campaigns waged throughout human history that target one particular demographic in a demagogic way have had foul intentions and foul consequences and I exempt Hillary from this in no small way. A Hillary Clinton presidency would be an extremely bad idea for men.

I'm not going to mince words here. In my mind Hillary Clinton is a female supremacist, a bigot and an ideologue. She is Cold and calculating and she is a feminist. Being the good feminist, Hillary seems to have a female supremacist streak. Making this statement in the Vital Voices' Women's Global Leadership Summit:

"Research shows the presence of women raises the standards of ethical behaviour and lowers corruption."

Maybe you could call this the Larry Summers effect. Make a statement about some inherent difference that makes men better than women in some regard then watch as the wailing begins. But turn the tables and claim the ethical or physical superiority of women then it becomes perfectly fine. Her claims may be true, but we live in a world where is a massive difference between what one can say about women and what on can say about men.

Hillary made an astounding in one of the democratic debates. Which I am paraphrasing as such:

"It's about time that someone started talking about what is good for women. Because doesn't that make a nice change?"

And of course everyone clapped like lemmings. The inanity of this statement is unbelievable. For as long as I can remember, all I have heard is what is good for women. It is virtually unheard of to hear what is good for men.

I put it to Hillary that most all political candidates mention "women's rights" in some way and if they do not then it's not that they are talking about "men's rights" in particular, it is more that they are simply not mentioning it. Men's rights are hardly ever mentioned in politics, and I put the word "hardly" in there in case it has happened but to be honest I cannot think of a time it has happened in the perpetuity of politics - such an event would be so rare that it would be emblazoned onto my consciousness.

The sad truth is that not talking about women, to Hillary, would be the equivalent of being sexist towards them. And to make things "equal" is the same as giving women more and more perks to hurtle them through that ever problematic glass ceiling. This is proven by the kind of commentary we see in the media about the sexism of those evil white men who would not vote for her, take the actions of the New York chapter of the National Organisation of Women criticising Ted Kennedy for not endorsing Hillarie's campaign.

The message is loud and clear: If you don't vote for Hillary then you're sexist. As an aside, I have one question for the democrats. When it comes for the time to vote are you going to be sexist and vote for Obama? Or are you going to be racist and vote for Hillary?

Does Hillary even live in the real world? For all her huffing and puffing about how downtrodden women are you would think that she still lives in the 1950s. But enough of the rhetoric. Is her talk merely hot air? What effect would Hillary have if she became the 44th president of the united states?

Unfortunately there is likely to be an unfortunate effect on men. It's not just about having another president who will surpass all the others in ignoring the issues that plague men - like we haven't had to put up with that forever. She has leant herself to a blatantly sexist proposition called the "Paycheck Fairness Act" which would:

"take critical steps to empower women to negotiate for equal pay"

The Paycheck Fairness Act is an equal pay for equivalent work law by which:

"employers could not pay jobs that are held predominately by women less than jobs held predominately by men"

The matter of the wage gap is something I have always meant to get into in a separate video so I will be talking about these issues in greater depth later but I will give you the gist of it here. Essentially it's all bollocks. You get paid based on how much and how hard you work, there is no shadowy cabal of men holding women back, all of us have mothers, sisters, aunts and female friends and I do not even want to think about what image people like Hillary have of men or how this will shape her. Would you let David Duke oversee race relations? Would you assign David Irving to the head of the holocaust council? Would you let Kent Hovind decide science policy? Would you let Hillary tell you about how sexist America really is?

You see, Hillary Clinton is what the old feminists would have called "sexist". She makes arguments for the superiority of women, she hosts women only and women centred events and campaigns. She makes bigoted statements about men and seems to dislike them and she would make laws that actively disadvantage men and advantage women. I would urge my American brothers and sisters who love true equality to not vote for her.

Sources
Is Hillary Clinton a Closet Sexist?
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/01/15/is-hillary-clinton-a-closet-sexist/

How did Hillary Become a Feminist?
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/30039.html

HILLARY PLAYS THE FEMALE SUPREMACIST CARD
http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey56.htm

Hillary Clinton, Cultural Marxist
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/29731.html

How did Hillary fall into the feminist fold?
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/080102

The (Anti-)Feminist Movement
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/14/135245.shtml

NOW WTF?
http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2008/01/now-wtf.html

National Committee on pay equity
http://www.pay-equity.org/info-leg.html

I Love ifeminists!

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:08:49 GMT

I realise that most of the time I am pretty “down” on feminists. And a lot of comments get made when I criticise feminism to the effect of “we’re no all like that!”. So this is a video that seeks to rectify that situation to some degree.

