Everyday Feminism: All men should be seen as potentially dangerous and violent

As we learned from yesterday’s New York Times op-ed by Ekow N. Yankah, at least one African-American (and probably more) is teaching his kids not to befriend white people, for whites could instantiate the racism of Donald Trump, and, well, you just never know.  Today we learn the same thing, but for men.

What is happening is that Regressive Leftism, as people have pointed out before, is becoming like Christianity in one way: it views certain people as afflicted with an Original Sin acquired not through their actions, but by the unavoidable circumstances of their birth.  For Christians it’s just being a mammal of the species Homo sapiens, while for Regressives it’s being white and male: a double pox.  And if you think that, in light of the multifarious accusations of sexual harassment, you, a male, are off the hook because you’ve never engaged in sexual harassment, rape, groping, or masturbation in front of unwilling women, think again. While those actions, and probably most of those accused, are guilty and reprehensible, even if you think you’re clean you’re still guilty. Guilty of being white, as Yankah claimed, and now guilty of being male, as this article from Everyday Feminism claims (click on screenshot to see it):

Yes, it is indeed all men—and by that they mean this: all men are agents of the Patriarchy, and potential predators as well. Granted authors,  and  say that some of their best friends are men, just as Yankah said there are white people he befriended:

There are men that we love very much – men around whom we feel mostly safe and unthreatened; men who, in fact, support, respect, and take care of us on familial, platonic, romantic, and sexual levels. Not every man has violated us individually; for most of us, there are plenty of men that we trust.

We know what you mean by “not all men” – because on a basic level, we agree with you.

But there’s a caveat, for even the “good” men not only are potential predators and sexists, but need therapy or training to escape that mindset.  Here’s the “J’Accuse” (the emphasis is theirs):

But the socialization of men is such that even a good man – a supportive man, a respectful man, a trusted man – has within him the potential for violence and harm because these behaviors are normalized through patriarchy.

And as such, we know that even the men that we love, never mind random men who we don’t know, have the potential to be dangerous. Surely, all people have that potential. But in a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors, the former learn to fear the latter as a defense mechanism.

So when you enter a space – any space – as a man, you carry with yourself the threat of harm.

. . . But what makes (yes) all men potentially unsafe – what makes (yes) all men suspect in the eyes of feminism – is the normalized violating behaviors that they’ve learned, which they then perform uncritically.

Make no mistake: When you use the phrase “not all men” – or otherwise buy into the myth of it – you’re giving yourself and others a pass to continue performing the socially sanctioned violence of “masculinity” without consequence, whether or not that’s your intention.

In truth, the only thing approaching defiance against this kind of violence is to constantly check and question your own learned entitlement – and that of other men. But you can’t do that if you’re stuck in the space of believing that “not all men” is a valid argument.

I guess it’s not good enough to say that you’re trying hard to be a good “ally” to women, and to examine your behavior to ensure that you treat the genders as equals, as I think most of us do. No, you have to admit that you bear the Stain of Toxic Maculinity (and Toxic Whiteness) and then labor mightily to expunge it. As the article says:

So we wanted to call you in, well-meaning men, to talk about these four points that you’re missing when you claim “not all men” as a way to eschew responsibility for patriarchal oppression.

Because it is all men, actually. And here’s why.

Here are the four reasons we’re all guilty, and why women should look at us side-eyed, and forever (EF’s text is indented; mine is flush left):

1.) All Men Are Socialized Under (And Benefit From) Patriarchy.

Because here’s how it works, my friends: Living in the United States, every single one of us is socialized under patriarchy – a system in which men hold more power than other a/genders, in both everyday and institutionalized ways, therefore systematically disadvantaging anyone who isn’t a man on the axis of gender. As such, we all (all of us!) grow up to believe, and therefore enact, certain gendered messaging.

For people who aren’t men, this means that we’re socialized to feel less-than and to acquiesce to the needs of the men in our lives. And this doesn’t have to be explicit to be true.

When we find it difficult to say no to our male bosses when we’re asked to take on another project that we don’t have the time for, or to our male partners when they’re asking for emotional labor from us that we’re energetically incapable of, it’s not because we actively think, “Well, Jim is a man, and as a not-man, I can’t say no to him.”

And all men are at least passively complicit in this patriarchal system that rewards male entitlement. We see it every single day.

This is regressive in the sense that while it argues that sexism is widespread, and I think it is, it also claims that women have all been victimized by it to the point that they have become passive Stepford Wives. It’s regressive because statements like this don’t empower women, but disempower them, infantilizing them to the point where their passivity is entirely the fault of men. This is the exact antithesis of First and Second Wave feminism.  Yes, there is truth to some women being beaten down by sexism, but the cure for that is not just to write articles blaming men, but call them out when they treat you like that. In other words, the authors assert that the cure lies solely with men, which ignores the fact that every group that has ever attained equal rights in the face of bigotry has demanded those rights, not just blamed the Other Side for its behavior and expected to be handed equality.

2.)  All Violations (Big and Small) Are Part of the Same Violent System.  Apparently even asking a woman out, and feeling bad when you’re rejected, counts as Patriarchal Violence (my emphasis):

Picture this: A well-meaning man offers a woman a compliment at a bar. He has no sinister motive, and he is – after all – in an appropriate setting for flirting.

When the woman rebuffs him for whatever reason (she’s in a relationship, she’s not into men, she’s just not interested), the man feels snubbed – because he was polite and respectful, but not rewarded for it.

. . . . After all, men know that being gentlemanly is the “right” way to “get” women, and therefore expect on some level to be rewarded for that good behavior. But if that sentiment drives some of his disappointment, then that’s a sense of entitlement, however small.

Such a man isn’t an outright abuser. But his learned entitlement makes him potentially unsafe for women to be around. And it’s hard to see that sense of entitlement from the inside, let alone question it or start to break it down.

I have no words for this accusation. To say that a disappointed and rejected male is “entitled” and “potentially unsafe for women to be around” is to say that all men are unsafe to be around, for all of us have been rejected and felt bad about it And that, of course, is the point of this article: to make all women fear all men.