There is a division of feminism called “ifeminism” which stands for individual feminism

Individualist feminism, or ifeminism, advocates the equal treatment of men and women as individuals under just law. The core principle of individualist feminism is that all human beings have a moral and legal claim to their own persons and property. It is sometimes called libertarian feminism.

The ifeminists site [1] has a F.A.Q [2] which gives some refreshing answers to questions. Here is an answer “isn’t the government trying to help women?” [3].

Governments have been the greatest violators of women's rights for centuries. In the 18th and 19th centuries in America, government denied to women the most basic rights of controlling their own bodies (e.g., birth control) and their own property (e.g., wives did not have an uncontested claim to their own wages). By the late 20th century, government cemented gender hostility into society by assuming a paternalistic role that advantaged women at the expense of men (e.g., affirmative action). Whether through privilege or oppression, governments seem unwilling to respect the full and equal individual rights of women.

To my mind the most famous ifeminist is Wendy McElroy. Who, in my opinion is one of the most intelligent female writers I am aware of. Wendy McElroy is pro pornography and is legally blind in one of her eyes after she suffered domestic violence in the past. However, she never jumped onto the DV hysteria bandwagon and admits her own culpability in the situation. The ifeminists website regularly features editorial contributions from well known members of the men’s rights movement such as Glenn sacks, Stephen Baskerville and Carey Roberts.

Ifeminism is more libertarian than liberal feminism and is certainly not radical. The belief is in the individual person and the rights they deserve. This is certainly a more palatable approach then most forms of feminism. Ifeminism can be said to encapsulate some of the ideas of the men’s rights movement. So there we go, never let it be said that I never had a good word to say about some feminists.

Sources
[1] ifeminists
http://www.ifeminists.com
[2] ifeminists faq
http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?cat.9
[3] Isn't government trying to help women?
http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.17

Bad Feminist

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:08:06 GMT

This is a continuing rebuttal of the rebuttal that iwentdowntotheriver, who will henceforth be referred to as “river”, made of my video “the problems with feminism”.

River starts by claiming that this isn’t really an issue that feminists use misleading statistics because, to paraphrase him, everyone does it. Well this is a logical fallacy and it’s called “Tu quoque” or “you too”. Basically it is the idea that it’s okay to perform a certain fallacious or wrong act because someone else does it as well.

And I’m a bit confused here. Is River making a point against me here or for me? If he admits that feminists do indeed do it. Then is it not a problem with feminism as I have stated it is? To quote a great man, Jon Stewart.

“When you go to a zoo and see a monkey throwing poop. You just say “that’s what monkeys do, what are you going to do?”. What I wish the media would do more frequently is say “bad monkey””.

Should we accept a politician’s corruption with a wave of the hand and say that’s what politicians do. No we should not. So, again, the proper response would be “bad feminist”.

River expands upon the rape stat and I haven’t yet made a video about this. And for any meaningful representation of what I think he will have to wait until I make a video that addresses it. But I will make a short comment here that I absolutely believe that there should be an element of force for it to be rape, every dictionary definition of rape contains some element of force and this is what every person understands when they hear the word. Which is the image of a brutish man grabbing an innocent woman in a darkened alleyway and viciously raping her. And it is an image that the feminists have exploited to suit their agenda, very well. I will make no qualms that what feminists have done with the issue of rape is one of the most evil things that the movement has done, and I try not to use the word evil unless I really mean it.

To sum it up Rivers definition of having sex when you don’t want to as being rape is ridiculous and stupid. I always like to be a bit more diplomatic than that but I can’t in this situation. Let’s take his definition to its logical conclusion so a woman who has sex with a man and later decides that it was a bad idea can now claim that she was raped. Let’s say that River has a girlfriend and she pulls this trick on him? What will he think of it then? Will his feminist apologist platitudes stop for a second and give way to a more honest statement that this is, indeed, bullshit?

How can something as horrible as rape now be something that you can do accidentally feminism has taken us into a brave world where men are now rapists without intending to be so or knowing they are doing it.

Sexist laws

We simply differ on our most fundamental concepts here. River thinks that the idea of giving women a head start is fine. I do not. I think that no one gets special treatment. They get equal rights but nothing more. And never the twain shall meet

If that is the stance of a feminist then that’s fine, I think they’re wrong, but they’re entitled to their opinion. But when they start that they, as a feminist, are interested in equality but then blatantly support inequality then that is a problem! And I don’t think it is unreasonable to mention that.

River then goes on to emphasize with the poor women who have for millennia been down trodden by the privileged men with their hobnailed boots whilst they went on to live the life of riley. This is what I like to describe as the “fabled oppression of the past” and I will make a separate video to discuss it. For now, may I suggest that the past is the past and a woman in today’s world would have to be pretty old in order to remember where any genuinely oppressive laws existed? Any young woman will have lived a life of complete equality so why do these women deserve a “leg up” because of the fabled oppression of the past where no modern woman suffered from oppressions inflicted on them by no modern man? It’s ridiculous, it’s the same excuse that people who want reparations want.

Women have had a lot given to them already. I would also claim that the women who have benefited from this the most are the women who deserve it the least. So may I suggest that we hang up this ridiculous notion of special privilege and reach true equality.

Sexist laws

Related to the laws for women was the issue of being beaten out for a job. I don’t know where the idea of “white men” came from, Feminists love to talk about “white men” I don’t know why that’s is important, anyway river asks why white men feel threatened by women getting to the same level as we are. I doubt river has had any personal experience with this. I have, and it isn’t a nice feeling.

“threatened” doesn’t come into it, it’s about fairness. I don’t believe that payback is fair game. If this is the feeling that women were supposedly going through then how productive is getting their petty revenge going to be. It is going to create a backlash which might hurt them in return. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Again, this comes down to what we think River seems to think it’s perfectly fine, I think that no one gets to be special. And I don’t think it is an arrogant thing to suggest that my view is more equalitarian then the other.

About DV shelters

He says he can’t understand how feminists would want to protect women at the expense of men. Well in many cases this is not intentional but stems from flawed feminists theory. The idea of patriarchy and the Duluth power wheel in some way prohibits thinking that men can suffer from DV. But if they do admit this then sometimes they just don’t care. That sounds harsh but many people who have talked to me when discussing this issue say that the feminists have the interests of women first and that alternative groups may want to fund shelters for men.

And that is a valid point and can be made but don’t come to me after that saying that feminism is about equality and that feminism serves the interest of men. FEM-inism is about serving the interests of women and that’s what I mean when I say it’s gynocentric.

Smokescreening Radical Feminism

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:07:14 GMT

This is a rebuttal to iwentdowntotheriver’s rebuttal to my “problems with feminism video”. Iwentdowntotheriver is far to long as a handle for me to repeatedly refer to it so from now on I will be calling him “river”.

First of all I just want to say that I really love sensible video replies. I think this is what youtube should be about. It also cuts through the miasma of the youtube comment system which really prohibits sensible debate. And I hope we can continue this format.

The distinction that the “beliefs of a leader does not equal the particular ideology of that group” was not missed by me. As anyone could have come up with that particular platitude, and many did. This is a comment that is levelled at me all the time and is part of that silly claim that you cannot criticise a particular person or a particular group because not all the people in that group may meet the standard of your criticism.

And indeed they may not but I doubt that any group in society can be criticised if we were all so sensitive. If I were to criticise the American right for being bible bashing religious nuts. Not all on the right meet this standard of course, but the point would be well taken would it not? And I feel that it would accurately describe a problem without me having to be so guarded about my own words that it would take five pages to write one sentence in the interests of “fairness” to the miniscule fringes.

A story from my past applies here. I was talking to a good friend in university about how much I hated rap music.

And he said to me: “Well, you can’t say you hate rap because you haven’t heard it all”.

And I said: “Well I have hated all the rap that I’ve heard”.

He said: “oh that’s just the modern stuff, you can’t really say that you hate it then, because there is some really good stuff outside the chart stuff that would make you surprised and you’d probably like”.

And I said to him: “That may be true. However, there is a populist front to rap, and that is what we hear on the charts and this is the centre of gravity to the genre. So this modern front defines what we mean by the word “rap” in its most generalised form. If I don’t like rap in this form then I can accurately state that I do not like “rap”. However, if I were to find a subset of rap that I actually like then I would state so when talking about the subject”.

I hope you can see how the analogy can apply here. Feminism has a populist front, a centre of gravity to it. Like all movements or groups have. The set of beliefs that this aspect of the movement have can be legitimately criticised. Examples of what these beliefs would be, would be something like a belief in patriarchy, or a belief that the wage gap is the result of discrimination. These are things that are commonly held true.

River cited an example of a leader, who mentioned something and the people in the group disagreed with him, this can happen. But I don’t believe that it is foolish to say that a leader is chosen on their ability to represent the views of a group. The democrats are not going to put forth a republican as a presidential candidate for their party. They are going to put forth someone who represents them.