3.) The Impact of Your Actions Is More Significant Than the Intent. My emphasis below:

Cool. You didn’t mean to contribute to the objectification of queer women when you made that lesbian porn joke. Perhaps you even think that you’re so “enlightened” as a “feminist man” that we should just know that you “didn’t mean it like that.” In fact, maybe you even think that you were being “subversive” when you said it. Okay.

But from a woman’s perspective, that doesn’t matter, because we still have to feel the effects of that mindset every single day – and your bringing that to the foreground has a negative impact on us, no matter what the hell your intent was.

Many men don’t do hurtful things maliciously. They may be doing them subconsciously, adhering to the ways in which they’ve been taught to behave, as all of us do.

Other men, of course, are intentionally violent. But the effects of both can be incredibly damaging.

Surely, we’re less likely to harbor resentment towards someone who stepped on our toes accidentally than we are towards someone who stomped on them with malevolence – especially when accountability is had and an apology is issued. But our goddamn toes still hurt.

To a gender minority, there’s very little difference between the impact of inadvertent and intentional harm. A man who makes you feel unsafe by accident is as harmful to you as one who does it on purpose.

Again, a mindset like this is incapable of discriminating against an unthinking, sexist remark and a sexual violence, just like it’s incapable of seeing a difference between touching someone’s shoulder without permission and a violent rape (both count as “bad behavior”, but they’re just not the same, morally or legally). To lump together all forms of sexism—even “microaggressions” that may not even be sexist—as “violence” is another way to infantilize and victimize women. Again, I emphasize that no woman should be subject to unwanted attention (save, perhaps, being asked out by someone who gracefully accepts rejection), but to equate a lesbian porn joke with intentional physical or sexual violence is not only mistaken, but actually eliminates the chance to reduce sexism. A sexist joke can be called out, and perhaps the joker taught a lesson, but a man who sexually assaults a women needs far more drastic intervention.

4.) The Depth of Work to Be Done Is Avoided By Most Men.  As a professor, I interacted with male and female students (perhaps some transgender people as well, but I never knew), and, especially in graduate courses, constantly assessed whether I was ensuring that the women were treated as equals and their achievements appreciated. Did I prevent them from being talked over by men? (Yes, this happens.) Did I ensure that a woman with a good idea got credit for that idea, rather than the man who affirmed if immediately afterwards? (Yes, this happens, too.) I suspect that many of us do this kind of stuff, making a conscious effort to treat women as professional and moral equals, which is the right thing to do. But that’s not enough, not for the Everyday Feminists (their emphasis):

We want to trust that your good intentions will lead to positive actions, we do. But here’s what we need you to understand before that can possibly happen: What you’re asking us to accept from you will take a hell of a lot of work on your part – and we’ve seen over and over again that many self-proclaimed “allies” just aren’t willing to do it.

Being a “safe” man – hell, being a feminist man – is more than just believing yourself to be and collecting accolades from others about the minimal work that you’re doing not to be an asshole.

Doing the work means really doing the work – getting your hands dirty (and potentially having an existential crisis in the process).

But what do we do? Apparently spend much of our lives micromanaging our behavior exactly the way the authors want:

Hint: You are “like that” – especially if you’re not actively fighting patriarchy. And claiming that you’re “not like that” doesn’t negate patriarchy – it enforces it.

Fighting learned male entitlement means assuming the burden of vigilance – watching not just yourself, but other men. It means being open to having your motives questioned, even when they’re pure. It means knowing you’re not always as pure as you think.

It means assessing the harm you’re capable of causing, and then being proactive in mitigating it.

Most of all, it’s a conscious decision to view every individual’s humanity as something exactly as valuable and inviolable as your own.

And it means doing it every single moment of your life. Point blank, period.

We have to monitor not just ourselves, but all other men, and do it every single moment of our lives? But what about other progressive issues? Will we still have time for those?

What we see her is pure entitlement: “My problems are the most important, and you’d bloody well spend all your time pondering them and fixing them.” This is very close to Catholic Original Sin, and to the demand, like Catholics hear, that one admit that one is tainted and then beg for confession and an absolution that, apparently, comes more easily from God than from feminism.

Although Everyday Feminism is an over-the-top site to me, it’s not that far removed from Leftist Feminism, and I wrote this post because the women who write stuff like the above may well be our future leaders. Surely all of us want a world where women are afforded equal respect, dignity, and opportunity. But I’m not sure I want a world in which women are taught that all men are potential predators, that the solution lies only in men, that there are no “good” men, and that the onus of fixing sexism is not discussion and demonstrations, but men’s acceptance of the accusation that we are tainted and better spend the rest of our lives accepting it and fixing it.

And after you’ve worked on your toxic masculinity, you can take Everyday Feminism‘s “Healing from Toxic Whiteness” course. Click on the screenshot below to sign up; it costs only $97:


  1. BobTerrace
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    This attitude that everyone is either oppressed or oppressor is insane.

    All I see by this article is hatred. Pure toxic hatred spewing forth, all consuming.

  2. Kelly
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    I’m really not sure why anyone would embrace this kind of feminism. It is so dis-empowering. Let’s teach our girls that this world is full of predators and you will be a victim and there is nothing you can do about it until men change and accept your view. Let’s teach our boys that their masculinity is toxic and that they are at their very core a predator. Planting the seeds for psychosis.

  3. GM
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    I definitely become very volatile and potentially violent when I read crap like this.

    • Posted November 14, 2017 at 11:56 am | Permalink

      I am not surprised.

    • Posted November 14, 2017 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

      There are plenty of valid arguments to make against this kind of thinking. That it makes you “potentially violent” isn’t one of them.

    • murali
      Posted November 15, 2017 at 12:07 am | Permalink

      ‘I definitely become very volatile and potentially violent when I read crap like this.’

      Ah! Now that is being primitive 🙂

  4. Michieux
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    I didn’t see any reference to the possibility that, as seems the case here in Australia, the brunt of socializing these potential “monsters” is borne by women.

    Is the author absolving her gender of any responsibility at all?

    • Mark Reaume
      Posted November 14, 2017 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

      But the women who raised the little monsters were just victims of the Patriarchy. They had no choice but to raise them as monsters.

      • Michieux
        Posted November 14, 2017 at 2:30 pm | Permalink


        I’m 67 and I’m afraid to step out of the house because I might scare some women or children, not to mention cats and dogs.

        Oh, snap! I mentioned cats and dogs. 😦

  5. Posted November 14, 2017 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    One sad result of this nonsense is some men, who might otherwise improve their attitudes toward women, will disregard the message completely.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted November 14, 2017 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

      Don’t take this personally, but I like to think most people are better than that.

      For example, your average decent white person isn’t going to become more racist because of messages that being white makes you automatically bad. They will continue as before, hopefully being self-aware and recognizing there are issues and doing their best not to contribute to them.

      It is, or should be, the same with any other issue relating to equality. Articles like the one above shouldn’t make you, as a man, treat women in a lesser way than you did before. Assuming you’re an average decent man, you will continue to recognize there are issues relating to sexism in our society and do your best not to contribute to them.

      I notice above (and there are probably more below) that some men react to this sort of thing with anger. That is exactly the sort of thing that feeds writers like the one above. I understand it’s pretty horrible to know there are people who think you’re an awful person just because you’re a man, but really the opinion of that sort of person is not worth worrying too much about. The right thing is to argue their points, as Jerry has done, and otherwise carry on (hopefully) being basically a decent bloke.

      There are a lot more people who think calling yourself a feminist makes you a man-hater and all sorts of other awful things. Lots of women won’t even call themselves feminists because of that. Some women have got really angry and those ones have turned into women who write articles like the one above. Most of us are far more reasonable.

      • Posted November 14, 2017 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

        Yes, I agree that most people are better than that, which is why I said “some”. I was talking about men that do not treat women well and will look for any excuse not to improve. I am sure there are some out there, In this era of polarization, it is common to use group membership to avoid thinking and responsibility.

        As far as calling myself a “feminist”, I would to friends who understand what I mean. However, I wouldn’t do so with the kind of feminists quoted in this post. There are also plenty of them out there too.

        I do plan to carry on being a “decent bloke”, as you suggest. I certainly hope all women I’ve encountered in my life would agree with that assessment but there are no guarantees in life.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted November 14, 2017 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

          Yeah, I think you’re right, especially in the first paragraph. It’s the ones that are looking for an excuse to be a$$hole$ anyway (or more likely, already are) that are the ones who will use articles like this as a reason for bad behaviour.

      • Michieux
        Posted November 14, 2017 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

        Sane, sensible, warm-hearted. We could all do with some kindness directed to each other, and especially ourselves.

        My wife works hard at a demanding job. When she comes home at around 1730 she goes on the FB and laughs at my brother’s corny jokes, catches up with relatives in Canada and Germany, and cannot be bothered to read the kind of shite these women have published.


      • darrelle
        Posted November 15, 2017 at 6:42 am | Permalink


    • murali
      Posted November 15, 2017 at 12:11 am | Permalink

      ‘One sad result of this nonsense is some men, who might otherwise improve their attitudes toward women, will disregard the message completely.’

      If articles like this keep people from improving their attitudes, then that is their problem. They should learn to think clearly.

  6. GM
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 11:56 am | Permalink

    constantly assessed whether I was ensuring that the women were treated as equals and their achievements appreciated. Did I prevent them from being talked over by men? (Yes, this happens.) Did I ensure that a woman with a good idea got credit for that idea, rather than the man who affirmed if immediately afterwards? (Yes, this happens, too.) I suspect that many of us do this kind of stuff, making a conscious effort to treat women as professional and moral equals, which is the right thing to do.

    That is actually a problem – it means that you have bought into the feminist us-vs-them mentality to at least some extent.

    The only solution that actually eliminates discrimination is the elimination of the separation between groups in people’s minds. In other words, the desirable situation is the one in which you do not at all consciously think about how to push women forward, it never crosses your mind because the distinction between men and women is not a relevant one to you, just as the distinctions between people’s eye color is not.

    Which, BTW, is precisely what feminism ensures will never happen.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted November 14, 2017 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

      Absolute rubbish.

      • GM
        Posted November 14, 2017 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

        Care to elaborate?

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted November 14, 2017 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

          Not particularly. It should be obvious. Jerry even pointed out why he was doing it in the quote you used.

      • Blue mAAs
        Posted November 14, 2017 at 6:52 pm | Permalink



    • Posted November 14, 2017 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

      No, only some strains of feminism, espoused by very few females.

      There’s a reason “I don’t see color” has come to be understood as something racists say in an attempt to justify their actions: “I don’t see color; I would’ve treated anyone as horribly as I treated that black person”. Non-racists don’t need to “protest too much”. They are comfortable with acknowledging different colors and everything that entails because they have real equitable treatment they can point to as evidence of their non-racism.

      Do you see the analogy I’m trying to make?

      • darrelle
        Posted November 15, 2017 at 6:46 am | Permalink


      • Blue
        Posted November 15, 2017 at 2:56 pm | Permalink



  7. Posted November 14, 2017 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    “. . . even a good man – a supportive man, a respectful man, a trusted man – has within him the potential for violence and harm . . . .”

    The thing is, I think all of us humans have the potential to do harm, even violence (in some circumstances).

    • Posted November 14, 2017 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

      I think so too.

      “All right. It’s instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We’re human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands, but we can stop it. We can admit that we’re killers, but we’re not going to kill today.”

      • NVSkeptic
        Posted November 14, 2017 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

        One of the better original Star Trek monologues…

    • Kiwi Dave
      Posted November 14, 2017 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

      Yep. That ‘potential’ is a bit weaselly.

      Following EF’s reasoning, because I live in a society where drinking is normal and where driving a car is normal, I have the potential to drive while under the influence of alcohol. Since my annual alcohol consumption is somewhere between zero and half a glass of rose on Christmas Day, I am inevitably a threat to other drivers without constant policing.

      Incidentally, is EF’s article, telling men how and why they do and should behave, an example of woman-splaining?

      • Posted November 14, 2017 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

        Oh, wow. I’d be in jail for potentially killing hundreds of divers.