You can criticise the leader quite happily. And if they stand by themselves then point it out to me and I will take it back. However, when river criticise me he doesn’t provide any rebuttal to my points but instead wastes his time critiquing my style.

Hatred of men

River states that my argument that many feminists seem to have a hatred of men is not an argument against feminism but is simply an argument against certain feminists. When you look at some of those feminist hate marches from back in the 70s. How much love do you feel?

Yes, this clip was from decades ago. But that’s how modern feminism started. How much love can you feel when you watch that? Don’t be surprised that many people who saw that and haven’t read into the topic like you or I might, would have come away with the impression that their private areas were in danger. Let me read you an article by Carey Roberts called “A rash of feminists hate speech” [1].

A woman named Mary took the open microphone. "Hello, my name is Mary Man-Hating-is-Fun," she explained. "Ever since I learned to embrace my feminist nature, I found great joy in threatening men's lives, flicking off frat brothers and plotting the patriarchy's death. I hate men because they are men."

The 40 women in the audience, many wearing scissors around their necks, laughed and clapped, then broke into a light-hearted song about castration.

Extremism is a problem in every movement as you yourself well know. You cannot have it both ways. You have made no efforts to rebuttal my points you simply cry out of context. Well I think that river and people like him are simply burying their heads in the sand when it comes to making excuses for the militant and radical wings of any movement, not just feminism.

I don’t know how much feminists exposure river has had but I talk to the worst element all the time, and never does the drumbeat of animosity fade from their hearts or the venom of contempt stop dripping from their lips. Hate is a strong word and many do, others merely dislike men, and others are merely contemptuous of men. A lot of them are not like that but on those cases it should be self-evident that the problems I have listed simply do not apply.

When Robin Morgan talked about class hatred she was being honest. When you have a view that there is this force called patriarchy and that rape and oppression lurks behind every corner. Then it is not surprising that you’re going to end up distrusting or hating men. Logically, the attitude that I see in many feminists follow from what they believe.

What worries me is that this feminists attitude of oppression behind every nook and cranny seems to have been passed down to normal young women who would not describe themselves as feminists but would cite certain feminists tidbits such as the 1 in 4 rape stat, the wage gap as an instance of oppression and the fabled oppression of the past being just a few. I met these kinds of girls at university and they had a faint hum of anger about them. A chip on the shoulder and an attitude that they weren’t going to take “it”, whatever “it” was.

Anyone who turns themselves off of these very real problems to feminist anger and hate is deluding themselves.

Andrea Dworkin

Not many people are more hateful then the now deceased Andréa Dworkin. Dworkin was a notorious radical feminist. But when I gave a quote of hers that would make the toes curls on a normal person not attuned to this nonsense. I get a cry of “out of context”.

And this “context”, apparently, is that Dworkin was working from a framework that current sexual norms are rape.

So not only was she a misandrist. But she was also a loon. River then said.

“one must not however give simple sound bites for complex theories of human sexuality”

It’s enough to make a cat laugh. If you cannot conclude that there’s enough context in that quote to conclude that Dworkin was hateful or that her legion of head nodding followers who lapped up her every word were hateful. Then there’s not much I can do for you.

I must cite this very strongly lest I get more accusations in the same vein that we’ve heard already. I stated that the original video was to answer the questions of the form “why do you have a problem with feminism” it was an honest admission of the problems that I see within feminism and was kept sufficiently broad to address the most common problems. But nothing but denial followed. I’ve always felt that you can never trust a person who is completely unwilling to admit that their own position has problems. This kind of attitude is unrealistic. I’ll be the first one to admit that there are close minded and proselytizing atheists or misogynistic and uncouth MRA’s.

In the same way that religious moderates make a smokescreen for the radical elements of religion. Excuse making feminists apologists like River make a smoke screen for the radical feminists. No one social movement is perfect and can’t be criticised in any way but instead of refuting my points river is merely critiquing the style of my writing. And insisting that they’re not all like that. Sometimes the proper adult reaction to take is to say “yes, those are problems. Let’s see how we can solve them”.

Sources
[1] A Rash of Feminist Hate Speech, Carey Roberts
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0504roberts.html

Look not to Feminism but to Science Redux

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:05:13 GMT

I am making this video to flesh out some of the points, address some of the inaccuracies and answer a lot of the common criticisms of my video “look not to feminism but to science”.

The original video was interesting, it is a very general idea spoken in a short time. I could make many videos about some of the issues that got raised. Some people made interesting and valid points that I will try to include here. As a matter of fact the points that people raised helped me revaluate what I think.