        • Posted November 14, 2017 at 10:06 pm | Permalink


          You guessed it. J Vineyards Pinot noir.

          • Blue
            Posted November 15, 2017 at 5:24 am | Permalink

            This is, musical beef, funny, funny.
            Darling !

            For my errors from time to time in future,
            Ima gonna steal this ‘reasoning’ for m’own
            ‘cept likely those ‘ll be due to, ah,
            Woodford Reserve, Templeton Rye or
            Basil Hayden !


  8. Posted November 14, 2017 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    Once again, it’s simple: It’s perfectly OK to (pre)judge a group of people and characterize the entire group in a negative way, as long as you have a high enough oppression score.

    Treating people as individuals? Too much work!

    This sort of thing gives the lie to the assertion that such people are interested in equity or being treated based on their merits. (And certainly that they wish to treat others in that way.)

    So, here’s a wee, rather silly example of everyday sexism:

    I am watching the movie Under the Tuscan Sun (not bad, rather lite), just this past weekend. When the scene comes where the female lead is informed that she is being asked for alimony in a divorce, (It’s all just about the math, you earned more, this is a no-fault state), my Mom and my wife both huff with indignation. I know from experience, that if the man were in this situation, they’d be going, yeah! Good enough for ya, chump! (I’ve seen this many times.)

    Equal treatment? Perhaps not so much.

    • Posted November 14, 2017 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

      Just for clarity’s sake: you mean it’s unfair that the women huff at a woman being forced to pay alimony when you know men who would agree that the man should pay alimony if the court said so?

      • Craw
        Posted November 14, 2017 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

        Well, isn’t the regressive feminist contention that the patriarchy controls all, that men set the rules? And, by those rules, men are usually the ones paying alimony. So there must be men agreeing, right?

      • Posted November 15, 2017 at 6:51 am | Permalink

        No, I mean it’s inconsistent (for women or men) to insist that women be treated equally to men, and then, when that has negative outcomes from the personal perspective of a woman, that it is then bad/unfair/offensive.

        And I would say that most men would agree that if a court assigns an ex-husband alimony that that is a just outcome. People (in general) pass that by with no comment whatsoever.

  9. Posted November 14, 2017 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

    Last night MSNBC – my preferred channel- was doing the usual coverage of Russia and Trumps various idiocies. I flipped past FOX and saw that Tucker Carlson was interviewing Ekow Yankah about his NYT op-ed. I didn’t watch it because I found the prospect of agreeing with Carlson on anything deeply disturbing but the thought occurred to me that for some time the left has been moving in a mindless partisan direction.
    The crap with Weinstein at Evergreen State should have been on every news channel. Its very relevant for the direction the country is going but I’ll bet it was never touched on at MSNBC.

  10. chris
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    The thing that worries me about this kind of attitude is that the simplest solution would seem to be for men to do their best to avoid women altogether. If I were a male professor looking for a graduate student, postdoc or tech, that would be my temptation – hire a male. Otherwise I’m going to be spending far too much of my time ensuring that nothing I say or do can possibly be interpreted as harassing. If I were a male student I’d be looking for male professors because I’d be afraid I’d be discriminated against by female professors.

    • JP415
      Posted November 14, 2017 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

      A perverse incentive, as economists say!

  11. helenahankart
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    An awful lot became clearer to me when I read an old anthropology paper that talked about intimate and aloof societies. In intimate ones men and women share the work, are broadly egalitarian, and live together. In aloof ones (often euphemistically called “female gardening economie”) the men just compete, they live separately from the women and they often have separate origins myths (often involving the older members of each sex warning the younger ones how untrustworthy the opposite sex is). We clearly have elements of both aspects in our culture

  12. nicky
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    Whatever one does, it is never good enough. I know a few women like that. As a male I know I’m by definition the perpetrator. Hence I do not bother too much and do not try too hard. I do not take this kind of BS too seriously anymore. And most women do not either.
    I learned through experience that most women are not attracted to males trying too hard to be ‘nice’, anyway.
    What is completely lost in the rethoric is that there is a whole spectrum between a male floor mat and a real douche bag.

  13. Posted November 14, 2017 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    What I find so disturbing about this is that it seems to me some fraction of the left is slowly and methodically building up a rational framework for pretty intense bigotry. We like to think of classic bigots like the KKK as drooling morons but bigots always have a rationale for their hatred and its usually framed as a defense against the objects of their bigotry. Its not a stretch to say the Nazis justified what they were doing as fighting against ‘Jewish Privilege”

  14. Posted November 14, 2017 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    Here’s how I view the “burden” I am liable to in this context: I strive to not be an asshole. I strive to treat everyone the same, based on their merits and their own behavior (I don’t like assholes and I feel no obligation to do so).

    Just like everyone else should do.

    Like: You know, not pre-judging an entire group of people.

    • BobTerrace
      Posted November 14, 2017 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

      Like: You know, not pre-judging an entire group of people.

      But it is so hard to not prejudge for certain groups like “All Republicans from Alabama”

      • Posted November 14, 2017 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

        It is natural to prejudge groups. We do it all the time when we are talking about a group as a whole. or even with an individual when we don’t know the person. In some sense, cultural norms consist of rules to apply when dealing with a member of a group you don’t know. I think the error here is making a bad, false, or unreasonable judgement about a whole group.

        It triggers a personal peeve of mine to hear someone say “Don’t judge me!” or “Stop being judgmental!” We judge people all the time. Imagine a world in which people don’t judge each other. It would be nuts. What they are really saying is that they don’t like the particular judgment of them.

        • Paul S
          Posted November 14, 2017 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

          Prejudging, I’vbe done that with Aaminah Khan and Melissa A. Fabello. They want to accuse me of violence and patriarchy, that’s fine with me but they need to realize they’ve lost any opportunity that I might give a shit about them or their opinions.

          • Michieux
            Posted November 14, 2017 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

            “Melissa A. Fabello is a body acceptance activist, sexuality scholar, and patriarchy smasher living in Philadelphia.”



            • Paul S
              Posted November 14, 2017 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

              In a phone reference that translates to No skills, likes to complain, do not hire.

  15. TJR
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    I wonder how many of the people writing this possess Toxic Class Privilege?