The overall point of the original video is one that I still agree with. And this point is that most of our progress as a race, including that of women, is gained by our species unique skill for discovering out the secrets of nature and creating tools, as life gets better and better then the divisions in society will degrade. I believe that the real liberating factors for women are those that free them from their inherently limiting biology. Biology is a scientific field and I have a news story here that demonstrates the point I made very poignantly [1].

I can’t say this strongly enough. This kind of change is something that we humans can do that puts us apart completely from nature. Our science and our tools can Improve out own lives in unimaginable ways. When I first read this article I was genuinely glad that women pained by periods (which I’ve always though were a genuinely tough aspect of being a woman) can get rid of it. And the very real monthly bleeding of women is, I think, a far greater pain in all women’s lives then the patriarchal spectres that feminists supposedly fight. Science frees you from a pain that feminism couldn’t.

Now to stress. Feminism has achieved a lot, but a lot of women’s progress can be attributed to science as well, and feminism seems to have taken, or been given all of the credit.

I talk like this because I’m a bit of a science nut. But scientism – the practice of looking at all of life’s problems through a scientific lense does not work for all things. And there are things in gender issues that science cannot touch on. It is in this are where criticisms of my own points become valid. I did put in the clause of not saying all the factors are gained through science, but maybe I did not discuss them in enough detail. Which is part of the purpose of this video.

People will always be people however. We will always be bigoted and ignorant and superstitious as long as, as Christopher Hitchins puts it, our prefrontal lobes are too small, and our adrenaline glands are too big, and we’re afraid of the dark and we’re afraid to die. I think our morality comes in part from what Richard Dawkins defines as an ever changing moral zeitgeist, another way to look at this is to say that our morals are created by society. I agree with this theory.

And how does the moral zeitgeist change? Well a number of things can do this, it is a complicated matter, but one of the main ways is an advocacy group of people push their point of view and help to change attitudes. In we look at the writings of many intelligent men of the past, we may be surprised from a modern viewpoint about their casually racist attitudes. You can find examples of this in the bible, in the writings of Charles Darwin and in the views of Mahatmas Ghandi.

Now, you might be saying that I have created a noose to hang myself here by talking about advocacy groups pushing the moral zeitgeist. Feminists are an advocacy group that do just that.

And indeed they are. But I never stated that feminists didn’t achieve any useful things. In fact my current view is not that feminism as a movement should be destroyed or disbanded. To my knowledge I have never stated this, and I have categorically stated in recent times that feminism should continue to exist to represent a certain point of view. But, alongside it should be a men’s rights movement to represent the views of men.

This sounds like it goes against the comments I made in the original video to the effects of “if feminism didn’t exist then women would have be in the same position of rights as they are today”. I wanted to comment on what I meant by this but ended up writing so much that it was bloating an already long document. So all I’ll say is that whatever we can say on the subject is academic, feminism is here and did happen. So hypothesising on what would have happened if it didn’t exists is pointless and also a waste of time. Given my previous statement that I support the existence of feminism, I rescind this view.

I would like to end. By commenting on some common points that were raised.

1) Where did the quote at the beginning come from? I can’t find it.

You can’t find it because it doesn’t exist. It turns out that I made a mistake here and misremembered a portion of an article written by Carey Roberts [2] which I had read a long time ago. The section from this article is a follows:

Ironically, those same women forgot to tell us that leading feminists thinkers were actually discouraging women from thinking logically. The reason: gender feminists have long regarded logic and rationality as patriarchal tools for the baleful oppression of women.

No, this is not a joke.

Feminist Elizabeth Minnich scornfully traces the source of rationality to a "few privileged males.who are usually called 'The Greeks.'" Historian Gerda Lerner denigrates the great liberal tradition of sound thinking as "the rape of our minds." And here's my favorite: Charlotte Bunch concludes feminists must attack the problem of "phallocentrism" by "reconstructing the world from the standpoint of women."

This is where the idea came from, just so you can see that it was not made up out of whole cloth. The reason I am mentioning this first is so that people can’t claim that I am trying to hide. If I make a mistake then I will say it.

I might also mention that the original video was made back in the dark ages of my youtube days. I had a crappy little webcam and I essentially recorded myself ranting for ten minutes. All my videos now are in essence read from scripts that I write before hand and then upload with references to my own website which I link from the video.

2) Feminism started before the 60s, e.g. the suffragettes.

Yes it did and I was aware of this. Perhaps I should have made it more clear that the main types of feminism I criticise is modern feminism. The dictionary defines the year of the origin of the word feminism as 1890-95 [4].

3) You said that feminists haven’t done any good, but look at this example...

This is a bit of a straw man argument as in the original video I never stated that feminism had accomplished nothing. But some of the examples given were well taken. I shall read one of them now. This if from lmwoods84 who sent me a link [3].

Margaret Sanger was a lifelong advocate of women's rights and the use of birth control. During the 1930s, it was discovered that hormones prevented ovulation in rabbits. In 1950, while in her 80s, Sanger underwrote the research necessary to create the first human birth control pill. Sanger raised $150,000 for the project.

So thumbs up for Margaret Sanger there.

Sources
[1] Bloodless Revolution: The abolition of menstruation.
http://www.slate.com/id/2166983

[2] Feminist Head-Games at the United Nations
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0302roberts.html

[3] Oral Contraceptive History - Birth Control Pills
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blthepill.htm

[4] Origins of the word feminism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminism

No More Sex War - How Neil Lyndon stood up to the feminist orthodoxy

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:00:29 GMT

The following reading was taken from Neil Lyndon's [1] book "No more sex war" [2].

Chapter 2: Typical Men; and the Women Who Name Them

The lady writer on the TV felt free to say that ‘men are pretty useless’. The lady author between the hard covers gave it as a fact that more men consult their doctors about impotence than any other illness or ailment.

Try switching the terms of the first of those remarks and you can instantly get a light touch of the intolerance in the atmosphere surrounding men. Try applying the tests of reason and the rules of evidence to the other remark and you can catch a potent whiff of the stink of totalitarianism.

Imagine, for instance, what the public response might be if a studio guest on a morning TV programme voiced the aside that ‘Dogs are pretty useless’; or cats, horses or budgerigars; terrapins, grasshoppers or jumping fleas. Before the interviewer has time to draw breath for her next question, the telephone lines to the TV company would be blocked with indignant protesters, lovers of the little companions who felt personally aggrieved by the insult to their dumb friends.

If the studio quest had said, ‘Anybody under the age of ten or over the age of fifty-five is pretty useless in my opinion,’ she and the television company might run some small risk of a nationwide petition being raised in the defence of the dignity of the elderly or the rights of infants, which petition would be borne to Whitehall by the nimble and child-minded Mary Whitehouse and presented to Lord Rees-Mogg for investigation by the Broadcasting Standards Brigade of Guards (or whatever it is called).

Think, further – and here is the most telling illustration – what might happen if any man appearing on television were to say ‘Women are pretty useless’. Can you imagine that any man other than Sir Kingsley Amis, who seems to be proud of the pips he has been awarded as the country’s number one Misogynist? Can you imagine what would happen to any man other than Kingsley Amis if he voiced that though on the airwaves of public transmission?

The interviewer, for a start, would be bound to give him a sharp crack across his prejudices with her clipboard. If she were Anna Ford, she might rise to some heroic display of righteous militancy such as throwing a glass of water down the interviewees’ clothes. Teams of women workers at the studios might go off-line on their terminals, requiring assurances from their employers that the quest should never again be invited to express his hateful opinions. The Equal Opportunities Commission would investigate, report and chide. Clare Short would rise in the House of Commons to being in a Bill making illegal the casual expression of demeaning thoughts about women. The Style section of the Sunday Times would devote its front page to an investigation of the size of the offending man’s penis and the state of his marriage. All the hell, in other words, that the feminist lobby can raise would be kicked up. (I aggress that, in sum, it’s not a very terrifying array of sanctions compared with, say, the Official Secrets Act but it does, nonetheless, represent a body of retaliations and punishments which are consolidated, officious and automatic).

It is universally understood, after twenty years of feminist campaigning on the topic, that women are not to be demeaned by generalised insult; that their nobility and worth as individuals are not the be undermined by sneer or jibe; and that special respect must be paid to the plight and the disadvantages all women are supposed to share as members of an oppressed majority, sometimes known as a minority. Men, in other words, known that they must watch their step in speaking about women. They also know that they are not, themselves, entitled to the respect of a dog.

What followed, then, when out lady writer smirked and dismissed half of humanity as being ‘pretty useless’? What challenge was she given to justify and to amplify a remark of such base and gormless vulgarity? What response did she get from her interviewer to a line of cant which pisses upon all the efforts made by all men who devote their lives and all their waking energies to their families, all those whose principal desire is to be a good and dutiful husband and father, all those for whom the love of and for a woman is the critical and indispensable focus of desire in adult life?

She was asked if her remark applied to her husband. She said that, of course, it did not. She excepted him. The conversation moved on.

(You may be feeling that I am making a lot out of this trivial incident. I should say that I haven’t yet made the half of it. The very triviality of the moment is the reason that it matters: it is a moment like any other.)