    • Posted November 14, 2017 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

      Yes, indeed!

    • BJ
      Posted November 14, 2017 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

      None, because that’s the one privilege people like them never talk about. It severely damages their victim credibility, seeing as class and wealth dictate your opportunities and how you’re treated more than anything else in society.

  16. Posted November 14, 2017 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    Ugh, people like this give a bad name to the original movement of feminism. Every time I call myself a feminist I get called out for thoughts like these, that I do not have. This is why so many radicals on the opposite side are popping up. I got told the other day that women fought for the right to vote for “revenge”. In some ways, I see why someone would think that. Smh

    • darrelle
      Posted November 14, 2017 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

      Some human behavioral patterns never change. It almost always happens that any “movement,” even ethically legitimate ones like the civil rights movement and feminism, will sooner or later evolve extremist sub-groups that actually impede the movement. It also often happens that the extremist sub-groups end up mimicking those they are trying to oppose and turn on their own non-extremist brethren.

    • Michieux
      Posted November 14, 2017 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

      Where’s Germaine Greer when she’s needed?

      • Posted November 14, 2017 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

        I haven’t heard that name in forever!

      • Kevin
        Posted November 15, 2017 at 9:09 am | Permalink

        She wouldn’t be much help.

        She has always given out confictual arguments to suit her agenda:

        In this video she makes some horrendous generalisations. If a man made similar statements about women he would be accused of sexism.

        Her justification of women’s bullying of other women in the video is total BS.
        Simplistic use of the male unemployment/domestic violence relation is equally biased: she extrapolates from data giving a conclusion that is a personal view of what is a far more complex issue. Correlation does not say much about cause, as even Greer as an academic should know, but she uses the data emotively.

        I’ve been following feminism sympathetically since the sixties, but I find many of her statements totally unacceptable.

    • Posted November 14, 2017 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

      Oh, I wouldn’t blame that “revenge” mindset on a reaction to silly feminism. That person was a nut, period.

  17. Kevin
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    I don’t see that the opinions expressed need to be taken seriously as stated. There is a difference between “radical feminism” and moderate feminism.

    It is highly questionable whether radical views actually legitimately reflect the views even of the majority of women.

    In many cases a “radical feminist” is not speaking on behalf of anybody but herself or at best a minority.

    Many of the critiques made might be easier to accept if women were nearer perfect themselves.

    Does a feminist man open a door for a woman and allow precedence, or is he being condescending.
    Is he more reasonable then not holding the door and barging through, in which case he risks the sarcastic comment “Oh a real gentleman”.
    This expectation of a man to behave in a certain way is also a sense of entitlement, though it is female entitlement.

    My point is that there is an element in the article that seeks to apply a level of guilt which is “damning” whichever choice you make, the object being to reduce males to guilt-ridden wrecks with their self esteem and self assurance reduced to zero.

    If women wish to enter the workplace where men are competing assertively amongst themselves, women are behaving with an expectation of entitlement if they expect a man to be less assertive with a woman than he would with another man. They are in fact expecting a form of positive sexual discrimination, an attitude that could also been seen as sexist in itself. If women are potentially equal in the workplace, doen’t that also imply coping with assertiveness.

    To label a man who is sympathetic to feminist issues as a potential abuser, seems to be a pathetic argument. A woman is also a potential abuser, an argument totally ignored.

  18. Harrison
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    If whiteness and maleness are feminism’s Original Sin then Everyday Feminist’s “Toxic Whiteness” courses are the new Catholic indulgences.

    • Richard
      Posted November 15, 2017 at 2:53 am | Permalink

      I’m curious: do mtf transgender people still suffer from this Original Sin? Or does making the transition from male to female somehow absolve them? Or did they not suffer from it in the first place because they were really women all along, even though biologically male? Or do they keep the sin, and so are not really women because women by definition can not have this sin?


      • Richard
        Posted November 15, 2017 at 2:56 am | Permalink

        The sarcasm was directed at the third wave feminists, not Harrison.

  19. Cate Plys
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    This kind of stuff is so embarrassing. The insanity of identity politics makes me hate to add, “as a feminist” or “as a woman,” but yes, as a feminist and a woman, so embarrassing to read that kind of drivel.

  20. Posted November 14, 2017 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    True story. I was new to Pharyngula, now about four years ago. I heard this was the place where the anti-theistic, strident people hang out and hence I saw that as a good place to go.

    I then went through what then co-blogger Chris Clarke, PZs Right Hand Man, later called “hazing” (when he called it quits). That was an understatement that would even impress a British noble. He meant the famous super-nastiness unique in the internet, replete with sexualized violence and death wishes meant seriously and from the bottom of their hearts (picture famous “movement atheists” who depicted this faction as the Good People, which completely broke American Atheism for me).

    Why am I mention this? The people who were accepted right away, with no hazing, where those who told creepy confession stories. They would write how they formerly were ignorant, secretly chauvinists, but that lurking at Freethought Blogs made them realize the error in their ways. So, one has to go through something like that, in “safe spaces” to prove being an “ally”.

    My early theories, and my very first writing (then lacking any idea of their ideological underpinnings) where about “overcoming cheap signals” in such isolated communities, where an elite (self-styled as “horde”) effectively demanded costly rituals to protect the sanctity of their space.

    The comparison to religion is therefore very apt, beyond “original sin”. They are religious in a sociologist, Durkheimian sense. As Jonathan Haidt would propose later (in context of the intersectional Campus movement) for such born-again Woke individuals, they have other “Sacred Values” than truth.

    • Posted November 14, 2017 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

      They were testifying, Aneris. It is a religion or more properly, a cult, after all.

    • helenahankart
      Posted November 14, 2017 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

      Oh…that’s interesting. That’s “as an academic psychologist I’d like to study it” Interesting. If you agree more to tell me then please do, or email me at r.king@ucc.ie

      • Posted November 15, 2017 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

        Hi Helenahankart, let me know what you‘re interested in, I‘ve a couple of stuff written down already somewhere (including at Jerry‘s here) and much more I wanted to write down, given some encouragement that it‘s useful to someone. I‘ll send a mail, too. 🙂

  21. Posted November 14, 2017 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    When I taught Environmental Science, I covered a lot of basic things that first day, including the term “environmentalist.” Many of my students thought all environmentalists are terrorists who want to tear down, oh, lots of things. I’d explain, “In any large group, there are some people who are nuts. Think of your church, your political party, any other group you belong to. The nuts are noisy, but don’t represent most of the group. I am an environmentalist, but the nutty end of the group do not speak for me.” And then we’d go on.

    I get the same feeling from this article. I’m a feminist, have been since I learned the word. And I’m sorry, these authors are the nutty end of the group.

    • Posted November 14, 2017 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

      This is true, and yet, it‘s also a fact that intersectional feminism, or intersectionality* are currently mainstream and constitute a (proposed?) 4th Wave of Feminism.

      The proponents themselves and their numerous believers-in-belief are mainstream also in US movement atheism, see especially Skepticon.

      Finally, they are not only most vocal, and mainstream, they also fought tooth and nail to make their particular ideology appear “generic” and common sense in the Blue Tribe or among progressives. To date, the movement resists heavily to even be named as a thing — hence a plethora of hostile names to have some way to point at that phenomenon, social justice warriors, SJW, Regressive, Regressive Left, Special Snowflakes, postmodernists, etc.

      Everyday Feminism (self-described Intersectional site) is frequently referred to by such people, and I cannot see this as a case of “nutpicking” or Weak Man Fallacy (gotchas, or focus on isolated nutcases). The thought here is indeed representative and typical.

      • Posted November 14, 2017 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

        It’s representative and typical of something, but not of me (a feminisit), and not of most of the women I know. Most of us would laugh at this.

        • Posted November 14, 2017 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

          I also consider my views as feministic, though not card-carrying. I also agree, it often is comical. But seeing how widespread and unhinged it has become, and how accepted it is by otherwise rational people, it´s not exclusively funny.

          • Sebastian
            Posted November 14, 2017 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

            I’d like to second Aneris on the significance of this BS version of feminism. I recently modified my view of the significance of EverydayFeminism in particular, when I heard an acquaintance, a Science Graduate Student, sincerely recommend the site.
            I used to think of EF as a mildly annoying, cultist laughingstock that no reasonable person could possibly take seriously. Now I know that smart, well-educated people fall prey to this ideology. Which is rather scary, frankly.

  22. Posted November 14, 2017 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    It might be worth going into cryonic suspension until natural selection weeds out third wave feminists and their creepy allies.

    • Posted November 14, 2017 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

      Being “homoflexible” like Melissa Fabio sure can’t help your reproductive fitness.

  23. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    strongly sympathetic to point #3,
    mildly sympathetic to point #4,
    think there’s a grain of truth to point #1, and have virtually zero agreement with point #2.

    On the last of these, it is perfectly legitimate to want to cultivate gentlemanly behavior and expect some acknowledgement that one is abiding a code of ethics. That said, one should take one’s lumps if declined for a date- that is part of what being a gentleman is.

    To say that all men are potentially violent can be stretched to the point of saying that someone who has potassium nitrate in their basement, sulfur in the garage, and charcoal in the shed out back is a potential shooter (these are the three ingredients of gunpowder- it is illegal to own potassium nitrate without a license.)

    And I certainly agree with JAC that certain rhetoric actually infantilizes women while seeming to empower them.

    Incidentally, in my lifetime I’ve heard a few lesbian jokes, a few porn jokes, but am not sure if I’ve ever heard a lesbian porn joke.

    • Posted November 14, 2017 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

      Incidentally, in my lifetime I’ve heard a few lesbian jokes, a few porn jokes, but am not sure if I’ve ever heard a lesbian porn joke.

      On a less family friendly site I’d post you some.

      • Posted November 14, 2017 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

        Well, there is Trevor Noah’s joke that landed him in a lot of trouble;

        “I was watching Olympic Womens Ice Hockey; it’s like watching lesbian porn. Without the porn.”

        • Posted November 14, 2017 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

          He should really pick up a copy of the latest ESPN Body issue.

    • Posted November 14, 2017 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

      Q: How many lesbians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

      A: That’s not funny!

      • Posted November 14, 2017 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

        I lol’d

      • Posted November 14, 2017 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

        I think you blew the punchline which should be “one, and it’s not funny!”

    • XCellKen
      Posted November 14, 2017 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

      When I was a teenager in Ohio, I made homemade gunpowder. You had to be 18 to purchase saltpeter. I told a kid down the street to tell his mom to go to the drugstore and but it. Told him to tell her that is was for a science experiment (it kind was). She did. Gave it to him, and he gave it to me. So in Ohio in the late 70s, a minor could get his hands on Potassium Nitrate

  24. Posted November 14, 2017 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    Listening to someone (female prof.) on NPR right now: “Women are better at reading other people’s states of consciousness.”

    Imagine stating, “men tend to have better spatial and pattern recognition than women” on NPR. Instantly branded a sexist and drummed out of the academy.

    • Posted November 14, 2017 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

      ‘Men dominate IT because they are more systematic and women are more empathic’ is a problematic statement.

      ‘Women dominate psychology and counselling services because they are more empathic and men are more systematising’ is not.

      Don’t look for logic. That would be systematising.

      • Posted November 14, 2017 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

        I find the statement “listening to NPR” problematic.

    • Curt Nelson
      Posted November 14, 2017 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

      Can you believe the way some feminists at once insist that there is no difference between women and men but that men are terrible and women can do special things?

      • Craw
        Posted November 14, 2017 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

        “Men and women are exactly the same except men are scum” is how my ex wife described that kind of feminism.

  25. Paul S
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    States of consciousness, either you are or you aren’t. That wasn’t hard at all.

  26. Historian
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    The argument that all men are potentially violent represents very sloppy thinking, to the extent that it is meaningless. Every time we cross the street there is the potential to be hit by a car. Most people before crossing the street evaluate the situation. Have the cars stopped? Do we have a green light? Thus, when we cross the street we are 99.999% sure we’ll make it safely to the other side. We use the same process of evaluation when we decide if another person is likely to be violent.