When the lady writer was asked if her husband was useless, the question meant, by extension, ‘Is it true in your direct personal experience that men are useless?’ Her answer declared, unambiguously, that is was not true in her direct experience that men were useless. Remembering that feminists have, throughout the last twenty-five years, insisted that personal experience is endued with political meaning, we may wonder what political deductions this woman may draw from her experience.

When she explained that she was not speaking personally but was referring to men in general, her interrogation ceased. No further explanation was necessary or called for. It was perfectly okay for her to be running down a gender of humanity so long as she wasn’t taking a dig at her own man no, by implication, yours.

So why say it? If neither her own man nor yours should be called useless, who or what did she have in mind? And why did nobody object, protest or care that public utterance was being given to a prejudice which was without foundation even in the experience of the speaker?

The answer, I want to say, is that, by the early years of the 1990s in the West and, to my knowledge, most especially in Great Britain, many women and plenty of men felt more than free, felt obliged, to give vent to any irrational sliver of derision which darted across the frontal lobes of their brains. They were not, in so speaking, describing their own direct experience – neither, as women, of the men they lived with nor, as men, of themselves. They were describing an other. They were referring to a universal spectre of ill, a commonly agreed bogeyman, whipping-boy and boogaboo.

A picture of this frightful man can be found in all out minds: that is where he takes his primary existence and performs his essential role. He is the filthy sod in the thigh-high Doc Martens, torn denims and AC/DC T-shirt who hauls his snarling Rottweiler on to the underground train, drops a soiled hypodermic, lights up a stinking roll-up and belches over a can of larger. He is the one who leers over the tits in the Sun while he is waiting to collect his packet of dole and who passes over the cash at the counters of the pub and the betting shop as son as it is in his greasy fingers, sticking the remains up the fannies of whores. Reeling home with a head full of losses and a gut full of bitter and chips, he clamps his teeth into the cartroid artery of the starving Rottweiler before he rips the rags from the back of the little woman, belabours her with the dogs studded leash and takes his prick to the anuses of his screaming children.

We do not know of this horror on the terms of personal acquaintance. He is not one of us; but we have all agreed that he is out there somewhere and that he is the All-Man.

Sources
[1] Neil Lyndon's case
http://www.ukmm.org.uk/issues/suppression/nl.htm
[2] No more sex war p20-24 ch2, Neil Lyndon, ISBN 0749315652
http://www.amazon.co.uk/More-Sex-War-Neil-Lyndon/dp/0749315652/ref=sr_1_1/026-7851468-7467616?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184271691&sr=1-1

The problems with feminism

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 22:59:49 GMT

I've criticised feminism many times but there is still an attitude of “feminism is just trying to achieve equality, why don’t you like it?”. And I feel that my main problems with feminism have not been explained with sufficient detail. So the aim of this video is to describe what I don’t like about feminist and what are the things that they do that cause concern. I’ll make six points here.

Leading feminist have a anti-male attitude.

Feminist who have prominent positions within feminism, women who lead feminist though you could say, seem to have some extremely radical views on men and to blatantly hate men. Here are some quotes.

“We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men...”
Elizabeth Cady Stanton

"Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."
Andrea Dworkin

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience"
Catherine Comins, Vassar College

"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it."
Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan

"To be male is to be a kind of idiot savant"
Germaine Greer

"All men are rapists and that's all they are"
Marilyn French

“..the ratio of men to women must be radically reduced so that men approximate only ten percent of the total population"
Sally Gearhart, The Future is Female

"No, we don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make it."
Simone de Beauvoir

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."
Robin Morgan
Feminist promote misleading statistics in the apparent aim of denigrating men and promoting their agenda.

Feminist statistics are biased, the most notorious example of this is when polling women in colleges on whether or not they were raped, they ask them questions such as “did you ever have sex when you didn’t want to” and then afterwards they translated their answer into a tick for rape. Some of the statistics are so outrageous that I don’t know how people can parrot them without questioning it. The best example of this is the 1 in 2 women will be raped stat, which is so insane I don’t know where to start. The numbers feminists spout spurious stats all the time and rarely mention where they come from.
Feminist support sexist laws

Title nine – when you see the word “quotas” then that means discrimination.

Criminalisation of reckless sex – where only the man was culpable.

Quotas and positive discrimination
Feminists oppose laws that will help men

Shared parenting – NOW

Reproductive rights – Glenn Sacks show with Hugo Schyster

Protection for men for domestic violence – shelters for men
Feminist make excuses for female wrongs

Feminists never seem to condone the wrongful actions of women and always seem to defend then. The best example of this was Andrea Yates – who drowned her 5 children in a bathtub. In 2001 the NOW president Patricia Ireland exclaimed that Yates had “Revealed America as a patriarchal society" where "women are imprisoned at home with their children.”, check out the sources for a great article by wendy mcelroy.
Feminism is gynocentric

Gynocentricity means to be focused on women or concerned with only women [2]. I have found no better term that explains feminists and ehen it all comes down to it, when you look at the ways in which feminists behave, it is quite clear that the 1 issue they are consistent on is that when it benefits women they’ll be behind it and when it benefits men they’ll be against it.

And we leave it to these people to represent the status of gender equity in the western world? There are many more things that they say that are almost as bad as this, along with the other points in this video. We leave it to these people to be the guards of sexual equality? Are we out of out tiny little minds.

Sources
[1] http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2002/0226.html
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gynocentric

Look not to Feminism but to Science

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 22:52:32 GMT

Addressing one of the comments in this video. If I say that science has done more for women then feminism has or ever will. This is not stating that Feminism has done nothing for women.

I really believe that the moral zeitgeist will enable a social movement to happen, whilst the actions of that movement will largely be to push a pendulum that was moving anyway. They push the pendulum of equal rights with all their force so that the pendulum swings to the other side and the oppressed become the oppressors.

The enabler of women’s liberty is science. Science has enabled.

The automation to a large extent of domestic duties.
Healthier lives (less children are needed to ensure that some make it to adulthood).
Making childbirth safer.
A safer more prosperous society and workplace for women to work in. We have jobs now that never would have made it in the past.
The pill, giving women control over their reproductive lives.
Abortions (a medical field), giving women complete control over their reproductive lived (a right that men have yet to gain).

Feminism

15 Questions from a Feminist

It’s the attack of the feminist stereotypes!

Can we generalise feminism?

Cherchez-le-Femme

The one-stop wage gap video repository

The proof for oppression against women: Still missing

O.K. Guys.. This is what it takes for the oppression against women to stop

The Lies of a Female. Expanded

Bringing the sexes together – by denigrating one of them

The lies of a female

Men's Rights: The Core Issues

The Schools Vs. Boys

Patriarchal Society via Socialization versus Personal Responsibility

The Dogma of Feminism

Ramping up the Video War

What is Feminism?

BBC: Bill set to expose gender pay gap

An adventure in intellectual vacuity

Female Bigots

The Greener Gender: Are men worse for the environment?

A feminists response to men’s suffering: “You brought it on yourselves”

Men's Right's News - The Pendulum Effect Episode 4

Man must pay support though twins not his

Dennis Prager Responds

Women and children first on the Hudson crash

NOW President says "Obama cabinet level picks so far under represent women"

Grandmother Climbing Mount Kilimanjaro on Behalf of Shared Parenting

How dare she generalize feminists?!

This is what a feminist looks like - A censor

The Hudson Crash - Women and Children First?!?

The Pendulum Effect

Step 1: A civil rights need is born

Step 2: The legitimate phase of the movement

Step 3: The illegitimate phase of the movement

Step 4: The oppression of the oppressors

Step 5: The backlash

Thou Shalt Not Criticise Women

I get email: 'Real Injustices'???

In politics, does race trump gender?

Hate Bounces: How man hating and man bashing harms women

I Was Banned From an MRA Site: A response

Latest friday feminist fuck you. Can you guess who it is? Go on, guess..

To feminists, gender is more important than skill.

British men - You also need to wake up!

To be a feminist's daughter

Shit like this almost makes me want to become a feminist

Watch these and then buy the book

My reply to MarquisMongaga

When feminist don’t care about the murder of women

The story from the other side of the fence.

Do as I do Jessica valenti

Another good slam of Feministing

Just disgusting...

Where is ZenPriest now?

Welcome to True Equality

RE: Friday Feminist Fuck You

Why I am NOT a Feminist

Don't vote for sexism in 2008 Hillary Clinton is bad for men

I Love ifeminists!

Bad Feminist

Sexist laws

Sexist laws

About DV shelters

Smokescreening Radical Feminism

Hatred of men

Andrea Dworkin

Look not to Feminism but to Science Redux

1) Where did the quote at the beginning come from? I can’t find it.

2) Feminism started before the 60s, e.g. the suffragettes.

3) You said that feminists haven’t done any good, but look at this example...

No More Sex War - How Neil Lyndon stood up to the feminist orthodoxy

Chapter 2: Typical Men; and the Women Who Name Them

The problems with feminism

Look not to Feminism but to Science