    Unless these authors can provide realistic odds as to the risk of women entering a violent relationship with men then what they argue is nonsense. Also, I would like to know at what percentage risk women should stop having relationships with men out of fear for their safety. Sometimes bad things happen even after all prudent precautions are taken, such as being hit by a car when crossing the street. That is life. But I would recommend to the authors that they never cross the street. At least one of life’s many potential dangers can be avoided.

    It is easy to mock these authors since it is hard to believe that 99.9% of women will read their article or accept it. How frustrated they must feel that the male patriarchy is stifling the obvious truths they are relating.

  27. DiscoveredJoys
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    If I were to say:

    But the socialization of women is such that even a good woman – caring woman, a trusted woman – has within her the potential for cruelty and harm because these behaviors are normalized through the dominance of women in social endeavors.

    …I’d be shouted down. Yet just as most men are unaware of the ‘privileges’ they live within so too are women. And if some men are careless of the effects of their behaviour on others, so too are some women.

    Do we really wish to build armed camps between men and women, or do we wish to cherish our better natures?

  28. Posted November 14, 2017 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    I’m just impressed they actually wrote about feminism for once, not race or transgenderism.

    • XCellKen
      Posted November 14, 2017 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

      You are easily impressed lol

  29. David Duncan
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    A bumper sticker I once saw:

    “Rape. The end of every wolf whistle”.

  30. Posted November 14, 2017 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    Co-author Melissa Fabio is also the wit who wrote that medical health is just a social construct.

  31. revelator60
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    This seems to be part of a general trend in American society to value victimization and oppression as badges of purity and morality, to the extent of actively encouraging oppression. A mother who decides her sons are bestial, morally tainted, potential rapists is oppressing both herself and her sons. But only she will get off on the high of feeling victimized.
    As we know, children tend to rebel against the morals and attitudes of their parents. So I can hardly wait for the babies and toddlers of today to grow up and rebel against the idiocy of their parents. Perhaps the pendulum will swing back to something approaching sanity!

  32. Posted November 14, 2017 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    If women are going to claim that all men are doomed to sexual violence and must atone, all women must feel guilty about this crap even if individually they don’t subscribe to this position. It’s only fair, right?

  33. Randall Schenck
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    On the subject of sexual harassment I do not see this article as beneficial at all. It is inflammatory thinking and divisive between the sexes. Just the opposite of what you are looking for to deal with a very serious problem in our society. It is purely extremest thinking as well, whatever group or label you want to attach to the people who buy into this. I would expect that most women believe this is garbage and not helpful at all.

    There is still, after years of information and action, a lot of ignorance throughout our country concerning sexual harassment and how to deal with it. It is also too bad that most are more interested in talking than learning.

  34. Posted November 14, 2017 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    I think the neologism recently coined here, ‘maladaptive’, applies to these two authors.

    Melissa Fabello:

    Aaminah Khan:

  35. Mark Sturtevant
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    Among the many levels of strangeness here, I could not help but think the message is “you believe you can decide how to think for yourselves? No. I will do the thinking for you.”

  36. Joseph O'Sullivan
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    There is a difference between what I call valid feminism and invalid feminism. Male sexism is a real thing and a problem. Some individuals take this as a starting point and go in directions that are not based on facts.

    I have experienced this. I was sexually harassed by a woman. She mentioned that she thought I was attractive. I didn’t think dating coworkers was a good idea, so I avoided her. She didn’t notice and didn’t care, but the other women did. These women disliked her because she insulted them by saying that she was more attractive and popular than her. They used my ignoring her to insult her back. This infuriated her. She took her anger out on me.

    She would not consider that she brought this upon herself. She didn’t get angry at the women who taunted her. She blamed all of this on me. She attempted to fire me. When I complained about her sexual harassment, she retaliated by claiming that she never expressed any attraction to me, and said I was the one harassing her.

    Even though she was blatantly lying, she did get people to support her until many other people said she was lying. She thought that as a woman she was entitled to people taking her side. She never expected the other people would not support her. For her, what actually occurred and who was really wrong or right was irrelevant. The only question was our genders, and that alone should dictate the result.

    Now when I hear that a woman say she has been sexually harassed my first thought is did it really happen. Part of me genuinely feels guilty when I do that.

    Valid feminism is about justice, but sometimes this is forgotten.

  37. Posted November 14, 2017 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    That was A LOT to take in! All men and women reading this post have their own opinions. As a man, a human, it is hard to know what women, no matter how old, are wondering what we are thinking about them when we casually meet in a store or wherever. We are taught to be gentlemen and open the door for women. But now, we wonder if they are thinking we are having some other motive. Maybe we want to watch their butt as they walk in ahead of us (which would definitely depend on the woman we open the door for). But, what if we don’t open the door? What would they think then? Maybe they will think we are an asshole for not being a gentleman and not letting them go in ahead. What if we are sitting at the bar and a woman walks up and sits down next to us and we don’t at least look at them and smile. What if they are wanting a conversation and that’s why they sat next to us in the first place? Are we to just wait to see if they speak first? Will they assume we are gay if we don’t? I was in a relationship one with a VERY predictably unpredictable younger woman. If I opened the door for her she would say, “You don’t have to do that.” If I didn’t, she would stand there and say, “Aren’t you going to open the door for me?” If we were walking hand in hand she would let go to see if I would grab her hand again. The constant testing of some people to others drives me insane! GEEZ! It is no wonder that 70% of online traffic is porn, and not just from men. At least there we know that the girls on webcam are enjoying the company of men and they know why we are there. We are men, we are human… In part guided by our head with no brain. But what about the women who are really interested in men for who we are and who they are. Respecting our differences and wanting to be in a real and genuine loving relationship. How do we get to that point if we are always wondering if we are all weird or bi-polar? When we get in relationships we ignore red flags because of the kind of relationship we hope for. That is not good… Pay attention to those red flags and RUN as soon as one appears, hopefully before a trip to the bedroom. We are all different in many ways but we have a lot of mutual interests. Most of us believe that hate is the opposite of love, but actually, fear is the opposite of love. SO, is it true that fear is keeping us from love? Right now, I am in a relationship with a woman that is AWESOME and there have been no red flags, no arguments, no problems of any kind for nearly two years. SO, I know from experience, there are those of us who are perfect matches with nothing to fear in any way.

    • Posted November 14, 2017 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

      “…there are those of us who are perfect matches with nothing to fear in any way.”

      An item from the “List of Famous Last Words”.

  38. Randall Schenck
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    I happen to see today, the sexual harassment policy currently in place for our congress. It looks as if it were written by a sexual harasser. It was pathetic and some women in congress are attempting to do something about it. I wish them luck. The current policy required, among other things, that the person reporting is required to sign a non-disclosure agreement and there is a long “cooling off period” Never heard of such nonsense and it is outrageous.

    • Posted November 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

      Because the hunt has moved on to congress today, I have seen numerous reports of this policy in the media but (perhaps unsurprisingly) none of the news reports actually linked to any form of it.

      Can you provide the link?

      • Randall Schenck
        Posted November 14, 2017 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

        I happened to be watching on TV today so that is where I saw it. I will look around.

      • Randall Schenck
        Posted November 14, 2017 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

        I could not find it any place as they had it listed on CNN but did see many articles talking about it, one from the Washington Post said the current rules were put in place back in 1995 and get this one — call for months of counseling and mediation. So it is simply a joke and is basically meaningless. So you turn someone in and then get months of counseling because you turned them in. Like I said before, it was written by a sexual predator.

  39. Craw
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    Of course not *all* men. We know a few exceptions ourselves! “And then they all come along, the eighty million good Germans, and each one has his decent Jew.”

  40. Diana MacPherson
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

    Haha! You go Maudib. Protect the spice!

  41. Michael Waterhouse
    Posted November 14, 2017 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

    If it could be said that no women ever ran a sweat shop or ran company that exploited the workers or benefited from grinding others into the dirt I might think women had a tad better moral position, but there are too many instances of women behaving badly to consider that proposition.

  42. Posted November 15, 2017 at 12:09 am | Permalink

    No wonder they love novels like ‘fifty shades’ of jerks, while they bang the few men, the rest are turned to their lap dogs, good sexual strategy by feminists.

  43. Hunt
    Posted November 15, 2017 at 1:39 am | Permalink

    What we see her is pure entitlement: “My problems are the most important, and you’d bloody well spend all your time pondering them and fixing them.”

    My prognosis is more extreme. What we see here amounts to “bread and circuses”, intended or not. In truth, we can all (man and woman) assess the guilt of the Weinsteins of the world pretty easily. We don’t need a year or ten and cultural upheaval to do it.

    It’s plutocracy we should be fighting, not patriarchy.

    When Trump finally leaves office, after looting our treasury, deregulating industry and closing national parks, he’ll probably going to give Harvey Weinstein a merit badge.

  44. Posted November 15, 2017 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    I suppose the female teacher who tried to throttle me as a little boy in school or the numerous girls who sexually assaulted me in secondary school can just claim to be acting in a masculine way. I mean I felt terribly abused but there was no one to console me and in reality the female and male teachers found it very amusing, almost as if it were justified. The female teacher who throttled me (for no good reason, believe me) was a certified feminist, brought in from America to teach in English primary schools around 1987 onwards. She metered out feminist revenge upon a 7 year boy. In our Religious Education class the male teacher just smiled as he watched three girls trying to take my trousers, then my pants down. Finally they touched what they wanted to touch and the teacher just carried on ignoring the problem. Years later a gang of twelve girls aged between fourteen and eighteen (approx)assaulted me when I was on my own in a Fair arcade. They enjoyed grabbing me and then hitting me, all the while laughing away. However as a liberal hominid I never thought it was all females who were abusers even though that was my experience for some time. I just assumed there was a variety of character out there simply because all my pets seemed to have different characters based upon they’re life experience. I still believe this but I also believe there are some intrinsic variants between the genders but these are less associated with emotions like revenge or control. Absolutely love the blog Jerry, keep it up!

  45. Blue
    Posted November 15, 2017 at 8:13 am | Permalink

    One more time again:
    https://northcarolinanow.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/thank-a-feminist-if and

    I do not abide these discussions. Using the sources so, so often cited, these appear to
    be / to have been useless. I for one flout
    them: both the discussions and the sources.

    I am a radical feminist. That is what the
    above two websites one more time yet again
    define. And always have.

    I decline for the men who are not such
    to become for them, say, for the sake
    of i) “getting along” or for, worse,
    ii) “trying to ameliorate their anger,”
    a woman who is their apologist, let alone,
    one who is their whiny, aaaaw, poor baby –

    mama of three beings who grew themselves
    in to the radical feminists .all.
    of these three men now are and … …
    who actually study up using sources that
    actually are reliable in re what it means
    to be a human of this definition

  46. Adam
    Posted November 15, 2017 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    What is really starting to chap my hide about feminism is this notion that men are the only gender that needs to work on improving relations between the sexes. Women have a hell of a lot of work to do to. I get so sick of hearing how men=bad, women=good. This is a two-way street. Yes, men need to get better, but women should look at themselves in the mirror as well.

  47. Adam
    Posted November 15, 2017 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

    “Doing the work means really doing the work – getting your hands dirty (and potentially having an existential crisis in the process).”

    The question I have is “why”? Why would any man feel it necessary to conform to unrealistic standards of behavior set by women? Clearly, these standards exist in order to make the lives of women better. But how do they help men? Does it mean that the enlightened man will have more female friends who don’t want to sleep with him? Sign me up.

  48. Bob Zannelli
    Posted November 16, 2017 at 5:06 am | Permalink

    There is some truth to the notion that the potential to behave badly with women is present in all men. This is evolutionary baggage. However, most men are able to overcome this evolutionary programming and behave decently. Likewise I think women carry their own evolutionary baggage which is to accept this behavior from men. How else can we explain the overwhelming support Trump received from women voters, and how can we explain women who embrace the misogyny of Christian fundamentalism or Islam

  49. Posted November 19, 2017 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    Despite being nothing other than ordinary, being seen as the enemy by the deluded. who nobody, apart from the similarly deluded, takes seriously is a compliment indeed

%d bloggers like this: