Sorry, Men, You Are Not Oppressed: The Magical Mysteries of Misandry

I have clarified and expanded upon the concepts of this entry in a new post. The comments on that entry are closed to MRAs and anti-feminists at large, but I encourage reading it, as I think it’s a more accessible, thorough discussion of the issue.

If you have the stomach for it, type “misandry” into Google, and take a gander at what you’re rewarded with. The internet is chock full of self-righteous misogynists who think us “female supremacists” just need to “have some sense fucked into us” (because nothing inspires faith in your concept that sex equality already exists like your reinforcement of rape culture, and the idea that us little ladies just need a good deep dicking to set us straight). It’s a really disturbing look not only at the very real hatred that still exists for women, but also of the pointed ignorance it takes to the problem of misogyny as a whole.

I’ll issue a challenge: Share with me a demonstration of misandry, and I will explain how it is actually a demonstration of misogyny. To start, I’ll take a few common ones down, point-by-point:

1. Campaigns against domestic violence and rape focus on women, when there are male victims.

Yes, men are the victims of domestic violence, and yes, men get raped. As acknowledged at the start of my last post, ten percent of rape victims are male. But you know what that leaves? 90 percent who are female. Should that ten percent get ignored, should their crimes not be prosecuted? Of course not. But focusing on so few while so many suffer is not going to in any way affect the long-term problem. Likewise, women are far more likely to suffer domestic abuse. Feminists do not advocate for male victims to be ignored, we advocate for female victims to be recognized, in crimes that are often glossed over by society at large, in a powerful demonstration of misogynistic hatred.

2. Men are depicted poorly in media, as neanderthal losers with beautiful, capable wives.

First, stop a moment to consider how little women are portrayed in media at all, let alone as anything other than a supporting character to the male-driven plot. Second, evaluate the real dynamics of that neanderthal husband/hot wife dynamic: First, it’s sending the message that no matter how much of a “catch” we ladies are, we’re to be ensnared by any wandering male who happens to deem us worthy of his attention. How many television shows feature a conventionally unattractive, rude, obese women with her Chippendale-double husband? It’s not an insult to men that they’re told they can be as slovenly, ill-mannered, and lazy as they wish and still expect a beautiful, capable wife. It’s a statement on how we, as women, should have low standards because we should be grateful for any and all male attention that is granted to us.

Third, how capable are these women, really, and where does their expertise lie? Often, the wives are stay-at-home moms, and yes, spectacular ones; but this is an extension of the misogyny that says women are biologically driven to be good mothers, and males aren’t required to be good fathers. Occasionally the mom will be an amazing multi-tasker, working outside the home (often as a receptionist or other subservient role) while also keeping her home, children, and husband in hot meals, clean clothes, and constant love and affection. But this isn’t about painting women as super-capable. It is about the standard that we, as women, are held to in real life, where even if we work outside the home, we are expected to pick up most of the household chores as well, and do it with a smile, because that’s a woman’s role.

3. Girls and women are allowed more self-expression; it’s okay to be a tomboy, but not a girly-man.

This is not a hatred of men and all things male, it is a hatred of anything female/feminine, even when demonstrated by a male. This is a fashion in which male rape is often derided–it is mocked as a feminine violation, and the victim as less of a man for “allowing” it to happen. To the contrary, a woman demonstrating masculine qualities faces two possible outcomes: Acceptance and congratulations for embracing attributes viewed as beyond her normal, limited female scope of accomplishment, or derision for desiring a role equal to men, for shirking her inherently feminine duties of taking care of the home, looking conventionally pretty, etc.

4. There are programs in place to help women–such as college scholarships–while no such programs exist solely for men.

This is an argument laid against most any affirmative-action-style program. It’s viewed as “reverse prejudice” that allows the minority an unfair chance. But, even in a world where women are no longer a surprise in college, we are still fighting an uphill battle after we graduate. A woman with a degree is not on a level playing field with a man holding those same credentials. Even if she overcomes the hiring discrimination laid against women, she would still make less than a man in a comparable position. And heaven forbid she go about doing “womanly” things like becoming pregnant, she’ll face even more job discrimination. So while the leg-up via a scholarship may seem an unfair advantage at the start, it still does not even give women a chance at equality in the real world. You cannot begrudge the child who lives on bread and rice a free ice cream bar while the child finishing his steak and eggs gets none.

Really, this is a list I could continue almost indefinitely, as fans of the concept of misandry cling to any attempt to show us silly feminists how we’re fighting a battle our foremothers won decades ago. And while I try to remain calm in the face of these discussions, and I will show respect to male victims of patriarchal tyranny, there comes a point when men need to recognize that it is not okay to focus on how they are victimized by the system that actively oppresses women. It’s why misandry isn’t real the way misogyny is. Are there some women who hate men? Of course. There’s always somebody who hates somebody else. But it is not institutionalized oppression, and that is why feminists don’t want to hear about it. We do not have the power to oppress men. We do not earn more money than men, and therefore have the ability to manipulate our husbands into staying under our abusive thumbs, or foregoing their own personal enrichment to stay at home and care for us and our children. We do not dominate the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the White House, and we cannot pass laws telling men what they are and are not allowed to do with their own bodies. We do not as a group have the power to control men. Are there individual women who lord power over men? Of course. But it is not institutionalized, it is not the dynamic inherent in government, media, and the majority of households, it is not oppression.

Please, men, if you wish to argue the evils of the ever-mystical misandry, take a moment to first consider the myriad of privileges that you enjoy without even having to think about them. Remember that you do not have to side-eye every woman you meet, for fear that she might make you a statistic. Think of how socially acceptable it is if you tell your friends you don’t know how to cook, you don’t do your own laundry, you can’t remember the name of your child’s preschool teacher. And for a moment, think of the women you care about–your mother, your partner, your sisters, your friends–and know that if you can think of even six women, then statistically, one of them has had a rape attempted or completed against her. If you are my friend, reading this, you cannot escape that knowledge–I am a rape survivor, sitting on this end of my computer, asking you to acknowledge that my attack and all others like it are because women are not treated equally in this society. And I’m asking you to help change that, so maybe my little girl can avoid being yet another rape statistic like her mother.

About bunnika

shout at the brick wall; if it doesn't hear you, shout louder
This entry was posted in challenging privilege, feminism. Bookmark the permalink.

308 Responses to Sorry, Men, You Are Not Oppressed: The Magical Mysteries of Misandry

  1. Pingback: Exploring logical fallacies « Exposing Feminism

  2. Clarence says:

    First:
    Even if everything you said is true and you understood your sources and arguments (you apparently do neither) misandry means “hatred of men” and would still exist even if none of the above things were examples of it. Thus, I don’t know why you attack the concept, unless you are intellectually dishonest enough You probably should have labeled this post “Men’s Rights Myths”, which seems to be more in tune with what it is actually about.

    In order:
    1. When men have to freaking SUE to get access to taxpayer funded services, that is misandry. I don’t particularly care about what the overall statistics are, if a single victim is denied services due to sex, that is discrimination.
    http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2844

    2. As you probably know women tend to be the prime target for television advertisements, in part because they have so much influence when it comes to shopping.
    http://she-conomy.com/report/facts-on-women/
    As the major audience for these ads, they are at the minimum, equally culpable for their propogation.
    3. Since women often enforce such standards of masculinity by who they chose to deride or date, I’m not about to let women off the hook for enforcing and propogating “gender rules”. Indeed, as a mother you are probably the single greatest influence in terms of how your child will grow up and develop. PHMT won’t get women off the hook for not preferring “girly” men as sexual partners in large numbers.

    4. http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

    The more factors you analyze, the smaller the “gap” grows between men’s and women’s wages. Indeed the gap is a myth anyway, for comparing “group woman” (working age) to “group man” (working age) and pretending these groups have the same interests , career aspirations, and assigning pregnancy to male oppression is just down right retarded. It’s illegal (and has been since 1964 explicitly) for someone to pay you less for the exact same job as a man because you are a woman. It’s also not the case that all sub groups of women earn less than sub groups of men:
    http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

    • bunnika says:

      First: Do not use slurs on my blog. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T549VoLca_Q If you do so again, I will know that it is done maliciously rather than ignorantly, and I will delete this first comment as well.

      Second: I challenge you to actually read my blog before going off on a tirade. “It’s why misandry isn’t real the way misogyny is.” That’s a direct quote from my second-to-last paragraph, which, along with the concluding paragraph, explains the difference between individual discrimination and social oppression. Sniping over my vernacular or choice of title is off-topic; I believe if I’d called it “Men’s rights myths,” I’d be blasted by MRAs for calling their “oppression” a myth. Without agreeing with you, there’s simply no winning in your eyes, and it’s clear that we disagree.

      Now, in order:

      1. Again, discrimination is not oppression. I again suggest re-reading the last two paragraphs. Left-handers face discrimination (including lackidasical safety standards in workhouses using right-handed equipment), would you call them an oppressed group in American culture? If so, this is a moot argument, as I stand by the dissonance between discrimination and oppression.

      2. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that women have equal buying power, and are therefore “equally culpable” in regards to the stereotypes presented in media. This does nothing to negate the argument of misogyny in mainstream media. Internalized misogyny (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/20/internalized-sexism/) is a very serious problem, and women can be misogynists just as easily as men. I do not give women a pass simply because of their sex. I continue to come to terms with ways that I have internalized hatred of my own sex over the years, because it is so prevelant in our culture that it’s impossible to avoid. This is only a stronger argument for fighting misogynistic standards in media and elsewhere.

      3. I’m confused as to where you get the idea that women by and large prefer any particular sort of man; in my experience, people’s preferences in sexual partners vary greatly, and run the gamut from masculine to feminine. Regardless, there is nothing wrong with masculinity, whether it is demonstrated by a male, female, or intersex person. Nothing about masculinity is inherently wrong. Misogyny is not about the superiority of the masculine, so much as the inferiority of the feminine (as demonstrated in my #3 above), and the inherent association of masculine and feminine qualities with sex. I support masculinity, as much as I support femininity, and gender-freedom/gender-fluidity. I do not support the domination of one sex over another. (Note: Sex is a person’s physical makeup, determined by genetalia, chromosones, and hormones. Gender is the social standard of masculinity and femininity.)

      Also, I must point out that in your own words here, you propogate sexism: “as a mother you are probably the single greatest influence in terms of how your child will grow up and develop.” The fact that this is an assumption at all displays our culture’s deep-rooted misogyny. Women are assumed to be the caregivers, and even men who claim to act for “equality” are happy to point at a mother and say, “You’re in charge of rearing the young’uns.”

      4. http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2010/11/26/how-the-consad-report-on-the-wage-gap-masks-sexism-instead-of-measuring-it/
      To assume that “it’s illegal, so it doesn’t happen” is truth is naive at best, purposeful ignorance at worst. Murder’s illegal, so no one ever does that, right? And robery? And rape? I really don’t see why I should continue this list.

      I suggest the following jump-links:
      http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#opinion
      http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#proveit
      http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#disbelief

      • pvblivs says:

        Misandry isn’t perceived as real the way misogyny is. Misogyny exists. But everyone can recognize it a mile away. Misandry also exists, indeed, is more prevalent. But people have been trained not to see it. It’s like the water the fish swim in. The fish don’t even notice it’s there.

        Illegal doesn’t make for non-existence. But prosecutors (and feminist groups) have searched everywhere they could to provide an example of some company paying a man more than a woman for the same job. The search comes up empty. In order to make the claim of a wage gap, feminists have to compare apples to oranges. They say that because coal miners (a dangerous profession that is male-dominated) make more money than office workers (a safe profession that is female-dominated) it must mean a deliberate wage gap based on sex.

        Bluntly put, if misogyny were anywhere near as prevalent as you would have people believe, calling someone a misogynist would have no effect. The fact that people defend against the charge and people get riled up against the accused shows that our society has no tolerance for misogyny. On the other hand, if you call someone a misandrist, few people will care. Our society is blind to misandry and doesn’t object to it even when recognized.

        • bunnika says:

          “Coded misogyny.” Go learn yourself a thing. Then, spout your ignorance to someone who cares. I’m done with this “misogyny isn’t real” bullshit. Grow up, I’ve debunked your arguments countless times already, I’m done wasting my keystrokes on people like you.

          • pvblivs says:

            You obviously haven’t read anything that I wrote, since you just attributed to me a position I didn’t take. You have debunked nothing and should probably take your own advice to grow up.

            • bunnika says:

              I’m so sorry, snowflake, “misogyny isn’t tolerated.” Feel better, cupcake? Because again, same ol’ song and dance. Call me when you step into the real world.

              • pvblivs says:

                I’ve been in the real world for some time. You are the one in the fantasy world that requires you to denigrate people by calling them “snowflake” and “cupcake.” If misogyny were as accepted as you claim, no one would care when you accused someone of it. The fact that you can expect people to turn against anyone you call a misogynist demonstrates that it is not tolerated.

                • bunnika says:

                  You say “our society has no tolerance for misogyny” and that misogyny isn’t accepted. So let’s do a little test: I’m going to point out that you’re a misogynist, and you can go about not tolerating your own misogyny, since clearly that’s how people always react, right? Or are you going to deny it and continue flapping on about misandry? Because exactly one of those choices will prove your point, but methinks it’s not the one you’ll take.

                  • pvblivs says:

                    No, you are going to “cry wolf” again and claim that I a misogynist. The fact that you would even express that lie in an effort either to make me shut up or to get others not to listen to what I say, demonstrates that you know misogyny is not tolerated.

                    You see, I could say that you are a misandrist. And you are. But no one would care. You wouldn’t feel the need to defend your actions as not misandry or even deny the claim in any way. And no one would think less of you.

                    And that is what proves my point, in a logical sense. Society is so intolerant of misogyny that false charges have been successfully used to silence and shun people. They are only beginning to lose their effect because people are starting to see that feminists throw about those false charges so cavalierly.

                    • bunnika says:

                      “And no one would think less of you.”

                      So by your own definition, you’re hunky-dory with me being a misandrist. Because no one has a problem with it.

                      Seriously, do you even hear yourself? You are a ball of ridiculous contradictions, and it’s getting really tiresome.

                      Please learn what logic is. You’re giving me a headache.

                    • pvblivs says:

                      Actually, I already think that, as a feminist, you are a pathological liar who would destroy anyone necessary to get your own way. There isn’t any place for my opinion of you to drop. And you are decidedly in no position to tell me to learn what logic is. But I did do a blog post of my own on how feminists like to use the false charge of “misogyny.”

                    • bunnika says:

                      Nice how you totally ignore my call-out of your logical fallacy to spin more rhetoric about the ~eeeevil feminists~.

                      Now my questions are: Why in the name of Gaea should I give a damn about your opinion of me? Why on earth would I care to read more of your illogical rambling? And why, dear Gaea why, should I give you more of a platform here?

                      So either come up with something original, or stay gone. You’re tedious.

      • Average joe says:

        A so called feminist group in my country are proposing that women commit male infanticide….! And they actually operate under that manifesto. This is why feminism must be branded as a hate group and outlawed. Also female paedophilia is not recognized as a crime, so many women who have abused little boys and girls have not faced jail terms. All this is misandry. Anyone who says misandry doesn’t exist is utterly and thoroughly fucked in the head. Apparently people opposing infanticide are all misogynists. Feminists are the ultimate scum and all of them are misandrists.

        • bunnika says:

          A so called feminist group in my country are proposing that women commit male infanticide….! And they actually operate under that manifesto.

          Citation needed.

          This is why feminism must be branded as a hate group and outlawed.

          You can’t outlaw hate groups, no matter how distasteful you find them. Heard of the KKK maybe?

          Also female paedophilia is not recognized as a crime

          Well this is just factually incorrect.

          Feminists are the ultimate scum and all of them are misandrists.

          Please explain to me why I would care about your condemnation, because I’m right in the middle of not giving a shit.

    • pleasure_past says:

      “Since women often enforce such standards of masculinity by who they chose to deride or date”

      I am SO FUCKING SICK of men going on about how women’s sexuality is an evil conspiracy to control men. No woman ever “enforces” shit with who she chooses to date or have sex with. Having sex with women isn’t a right. It isn’t even a privilege. Men need to get it through their fucking heads that they can’t just do X, Y, and Z and suddenly deserve sex with women. That isn’t how it works. You never deserve to have sex with any woman, ever, no matter what you’ve done or what standards of masculinity you have or haven’t lived up to. You live your life however the fuck you want, and women will either have sex with you because they want to or they won’t because they don’t want to. No matter what they choose, they are not “enforcing” anything. Stop projecting your personal issues and failings onto an entire oppressed class.

      Editor’s Note: I altered the HTML style of this comment to match WordPress’s HTML style. No content was altered. — Bunnika

      • Mike says:

        Having sex with a man isn’t a right, it isn’t even a privilege. Women need to get it through their fucking heads that they just can’t do X, Y, and Z and suddenly deserve sex with men. You never deserve to have sex with any man, ever, no matter what you’ve done or what standards of femininity you have or haven’t lived up to. You live your life however the fuck you want, and men will either be willing to have sex with you because they want to or not be willing to have sex with you because they don’t want to. No matter what they choose, men are not enforcing anything. Stop projecting your personal issues and failings onto men.

        Fixed that for you.

        • bunnika says:

          You’re making a false equivalency, in that the scenario you describe isn’t a demonstrated construct of social assumption. You are, in theory, completely right, as is pleasure_past: No person is ever obligated to grant sexual favors to anyone, and the commodification of sex is a very real problem. pleasure_past’s comment in no way implied that she thinks women are owed sex by men, it was simply in response to privilege being demonstrated directly in Clarence’s original comment.

    • tcraighenry says:

      1. Men are less likely to be affected by poverty than women. That also wasn’t a blanket win for the plaintiff. The court did acknowledge that men are not situated the same as women in prison situations.

      “We further find, however, that
      plaintiffs have failed to show men are similarly situated to
      women for purposes of the prison programs for inmate mothers.”

      While I agree that any domestic violence victim needs resources, the vast majority of victims are women. Which means the vast majority of non-profit resources are going to be for women. And many women, having been victimized by men, don’t trust them. For good reason.

      2. Most advertising geared towards women falls into housekeeping, weight loss, clothing, food and children. It’s due to what’s considered traditional gender roles and not indicative of any mighty power women might have over the economy.

      3. [Citation Needed]

      4. Wage gap isn’t just about one woman making .70 to a man’s dollar. It also has to do with the way careers are marketed. Women, for example, are less likely to take Computer Science courses. Not because of a lack of interest but because it’s considered a “male” profession. I can also explain part of why, there is plenty of chauvinism left in IT. Professions market to women, like healthcare and social work are way undervalued pay wise.

      • ELogic says:

        Men are more likely to be homeless. And there is nothing stopping women from taking Computer Science courses. What school has told women that they can’t take Computer Science courses because it is a male profession? If a school did that, they would have been sued for sure.

        • bunnika says:

          Please point to where anyone said “schools forbid women from taking computer science courses” or stop derailing.

          • ELogic says:

            “Women, for example, are less likely to take Computer Science courses. Not because of a lack of interest but because it’s considered a “male” profession. I can also explain part of why, there is plenty of chauvinism left in IT.” Now who’s derailing?

            • bunnika says:

              And again, who said that’s because colleges forbid women from taking the courses? You still haven’t addressed my point. It’s almost like you’re purposefully misunderstanding.

              • ELogic says:

                And again, you keep attributing to me your own faults. Ask tcraighenry what s/he means when s/he says women are less likely to take computer science classes because it is a male-dominated profession. Unless, the schools are actually preventing women from taking those courses because they are women, why wouldn’t women take those courses? Law and medicine were male-dominated professions too but now more women are getting law and medical degrees.

                • bunnika says:

                  Can you at least try to make sense? I don’t need to ask, because I understand that social pressure and the systemic devaluing of women’s contributions and abilities in this field are what tcraighenry is talking about. You keep trying to make it something it isn’t. Systemic misogyny is what keeps women out of those fields. This is not hard, try to follow.

                  Also, “s/he” is binarist. Singular “they” is appropriate.

  3. Spitphyre says:

    Thank you for posting this! It’s easier to post this link then try to explain with stuttering and pissed. ;)

    • bunnika says:

      I think sometimes that’s my primary reason for keeping this blog: To have an archive of links for when I’m just too damn upset at someone’s ignorance to properly frame a response to it. :-P

  4. evil penis says:

    You need to look up the word oppression…

    1. prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
    2. the state of being subject to such control.

    Does… being told you can’t see your own flesh and blood children (and have no say whatsoever about how they are raised) yet have to support their mother financially for 18 years, or go to debtors prison count?

    does being kidnapped, locked in a room for six months and forced to partake in a trial when you can prove that you have done nothing wrong count?

    What about women threatening to use the force of the unjust laws if you don’t do what she wants, does that count as oppression?

    Your answer will obviously be a strong NO, for whatever reason you can rationalize.

    The truth of the matter is that men are very much oppressed, but this kind of oppression doesn’t fit your own twisted world-view where women are always victims.

    Maybe you don’t HATE men, but you are certainly INDIFFERENT to male suffering.

    • bunnika says:

      Contrary to what you may believe, I am also capable of typing words into Dictionary.com.

      As this is a social justice blog, the term is used in the social justice sense. Oppression = Prejudice + Power. Women are not in power, so individual displays of prejudice are not oppression. (Before you argue that women are in power, please take a look at the government of the United States, and show me an equal number of women in office to men. I will by happy to argue this point with you when that time comes, as I imagine I won’t have much on my plate as a diembodied spirit who’s been dead for a couple hundred years.)

      I am white; if I am victimized by a person of color, it is not racism/oppression, because people of color do not have the power to oppress me. It is a demonstration of individual prejudice. Does this mean my victimization is morally right? No, but it still doesn’t make it oppression. Same thing applies with the prejudices enacted against males and other social groups in power.

      If you want to take a break from mansplaining and actually educate yourself on these matters, please feel free to visit the links embedded in this and my other blog entries; they are wonderful resources. I have also provided links below that will hopefully allow you better understanding of the faults in this argument you have made.

      http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#butbut
      http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#disbelief
      http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#conspiracy
      http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#enjoyit
      http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#false
      http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#educate2

      • pvblivs says:

             Women are in power. They always have been. The facts of the family courts as pointed out above is just one example of this. Oh there have been some men (very few) who get to put on the robes or the crowns or what have you. But that is just an illusion. These men have had all the power of the “head lapdog.”
             Misandry is, in fact a very pervasive problem. But the public has been blind to it for a long time. Now, people are starting to wake up and actually see the oppression. Misandrists don’t like that and are peddling lies to lull people back to sleep so that they can continue the oppression unabated. It won’t work.

        • bunnika says:

          NGL, I’m just publishing this 4 teh lulz.

          Because seriously: LOL.

          • pvblivs says:

                 Well, most feminists would suppress it at it speaks a truth they don’t like to admit. But if you think you can achieve deception with derisive laughter, I won’t stop you.

            • bunnika says:

              So if I don’t let you speak, I’m oppressing you. And if I let you speak, I’m oppressing you. Because my vagina makes it so.

              I want to live in your world. For now, I’ll settle for you turning in your passport so you can’t come back to mine.

              • ELogic says:

                And apparently, when men speak about their problems, they are oppressing you. When men complain about how unfair they are being treated, they are misogynists. The fact that you believe any group of people can never be victims or can never be oppressed proves that there is discrimination and oppression against that group. Anybody can be oppressed and anybody can be a victim.

                • bunnika says:

                  Victimization =/= oppression, and please point to where anyone said men cannot be victimized. No one even tells men to not speak about their problems, just to not do it in spaces specifically for women. Stop derailing.

                  • ELogic says:

                    The title of this article is “Sorry, Men You are Not Oppressed.” If someone is a victim, they are being oppressed. What makes you think you can define victimhood and oppression any way you like? You are the one who is derailing.

      • Glyth says:

        Queen Elizabeth I didn’t have power?

          • Kirk says:

            There have been women who had power. Queen Ranavalona of Madagascar tortured half of her population. History shows that when women are in power, they too can be tyrants.

            • bunnika says:

              lolmygod ELogic you actually did it. Congratulations on the sheer number of derailing comments you have managed to spew. Say something on topic or go away.

              • ELogic says:

                You asked for the relevance and I gave it to you. That was on topic. Just because you don’t like the answer and/or can’t respond to it doesn’t mean it is off topic. Remember, you started this blog. Want the comments to go away? Treat men with respect. Treat ALL humans with respect.

                • bunnika says:

                  A female leader does not a matriarchy make. So again: Relevance? You have no idea how I treat men, you’re just making ignorant assumptions because the Big Bad Feminist doesn’t wanna hear your misogynistic tripe.

                  • ELogic says:

                    When people support the matriarchal agenda, it is a matriarchy regardless of what gender is in power. So again: Relevance? You have no idea how anyone here treats men or women and you keep making ignorant assumptions about men because the Big Bad MRAs stand up to your misandrist tripe. And stop hiding behind “sociological definitions” in order to hide your misandry. “Sociological definitions” have always been tailored to support biased intentions.

                    • bunnika says:

                      And you have yet to prove that a “matriarchal agenda” is being enforced anywhere. Whereas I have provided evidence (those abortion restrictions) directly to you, explaining how women’s bodily autonomy is removed by political oppression. Not very “matriarchal,” is it?

                      I really don’t know what you’re aiming for with the “you have no idea” tangent. You don’t know how I treat men or women either, isn’t that sort of obvious? I mean seriously what a bizarre little rant. Big Bad MRAs indeed. So scawy.

      • evan says:

        “I am white; if I am victimized by a person of color, it is not racism/oppression”

        Racism is all about intent. If a person of color hurts you because you are white then you are the victim of racism. It has nothing to do with who is in power.

        Seriously, your whole premise is absurd and uneducated.

        • bunnika says:

          Intent is not magic. Google around a bit.

          The definition of racism (and all oppression) that I use is the sociological, academic definition, so it’s the exact opposite of uneducated. If you want to argue absurdity, bring it up with those folks with their doctorates in the social sciences. I’m sure you’ll fare just wonderfully.

          • ELogic says:

            That wasn’t even a valid response. Who says that people with doctorates in the social sciences are the only ones who can define racism or anything else? At one time, people with doctorates claimed that blacks had inferior minds and that women could never be athletes. At one time, people with doctorates claimed that Jews were inherently evil and corrupt. A Ph.D. after someone’s name doesn’t make them an infallible expert on anything.

            • bunnika says:

              And who says you get to define it? If I have to choose between them and you, guess who I’m picking. Point to where I said a PhD makes someone infallible, or stop derailing.

              • ELogic says:

                And who says you get to define it? You want to choose the Ph.Ds?

                Okay then…….

                “Darwin concluded that “women’s brains were analogous to those of animals,” which had “overdeveloped” sense organs “to the detriment of the brain” (Fee, 1979:418). Carl Vogt, a University of Geneva natural history professor who accepted many of “the conclusions of England’s great modern naturalist, Charles Darwin,” argued that “the child, the female, and the senile white” all had the intellect and nature of the “grown up Negro” (1863:192). Many of Darwin’s followers accepted this reasoning, including George Romanes, who concluded that evolution caused females to become, as Kevles postulated:

                . . . increasingly less cerebral and more emotional. Romanes . . . shared Darwin’s view that females were less highly evolved than males—ideas which he articulated in several books and many articles that influenced a generation of biologists.”

                There, do you believe all of the above because they came from scientists and “learned people?” Stop derailing and then accusing others of derailing.

                • bunnika says:

                  You’re completely right, that is a completely modern studyand thus completely applies to this complete situation completely with completion. You’re making my eyerolling muscles hurt, stahp.

                  • ELogic says:

                    Yes, and Darwin’s studies were “modern” at the time. Just because a PhD says something doesn’t mean that it is true and people should stand up for what’s right. Yes, common sense and intelligence do make your eyerolling muscles hurt.

  5. evil penis says:

    Ah, I see… It doesn’t fit YOUR definition, so it doesn’t count… not in the ‘social justice’ sense LOL.

    “Contrary to what you may believe, I am also capable of typing words into Dictionary.com.” – it would seem otherwise, seeing as you still insist on using your feminist definition of the word oppression that ‘teh menz can’t use cos theyz in power!’ (look up the word misandry too, it means the hatred of men, not ‘oppression’, or are men unable to be hated because of their ‘power’?)
    Power, as you put it, comes in many forms. Like the power women have over men in the family courts, nay, the family altogether. Are you going to tell me that they do not have this power? Are you saying that they do not abuse it?

    Oh no! It doesn’t count because men are ‘IN POWER’?.

    This is the same dead-head argument that racist bigots use to attack white people…
    I can call you a honky because you are ‘in power’, you can’t call me a nigger because I’m ‘oppressed’. What utter trash. You know the president is black, don’t you? Or does it only become racism when there are just as many blacks in the senate?

    And what about my case? Individual prejudice at work there?
    Erm, NO! There is a system at work to persecute (synonym of oppress, strangely) any man that has been accused of rape or DV. So by your very own mathematics… power (family court and penal system) + prejudice (anti-male bias, ritual persecution) = oppression!

    Or doesn’t that count because ‘men are in power’?

    • bunnika says:

      You have thoroughly proven your ignorant resolve to continue spewing hatred regardless of factual evidence. The social justice definition of oppression is the same definition used in colleges the world over; Sociology 101 would teach you that there is no such thing as “racist bigots [who] attack white people,” because there is no racism against white people, just prejudice. Racism = Prejudice + Power, and if you are so blind as to believe having a biracial president (oh yes, half white, funny how folks like to forget that when raging against the POC in office) magically erases white privilege, then you are a lost cause on all discussions of equality.

      The confusing reference to “your case” here seems to imply that you were accused of rape or domestic violence, which makes this exchange more than a tad creepy. Given male attitudes towards rape, this is truly disturbing, and as a rape survivor, I’m going to ask you to please stop harassing me. Continued volatile comments will be deleted.

      http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#educate

      It is not my job to continue holding your hand through basic humanitarianism, and I have no intention of doing so. Please take your vitriol elsewhere.

      • Boydnar says:

        The problem is that you are using the standards and language taught at our leftist, racist, misandric college system. Just using the term “social justice” makes normal, well-adjusted, non-indoctrinated people want to hurl. The elitist college system’s definitions of “oppression” and “racism” are completely bogus in that they are intentionally designed to preclude the linguistic possibility of the terms “racist” and “racism” from being leveled at non-whites. It’s the old liberal trick of attempting to define certain concepts out of existance by controlling the language.

        And when you spew disrespect and denegration it’s argumentation and debate, but when someone — especially a man — disagrees with you and debates effectively against your position it’s “vitriol.”

        And no matter what anyone has to say on these issues, you will always come back with some kind of pseudo know-it-all response wherein you abuse logic — by using chick logic — confuse the issue with imprecise language, and just generally prattle on ad nauseum because that’s what angry feminists do.

        Reminds me of something Bill Bennett said to jessie jerkson during a Nightline Townhall Meeting or some such. He said, “You know what the problem is? The problem is you don’t respect the evidence.”

        You and your man-hatred and this entire topic are just sooooooooo boring and tiring. Rather than dwell on this crap, I’m going to go spend the day with one of my gorgeous, blonde, Size-2 phuque buddies who is VERY comfortable with her femininity and likes me because I’m an extremely masculine counterpoint to her girliness. She loves it when I lead her, take charge of the proceedings and use her body for my pleasure. I tell her exactly what she’s going to feel and exactly when she’s going to feel it and I COMMAND her when to have orgasms, She LOVES it.

        She would never tolerate or countenance the emasculated, self-flaggellating, alan alda-type metrosexuals that agree with your PC crap. In fact, most well-adjusted women wouldn’t.

        • bunnika says:

          The problem is that you are using the standards and language taught at our leftist, racist, misandric college system.

          Please tell me where these colleges are. I want to go to there. o.o

          Just using the term “social justice” makes normal, well-adjusted, non-indoctrinated people bigots want to hurl.

          Fixed that for you.

          they are intentionally designed to preclude the linguistic possibility of the terms “racist” and “racism” from being leveled at non-whites.

          False. People of color can definitely be racist, both against POCs of a different race/ethnicity, and against themselves through internalized racism. They can’t be racist against whites because there is no systemic oppression of white people for them to feed off of.

          It’s the old liberal trick of attempting to define certain concepts out of existance by controlling the language.

          Trickery! Next thing you know, folks’ll want to reclaim the slurs people like you use against them. Oh, wait….

          And when you spew disrespect and denegration it’s argumentation and debate

          And when you compose your sentences via thesaurus.com, it’s this.

          chick logic

          Clearly somebody who uses terms like this can’t possibly be sexist, no way, nuh-uh.

          Reminds me of something Bill Bennett said to jessie jerkson during a Nightline Townhall Meeting or some such.

          And we should totally have faith in Bennett, because it’s not like he’s a disgusting racist or a misogynistic homophobe or anything. Would you like me to give you a pity *ZING* for the marvelously brilliant Jesse Jackson name-calling?

          You and your man-hatred and this entire topic are just sooooooooo boring and tiring.

          So you wasted your time to write this why, exactly?

          Rather than dwell on this crap, I’m going to go spend the day with one of my gorgeous, blonde, Size-2 phuque buddies masturbating.

          Fixed that for you.

          She would never tolerate or countenance the emasculated, self-flaggellating, alan alda-type metrosexuals that agree with your PC crap.

          I’m not much for metrosexuals or the self-flagellating type, but I gotta admit, you got me: I would totally nail Alan Alda.

          Have a good day; here’s your parting gift:

          Beware carpal tunnel!

        • pleasure_past says:

          I keep trying to come up with a better response to this than “No1curr, tho,” and I can’t. Because, seriously, no one cares. We get it. You’re super cool because you’re anti-intellectual and you have sex with conventionally attractive women. We suck because we go to/have been to college and do not have sex with… with you, I suppose, though for my part I’m pretty relieved about that. You’re bored. We’re bored. The legions of girls that you haven’t been commanding to orgasm in the time that you’ve been writing these posts are probably bored. Just go away now, because

          no1curr.

          • Boydnar says:

            Sorry, hunnybun, it is YOU who are anti-intellectual. And make no mistake about it: snotty and snyde do not constitute an intellectual or effective response. You’re so convinced of and preoccupied with your victimhood, it’s your life story and your identity. Irrespective of your self-indulgent imaginary plight, life in the real world will continue like it always has: men will do things like create heavier-than-air powered flight, split the atom, put men on the moon, design automatic transmissions, put billions of transistors on small chips of silicon . . . and women will take anti-intellectual classes about “social justice” and “gender studies” and get degrees in sociology, psychology and underwater basketweaving. Men think, women do busy work.

            • bunnika says:

              Yeah, silly anti-intellectual women, busy revolutionizing physics, writing some of the greatest works of literature ever known, and founding the Red Cross, when they should have been…basketweaving, apparently.

              There reaches a point when you should be ashamed of how ignorant you are. You leapt over that point a few thousand miles ago. Enjoy populating my block list.

              • Rachel says:

                And Ada Lovelace.

              • Harry says:

                Sorry about this, I take no stance but this statement contradicts your logic. You say these women revolutionise physics and do other important things. But you can’t deny men’s contributions are much more larger and numerous than female contributions, much and you can’t argue with that nor say anything about it. Of course female contributions can’t be denied. But you did say male rape victims shouldn’t be ignored, just it’s more important to focus on females since they’re raped more often. Thus, if you used that argument to displace males, you can’t use this female contributions because male contributions displace female contributions, in your logic. Men are oppressed, you just don’t see it. And give me a break because I’m in eighth grade.

                • bunnika says:

                  You’re comparing the wish to extinguish oppression to scientific contribution. That’s like saying we never should have abolished slavery because black people weren’t important enough in physics. Even if it wasn’t a totally false comparison (which it is) the reason women haven’t contributed more to these fields is because we have always and still do face institutional prejudice that prevents us from having the same opportunities as men. And how do we fix that? By breaking down the patriarchy, so women have equal opportunities. Back to square one.

                  • ELogic says:

                    Most men who were successful also faced institutional prejudice. Many came from poverty. But they still triumphed. For example, most jazz musicians were low-income black men and low-income immigrant white men. Yet, it was mostly upper-class white women who had training in piano, violin and other instruments during the turn of the 19th century. So, why didn’t they create new jazz music? Simple. They didn’t have the motivation. They were happy peforming for family and friends and didn’t want to spend night after night in dark, smoky jazz clubs playing music for little or even no money.

        • S. says:

          The following need to be backed up credible evidence:

          “the standards and language taught at our leftist, racist, misandric college system” (provide examples that this happens in a systematic way)

          “Just using the term “social justice” makes normal, well-adjusted, non-indoctrinated people want to hurl” (I’m not even sure how you could back this one up, but hey! Give it a try.)

          “It’s the old liberal trick of attempting to define certain concepts out of existance by controlling the language” (please demonstrate that (a) this is a documented thing that liberals do, and (b) that racism against white people is an actual problem, including sources explaining how white people have been refused voting rights/positions in political offices/basic human rights like not being property.)

          “you will always come back with some kind of pseudo know-it-all response wherein you abuse logic — by using chick logic — confuse the issue with imprecise language” (please give examples of imprecise language, and how this is confusing you.)

          “Bill Bennett said to jessie jerkson during a Nightline Townhall Meeting or some such. He said, “You know what the problem is? The problem is you don’t respect the evidence.”” (kindly provide a source for this quotation.)

          “I’m going to go spend the day with one of my gorgeous, blonde, Size-2 phuque buddies who is VERY comfortable with her femininity and likes me because I’m an extremely masculine counterpoint to her girliness” (…yeah, you can’t back this one up. Sorry.)

          “In fact, most well-adjusted women wouldn’t.” (sources sources sources. Not anecdotes, but trustworthy polls proving this.)

        • Amanda says:

          Holy shit, this comment. WTF? You do realize that your one comment just proved nearly every one of the points she made, right? Disgusting.

    • tcraighenry says:

      it would seem otherwise, seeing as you still insist on using your feminist definition of the word oppression that ‘teh menz can’t use cos theyz in power!’ (look up the word misandry too, it means the hatred of men, not ‘oppression’, or are men unable to be hated because of their ‘power’?)

      None of this actually makes any sense but I’ll give it a go. Men can’t be oppressed because they’re the dominating force. Would you say, for example, the conquistadors were oppressed because the Aztecs weren’t thrilled to have them around?

      Like the power women have over men in the family courts, nay, the family altogether. Are you going to tell me that they do not have this power? Are you saying that they do not abuse it?

      Here’s a little bit of history:
      http://www.stanford.edu/group/psylawseminar/Child%20Custody%20in%20the%20USA%20(Page%201%20of%205).htm

      To paraphrase, children were considered the property of the father until the late 19th century. Later, because the father was expected to work and bring in income, the focus changed to the mother as the primary caregiver. Because of gender roles and discrimination against women returning to the workforce, this is still very much how the courts operate. However, if roles are reversed and the woman is the primary income earner and the male is the caretaker, courts find in favor of the men.

      And what about my case? Individual prejudice at work there?
      Erm, NO! There is a system at work to persecute (synonym of oppress, strangely) any man that has been accused of rape or DV. So by your very own mathematics… power (family court and penal system) + prejudice (anti-male bias, ritual persecution) = oppression!

      This is blatanty false. The majority of rapes go unreported, for one. And the majority of rapists aren’t actually convicted. Not to mention how the courts take into consideration aspects of the woman’s history that may go back into late adolescence, regardless of when the rape took place.

      • Luke says:

        Here’s the hilarious part.

        Men or should I say, white men are only as powerful as women make them out to be. That means, since you all control how our government works now, you can decide who has power and who doesn’t. Women have every right and opportunity to move into positions of power within the government. BUT, they are not moving anywhere. That’s their choice. As its been throughout, you ladies want nothing to do with responsibility and accountability. You let men bear the burdens of power, while you all reap the benefits.

        • bunnika says:

          What benefits? Having our bodies legislated by men? Being treated like public property, like incubators or cattle? Hang on, I’m busy reaping….

          Fact is it’s still a struggle to succeed as a female in the political arena. There’s this thing called the glass ceiling, look it up. Women aren’t just sitting back, refusing to take positions of power, we’re being consciously kept from those positions of power by misogyny. Women are still painted as too “emotional” for politics, and it’s used against us in campaigns. The voting public still internalizes the misogyny that says women should be in the home, not running the world, and it’s reflected in the way people vote. Until we tear down those stereotypes, women will never have equal campaign footing.

          Oh, and Hillary 2016! ;-)

          • ELogic says:

            Well, women have controlled the vote since the late 1950s. Why don’t women vote for other women? A lot of women are not interested in entering into politics and even those who do don’t always get the votes of women. Besides, with so many men in politics furthering the cause of feminism, why would you even care if there were more women in office? Would you rather have a woman in office who doesn’t further the feminist cause or a man in office who does? Just because there are more men who hold political offices doesn’t mean that they vote for men’s issues. In fact, I have not heard any male politician claim that he stands behind men’s issues, but so many claim to stand behind women’s issues.

            • bunnika says:

              So your objection is that women don’t vote for women solely because they’re women? Because we’re so single-minded that we should do this if we want your approval? And in the era of unheard of abortion restrictions America is now in the middle of, don’t come talking to me about how men “stand behind women’s issues.” You’re just being ignorant.

              • ELogic says:

                Making up stuff because you can’t respond? When did I say that? Stop derailing. Who said that I wanted anyone to have my approval on anything? What abortion restrictions? Most states allow women to have abortions. New York City is the abortion capital of America. Then there is the birth control pill, IUDs, the female condom. Plus, women can give up the children they don’t want as long as they do it safely (Moses Law). Furthermore, women can collect welfare if they want to keep children they can’t afford. That’s all about women’s issues. Stop being ignorant.

                • bunnika says:

                  lol look who just learned the word “derailing” for the first time and keeps using it incorrectly. It’s like a puppy trying to put a baseball cap on his head. Look, he thinks he’s people.

                  Look I even found you an article with pictures so maybe you can follow it.

                  Please 2 b googling “bodily autonomy” and learning why everything in this comment is ignorant. I’ve held your hand enough for one comment.

                  • ELogic says:

                    I am using the word derailing the way you have used it, so if I am using it incorrectly as you claim, guess who established that incorrect use – you. So you are the puppy trying to put the baseball cap on his head. Read the laws that favor women and you haven’t been holding anyone hands – you have been waving your own hands around as you sink below level.

    • tcraighenry says:

      That’s not really a challenge.

    • tcraighenry says:

      That post is full of absolute bullshit.

      • Evil Penis says:

        Bullshit? This actually happened to me.

        • bunnika says:

          And I, for one, am sure you’ve deluded yourself enough to believe the blatant falsehoods you’re spewing.

          I’m going to C&P another person’s takedown of your “challenge,” because it was well-done, but I don’t think another woman deserves to be the target of your abuse, so I refuse to link her:

          So, it starts with him talking about how his mother was abused, so he has sympathy for real abuse victims, who are marginalized every time “modern hysterical feminists” claim that they’re abused.

          [Edit to clarify: He then goes on to talk about his first girlfriend in college. The person he's breaking up with here is not his mother.]

          After we broke up, by her initiation, I was very upset – you may even say distraught. I questioned my own value, my worth as a human, and contemplated suicide on more than one occasion. If you think I sound like a wuss, I make no apology,

          I don’t think you’re a “wuss.” I think you’re an emotionally abusive fuckwad. I have seen way too many guys use threats of suicide as a means of controlling my friends to react to a story like this with anything but unmitigated scorn. Sorry. Only not really.

          I discovered what people might call Game, and my social life changed dramatically. I learnt that pandering to women didn’t make them like you, that I had to be, amongst other things, more self-assured and apparently selfish, more assertive.

          *snort* I pegged you for a nice-guy. The Nice-Guydar is never wrong. Survival instinct. *shrug*

          Not one thing said by either woman could be in any way proven, in fact there was strong circumstantial evidence that it wasn’t true.

          Not that I didn’t go into this convinced that Evil Rapist Penis was guilty, but if I’d had any doubts they would be pretty much erased by the fact that he says there was evidence that it wasn’t true and not, you know, that it wasn’t true.

          I continued my job – with the support of my employers who knew that this couldn’t possibly be true of me.

          FUCKING EW. If I were a student or the parent of a student or someone who kind of sort of knew a student at the school where he taught, I would have pitched the universe’s biggest fit over a convicted rapist being allowed to remain on the staff. Seriously, in what fucking way is that even remotely okay? What the fuck?

          He then goes on to accuse his victim of harassing him.

          (who would ever wilfully go to their rapist’s house and have sex with him, months after the allegation was made?)

          Lots of people, Mr. Evil Rapist. Lots of people.

          I was remanded into custody for six months, losing my job, my career, my house, my entire life.

          IT WAS ABOUT FUCKING TIME. (Emphasis mine)

          He then goes on to list bull-shit rape culture reasons why he’s ~clearly~ innocent, with lots of BAWing about how the horrible police didn’t even consider that arresting him for rape might ruin his life and shame his family. BWA WHY DOESN’T ANYONE EVER THINK OF THE POOR RAPISTS?! I am just weeping for their plight! Weeping, I tell you!

          Also, he wants us all to understand how much his ex gained by being a rape survivor. Apparently being raped by a British man grants you automatic British citizenship, free housing, free schooling, a huge settlement, and a weekly stipend even when they throw your case out. Can you tell how much I believe this?

          However, it is the police’s DUTY to discern truth, and to protect the VICTIMS of crime. The only reason they don’t in rape cases (and those of alleged domestic violence, they are one and the same issue) is because of this unyielding pressure from fanatic man haters – feminists.

          Yup. You read that right. Feminists are the reason that victims of crime aren’t well protected. Why, if it weren’t for feminists pushing for more rape cases to be prosecuted, victims would be so much better off!

          …Wtf? Only to a MRA rapist rapist MRA does this make sense.

          ~*~*~*~*~

          I’ll simplify it for you: You repeatedly say all over your blog in a thousand different ways that a man can’t rape a spouse/partner, that a woman’s inability to escape that abusive partnership proves your case, as not burning your rapist at the stake immediately means you weren’t really raped.

          Congrats on admitting to the entire world that you’re a rapist. That is how your example of “misandry” is an example of misogyny. You’re a rapist, and you were not properly punished for your crime. That’s misogyny, plain and simple. Now welcome to my block list.

        • tcraighenry says:

          I already replied to you on your blog but half of your post is victim blaming bullshit. The rest of your blog is full of awful misogyny and racism. Grain of salt man, grain of salt.

  6. RKM says:

    The article you have written seems to be based on half baked data and does not look very well researched, it rather reeks of the classic pattern of claiming victimhood by bending facts and interpreting them from a biased point of view to suit a particular intent. On Specific points please recognise in any system a minority always requires specific attention. Your argument that only 10 % of the victims of DV are men (though the data is seriously dubious), and therefore do not require any attention is defective. It requires special attention for the fact that its ignorance has the potential of creating large resentment among both the sufferers and the non sufferers. You don’t want it to grow to lets say 50% before you decide to tackle the same. And justice must be equally accessible to all regardless of the status of majority or minority. And What makes you believe men and women can’t progress together? Atleast thats the idea you give through your article. Being a rape victim is troubling, nevertheless you got to get over it. Rape is a criminal activity and has nothing to do with equality. You have a lot of bitterness left in you.

  7. I Like Complaining says:

    But… Aren’t females more likely to abuse their partner than males are? I mean, when a man hurts a women, he’ll get fined if anyone sees it. If a female hurts a man? People will cheer her on.

    The fact that men are getting ridiculed and glossed over whenever abuse or rape comes into the picture really says something. I have people saying that being masculine is desirable while being feminine… isn’t.

    Well, if TV/books/pretty much EVERYTHING have taught me anything, it’s that women are the smart and kind ones, while men are abusive and stupid. How would you like to be switch gender roles for a while and get accused of rape and everyone buys it because you’re a male? How would you like to get raped while you switch with a man and try to report it, but NO ONE listens and just laugh it off and wind up becoming the butt of jokes?

    Women can cry and whine and no one cares. But when a man cries, everyone’s all like, “WHOA, THIS GUY’S SUCH A SISSY, LOOK AT HIM! HE’S CRYING!”

    And that thing you posted about the statistics of men? One in ten males get raped. When men get raped, it’s usually a lot more violent then when women get raped. We’ve grown to ignore men so much that criminals tend to rape men just so they won’t get in jail. And besides, it’s possible that that 10% is under-reported. But you’re all like, “OH, IF 90% ARE WOMEN, THEN OF COURSE WE SHOULD FOCUS ON THEM AND ONLY THEM!”

    Men are shown as being idiots and scumbags so much so that there is a decrease in masculinity. Boys are fearing being like the men they see on TV so much that they’re deciding to be more like women, who are always shown as being kind and nurturing.

    It’s not just women that oppress men. Men oppress men as well. Men always were the expendable gender, though. Why do you think whenever there’s a massacre, it’s usually the slaughtered women/children that get all the attention while the men are mostly ignored?

    And when you say that that’s misogyny because it shows how women are low enough to sink to their level… I’ve heard quite a different interpretation. Women are saints, and as such they’re willing to look past that blob of bumbling incompetence and respect them as human beings, and of COURSE men only want them because of how hot they are.

    Just look at VAWA, what with their stating that any sort of abuse against men isn’t nearly as important as when said abuse is directed against a women. Women want to wipe out the entire male race, women want to send men to concentration camps. Apparently, men are all pigs. The reason they talk to you is so you won’t know they’re thinking about sex. To men, sex is the most important thing ever. I forgot what page this was, but the contents were so biased and ridiculous. And those were supposed to be actual FACTS about men. No mention that most (well, 30%, but still) men don’t think about sex during the day at all.

    Seriously, there were several instances when a woman is beating the absolute hell out of a man, and once the authorities find them, it’s the man they arrest. Why? Because of course it’s the man that started it! You know, not even going into the fact that in reality, it’s usually the WOMAN that starts it. Men just don’t report it because so few people will take them seriously. Why do you think female-on-male rape/abuse is usually played for comedic purposes?

    It’s honestly disgusting that after all this time, we’re still this narrow-minded. Men act this way, women the other. I can’t wait to see what we’ll be like in, say, 2017. Will men still be neglected like this and will these double standards still exist? Or maybe it’ll be like the northern states back then where even whites were getting discriminated against. Considering what the world’s like right now, it wouldn’t be too far-fetched.

    …Oh, hey? What if a women is talking to another woman about the evils of men, and said women thinks of herself as a man? That’s called being transsexual, folks!

    • bunnika says:

      But… Aren’t females more likely to abuse their partner than males are?

      No.

      Well, if TV/books/pretty much EVERYTHING have taught me anything, it’s that women are the smart and kind ones, while men are abusive and stupid.

      I will not restate what’s already been stated in my post. Name me male heroes. Now name me females. Bechdel Test; if you’re so concerned with the amount of “stupid” men in media, how about you campaign that more women actually get featured at all?

      How would you like to be switch gender roles for a while and get accused of rape and everyone buys it because you’re a male?

      Everyone. Really? When 93.75% of rapists never go to jail? And with fine, upstanding folks like yourself to victim-blame and disbelieve female rape victims? Can I move to your world, so my rapist will magically be transported to jail? Funny thing in that fact, too; getting accused of rape? Nowhere near as horrible as actually being raped. Stop pitying your bros for a second and try to have some sympathy for the tens of millions of women in America alone who have been sexually assaulted.

      How would you like to get raped while you switch with a man and try to report it, but NO ONE listens and just laugh it off and wind up becoming the butt of jokes?

      Don’t have to switch sexes for that to happen. It’s called “victim-blaming,” and female victims–myself included!–deal with it every day.

      And that thing you posted about the statistics of men? One in ten males get raped. When men get raped, it’s usually a lot more violent then when women get raped. We’ve grown to ignore men so much that criminals tend to rape men just so they won’t get in jail. And besides, it’s possible that that 10% is under-reported. But you’re all like, “OH, IF 90% ARE WOMEN, THEN OF COURSE WE SHOULD FOCUS ON THEM AND ONLY THEM!”

      More violent? Talking out of your ass. But, focusing on men? Alright, good point! So, let’s focus on the men, like, say, the rapists. Because 99% of rapists are men. Yes, that includes rapes of men (well over 90% of male rape is by other males). Of total rapes, ~0.5% is female-on-male. Well obviously, we women need to STFU about our problems, clearly.

      Men are shown as being idiots and scumbags so much so that there is a decrease in masculinity. Boys are fearing being like the men they see on TV so much that they’re deciding to be more like women, who are always shown as being kind and nurturing.

      Even if I believed that (and you’re just so good about providing reputable reference studies, how could I not?)…so? Gender =/= equal sex, and children of either sex should be encouraged to identify with whatever gender they identify with. I’m genderqueer. Please attempt to be less bigoted.

      It’s not just women that oppress men. Men oppress men as well.

      Fixed that for you.

      Why do you think whenever there’s a massacre, it’s usually the slaughtered women/children that get all the attention while the men are mostly ignored?

      Have you paid attention to news stories not about the Titanic? Because I don’t know where you’re getting that in the first place. Regardless, how about you tell me why the rapes of women, which almost invariably go hand-in-hand with such “massacres” you’re eluding to, don’t get any attention at all? Oh yeah. Women, being raped, no need to talk about that.

      I’ve heard quite a different interpretation. Women are saints, and as such they’re willing to look past that blob of bumbling incompetence and respect them as human beings, and of COURSE men only want them because of how hot they are.

      Clearly you need better friends.

      Women want to wipe out the entire male race, women want to send men to concentration camps. Apparently, men are all pigs.

      Gotcha covered on that stereotype already.

      Seriously, there were several instances when a woman is beating the absolute hell out of a man, and once the authorities find them, it’s the man they arrest.

      Sources?

      Why do you think female-on-male rape/abuse is usually played for comedic purposes?

      I don’t even want to know what comedies you watch.

      It’s honestly disgusting that after all this time, we’re I’M still this narrow-minded.

      Fixed that for you too.

      maybe it’ll be like the northern states back then where even whites were getting discriminated against.

      You know, if I’d read all the way to this line before drafting a response, I wouldn’t have even given you one. So, thus far, we’ve got a metric ton of misogyny, and now a healthy dose of racism. Well you’re just a bundle of joy, aren’t you?

      What if a women is talking to another woman about the evils of men, and said women thinks of herself as a man? That’s called being transsexual, folks!

      OH. Transphobia. Just had to make it a trifecta, didn’t you? Congratulations: I’m officially publishing your comment just so the world can see how disgustingly prejudiced you are. No further bigoted comments will be published. Have a lovely evening!

    • tcraighenry says:

      But… Aren’t females more likely to abuse their partner than males are? I mean, when a man hurts a women, he’ll get fined if anyone sees it. If a female hurts a man? People will cheer her on.

      [Citation Needed]

      The fact that men are getting ridiculed and glossed over whenever abuse or rape comes into the picture really says something. I have people saying that being masculine is desirable while being feminine… isn’t.

      Yep.

      Well, if TV/books/pretty much EVERYTHING have taught me anything, it’s that women are the smart and kind ones, while men are abusive and stupid. How would you like to be switch gender roles for a while and get accused of rape and everyone buys it because you’re a male? How would you like to get raped while you switch with a man and try to report it, but NO ONE listens and just laugh it off and wind up becoming the butt of jokes?

      Wait, so you admit there’s sexism in society that prevents male victims of violence from coming forward but in the same paragraph ask us how it would feel for us not to be perceived as inherently vulnerable?

      Men are also portrayed as 3 dimensional heroes. See: most films.

      Statistics and facts don’t support your claim that rape victims are automatically given a pass. And honestly, what you claim is so unfair to men happens to women all the time.

  8. Man says:

    Wow this is really a man-hating blog. I could go on about the many social injustices for men but you obviously don’t care, are blind, or just hateful. Stop for a moment gathering every outdated or one-sided “studies” that cater to your opinions or even mine and just open your eyes and look around you. If you can’t even try to put yourself in the other person’s shoes then you have no right to even speak on this matter. Yes, women suffered oppression in the past and in some places today but so have men. Does this men we should act as if they are evil and their feelings don’t matter? Let’s get real for a moment, you’re white…and before you go throwing the “your just a racist” card, think about this. Every single race on this planet at one time or another has been oppressed by white people. Does that mean we should ignore any kind of injustice aimed towards white people? I’m sure you don’t feel that way. I know people never want to admit when they’re wrong and i’m sure you’ll find some clever way of telling me why i’m completely wrong and you’re 100% right but when you’re alone with your thoughts you should at least be able to admit that maybe you’re being a little one-sided.

    • bunnika says:

      Wow this is really a man-hating blog.

      http://bunnika.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/the-man-hating-feminazi/

      Stop for a moment gathering every outdated or one-sided “studies” that cater to your opinions or even mine and just open your eyes and look around you.

      Because you’ve provided such amazing citations to refute them? Scare quotes don’t change the legitimacy of my sources.

      If you can’t even try to put yourself in the other person’s shoes then you have no right to even speak on this matter.

      Pot: Hey Kettle…you’re black!

      Does this men we should act as if they are evil and their feelings don’t matter?

      Point me to a single place where I’ve said men are evil. In fact, I campaign on behalf of males: http://bunnika.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/youre-not-cutting-my-sons/ If I thought men were evil, I’d sit back and hope for more accidental penile amputations.

      Let’s get real for a moment, you’re white…and before you go throwing the “your just a racist” card, think about this. Every single race on this planet at one time or another has been oppressed by white people. Does that mean we should ignore any kind of injustice aimed towards white people? I’m sure you don’t feel that way.

      First, do not presume to be “sure” how I feel or do not feel. You are in fact quite wrong. I am white, and that privilege is a very real, unavoidable fact of my life, which is why I actively work to not be racist. I am not always successful; the bitter truth of privilege is that it blinds you to many sometimes subtle ways that you oppress minorities, which is why you need to sit down and listen when such a minority says, “You’re oppressing me. That thing you said/did was racist/misogynistic/homophobic/etc.” You are demonstrating a pointed refusal to do so, which is why your misogyny goes unchecked. And yes, this comment was racist.

      Your scenario is entirely faulty. Injustice toward anyone should not be ignored–if a white person gets assaulted, robbed, etc., they deserve justice. The problem is, you don’t seem to understand what “injustice” means. You’re using it here to mean a white person on the recieving end of racially-based injustice, ie someone being racist against them. Racism against white people is a myth. People of color may hold prejudices against white people, but first of all, those are the justified, natural response to their persecution at the hands of white people. (And no, I don’t blame people of color who hate me for my whiteness. I may be sad that someone wouldn’t choose to get to know me, but I know it is not my place to demand that from them, when the very existence of my privilege has a direct negative impact on their lives. Until more white people stop whining about this horrible “injustice” and start actively challenging our privilege, we will always oppress racial minorities, and that is a justifiable reason to be angry.) Secondly, as people of color do not hold authoritative power over white people, it is not in any way comparable to the prejudices held against people of color. The nasty -isms of the world are more than just prejudice, they’re prejudice held by those with the power to institutionally oppress those they are prejudiced against. So no, I absolutely do not think any progress toward racial equality will ever be made by worrying about how Poor Ol’ Whitey is going to fare. I’ve matured past the point of selfishness that inspired me to think that my minor encounters with racial prejudice as a white person are in any way comparable to those suffered by people of color, which is why I shut the fuck up about my white problems in discussions of racial equality. In case I’m not being clear enough here, white people in this scenario are equal to men–they are the people in power in this social dynamic, and just as I don’t want people worrying about my white self, and I don’t think I should be all in a tizzy about it either, I don’t think men who even pretend to desire gender/sex equality should be spending so much time whining, “Yes, but what about me?” It’s selfish, immature, and bigoted.

      http://bunnika.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/overstepping-allies/
      http://bunnika.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/youve-got-some-splaining-to-do/

      i’m sure you’ll find some clever way of telling me why i’m completely wrong and you’re 100% right

      Probably. Let’s try these:

      http://bunnika.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/grade-school-logic/
      http://bunnika.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/but-but-but-lesbians/

      when you’re alone with your thoughts you should at least be able to admit that maybe you’re being a little one-sided.

      When I’m alone with my thoughts I’m secure in the knowledge that I’m actively challenging my privilege and working to not be a bigot. You can’t possibly have the same comfort, unless ignorance truly is bliss.

    • tcraighenry says:

      Yes, women suffered oppression in the past and in some places today but so have men.

      Male PoC, certainly and that’s a massive social injustice. But even then, men have much more power. I don’t think bunnika is dismissing racism at all.

      Let’s get real for a moment, you’re white…and before you go throwing the “your just a racist” card, think about this. Every single race on this planet at one time or another has been oppressed by white people. Does that mean we should ignore any kind of injustice aimed towards white people?

      Here’s the thing, “white people” have an advantage because of racism. Read unpacking the invisible knapsack and you’ll get an idea.

      You’re so contradictory in what you’re saying. Please give us examples of how white people are oppressed.

      As a side note, it’s “you’re” it’s a contraction for “you are.”

      You really need to flesh out your ideas (in that case your was not a contraction.)

  9. Cvija says:

    Go to youtube, type in “girlwriteswhat”, watch every one of her videos (actually even a single one will do), then try and say Misandry is a joke with a straight face.

    • bunnika says:

      I have watched her videos already, and find them beyond faulty into the outright ridiculous. Misandry is not a “joke,” it’s an invention used to ignore the fact that men (as a social group, not individual men who may belong to other oppresed minorities) are only oppressed by their own misogyny. Because then, to correct male oppression, men would have to allow women equality as well, which would destroy the status quo and deprive them of their privilege in far more arenas than those through which they are oppressed. Women who embrace the concept of misandry are suffering from internalized misogyny, which is far easier to deal with than acknowledging how oppressed we really are. I used to do the same thing, and it was disheartening and depressing when I started to remove my blinders. But while ignorance may be bliss, it’s also wilfully oppressive and cruel.

      Also: http://derailingfordummies.com/#backup

  10. I’m not too surprised by what I see here. Mountains upon mountains of fact-twisting, rationalization, and womansplaining.

    You say that being accused of rape is nowhere near as bad as being raped. That is a very biased, uninformed point of view. A few years ago, a friend of mine was falsely accused of rape. He talked to his girlfriend about it; she’d once been raped, and he found out that he was going through all the emotions she’d felt. There were two key differences, though: she had therapists, police, pro bono lawyers, social workers, and family members–a veritable army–mobilizing to help her cope, and to bring her rapist to justice. Her boyfriend, on the other hand, had only me, her, his family, and the one lawyer his parents could afford on his side. The other key difference was that while her identity as an accuser was never revealed to the public, her boyfriend’s name was plastered all over local newspapers, the radio, and in volumes upon volumes of hate mail sent to him. Later, when he was acquitted, feminist groups used his case to demonstrate the bullshit statistic about so many rapists being acquitted, and the general public bought it. They hounded him even more, they sent him more hate mail, and they treated him like the scum of the earth. Two months later, he shot himself in the head.

    On the subject of domestic violence, you claim that violence against men is not worthy of attention, and that violence against women is treated with apathy. Both of those are the opposite of reality. Up until the early twentieth century, wife-beaters (convicted and suspected) were routinely subject to tar and featherings, and public floggings. In the Middle Ages in France, men beaten by their wives were dressed in women’s clothing, seated backwards on donkeys, and paraded through the town square; in England, such men were tied to the backs of carts and had garbage thrown at them. Feminists make the problem worse by not bringing the problem of abused men into the public eye, which reinforces the assumption that violence against men is rare (it is NOT). Here is what a friend of mine, who considers himself a feminist, has to say on the subject: “A battered husband’s reality is calling the local safe house and being told they don’t provide services to men, then calling Catholic Social Services and being treated like a perpetrator instead of a victim/survivor. It’s going to one’s pastor for help and being yelled at and told that one has not been abused and doesn’t know what abuse is. It’s calling the police and being disbelieved and ridiculed. And it’s having one’s white male privilege used against him to justify all these nefarious behaviors.” I know that he was telling the truth about every single one of these instances. You know how? Because he was my father, and I witnessed not only his abuse at the hands of my mother, but also everything he describes.

    Finally, consider this: Women constitute, at bare minimum, sixteen percent of murderers. Texas executes more people than any other state in the U.S. (around 300 per year). Even so, Texas has only executed one woman since the Civil War, and that was because she ASKED for the Death Penalty. Men who murder women are also more likely to be executed than men who murder men, just as black men who murder white men are more likely to be executed than white men who murder black men.

    You define oppression as something done by society to target groups. I have just provided three examples of misandry in which society is DIRECTLY to blame.

    Let’s see you rationalize your way out of this one.

    • bunnika says:

      You want to draw me into a game of “my anecdata is better than your anecdata” because it derails from the actual discussion, wherein I presented facts, studies, and statistics. But I won’t let myself get trapped in that infinite loop of ignorant storytelling, because I know precisely how pointless it is.

      A person can have anecdotes that support whatever bigoted opinion they wish to have. I used to have stories about the “reverse racism” I suffered as a white person in an area dominated by people of color. I’d use it to justify saying that affirmative action is bullshit, that the poverty gap between races was about personal drive and not systemic racism, and that white people were on the receiving end of racism just as often as people of color.

      To summarize, I was a racist dillhole.

      No matter how many stories I had of how “this black person was mean to me this one time because I’m white,” it didn’t magically imbue people of color with the power to oppress me. I had white privilege, I have white privilge, I will always have white privilege, because I don’t see racism magically ending within my lifetime. Even if I was beaten to death by a group of POCs purely for being white, it wouldn’t change the reality that I wasn’t suffering racism–only violence based on individual prejudice–because white people do not experience racism. Period. Racism/sexism/*any*-ism = Prejudice + Power. -Isms are institutional oppression rooted in prejudice, and the people with that institutional power are almost entirely straight, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied, Christian males. As a social group, POCs do not have power. As a social group, women do not have power. The list goes on, and hopefully you don’t need all of it spelled out for you.

      All the disbelief that male victims of rape and domestic violence suffer is rooted in misogyny. You want people to start believing men when they report rape or abuse? Start supporting the feminist movement. Otherwise, you’re digging your own grave.

      http://bunnika.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/the-man-hating-feminazi/
      http://bunnika.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/but-but-but-lesbians/
      http://bunnika.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/weve_been_violated_enough/

      • I presented you solid data at the end: the fact that men receive much harsher punishments than women who commit the same crimes. And you ignored it. Surprise, surprise.

        The DV-related story I provided probably did need some context, so here it is: in relationships, women are every bit as violent as men. Source: Fiebert MS. References examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners: An
        annotated bibliography. Long Beach, CA: Department of Psychology, California State University,
        2009. http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

        And why the hell is that second link of yours there? I didn’t say a damn word about lesbians. But, I think I will, now that you bring it up. Nothing personal, but the fact that domestic violence is so high among lesbians disproves the absurd notion that the “patriarchy” is somehow behind domestic violence. Source: Lie G, Schilit R, Bush J, Montague M, Reyes L. Lesbians in currently aggressive relationships:
        How frequently do they report aggressive past relationships? Violence and Victims Vol. 6, 1991.
        pp. 121–135.

        As for the rape one, check the damn laws yourself. Rape Shield laws do exist, and they protect the identities of the accusers, but not the accused, which is a violation of Presumption of Innocence.

        There. Facts.

        • bunnika says:

          “And why the hell is that second link of yours there?” he asked without bothering to click or read.

          All you’ve done is prove that you aren’t actually paying attention to anything I’ve sourced, so your comments are pointless. “I’m going to tell you how you’re totally wrong, even though I haven’t read any of your supplied sources and blatantly misread, skipped, or ignored parts of your post as I saw fit.” FFS, this is not how adults manage debate, and I’m tired of debating with children. You can return to your mancaves together for the evening, wanking together over your combined joy of having completely ignored a woman for the millionth time in your lives.

          Have a lovely evening.

          • Sally says:

            Your ignoring them, dumb ignorant jerk! You’re a hypocrite and a joke! Do us a favor and stay off our side, ugly, nasty excuse for a woman! No wonder you have nothing better to do, but shout sexism while you’re doing it!

            • bunnika says:

              “Our” side? No feminist would call a radfem an “ugly, nasty excuse for a woman!” so I highly doubt we’re on the same “side.” If you are female and consider physical sexes “sides,” then by all means, go stand with the rest of the MRAs as they strip your sex of their rights.

            • tcraighenry says:

              Again with the sexism. Insulting a woman physically because you disagree with her is sexist.

    • tcraighenry says:

      You say that being accused of rape is nowhere near as bad as being raped. That is a very biased, uninformed point of view. A few years ago, a friend of mine was falsely accused of rape. He talked to his girlfriend about it; she’d once been raped, and he found out that he was going through all the emotions she’d felt.

      1. Was your friend falsely accused? Really? Or is that just what he told you?

      2. Being physically violated it far worse than being falsely accused.

      There were two key differences, though: she had therapists, police, pro bono lawyers, social workers, and family members–a veritable army–mobilizing to help her cope, and to bring her rapist to justice.

      It’s nice to know this happens sometimes!

      Her boyfriend, on the other hand, had only me, her, his family, and the one lawyer his parents could afford on his side.

      He also had access to a court appointed attorney.

      Later, when he was acquitted, feminist groups used his case to demonstrate the bullshit statistic about so many rapists being acquitted, and the general public bought it. They hounded him even more, they sent him more hate mail, and they treated him like the scum of the earth. Two months later, he shot himself in the head.

      A lack of mental health resources is a massive problem. Not to mention our justice system isn’t set up to rehabilitate. Men are also less likely to confess to issues with mental health due to the stigma of “crazy” (a woman’s problem.)

      Up until the early twentieth century, wife-beaters (convicted and suspected) were routinely subject to tar and featherings, and public floggings.

      This is fundamentally untrue. Up until and into the 20th century women were still seen as property of their fathers and then husbands. Read up on the rule of thumb.

      The reason your “feminist” friend points those things out is because men aren’t seen as being victims and won’t admit it. It feminizes them, which is one of the worst things that can happen. (See your example above of men being dressed in women’s clothes.) It’s due to discrimination and sexism.

      Finally, consider this: Women constitute, at bare minimum, sixteen percent of murderers. Texas executes more people than any other state in the U.S. (around 300 per year). Even so, Texas has only executed one woman since the Civil War, and that was because she ASKED for the Death Penalty. Men who murder women are also more likely to be executed than men who murder men, just as black men who murder white men are more likely to be executed than white men who murder black men.

      Again, another form of sexism. Due to the perception that women are caretakers by nature, we’re also seen as being incapable of evil.

  11. Cappy says:

    It’s a religion. It’s talking to a fundamentalist Christian. It’s talking to someone who just “doesn’t get it”. Who can’t. Who has made her religion such a part of her being that there’s really no point in discussion anymore. It’s like talking a suicide bomber down. It’s not happening.

    The latest justification for why her hatred is okay and a man hating her is wrong (Because black people can’t be racist, only white people can) is just her means of setting the bar further back and maintaining the illusion of victimhood. A simple thought experiment crushes her argument.

    Based on her premise as soon as Black People had the thinnest advantage over White People white people would cease to be racist and Black People would become racist.

    Does this seem like insanity? It is. It’s actual insanity. But she can’t see it. If you were to stick her in front of a creationist she would accuse them of being batshit nuts and completely out of touch with reality while missing the joke. She’s no different from them. And just like them she can’t see it. Even as she reads this (assuming she does) she still can’t see it. Her mind will twist it just like the Creationist finds a warped justification for why dinosaur bones are “tricks of the devil”.

    She’s the Fundamentalist. And you can’t wash her insanity away. You can’t talk her down. You can’t explain your perspective. She loves her god simply far too much.

    She can’t see. She’s reading this RIGHT NOW and still won’t see it. Won’t actually question herself. She can’t. She’ll villify, and hate, and shriek and all the rest. But what she won’t do is think.

    • bunnika says:

      http://bunnika.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/the-man-hating-feminazi/

      I’m not going to lose any sleep because you and people like you misunderstand me.

      /shriek

      • Cappy says:

        Yeah… it’s “misunderstanding” that’s right. *comforts you, offers sympathy* It’s just… a misunderstanding. It has nothing to do with your views, or your arguments or the implied horror behind them that you don’t see. It’s just… misunderstanding. You’re a tragic victimized figure in this cruel cruel world.

        Oh christ, spare me.

        You’re like every other persecuted religious nutjob, you just don’t have the sand to admit it.

        • bunnika says:

          I didn’t say it was an accidental misunderstanding; I’m well aware that your ignorance is purposeful. You don’t have to keep proving it.

          Much as I’m sure you’d like to continue commenting along this same path of maturity, I’m cutting it off before you hit, “Neener neener, girls are poopy-heads!” Have a lovely evening.

    • tcraighenry says:

      The latest justification for why her hatred is okay and a man hating her is wrong (Because black people can’t be racist, only white people can) is just her means of setting the bar further back and maintaining the illusion of victimhood. A simple thought experiment crushes her argument.

      There’s no illusion.

      The rest of this comment is ridiculous hyperbole.

  12. Sally says:

    Misandry is anything but a myth. Your double standards & hatred for the male gender is clear not only from your ignorant “blog” (really, gender hatred spewing vice,) but also from your intolerance of profanity coming from someone seriously offended by your bigotry vs. someone who agrees with your hate speech. Don’t kid yourself that what you have written is not only a moronic lie to cover your abusive and biased manipulation of facts, but an outright attempt to cover from what has become a nazi-styled, propaganda dazed cover for a movement claiming victimology is an excuse for hatred, abuse, discrimination, sexism & disgust! You are a gross person deluded into thinking your deception is somehow reality! Grow up!!!!

    • tcraighenry says:

      Never bring Nazis into anything. Misandry is not the Holocaust.

    • bunnika says:

      I don’t object to profanity. I object to slurs, and profanity that uses social oppression (such as gendered slurs).

      But I guaran-damn-tee you I have no goddamn problem with any fucking slurs that any shitstain douchenozzle should choose to fucking spew. I just think it’s pretty telling when people can’t comment with actual substance. Sort of like calling someone calling someone an “ugly, nasty excuse for a woman” rather than actually presenting an argument.

  13. Sally says:

    I would almost want to bet that what is written here, by you, is just to create more dislike for ignorant and biased against feminism by your lack of understanding. Sexism is a two way street just as there are 2 sexes. Are you really this stupid? Please do tell because you stink & your sexism just seems too stupid to be real!

    • bunnika says:

      I almost want to believe that what you’ve commented here is because you’re a man.

      But I have the distinct impression that you’ve simply internalized horrible amounts of misogyny, and I hope you find your way out of that, sincerely.

      • Dentie says:

        “I almost want to believe that what you’ve commented here is because you’re a man.”

        Oh, look, assuming one is male because they don’t agree with you.

        Totally, totally not sexism.

        • bunnika says:

          “Almost want to believe you are” translates into “are” for you? Do you understand nothing of nuance? Let me help: There’s a difference between assuming one is a man, and not wanting to believe a woman could be so self-hating. Clear?

  14. Vlad says:

    Your characterization of misandry, misogyny and racism are all wrong. You assume misogyny and racism are only propagated by the majority i.e. white males. However, there are plenty of women who hate women, would you not consider that misogyny? At the very least I don’t see how female misogyny wouldn’t exacerbate the current state of affairs. Also, are minorities themselves not capable of racism? You claim that racism is prejudice plus power, but your claim seems to only point the finger at whites. It is possible that Blacks, Asians etc. may foster racist feelings towards each other and for that matter Whites as well. Being mistreated on account of your race is hurtful no matter who is on the other end. Hatred is hatred, period. Therefore, a hatred of men is entirely plausible and, as many would argue, real.

    • tcraighenry says:

      It’s called internalized misogyny.

    • bunnika says:

      Hatred does not equal oppression. Prejudice does not equal oppression. That said:

      Yes, women can be misogynists; as pointed out already, it’s called internalized misogyny. Look it up.

      Yes, minority races can be racist against one another (and can demonstrate internalized racism). For example, black native-born Americans can be racist against Hispanic immigrants, because they have power as American citizens. But no amount of prejudice or hatred against white people can make “racism” against white people real, for the dynamic I already outlined, that you quoted.

      Hurtful things are awful, and should not happen. Hate should not be perpetuated. But if you really want hate to stop, the key is to confront and reject your own social privileges, so that oppression and the resulting bitterness can find a way to end.

  15. Chris says:

    Misandry is not really about oppression so much as it is about the villifying of men and angelization of women. I am aware of the oppression against women and it definatley needs to stop. But not at the expense of spreading Misandry, which is the feminist’s primary tool. Can you prove to me that schools, courts, and society (in general) is not all about protecting and helping women, all while bad-mouthing and discriminating against primarily men. Were is prostate cancer support? Where is VAMA?

    “Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence
    Daniel J. Whitaker, Tadesse Haileyesus, Monica Swahn, Linda S. Saltzman
    American Journal of Public Health: May 2007, Vol. 97, No. 5, pp. 941-947
    This was a large scale study of domestic violence by Daniel J. Whitaker in which he talked about the perpetrators of nonreciprocal domestic violence. Daniel J. Whitaker is a PHD in Social Psychology who leads numerous studies in violence in relationships, gangs, and violence against children.”

    I don’t want to mock you, I believe you are very firey, witty, and passionate. However, there are so many men out there that suffer from the physical and psychological aspects of being men, how about our soldiers for example? Primarily men dying on the battle field protecting their country, their wives and even more precious, their children. The soldier pays the ultimate price for you and he can only come home to cold-hearted feminism and their feminized daddy-hating children. I see huge amounts of money poured into women’s acts and veterans on the street asking passing cars for some cash donations to buy food… Feminism has long been in the spot-light, constantly studied and implemented in schools failing boys and supporting girls. Before, you go on to the fact that schools don’t fail boys, I got my test ripped up by my highschool teacher for making an insensitive remark to a girl, yet before that, the very same teacher passed the same girl by after she said to me that I was so fat that she was surprized I could fit in the hall way… You do need statistics to prove female oppression now adays, I try to find it, but can’t seem to find much left. You do not need statistics to prove that there is(primarily) male discrimination. I challenge you, find me studies that disprove Misandry, because I cannot find any.

    • tcraighenry says:

      Misandry is not really about oppression so much as it is about the villifying of men and angelization of women.

      1. I’m not sure angelization is a word
      2. If this is actually happening (and it isn’t) think about why an angel would be a feminine archtype. Pure, caretaker, incapable of evil, non-aggressive….

      But not at the expense of spreading Misandry, which is the feminist’s primary tool.

      Misandry is absolutely not a feminist’s primary tool. It totally devalues the whole feminist movement to put one attribute on it. For one, it’s very diverse with many diverse voices. Two, actual foils for feminism are legislation and education.

      Were is prostate cancer support? Where is VAMA?
      Prostate cancer support: http://www.prostatecancersupport.org/
      I don’t know what VAMA is.

      However, there are so many men out there that suffer from the physical and psychological aspects of being men, how about our soldiers for example?

      Female and male. Not to mention rape culture in the military.

      The soldier pays the ultimate price for you and he can only come home to cold-hearted feminism and their feminized daddy-hating children.

      Female and male.

      I see huge amounts of money poured into women’s acts and veterans on the street asking passing cars for some cash donations to buy food

      Homelessness is a massively complex problem. For one, the lack of affordable housing in many cities. For another a lack of addiction and mental health resources. For another another, a lack of economic opportunity for unskilled or blue collar workers. (Since the industrial economy took a massive hit.)

      I got my test ripped up by my highschool teacher for making an insensitive remark to a girl, yet before that, the very same teacher passed the same girl by after she said to me that I was so fat that she was surprized I could fit in the hall way

      There are assholes everywhere.

      You do need statistics to prove female oppression now adays, I try to find it, but can’t seem to find much left. You do not need statistics to prove that there is(primarily) male discrimination. I challenge you, find me studies that disprove Misandry, because I cannot find any.

      You wouldn’t see it, you’re a white male.

      • bunnika says:

        “VAMA” is an invented MRA favorite. Because VAWA (the Violence Against Women Act) is, in their minds, not something good that gives women a resource when misogyny forces them into abusive, subservient, dependent roles, but rather a demonstration of how the entire world caters to women. Hence, why there is no “Violence Against Men Act.”

        The underlying implication that protecting female victims of domestic violence is inappropriate is just…all sorts of gross.

        • ELogic says:

          So why not protect all victims of domestic violence, including men? What if there was an act called the “Violence Against White People Act?” Wouldn’t you demand that it be changed to the “Violence Against People Act?” The underlying implication that protecting male victims of domestic violence is inappropriate is what is all sorts of gross.

          • bunnika says:

            No one is arguing that male victims of domestic violence should be thrown to the wolves. But men are, by and large, in more secure situations to obtain help when violence occurs. Women are more likely to be financially dependent on their male partners, leaving them in precarious position to try and escape, which is why shelters for women abound more than those for men. Advocating for women is not the same thing as telling men to fuck off, you need to learn that. But since men advocate for themselves specifically by throwing women under the bus, I understand why that’s hard for you.

            I’d demand that it be changed to the “Violence Against People of Color Act.” Because white people do not experience the hate crimes that people of color do. Does it mean white people are never victims of violence? Hello, I’m a white survivor of violence. But I don’t need protection for being white.

            • ELogic says:

              Most people of color are victims of other people of color. And when you pass an act that punishes violence against a group of people, you are sending the message that anyone who is not a member of that group shouldn’t be protected from violence. No one should be the victim of hate crimes and all people deserve protection from hate crimes. Since women are more likely to kill children, does that mean we should pass an act called Violence Against Children by Women Act, where men and children can file lawsuits against women for any violent acts that women commit against children but no one should be allowed to file such lawsuits against men? You say you don’t need protection for being white? Read this:http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/black-on-white-violence-the-forgotten-victims/

              • bunnika says:

                These laws are about protecting those most victimized, not punishing specific attackers, so you’re “VACWA” thing is just ridiculous. And no, I don’t need protection for being white, and your racist ass isn’t going to convince me I do.

  16. Chris says:

    P.S. I love your hair color and green eyes. btw. You are undoughtly a stunning sight.

  17. chris says:

    Misandry is very real, just open your pretty, green eyes a little wider… Its much more common than mysogyny and it (in most cases) may not oppress men, but it does pose a psychological problem and can cause a great lowered self-esteem. The fact is men, especially younger ones, feel like they are villified by feminism and as a result put themselves, not at an equal ground with women, but at a lower ground. Look at the big picture, feminism makes men feel bad about their own kind, it does not oppress them in political terms, but it can depress them and cause a higher sense of anxiety… I don’t care if you delete me from this stupid blog… I just want you to look at unbiased studies instead of feminist ranting…

    “Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence
    Daniel J. Whitaker, Tadesse Haileyesus, Monica Swahn, Linda S. Saltzman
    American Journal of Public Health: May 2007, Vol. 97, No. 5, pp. 941-947
    This was a large scale study of domestic violence by Daniel J. Whitaker in which he talked about the perpetrators of nonreciprocal domestic violence. Daniel J. Whitaker is a PHD in Social Psychology who leads numerous studies in violence in relationships, gangs, and violence against children.”

  18. chris says:

    I dont think you understand Misandry as it currently has not much to do with male oppression as it does with male discrimination. I have researched many articles written by P.H.D.s that pretty much state that misandry is a quickly escalating social problem. It makes me feel bad and insulted when domestic violence is only asscociated with women being battered by men when men are just as battered as women.

    “Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence
    Daniel J. Whitaker, Tadesse Haileyesus, Monica Swahn, Linda S. Saltzman
    American Journal of Public Health: May 2007, Vol. 97, No. 5, pp. 941-947
    This was a large scale study of domestic violence by Daniel J. Whitaker in which he talked about the perpetrators of nonreciprocal domestic violence. Daniel J. Whitaker is a PHD in Social Psychology who leads numerous studies in violence in relationships, gangs, and violence against children.”

    Where is VAMA? Where is Prostate cancer funding? “What we have here is failiure to communicate…” Men do not speak out about the discrimination that they face, and that is well known. I have studied Misandry for two years now and have found no study ever disproving it… I challenge you to find me articles that do this… btw. If you kick me out for what ever reason, it only proves that you are the ignorant one. I can see that women face oppression. I love and respect women for the good they have done… But women that spread their contempt for men is unacceptable… Women like you terrify me, you are young, beautifull, firey, and intelligent… But your thoughts are like an erroneous as a corrupted file…

    • bunnika says:

      I’m replying to all of these comments as one. (I also came back through to edit in some helpful links for you! You’re welcome. :-D)

      I am aware of the oppression against women and it definatley needs to stop.

      Maybe your first step in helping that stop can be to stop talking over a feminist blogger about how men have it so much worse in this world. (Hint: They don’t.)

      http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2011/12/29/why-yes-but-is-the-wrong-response-to-misogyny/

      Misandry, which is the feminist’s primary tool

      According to whom, exactly? Misogynists. I don’t use “misandry,” and I’m a very radical feminist. Unless, of course, you consider it misandry to call out misogyny. Which most MRAs do, because it’s the most convenient Catch-22 they can create, allowing them to completely ignore legitimate discourse.

      Can you prove to me that schools, courts, and society (in general) is not all about protecting and helping women, all while bad-mouthing and discriminating against primarily men.

      Yes. Read the dozens of links I have shared all over this blog.

      Were is prostate cancer support?

      Many of the campaigns used to garner support for breast cancer are misogynistic, and I don’t approve of them. All the “I LOVE BOOBIES” and “Save the ta-tas!” campaigns are disgusting, objectifying women (and a part of our bodies often lost to the cancer it claims to campaign for, at that) for public, misogynistic pleasure, while companies like Susan G. Komen make a point of not only wasting their money on frivolities and further misogynistic objectification, but also stripping women of legitimate medical care because of a misogynistic political agenda. If you lost your testicles to cancer, would you love to have hordes of women brandishing “SAVE THE BALLS!” merchandise?

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/susan-g-komen-stops-planned-parenthood-funding-who-does-the-decision-hurt-more/2012/02/01/gIQAEvdLiQ_story.html

      http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/292634/20120203/susan-g-komen-donation-cuts-planned-parenthood.htm

      Where is VAMA?

      Where is the societal oppression that makes it difficult to impossible for male victims of domestic violence to escape their abusers? Where’s the society where women control men’s lives, able to force them into staying in abusive relationships at an astronomically higher rate than women? It doesn’t exist. That’s why VAMA is unnecessary.

      how about our soldiers for example? Primarily men dying on the battle field protecting their country

      How about the military stops discriminating against female soldiers and allows them front-line positions like it does men?

      I see huge amounts of money poured into women’s acts and veterans on the street asking passing cars for some cash donations to buy food…

      So you see more homeless veterans than homeless women? You have a narrow scope of vision indeed. Homeless women in my own city are discriminated against, with three times as many beds in homeless shelters being made available to men.

      http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-10-25/news/bs-md-ci-homeless-discrimination-20111025_1_homeless-women-beds-city-shelter

      Feminism has long been in the spot-light, constantly studied and implemented in schools failing boys and supporting girls.

      Proof? I was sexually harassed on a daily basis in high school, including by male teachers. I suffered multiple sexual assaults on school property before even having my first kiss. And administrators either did nothing, or supported my attackers.

      yet before that, the very same teacher passed the same girl by after she said to me that I was so fat that she was surprized I could fit in the hall way

      Fatphobia is a real and often ignored problem in society. The existence of fatphobia does not disprove the existence of misogyny. If a person of color called a white student fat, the existence of that fatphobia wouldn’t disprove the existence of racism.

      You do need statistics to prove female oppression now adays, I try to find it, but can’t seem to find much left. You do not need statistics to prove that there is(primarily) male discrimination.

      Seriously, countless links within this blog, and all over the media. If you’re only googling for “purple unicorns,” don’t be surprised that you don’t find many articles on brown ponies. You’re purposefully ignoring reality, including that which I’ve already presented here.

      [misandry] does pose a psychological problem and can cause a great lowered self-esteem.

      Misogyny directly and indirectly causes higher rates of anxiety, depression, PTSD, eating disorders, and other psychological problems in women than it does in men. I’ve linked to those studies in various entries in this blog as well.

      http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hR1AotmLMi8RXJgFZev4n7e7qE1g?docId=CNG.051479eb881467a088eb6e97370ff0bc.301

      http://lauriekendrick.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/the-sad-art-of-gaslighting/

      feminism makes men feel bad about their own kind

      Only insecure men who require power over women to feel good about themselves.

      men are just as battered as women.

      No.

      http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Executive_Summary-a.pdf

      But women that spread their contempt for men is unacceptable… Women like you terrify me

      You imply that I spread contempt for men. If you feel contemptuous about men because of my words, I assure you, that is entirely your own reaction, and not anything I have forced upon you.

      And now for something different:

      You are undoughtly a stunning sight….just open your pretty, green eyes a little wider….you are young, beautifull…”

      Stop objectifying me. It is your male privilege that makes you think you not only have the right to objectify me, but that you have the right to speak that objectification to me while calling my blog “stupid,” calling me “ignorant” and accusing me of “ranting.”

      http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/faq-what-is-sexual-objectification/

      http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/01/how_sexual_objectification_silences_women_-_the_male_glance.php

      You’re stripping me of my identity, demanding that I conform to your opinions and abandon my own, while patting me on the head and telling me I’m a pretty little thing that really should appreciate how you’re ~complimenting~ me with your objectifying gaze. The “you’re too pretty to be such a man-hater” thing is reminiscent of the homophobia I’ve dealt with and witnessed, and the inevitable response of “don’t show yourself if you don’t want to be objectified” is loaded with so much victim-blaming I’m cutting it off before it even shows up.

      Also, my eyes are gray. And they are wide open.

    • tcraighenry says:

      Since you’re just repeating yourself, I’m going to point out that P.H.D is typically abbreviated to Ph.D or PhD

  19. noname says:

    I think there is evil everywhere, but good is everywhere as well.

    There will be many women and men who will continue to obey the patriarchy. Because the system not only works, but it is natural. Men did not invent it. Society did (both genders involved).

    The problem is humans, though are willing sometimes to be unorthodox for the sake of progress, would rather side with the system that they know best (even if not a lot) rather than move against it.

    However, others must be careful in moving too fast. Patriarchy will not end overnight. Even if it does, the change would be too stressful due to its excessive speed.

    The patriarchy is designed so that beta/omega men are sacrificed in society for the greater good, and that the remainder alpha men are rewarded by the right to carry genes to the next generation.
    In return, women are to obey the alpha men who have made these accomplishments and trust their authority. They also are key in the development of the next generation.

    Patriarchy assigns roles at what a sex is particularly best at.

    However, exceptions are common, and as human beings, we have to take account of exceptions in order to engineer society.

    Both men and women suffer under patriarchy.
    Men have the power, therefore, potentially oppressive.
    However, women are NOT powerless! They have proven to fight back against the system. And also use the system to their advantage sometimes.
    But if BOTH men and women continue to let the system of prejudice and stereotyping run itself, then it is society’s fault, not men alone, nor women alone.

    Until a better and square system is in place that will function:
    Men will continue to be treated as less valuable (emotionally, “men have feelings… But who really cares”).
    Women will continue to be treated as limited and weak people.
    Men will continue to be expected to be strong, powerful, emotionless, and deal with only their individual troubles by ones self. (suck it up)
    Women will continued to be viewed as inferior and requiring need and sympathy from society.
    Men will be considered exclusively as villains and heroes.
    Women will be limited as wives, mothers, servants, and housekeepers (“it’s dangerous outside the kitchen”)
    Men will use their intimidation, strength, and dominance for their own gains.
    Women will use their emotions, their looks, and their innocent face for their own gains.

    (I bet you can name me more)

    The point is, patriarchy works, but it doesn’t mean it is irreplaceable. We must be careful if we want to create a “better” system. Personally, I define it as a system that lets both men and women get their justice, expand their potential, and increase knowledge and tolerance.

    Be careful with radical ideas. Moderation and a steady pace is key.

    Misandry and misogyny are two heads of the same beast of intolerance and ignorance.

    • bunnika says:

      I think there is evil everywhere, but good is everywhere as well.

      And here’s your problem. You’re talking about good and evil, I’m talking about oppressed and privileged. I don’t think men as a class are “evil” and I don’t think women as a class are “good.” I don’t give a rat’s ass about good and evil in this debate, yet that’s what everyone tries to turn it into. Stop it with the moral dichotomies, they don’t matter.

      Because the system not only works, but it is natural. Men did not invent it. Society did (both genders involved).

      Created by humanity =/= “natural.” Natural means it was created by Nature, which patriarchy most certainly was not. Of course it was created by “society,” and society has always been run primarily by males. This is a proven fact. So if you think “society” created it, you must either believe it was created primarily by men, or you are in opposition to your own statement.

      The problem is humans, though are willing sometimes to be unorthodox for the sake of progress, would rather side with the system that they know best (even if not a lot) rather than move against it.

      This is especially a problem for those whom the system most benefits. Like men. Why turn down a system that gives you the best lot in life? It would be a selfless act, and socially privileged people don’t like being selfless when it comes to that privilege.

      However, others must be careful in moving too fast. Patriarchy will not end overnight. Even if it does, the change would be too stressful due to its excessive speed.

      “Slow down, little lady. Women have been oppressed for so many thousands of years, it’s really in your best interest to let it go for a bit longer. Your equality isn’t as important as maintaining the status quo.”

      The patriarchy is designed so that beta/omega men are sacrificed in society for the greater good, and that the remainder alpha men are rewarded by the right to carry genes to the next generation.

      What is it with men and MRAs and the alpha/beta crap? Assuming this were true, the “beta” men who are ~soooo oppressed~ by the “alpha” men are still oppressing women. So you’ve simply divided the oppressing class into two groups because you want male oppression to focus on, so you don’t have to busy yourself by challenging male privilege, and no longer oppressing women. Because it’s always all about men.

      Patriarchy assigns roles at what a sex is particularly best at. However, exceptions are common, and as human beings, we have to take account of exceptions in order to engineer society.

      This doesn’t sound like you admitting that those assignments are inherently bullshit, but rather trying to keep the beast at bay with a platitude about how sometimes they’re bullshit, and you’re a magical bastion of equality for admitting that. This is not equality, and it’s really gross to frame it that way.

      Both men and women suffer under patriarchy.

      You’re repeating my point to make me feel like we’re comrades, maybe?

      Men have the power, therefore, potentially oppressive.

      Fixed that for you.

      However, women are NOT powerless!

      Um…thanks for the pep talk?

      They have proven to fight back against the system.

      And then they have people like you to tell us we’re fighting too hard, and how our fight isn’t as important as we think it is, and how the poor men deserve just as much advocacy. What lucky ladies we are!

      And also use the system to their advantage sometimes.

      Oh, this. Of course with this. Because there’s nothing so beneficial to the cause of equality as using a minority’s best attempts at counterbalancing their oppression as evidence that they aren’t oppressed.

      But if BOTH men and women continue to let the system of prejudice and stereotyping run itself, then it is society’s fault, not men alone, nor women alone.

      See above commentary on society.

      Men will continue to be treated as less valuable (emotionally, “men have feelings… But who really cares”).

      Having your emotions devalued is not being “treated as less valuable.” It’s having a trait of yours associated with femininity, and the related backlash since being female is less valued.

      The point is, patriarchy works for men

      Fixed that for you.

      We must be careful if we want to create a “better” system.

      And your definition of “careful” involves us feminists shutting up and backing down, because staying silent and submissive has done so much for equality in human history, amirite?

      Personally, I define it as a system that lets both men and women get their justice, expand their potential, and increase knowledge and tolerance.

      Yet you think this is best accomplished by maintaining the status quo, or perhaps occasionally whispering a teensy objection that won’t upset the men in charge.

      Be careful with radical ideas.

      Because they’re the only thing that stands a chance of changing this world, and folks like you don’t want to see that actually happen.

      Moderation and a steady pace is key.

      A key that doesn’t unlock the door.

    • pleasure_past says:

      “Because the system not only works, but it is natural. Men did not invent it. Society did (both genders involved).”

      Yeah, no. There is nothing “natural” about sexism, and men most certainly *did* invent it on their own, just as white people invented racism, straight people invented homophobia, and ablebodied and neurotypical people invented ableism. Minorities did not create their own oppression.

  20. Women Control the Family says:

    Be a man, and take your child to the library in the middle of a weekday, and be regarded by the “stay at home Moms” as a pedophile for “invading their world.”

    Be a man, and go to divorce court, and have your heart and soul ripped away from you for no reason other than than the mother making vague accusations about your “poor parenting decisions” and calling as her chief two witnesses Stereotypes and Biases.

    Be a man, and take a year off to stay at home with your kids, and have every woman in your life ask if you’ve “found a real job yet.” (Stay at home moms doing the same “not a real job” at that!)

    Women control the family, which for many men, is all that we live for. I suppose Egypt was ruled by the slaves, because afterall, “they got all the good pyramid building jobs.”

    Men love. We feel. We deserve respect for the sacrifices we make. Drop your double standards, if you want to stop living under them.

    • bunnika says:

      Be a man, and ignore how this post, its partner, and the comments here address these problems and explain how they are based in misogyny.

      Be a man, and continue to ignore how I’ve repeatedly addressed the humanity of men, and have never said they don’t love or feel.

      Be a man, and ignore how I’ve implored men to take that deeper interest in family, and how I’d defend to the death their right to do it.

      Women “control” only what men allow us to control. We “control” the family because most men are damn unwilling to put forth the effort it takes to be a fully involved parent, because they’re all caught up in worrying about these stupid stereotypes, rather than trying to break free of them. Men are more concerned with public scorn than they are with their children, because society (created and run by men) tells them that’s what matters.

      Men love. They feel. They deserve respect for the sacrifices they make. There is a difference between a “double standard” and a wish to challenge the status quo. I wholly support a man being involved with his children, being a stay-at-home father, and investing his time and effort into his family. It’s no “double standard” to want equal rights.

      Or hey, let’s switch things up, just for fun:

      Be a woman, and take a job in the military to support your family. Get raped by your fellow servicemen, be told to STFU by the powers that be. Be scorned by humanity for “abandoning” your children, since it’s a mother’s duty to stay at home.

      Be a woman, and go to divorce court, and have no one believe you when you explain the abuse you experienced at the hands of your husband. Be regarded as a leech for receiving spousal support or even child support, because you were forced to sacrifice education and career for family and are not able to earn the income that your husband can.

      Be a woman, stay home with your children, and be told that you’re lazy and old-fashioned, and that you aren’t doing “real work,” just eating chocolate and watching soap operas all day. Or work full-time and be told you’re a failure as a mother for sending your children to daycare, or are “trying to be a man” by leaving them with your stay-at-home husband.

      Men control all of society, which for every woman, is all that we live in. I’d come up with a snappy slavery analogy, but I’m not so self-righteous as to think slavery in analogous to anything other than fucking slavery.

      Women work. We toil. We deserve respect for the sacrifices we make. Drop your double standards, if you want to stop living under them.

      • Women Own the Family says:

        I know the NOW is fighting to maintain the dysfunctional status quo in the family court. A questionnaire is circulating from NOW, asking political candidates if they support shared parenting.

        By your definition, Is the NOW therefore a “misognyistic” organization, for seeking to burden women with the responsibilities of childcare?

        My post was meant to expose that there are plenty of WOMEN who cling to hurtful double standards and the marginilazation of men in parenting and the family. I’m not a member of the 1% who control our society. But, your only suggestion for me and my pain is that I should “do more” and recognize how many advantages I enjoy. Thanks.

        It’s hard for me to accept someone’s argument that the world’s ills are due to misogyny, if they’re not willing to directly recognize and advocate for the changes in our society that negatively effect men. Discrimination against women = misogyny and Discrimination against men = misogyny!? That just sucks.

        You’re not going to dismantle and resurrect society in one fell swoop. So, why not jump on board with some of the incremental changes that MRAs are asking for – to be treated as equals in the family court, for one? To tell us men that our pain is not real, because we’re the ones “running society”, is hurtful and mean.

        I’m sorry for your experiences with men. I hope you find the peace you seek.

        • bunnika says:

          I know the NOW is fighting to maintain the dysfunctional status quo in the family court. A questionnaire is circulating from NOW, asking political candidates if they support shared parenting.

          1. Citation needed.
          2. I’m not NOW, nor am I even a member. Nothing they say or do is a reflection of anything I say or do.

          By your definition, Is the NOW therefore a “misognyistic” organization, for seeking to burden women with the responsibilities of childcare?

          Without a citation that better explains what NOW is attempting to do (such as a press release from NOW themselves) I can’t answer that.

          My post was meant to expose that there are plenty of WOMEN who cling to hurtful double standards

          And my posts and comments address this quite often.

          I’m not a member of the 1% who control our society.

          So because you’re not rich you don’t in any way oppress women? Frankly, I call “bullshit.”

          But, your only suggestion for me and my pain is that I should “do more” and recognize how many advantages I enjoy. Thanks.

          I don’t make any suggestions for how to deal with your pain. If I did, I’d probably suggest therapy, because there is no political means to solving the personal problems of individuals. I don’t talk about individuals, I talk about society. If you want to change the system that caused you to be in this position, then yes, I say you should challenge misogyny. But changing the system is not the same as dealing with your personal pain. One will benefit future generations of men, the other will benefit only you. I’m asking you to do what you need for yourself on your own, and to focus on a greater good when speaking in a larger social context.

          It’s hard for me to accept someone’s argument that the world’s ills are due to misogyny, if they’re not willing to directly recognize and advocate for the changes in our society that negatively effect men.

          This post and its child very specifically recognize and advocate for the change of how society negatively impacts men. You just want to call it “misandry,” which is a fantasy that makes you and people like you feel better right now, while making future generations pay the price with continued inequality.

          Discrimination against women = misogyny and Discrimination against men = misogyny!? That just sucks.

          And because it sucks it can’t be true? Life doesn’t work that way. And it’s not the label that sucks, it’s the prejudice. Calling it “misandry” somehow magically makes it better? No. The discrimination still happens, and will continue to happen until its root problem is addressed.

          You’re not going to dismantle and resurrect society in one fell swoop. So, why not jump on board with some of the incremental changes that MRAs are asking for – to be treated as equals in the family court, for one?

          It’s too hard to work on equality for women, so I should ditch it and focus on men instead? Why the holy fuck do you continue to think that your problems are the ones that everyone should focus on, including women who are suffering greater injustices every damn day?

          To tell us men that our pain is not real, because we’re the ones “running society”, is hurtful and mean.

          I’ve never said that, and in fact have repeatedly said the exact opposite. But it’s easier for MRAs to villify me by imagining that I’m a heartless she-beast that castrates every man she meets and probably discards male puppies and kittens to be devoured by wolves.

          I’m sorry for your experiences with men. I hope you find the peace you seek.

          I’ve not had “experiences with men” all that much worse than most women, and quite a great deal better than some women. I don’t ask for your sympathy, I ask you to stop oppressing me and women like me. And yes, demanding that I abandon my cause to fight yours instead is oppressive. It’s also misogynistic as fuck, and self-centered by definition. I’ve found my peace in finally coming to terms with the misogyny in the world. Years of denial is what stole my peace from me, and you’re asking me to return to that. Sorry, no.

          Okay I lied. I’m not sorry. But still: No.

  21. Women Control the Family says:

    Requested NOW Citation

    http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/enews/cv/enews-20120614.html

    You’re telling me and thousands of men like me that we don’t even deserve a WORD to describe our plight.

    Your phrasing says it well, so I’m borrowing your words.

    I ask that you stop oppressing me and men like me. And yes, demanding that I abandon my cause (and that I’m not even allowed to give my cause a name) and to fight yours instead is oppressive. It’s also misandric as fuck, and self-centered by definition. I’ve found my peace in finally coming to terms with the misandry in the world. Years of denial is what stole my peace from me, and you’re asking me to return to that.

    Sorry, no. Okay I lied. I’m not sorry. But still: No.

    I am going to continue fighting that my son becomes an adult in a world where he can be secure in the knowledge that it will always be his children’s right to experience his love, and that he won’t have to depend on a woman’s permission to be a parent, and that no court will ever even consider taking that right away from him. I pray to God that he marries once and never divorces, but I want him to live in a world where he has the security of knowing that the relationship he has with his children is sacred, valued, and _protected_ by our society.

    You have never stared down the prospect of having your daughter torn from you, for absolutely no just cause, because the man who impregnated you wants it that way. Your eyes are blind to this privilege that you enjoy as a woman.

    I don’t care if it’s misogny, or misandry, or just plain fucking bullshit. But, dumping on me and men like me for feeling fucked over by society is immoral, wrong, and hateful – and my situation is NOT isolated. My situation is NOT just about me. I’ll call it misandry if I fucking want to, because that word captures how I feel about my situation.

    Good day,

    • bunnika says:

      Requested NOW Citation

      http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/enews/cv/enews-20120614.html

      I asked for a NOW citation, not an MRA opinion piece on it. Fail.

      You’re telling me and thousands of men like me that we don’t even deserve a WORD to describe our plight.

      No, I’m telling you the proper word: Misogyny. You’re suffering from the patriarchy. There, I gave you two words. You’re welcome.

      I ask that you stop oppressing me and men like me.

      I can’t oppress you, I do not have the institutionalized power to do so. You are oppressed by men. Welcome to the club.

      And yes, demanding that I abandon my cause (and that I’m not even allowed to give my cause a name) and to fight yours instead is oppressive.

      Lather, rinse, repeat.

      It’s also misandric as fuck, and self-centered by definition.

      No, for the reasons I’m tired of repeating since you aren’t listening, and I’m talking about how you can help end the suffering of men–how the hell is that selfish? I’m not a man, I do not directly benefit from equality for men, yet I still fight for it through the dismantling of misogyny. You’re welcome.

      I am going to continue fighting that my son becomes an adult in a world where he can be secure in the knowledge that it will always be his children’s right to experience his love his privilege, and that he won’t have to depend on a woman’s permission to be a parent stop oppressing women

      Fixed that for you.

      I pray to God that he marries once and never divorces

      Dunno why you’re using this as a platform to espouse morality on relationships and marriage, but it doesn’t belong.

      You have never stared down the prospect of having your daughter torn from you

      Excuse you, you don’t know my personal history. I really hate that old colloquialism about people who ASSume, but you’re making it hard to avoid.

      Your eyes are blind to this privilege that you enjoy as a woman.

      Well I’m just leaving this here to give the ladies a chuckle.

      I don’t care if it’s misogny, or misandry, or just plain fucking bullshit.

      SO STOP CALLING IT MISANDRY. Fucking hell, dude.

      But, dumping on me and men like me for feeling fucked over by society is immoral, wrong, and hateful

      Up until now I have been nothing but respectful of you, and neither my posts nor my comments have ever “dumped on men for feeling fucked over by society.” In fact, I challenge men to recognize how they’re actually fucked over, by misogyny. As I’ve said to you how many times today? I’ve lost count. You’ve come back with nothing but personal attacks and vitriol, when I’ve been perfectly civil and never once said your suffering wasn’t real. But your feelings are the ones that matter, because you’re the man and you say so, so you continue to ignore everything I say and just get angrier and less coherent with each post. Congrats, you’ve made my block list.

    • Snowcrash says:

      Yeah hey, woman here who’s had exactly that experience of having the father of my child try to prevent me having access to him for no good reason, because he wanted it that way.

      Custody is not a woman’s privilege. Shut up, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    • Kiku-chan says:

      Hiya, as a child whose father tried EVERYTHING HE COULD to keep me from my mother simply because he could, up to and including threatening to put my brother and I in foster care (because he sure as fuck didn’t want us), just to spite my mother and “get back at” her for daring to divorce the ohmight him, FUCK YOU and your MRA bullshit.

      Oh, and here, have some facts to go with your bullshit: The reason men by and large do not get custody of their children during divorce is because the majority of men DO NOT fight for them! At all! In fact, a study showed that the vast majority of the time, if a father sues for custody, he wins — even if he has been proven to be neglectful, alcoholic, violent and/or abusive in the past. It also found that TWO-THIRDS of men who sue for custody do it for economic reasons, such as avoiding child support payments or keeping the family home, rather than out of any love for their children. Many others sued for custody out of spite or because they did not approve of their ex-wife having sex again and wanted to “punish” her.

      Oh, yeah, and when mothers do win over fathers who sue for custody? The study found that 62% of those fathers had physically abused their wives, 57% had tried to brainwash their children into hating their mother, 37% had actually KIDNAPPED their children, and many more had financially deprived their children, such as through refusing to pay child support.

      Info from here: http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/464/mothers-on-trial

      So, um, basically, once again, fuck you and your MRA bullshit.

  22. woman without a man says:

    misandry is real

    you feminists get your vaginas all sandy when you have to deal with facts
    who do we send to the front lines during a war? no ladies, it’s not you, it’s the men
    i lost my husband at the war in iraq, and to think there are deluded women out there who think misandry is not real is disgusting

    you feminists are a disgrace to women in general

    • bunnika says:

      http://www.minnpost.com/christian-science-monitor/2012/07/women-combat-us-military-verge-making-it-official

      It’s misogyny that’s kept women from the front lines, even as female servicemembers begged for the opportunity. Get your facts straight.

      If you’re so disgusted by feminists, please relinquish your right to work, vote, wear pants, and every other right that feminists have provided to you while being derided by others just like you, wielding your internalized misogyny as a weapon against us.

    • Ryen says:

      Ooooh, a youtube video! If it’s in a Youtube video it must be true! ..wait, no.

      As bunnika pointed out, women weren’t allowed to serve on the front lines because of misogyny. Because women are seen as too weak, emotional, etc. to “handle” being there. (I actually saw this argument recently.. some military dudebro spouting off about how women just don’t have the right ~temperament~ to be on the front lines.) Men are seen as Strong and Brave Warriors, which is why they’re allowed to fight.

      Misandry is NOT real. If you think it is, you’re frankly deluded. Nothing more to say to that.

      And if you think feminists are a “disgrace to women,” then yeah, better buckle down and make sure you don’t choose your own spouse, own property, rent a home or apartment in your own name, work outside the home EVER (even if you aren’t married), drive a car, travel anywhere alone, drink alcohol, have children out of wedlock, wear pants, wear your hair short, swear, make your own decisions about anything ever, choose when or if you have children, choose when or if you have sex, wear revealing clothing, expect not to be discriminated against by ANYONE, expect not to be talked down to by men, expect to do anything with your life but raising children and doing household chores, go to a college or university, etc. etc.

      You have fun with that. I like having rights.

    • Snowcrash says:

      I’m sorry you lost your husband. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone and it makes me sad that people die in stupid wars. But to say that’s misandry is sadly mistaken, as others have mentioned.

      I just wanted to express sympathy for you over your husband’s death and also to point out that while you’re over there insulting feminists, me and my sandy vagina will be over here continuing to fight to ensure that you have the right to express an opinion about anything.

  23. John says:

    the internet is full of self righteous misandrists who think us male supremacists just need to have some screwed into us by lying about us with some cock and bull story of socalled “sexual harassment”

  24. Jorge says:

    Misandry is real, you *censored slur*. you are self deceived.

    Ed. note: I censored this, because I don’t allow slurs on my blog. But people keep fucking using them, so maybe if I make a big fucking point of it, they’ll stop.

    HEY DICKBAGS. DON’T FUCKING USE MINORITY SLURS ON MY BLOG. GO FUCK YOURSELVES.

    Probably still not enough of a big fucking point for these assholes. -.- ~Bunnika

    • bunnika says:

      Don’t fucking come into my space with ableist slurs, you bigoted piece of shit. Welcome to my block list.

      • Dentie says:

        Hypocitical about equal rights among sexes, AND about using slurs to insult others! Another great example of double standards!

        Also, “dickbags.” Wow. Totally not promoting people as nothing more than objects to be used as housings for penises. Just…wow.

        • bunnika says:

          “Dickbag” is not a slur. There are no slurs against privileged people. Just like “cracker” isn’t a slur against white people, “dickbags” is not a slur against men. Pls 2 b learning what a slur is.

          • ELogic says:

            Following your ridiculous logic, “white bitch” isn’t a slur against white women because white women are more privileged than black men.

            • bunnika says:

              “Bitch” is a misogynistic slur, regardless of what you attach it to. “Cracker” or other insults against white people based on being white aren’t slurs.

              And with that, we come to the end of your reign. Thanks for playing, but your comments aren’t getting published any longer. You’ve degraded from jackassery to incoherence and I’m not giving you any more of a platform. But please, still respond, I like having comments to read and delete between grading papers. You make me feel so special. <3

  25. Egalitarian says:

    Actually, significantly more than 10% of rape victims are male if you properly define rape. According to the latest CDC (US government) survey, 4.8% of all men have been “made to penetrate”
    and 79.2% of the perpetrators were women. Examples of “made to penetrate” are: a woman who has sex with a man who is passed-out drunk, or a woman who forces a man to have sex with her through blackmail or physical force. There is some confusion due to the fact that their definition of rape excluded “made to penetrate” and only included men who had been penetrated. That was far less common (1.4% of men) and was mostly perpetrated by men. However, if you include “made to penetrate” as rape, which you should, since it is forced sex, women are a significant percentage of rapists, and the majority of male rape victims were raped by women. You can read the report at:
    http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

    Here are direct quotes from the report:
    “Approximately 1 in 21 men (4.8%) reported that they were made to penetrate someone else during their lifetime”

    “For three of the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims reported only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (79.2%), sexual coercion (83.6%), and unwanted sexual contact (53.1%).”

    Here are some stories from male victims: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/v73r4/men_who_have_been_raped_by_women_can_you_tell_us/

    • bunnika says:

      Thank you for sharing a link that proves how sexual violence is primarily used against women, and is primarily perpetrated by men.

      I generally tend to speak of rape as the big scary Law & Order sort of deal. This isn’t out of any attempt at deceit, but rather is because I simply haven’t gotten around to posting about the sort of rape that most people don’t think is rape. But we’ll get back to that in a minute.

      The survey you shared says women are over thirteen times more likely to be raped than men, by that Law & Order definition. But let’s talk about the other statistics, right? Because you’re right, forced penetration (and also coercive sex) are rape, and should be included in the statistics. I understand the survey counting them separately, but they should still be under the “rape” umbrella in those charts. So here are those charts:

      There is no data for “forced to penetrate” for women. This is one of those statistical anomolies, because there just hasn’t been proper ability to catalog such events. Still, let’s go ahead and give it to you and say that counts as “zero.” So congrats–men get the gold for “forced to penetrate!” Hold on to that, it’s about to stop mattering.

      Sexual coersion is also rape. Women are almost three times more likely than men to be victims of sexual coercion. So, those final numbers, including the inarguable social standard idea of rape, being forced to penetrate, and coercive rape:

      FEMALE RAPE VICTIMS
      Total victims: 37,332,000, broken down as follows:
      Violent rape (survey defined “rape”): 21,840,000
      Made-to-penetrate: Not recorded (“0″)
      Coercive rape: 15,492,000

      MALE RAPE VICTIMS:
      Total victims: 13,838,000, broken down as follows:
      Violent rape (survey defined “rape”): 1,581,000
      Made-to-penetrate: 5,451,000
      Coercive rape: 6,806,000

      Now, let’s examine the numbers on victims: First, there needs to be a clarification here, based on these numbers:

      25% of male victims (3,459,500) aren’t men, they’re boys. This is in no way an improvement, in regards to personal experience (personally, I find child abuse beyond horrifying, and I would think–though I’m not an authority–that it’s worse/more damaging than rape of an adult). But this does require examination through a different lens, as pedophilia and the rape of post-pubescent people have nuances that deserve separate examination, because of how motives and victimization occur. Pedophiles are not driven by the same forces as those who rape adults. I’ve never talked about child rape because I have no experience with it. By these numbers, roughly 3.5 million of male rape victims were attacked as children under the age of 11, and roughly 4.5 million female rape victims were attacked as children under the age of 11. So, though a male rape victim is statistically more likely to have been victimized as a child than a female victim, a female child is still statistically more likely to be raped than a male child. But I really don’t want this to be a pedophilia discussion, because that is so frakking derailing, it just doesn’t belong beyond passing observation.

      So, let’s look at the total numbers for how likely men and women are to experience rape in their lifetimes:

      Approximately 31.3% of females will experience rape in their lifetime. That is nearly 1 in 3. Of these females, roughly 7 in 8 will be raped post-puberty, as “women.” This is approximately 27.5% of all women.

      Approximately 8.76% of males will experience rape in their lifetime. That is almost 1 in 11. Of these males, roughly 3 in 4 will be raped post-puberty, as “men.” This is approximately 6.57% of all men.

      Females are roughly 2.5 times more likely to be raped than males, and women are roughly 2.9 times more likely to be raped than men.

      There are a lot of numbers in that report, and they’re fascinating, but, sry2say, they support me when I say that women are far more likely to be raped, and that rapists are predominantly male. Here’s one last screenshot for you:

      I’m going to break down these statistics into real-world numbers for you, covering all kinds of rape (violent, coercive, made-to-penetrate, child and adult):

      FEMALE RAPE VICTIMS
      Total victims: 37,332,000, broken down as follows:
      Violent rape (survey defined “rape”): 21,840,000 (21,425,040 committed by men)
      Made-to-penetrate: Not recorded (“0″)
      Coercive rape: 15,492,000 (14,330,100 committed by men)
      By the above statistics on perpetrators, 95.8% of rape commited against females (35,755,140) is by males.

      MALE RAPE VICTIMS:
      Total victims: 13,838,000, broken down as follows:
      Violent rape (survey defined “rape”): 1,581,000 (1,475,073 committed by men)
      Made-to-penetrate: 5,451,000 (1,133,808 committed by men)
      Coercive rape: 6,806,000 (1,161,848 committed by men)
      By the above statistics on perpetrators, 26.9% of rape commited against males (3,725,065) is by males.

      TOTAL RAPE VICTIMS OF EITHER BINARY SEX: 51,170,000
      PERCENTAGE OF VICTIMS ID’ING AS FEMALE: 73%
      TOTAL NUMBER VICTIMS OF EITHER BINARY SEX ATTACKED BY MALES: 39,480,205
      PERCENTAGE OF MALE RAPISTS AGAINST VICTIMS OF EITHER BINARY SEX: 77.2%

      Since I somehow don’t think this is getting through, here ya go:

      Women are still far more likely to be raped than men. Rapists are still far more likely to be male than female. And rape culture continues to make justice nearly impossible for all victims, by dismissing the attacks of women, and feminizing then dismissing the attacks of men.

      I have never once argued that men don’t get raped, that male victims should be ignored, or that men who are raped suffer less than their female counterparts. But everyone seems to think being “egalitarian” will solve the problem, when you can’t enforce equality until you have it. Make society treat women as people. Convince the world that a crime that primarily victimizes women is no less awful because of that fact. Get people to understand the devestation of rape, and that it is not a crime of sex or femininity, but rather one of power and dominance. Destroy the social constructs that say women and men are completely different, and should be held to different standards. Prove that our culture cares about all victims of all crimes. You can’t do that by “what about the menz?”ing. Stop. Realize that you aren’t being “egalitarian,” you’re destroying progress, and ultimately doing a great disservice to all rape victims, male and female alike.

  26. C.U. says:

    Your article is just…ugh. Misandry IS a growing problem, and men ARE oppressed and discriminated against. It’s women who are NOT oppressed.

    These problems are legitimate. Instead of focusing on how they affect women, why don’t you focus on how they affect men?

    The fact that you manipulatively turn misandry into misogyny is utterly sickening. Not only do you not care about men’s problems, but also, you seem to dismiss them (as women’s problems).

    Face it; you don’t care about men’s issues.

    And, you as a feminist claim to want equality between the sexes when you are only focusing on women.

    Also, being a rape victim doesn’t hold much weight in your arguments when you hold misandric attitudes like these.

    If anything, women are NOT the ones who are oppressed. The system FAVORS them and victimizes men. Your article should have the title, “Sorry, Women, You Are Not Oppressed”.

    Not once did you give a legitimate example of female oppression. Not once.

    1. I’m pretty sure that there are more male DV victims than that. No one is saying that female victims should get ignored in favor of male victims, so that’s enough with the strawman fallacy. People are just saying that not enough support is available for male victims while plenty of support is available to females. Should female DV victims stop getting help? No. Should male DV victims get as much help. Yes. It is not fair, and it discriminates against men.

    “But focusing on so few while so many suffer is not going to in any way affect the long-term problem.”

    Then, how about helping EVERYONE rather than just females? Or, are you too biased to do so?

    You feminists may not advocate for ignorance of male DV, but you do ignore it, anyway. Where are you feminists when DV affects males just as much as females? Where are you guys when MALES are in need of help with this issue? Shouldn’t you be fighting for their rights, too?

    2. The media always portrays women in a positive light and men in a negative light. The first part of your sentence is inaccurate. Women are portrayed in the media just as much as men. So what if there are male-driven plots? There are also female-driven plots. This has nothing to do with gender.

    The statistics in the genders represented in the number of characters is irrelevant. In other words, the number of male or female characters doesn’t matter. If the majority of characters happens to be females or males, so be it. The characters just happen to be a certain gender.

    As for the rest of your paragraph, the media glorifies women. It doesn’t put them down in any way; actually, women are positively portrayed in the media. It puts men down. How often do you see a women portrayed negatively? Almost never, yet for men, this happens very often. The media isn’t lowering women’s standards; it’s making women seem “too good” for men. If anything, it is lowering men period, making it look that all men just want any attractive woman that they see.

    3. This is true. Men can’t freely express themselves as much as women. I don’t really see how it is a women’s issue, as they are encouraged to express themselves; with men, it’s the opposite. I don’t see any hatred towards women here. I don’t know what the rest of your paragraph is saying….

    4. There are programs to help women AND minorities, but there are none for men. THAT’S discrimination. There is no discrimination against women here; instead, there’s favoritism of women here. Also, did you know that men are less likely to go to college than women? That kind of says a lot….

    Many of you feminists need to stop finding issues that only affect women; you are supposed to be helping both genders. Also, stop fighting nonexistent battles. Women DO have equality already. You got what you wanted years ago; stop finding fault against women in everything that’s a men’s issues or an advantage to men that doesn’t negatively affect women in any way.

    Misandry is not a women’s issue; it never has been, so don’t bother treating it as if it is. That’s just dishonest, and the number of people using this tactic is rather disturbing. I’ve come across a few who do (not including you).

    You have not provided one legitimate source of misogyny. Really, all you’re doing is usurping men’s issues and misandry and putting the focus on women’s issues and misogyny. More dishonesty.

    And, stop turning little, unimportant things into big, exaggerated issues. Women are no longer oppressed in society; that was long ago, so stop pretending.

    Feminism is about equality between BOTH genders, right? If so, then many of you feminists need to stop focusing only on women’s issues and focus on BOTH GENDER’S ISSUES.

    And, some of you wonder why feminism isn’t taken seriously.

    *To clear things up, I used Caps Lock to emphasize my points. I wasn’t yelling.*

    • bunnika says:

      Your comment is just…ugh.

      It’s women who are NOT oppressed.

      Citation needed. (Spoiler alert! This foreshadows this entire comment.)

      Instead of focusing on how they affect women, why don’t you focus on how they affect men?

      This entire post is about how problems negatively affect men. It’s just about how misogyny negatively affects men, which you don’t want to hear about because it somehow damages your victim complex. Well guess what? A man victimized by misogyny is still just as much a victim, so stop fucking delegitimizing the experiences of those men.

      Not only do you not care about men’s problems, but also, you seem to dismiss them (as women’s problems).

      The first half of this sentence is patently untrue, and the second half demonstrates how men think it’s demeaning to be associated with women and women’s problems. Thanks for the meta misogyny.

      Face it; you don’t care about men’s issues.

      Face it: I don’t care what you think about what I care about.

      Also, being a rape victim doesn’t hold much weight in your arguments when you hold misandric attitudes like these.

      So, you get to say my rape doesn’t matter, but there’s no such thing as misogyny. Alrighty then.

      The system FAVORS [women] and victimizes men.

      Citation needed.

      Not once did you give a legitimate example of female oppression. Not once.

      You do realize that of the pair of us, I’m the only one who linked legitimate sources, right? Irony, u haz it.

      No one is saying that female victims should get ignored in favor of male victims

      I’m not arguing that people are saying that, I’m pointing out that people are doing that. Trufax, yo.

      so that’s enough with the strawman fallacy.

      Stop it with the irony, you’re killing me here.

      Then, how about helping EVERYONE rather than just females?

      Eradicating misogyny helps everyone. I fail to see why this is so difficult to grasp.

      Where are you feminists when DV affects males just as much as females?

      The magical land of Oz, because that hasn’t happened in reality.

      The media always portrays women in a positive light and men in a negative light.

      Citation needed.

      Women are portrayed in the media just as much as men.

      Citation needed. (Notice how I’m the only one with actual proof, here?)

      So what if there are male-driven plots? There are also female-driven plots.

      In a much, much, much smaller number, almost negligible. Also primarily misogynistic when it happens. Seriously, CITATIONS. They are your friend.

      This has nothing to do with gender.

      Sex and gender are two different things. Pls 2 be learning the difference.

      The statistics in the genders represented in the number of characters is irrelevant. In other words, the number of male or female characters doesn’t matter. If the majority of characters happens to be females or males, so be it. The characters just happen to be a certain gender.

      “I know that you are absolutely correct in this fact, so I’m just going to say it doesn’t matter. And my ignorant dismissal is supported by the social construct of misogyny, so I have the freedom to do that without realizing what a ridiculous ass I’m being.”

      It doesn’t put them down in any way; actually, women are positively portrayed in the media.

      Ci. Ta. Tion. NEEDED. You’re getting more ridiculous as you go.

      How often do you see a women portrayed negatively? Almost never, yet for men, this happens very often.

      I almost want to believe you’re just trolling for giggles, but I think you’re actually serious. You make me sad.

      I don’t see any hatred towards women here.

      Purposeful ignorance will do that to you.

      I don’t know what the rest of your paragraph is saying….

      Frankly, I think at least 95% of my post went straight over your head, so this doesn’t surprise me.

      did you know that men are less likely to go to college than women? That kind of says a lot….

      Did you know that women with college degrees get paid less than men who never even went to college? That kind of says a lot….

      Many of you feminists need to stop finding issues that only affect women

      Again, this entire post was about how misogyny affects men–did you even read it?

      you are supposed to be helping both genders.

      I’m not “supposed” to be doing anything. I’m a human being with the freedom to do whatever the fuck I want to do. What I want to do is speak out against true injustice, which is what I’m doing. So you can take your condescending bullshit and shove it straight up your ass with this one.

      Women DO have equality already. You got what you wanted years ago

      Ciiiiiiiiiiiiiitation needed. I really should make a little song out of this….

      Misandry is not a women’s real issue

      Fixed that for you.

      You have not provided one legitimate source of misogyny

      Again with that irony! You slay me.

      stop turning little, unimportant things into big, exaggerated issues. Women are no longer oppressed in society; that was long ago, so stop pretending.

      Gimme a C! C! Gimme an I! I! Gimme a TATION NEEDED! CITATION NEEDED, WOOOOOOOOO.

      many of you feminists need to stop focusing only on women’s issues and focus on BOTH GENDER’S ISSUES.

      no u.

      And, some of you wonder why feminism isn’t taken seriously.

      By people like you? We know why you don’t take us seriously. It’s call “misogyny.” No curiosity here….

      *To clear things up, I used Caps Lock to emphasize my points. I wasn’t yelling.*

      *And to clear things up, I used sarcasm to emphasize my points. I wasn’t being an asshole.*

      • C.U. says:

        You didn’t “fix” anything.

        I gave legitimate points in my post. Why do I need to give citations for stuff that so blatantly happens in society? That’s why I explained everything. The only ignorance here is in your post.

        You gave statistics. I didn’t because my post mostly didn’t need them, so why do I need citations? (For the DV claim that I made, I left sources in your other post.)

        What you claim as misogyny is really misandry, and I already explained this to you in my post. However, you pretty much distorted every single one of my points.

        Women are not oppressed. They never have been. Voting rights? If you go back in history much further, MOST people couldn’t vote at all, except people who owned land, was rich, or both. That is NOT oppression.

        Please look into the meaning of the word oppression:

        “the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner” (from Dictionary.com)

        When have women EVER been treated this way? When have men ever been “slave masters?” If anything, women are PRIVILEGED, not oppressed.

        Yeah, “oppression” is men going out into war to serve their country. “Oppression” is men taking tough jobs to provide for their families. “Oppression” is men building homes for men, women, and children.

        Yeah, the privileged women are “oppressed.” In what way, exactly? I guess men are too much of “slave masters” to “free” “oppressed women” when they are so busy providing for everyone in society.

        Hard-working men are so unappreciated in society, and many of you feminists and “oppressed women” are to blame.

        It’s a good thing that not all feminists are bad, but people like you are giving them a bad name.

        Now, before you go calling me misogynistic, I am not because nowhere in my post do I encourage hatred of women. I am simply standing up for men’s rights.

        • bunnika says:

          I’d rebut this, but honestly, it’s all so fucking laughable I just don’t think I have to. Congrats, you’ve officially been published 4 teh lulz.

          (As an aside: Read my posts if you’re going to comment on them. Like, the post that, right at the very top, says I’m not publishing MRA or anti-feminist comments on it? Yeah, I’m not publishing MRA or anti-feminist comments on it. But you’re purposefully obtuse, so I suppose I shouldn’t expect too much from you, eh?)

          • C.U. says:

            What kind of remark is this? I DID read your posts. It seems that you really can’t rebut my post; it’s not that you won’t. Your own post is laughable.

            I’m not an MRA or an anti-feminist, so enough with the personal attacks.

            • bunnika says:

              Okay, tell ya what: I’ll throw you one last bone, and indulge your incoherant nonsense one last time. Don’t say I didn’t warn you though….

              Why do I need to give citations for stuff that so blatantly happens in society?

              Because if these were really the accepted norms of human society–up there with “the sky is blue” and “fire is hot”–we wouldn’t be having this debate. I provide sources for my argument, even though I think the things I talk about are common sense, because I want readers to know the facts behind my words. There’s no reason to refuse to cite sources, other than because your claims can’t be verified. You know, sort of like everything you’ve spewed here.

              That’s why I explained everything.

              Very poorly, and with zero proof. Your anecdata means nothing. This is not how adults debate.

              You gave statistics. I didn’t because my post mostly didn’t need them, so why do I need citations?

              Why don’t you need them? Are you not trying to make a point? Points like this are made with statistics, empirical data compiled by outside sources. This is not Fox News, you actually need to prove that your wild rantings have some basis in fact. Otherwise, I’m well within reason to tell you to go fuck yourself. I can fill this page with any sort of bullshit I want–Michael Jackson’s not dead, he was abducted by aliens! Kennedy was killed by a time-travelling Mitt Romney!–but it means nothing without facts. Which is why I use them, and you should, or else no one will ever take you seriously. Just like I’m not.

              What you claim as misogyny is really misandry, and I already explained this to you in my post. However, you pretty much distorted every single one of my points.

              You know, with the exception of the flipped terms and the atrocious grammar, I could’ve written this myself.

              Women are not oppressed. They never have been.

              Um…pick up a history book. Just…no.

              If you go back in history much further, MOST people couldn’t vote at all, except people who owned land, was rich, or both. That is NOT oppression.

              So the existence of classism means sexism doesn’t exist? Cool. Guess racism means there’s no homophobia too, eh?

              When have women EVER been treated this way?

              Um…you have read a history book, haven’t you?

              When have men ever been “slave masters?”

              Uh…the answer “during slavery” comes to mind, but this is such an out-of-place question that I don’t even know why it’s here. You aren’t very good with staying on-topic.

              If anything, women are PRIVILEGED, not oppressed.

              And this is where things like CITATIONS would help you prove your point. If you had a point that was based in reality and not fiction, that is.

              Please look into the meaning of the word oppression

              I say all over the place that this is a social justice blog. A blog about society, a sociological blog. Please look into the sociological meaning of the word “oppression”:
              http://sociology.about.com/od/S_Index/g/Social-Oppression.htm

              Yeah, “oppression” is men going out into war to serve their country.

              Because women don’t go to war? Are you some sort of magical time-traveling misogynist visiting us from centuries past?

              “Oppression” is men taking tough jobs to provide for their families.

              Hey, hey, time traveler: Can you please buy me some stock in Apple Computers about four decades ago?

              o.o

              Oh my fucking god, wait. ARE YOU MITT ROMNEY?!

              “Oppression” is men building homes for men, women, and children.

              What exactly is it you think women do? Have you ever met a woman? Spoken with one? Had more than glancing contact with any since you were confined to the womb? Because this is ridiculous. Maybe you think like a commenter above, that we’re all basket-weavers. Oh, which reminds me: Pls 2 be reading all the comments here, where I’ve already refuted many of your other claims when they were put forth by others. Read, or don’t comment. Repetition is boring. You are tedious. Educate yourdamnself, I’ve already done more than you deserve.

              Hard-working men are so unappreciated in society, and many of you feminists and “oppressed women” are to blame.

              ;___________; krii moar.

              It’s a good thing that not all feminists are bad, but people like you are giving them a bad name.

              A feminist who you think is “not bad” isn’t a feminist. Because you are a fucking disgusting misogynist in ways that I’m honestly floored by.

              Now, before you go calling me misogynistic, I am not because nowhere in my post do I encourage hatred of women.

              Pls 2 be looking up the definition of “misogynistic.”

              But on your own time. Because you’re not getting any more of mine. BAI NAO.

  27. brian says:

    Lol didn’t allow me to post my comment and i’m not a men rights activist so fucking typical sexism.

    • brian says:

      well shit short comment alright but comment as long as most here and oh no not allowed sense my involved proper grammar and punctuation not too mention no misogyny so screw it.

    • bunnika says:

      …you do realize that these two convoluted comments here are all you submitted, right?

  28. L says:

    Dear bunnika, At the beginning of your blog, you claim that you can explain how any criticism of your blog is somehow rooted in misogyny. The reason I offer the following criticism at all is not personal but moral; I feel your blog preaches hatred toward men. If you prima facie do not believe that statement, I invite you to meet your challenge and prove the “misogyny” of my criticism – detail by detail – which I have taken great care to root in the application of strictly logical principles.

    1. First, both of the sub-points in this paragraph are assumptions, not arguments. At least provide one or two statistics from a reliable source indicating your two sub-points that, (a), most rape victims are women and that, (b), most victims of domestic abuse are women. An argument involves adducing evidence to support its main points. An argument is not a string of baseless assertions. Your main thesis seems to be that female rape is not recognized (“…we advocate for female victims to be recognized…”) and therefore that they are appropriately focused on in campaigns against domestic violence (DV) and rape. Now this is what you do in an argument…expand on “not recognized”. How is it not recognized? That is my first major critique of your first paragraph; that is, it lacks any empirical foundation. Second major critique: it is illogical. The heading poses a question, why women are focused on so much in anti-rape / DV campaigns? In your answer, you proceed to explain why they are focused on so much, thereby assuming that they already are focused on more-so than men. Then, your final answer to the inquiry is that it is because women are under-recognized. BUT YOU WERE ALREADY ASSUMING THEY WERE OVER-RECOGNIZED IN SUCH CAMPAIGNS. That kind of logical contradiction is what happens when, in answering a question, you ramble on aimlessly instead of outlining a thoughtful, logically structured argument. So that is my final critique of your writing in this paragraph; namely, that it contradicts itself.

    2. First, do you have any grounds to believe that women are portrayed in media less than men? From my memory, I can say with a large measure of confidence that I have seen just as many, if not more, female than male characters in works of fiction. To say that they are drastically under-represented is a pretty broad generalization. Second, you write that commercials suggest women “should have low standards” in terms of the attention women can get. That’s a fairly superficial assumption; what, does a man have to be ripped and wealthy and famous to be deserving of women in general? Why are you imposing unrealistic expectations and stereotypes on men when you so vehemently argue against the same action being exercised as against women? That is hypocrisy. Finally, in 284 words, you didn’t even answer the question asked. It was about why men are portrayed negatively in the media as unintelligent, etc. You didn’t challenge whether men are portrayed as such; thus, you presumably agree that men are negatively stereotyped on national television, etc. So what’s implied is that you don’t care if they are stereotyped. This hurts your credibility and is partially why you strike a wrong cord with the critics you identify as “misogynist”.

    3. This paragraph both does not answer the question and lacks an empirical basis. It does not answer the question – Why is it socially unacceptable for men to express themselves in ways outside social norms? – because it turns the question into – Why aren’t women able to express themselves in ways outside social norms? You suggest that this is because these women are either, (a), approved of for doing so in that it represents an unexpected achievement or, (b), mocked for not meeting misogynist ideals of femininity. You don’t substantiate this proposition with any supporting evidence. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that these two reasons against female self-expression also explain biases and prejudices against male self-expression. That is another major assumption on your part. What you need to do is research these topics and stay on point.

    4. Honestly, you need to do a little bit more research on affirmative action and write a little more than one paragraph to do it justice. First, what kind of affirmative action program are we talking about here? I can’t even seem to find an example of one in your paragraph.

    In summary, your blog lacks research; many of its statements lack relevancy; almost all of your arguments lack structure; and your tendency is to not answer the questions which you purportedly set out to answer. The result is that your blog has less to do with misandry than with a number of important social issues (the importance of which I don’t deny). Indirectly, however, what it seems to suggest is that stereotyping of or negative things that happen to men is justified because it happens more-so to women. I sincerely hope that you do not believe that anymore.

    In responding to me, if you take the things I say about your blog and turn around and say them about my criticism, keep in mind the different natures of our prose. You held out your under-10 paragraph blog to be a definitive statement about a number of issues from gender identity to gender in media to affirmative action. My written response is a critique of that blog. So, while I critique your blog for lacking evidence, you can’t say my criticism lacks evidence because the only evidence it needs (and has) are my observations about the deficiencies in your arguments, research, and writing. Please apply your own policy of respect to me, as I have done to you, and I look forward to seeing if you can come up with a legitimate response. – L

    • bunnika says:

      I feel your blog preaches hatred toward men.

      Congratulations? Your feelings aren’t really what matter here, and preaching on my lack of morals is uncomfortably ironic, tbh.

      First, both of the sub-points in this paragraph are assumptions, not arguments. At least provide one or two statistics from a reliable source indicating your two sub-points that, (a), most rape victims are women and that, (b), most victims of domestic abuse are women.

      You mean like the ones I already provided? The ones linked right in this entry? You know, like this and this and this? I’m really confused as to how you managed to find this page and comment, given how you don’t seem to understand how links work.

      An argument is not a string of baseless assertions.

      Yet you ignore my sources, and make not just “baseless assertions,” but also state complete falsehoods. Like I said, irony.

      Your main thesis seems to be that female rape is not recognized (“…we advocate for female victims to be recognized…”) and therefore that they are appropriately focused on in campaigns against domestic violence (DV) and rape. Now this is what you do in an argument…expand on “not recognized”. How is it not recognized? That is my first major critique of your first paragraph; that is, it lacks any empirical foundation. Second major critique: it is illogical. The heading poses a question, why women are focused on so much in anti-rape / DV campaigns? In your answer, you proceed to explain why they are focused on so much, thereby assuming that they already are focused on more-so than men. Then, your final answer to the inquiry is that it is because women are under-recognized. BUT YOU WERE ALREADY ASSUMING THEY WERE OVER-RECOGNIZED IN SUCH CAMPAIGNS.

      This is a failing in your reading comprehension. Feminists focus on the victimization of women because society does not give victims the protection, respect, and empathy they deserve. To repeat: Not given justice by society (which I supported with proof, btw), so recognized and focused on by feminists. These statements in no way contradict one another. They actually support one another.

      That kind of logical contradiction is what happens when, in answering a question, you ramble on aimlessly instead of outlining a thoughtful, logically structured argument.

      And this sort of poor comprehension happens when, instead of actually paying attention to what’s being said, you create an imaginary dialogue inside your own head.

      First, do you have any grounds to believe that women are portrayed in media less than men?

      Oh my god, read the sources I provide before you comment! Most of this comment does nothing but prove how you paid absolutely zero attention to my post.

      Second, you write that commercials suggest women “should have low standards” in terms of the attention women can get.

      What “commercials”? Did you read this post at all?

      That’s a fairly superficial assumption; what, does a man have to be ripped and wealthy and famous to be deserving of women in general?

      Please provide a single quote from me that even implies such a thing.

      Why are you imposing unrealistic expectations and stereotypes on men when you so vehemently argue against the same action being exercised as against women?

      Again, I don’t know where you’re getting this.

      Finally, in 284 words, you didn’t even answer the question asked.

      WHAT QUESTION? I didn’t ask a question, I stated a point to argue against. Again, did you read anything I actually wrote, or were you too busy C&P’ing into word counters?

      You didn’t challenge whether men are portrayed as such; thus, you presumably agree that men are negatively stereotyped on national television, etc. So what’s implied is that you don’t care if they are stereotyped. This hurts your credibility and is partially why you strike a wrong cord with the critics you identify as “misogynist”.

      This doesn’t even make sense. I specifically acknowledged that there are negative male stereotypes in media, and explained how it is a negative reflection on society, and how men are more worthwhile than women, even when they embody negative stereotypes. I care about these stereotypes insomuch as they reflect misogyny. No, I don’t care if your delicate fee-fees are hurt because sometimes men in media aren’t perfect. Go watch a Bond movie and stop whining.

      This paragraph both does not answer the question

      Seriously, no questions, this is getting beyond obnoxious.

      Why is it socially unacceptable for men to express themselves in ways outside social norms? – because it turns the question into – Why aren’t women able to express themselves in ways outside social norms? You suggest that this is because these women are either, (a), approved of for doing so in that it represents an unexpected achievement or, (b), mocked for not meeting misogynist ideals of femininity.

      Please stop trying to elevate your writing to a level it can’t reach, it’s migraine-inducing.

      You don’t substantiate this proposition with any supporting evidence.

      Links for this are provided in the entry linked to at the very top of this entry. Pls 2 be learning how 2 internet.

      what kind of affirmative action program are we talking about here? I can’t even seem to find an example of one in your paragraph.

      “There are programs in place to help women–such as college scholarships–while no such programs exist solely for men.” Dude, it’s the entire bolded point. *boggles*

      In summary, your blog lacks research I’m unwilling and/or incapable of reading anything you wrote or clicking any of the many many links you’ve provided

      Fixed that for you.

      almost all of your arguments lack structure

      Stop stealing all the world’s irony! We might need that someday. ;___;

      The result is that your blog has less to do with misandry

      I assume you mean “this post” and not “your blog,” as my blog is not about “misandry.” And this post isn’t about “misandry” either, it’s about misogyny, and how people (like you) don’t understand that “misandry” is just coded misogyny.

      what it seems to suggest is that stereotyping of or negative things that happen to men is justified because it happens more-so to women.

      I seriously don’t know where you people keep getting this victim complex from.

      I sincerely hope that you do not believe that anymore.

      And I sincerely hope you’re just a really dedicated troll, and not really this purposefully ignorant.

      you can’t say my criticism lacks evidence because the only evidence it needs (and has) are my observations about the deficiencies in your arguments, research, and writing.

      How convenient, and patently false. If you want people to believe a point you’re making is based in fact, you need to provide sources, period. I am the only one of the two of us who did this, though you’ve shown a spectacular ability to pretend I didn’t.

      Please apply your own policy of respect to me, as I have done to you

      It is not respectful to pointedly ignore the vast majority of my statements, accuse me of saying things I never said, and construct a straw feminist to argue against instead of actually engaging me in informed, thoughtful debate. I don’t know what you think “respect” is, but it’s not this.

      • L says:

        Here is my reply!

        You clearly don’t know how to take criticism very well.

        Thanks for twisting my words around, completely ignoring what I say and doing what I expected, reversing my criticisms and applying them to me. I did a favor editing your article. You said something about how I shouldn’t “elevate my writing” and that I don’t have “reading comprehension”… Uh yeah that’s why I have a degree in English language and literature with first class honors…You could learn a thing or two from my writing / analysis. Don’t want too? Okay, good; you can’t improve as a writer if you can’t build off constructive criticism.

        “Read my sources…” Interesting use of plural…I’ve come across one source here: rainn.org. Good writers look at a multiplicity of sources to give their prose an air of objectivity, not just rely exclusively on a single website that supports their viewpoint. They also do not just slothfully provide links, but single out data from sources and link it to support their individual points. What you’ve done is last minute research and posted your links giving the appearance of a factual basis.

        “I feel” – that is a matter of saying, “I argue that”. Don’t just use fallacy of equivocation to say that some kind of emotion was being expressed there. Don’t know what a fallacy of equivocation is? Try going to Wiktionary for that one. There, you can easily find Wikipedia.org to find the research you sorely need to substantiate the countless groundless claims you make in your article.

        WHAT QUESTION? Here’s an outlandish claim…maybe it’s the ones implicit in the bold sentences at the beginning of your paragraphs. But…it’s a leap of faith. Here’s an example, fit for a high school English class test question. – The first paragraph is implicit with the question, Why do campaigns against domestic violence and rape, when there are male victims? I hope your knowledge has been vastly increased by this learning experience.

        You say I don’t know that “misandry is coded misogyny”. I spent a lot of my time in English studies studying feminism, learning from feminist professors and writing feminist essays. If you think your article comes close to proving that abstract assertion, I feel sorry for your “ignorance”. Usually it is feminist professors with some measure of credibility that make those kind of assertions. When it comes from people like yourself, it doesn’t carry any authoritative weight. In fact, you don’t even unpack that statement in your article. It just sounds good and makes you look smart.

        I did provide all the sources I needed to: different passages of your post, and the numerous research-related, writing, and structural deficiencies therein. That’s what a “criticism” is, by the way. Again, I hope this has been a learning experience.

        You didn’t even address my encapsulation of your overall thesis: “what it seems to suggest is that stereotyping of or negative things that happen to men is justified because it happens more-so to women”. You didn’t argue with that, so presumably you agree that is an accurate encapsulation of your argument. And, yes, if you’re not mature enough to move away from that bizarre perspective that it’s okay to treat an entire identifiable group with discrimination and disrespect, you are terribly mistaken. In fact, it fundamentally contradicts one of your basic tenets, that “Men are not oppressed” (see title). – L

        • bunnika says:

          Here is my reply!

          Oh this is going to be good. Congrats! You’ve already earned complete and utter snark from here on out.

          You clearly don’t know how to take criticism very well.

          You clearly don’t know how to give worthwhile criticism.

          Thanks for twisting my words around, completely ignoring what I say

          Ironyyyyyyyyyyyy.

          I did a favor editing your article.

          lol wut.

          You said something about how I shouldn’t “elevate my writing” and that I don’t have “reading comprehension”… Uh yeah that’s why I have a degree in English language and literature with first class honors…You could learn a thing or two from my writing / analysis.

          Well your school certainly had some low standards. I have my Master’s in English, graduated with a 4.0. Suck it.

          you can’t improve as a writer if you can’t build off constructive criticism.

          You don’t seem to understand the meaning of “constructive” or “criticism.””

          “Read my sources…” Interesting use of plural…I’ve come across one source here: rainn.org.

          Since you seem to be having difficulty, I will C&P every single empirical source I’ve used within these posts:

          http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Executive_Summary-a.pdf
          http://www.oneinfourusa.org/statistics.php
          http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet(National).pdf
          http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.html
          http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=111458
          http://www.babble.com/cs/strollerderby/for-a-good-marriage-women-need-to-stay-home/
          http://loveyourbody.nowfoundation.org/presentations/SexStereotypesBeauty/SexStereotypesBeauty.pdf
          http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc05/EDOC10484.htm
          http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/womenspay.htm
          http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1855441,00.html
          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-hughes/are-custody-decisions-bia_b_870709.html
          http://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2011/07/12/in-many-states-alimony-reform-has-gone-too-far/
          http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2010/11/26/how-the-consad-report-on-the-wage-gap-masks-sexism-instead-of-measuring-it/
          And oh yes you got me: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims

          Gee, over a dozen…I’m really horrible about providing sources, please teach me how to be awesome like you. ;______;

          Good writers look at a multiplicity of sources to give their prose an air of objectivity, not just rely exclusively on a single website that supports their viewpoint.

          And good readers pay attention to what they read, including all of the sources used.

          They also do not just slothfully provide links, but single out data from sources and link it to support their individual points. What you’ve done is last minute research and posted your links giving the appearance of a factual basis.

          Seriously, dude, learn to read.

          “I feel” – that is a matter of saying, “I argue that”. Don’t just use fallacy of equivocation to say that some kind of emotion was being expressed there.

          Again, ironic, coming from someone who started out by accusing me of “hatred.”

          Don’t know what a fallacy of equivocation is? Try going to Wiktionary for that one.

          No u.

          There, you can easily find Wikipedia.org to find the research you sorely need to substantiate the countless groundless claims you make in your article.

          Oh my god please tell me you did not just call Wiki-fucking-pedia a source. Which is exactly what every English professor–nay, every English educator, regardless of grade level–will tell you is the worst idea ever. It is banned from being used as a source, full stop. If that’s where you get your ~insightful observations~ from, things suddenly made a lot more sense.

          WHAT QUESTION? Here’s an outlandish claim…maybe it’s the ones implicit in the bold sentences at the beginning of your paragraphs. But…it’s a leap of faith. Here’s an example, fit for a high school English class test question. – The first paragraph is implicit with the question, Why do campaigns against domestic violence and rape, when there are male victims? I hope your knowledge has been vastly increased by this learning experience.

          You have no idea how badly I want to take a grammatical red pen to this entire paragraph. Atrocious.

          I spent a lot of my time in English studies studying feminism, learning from feminist professors

          So much empathy for those professors rn.

          I feel sorry for your “ignorance”.

          You should have skipped English and gotten a degree in irony, ’cause you’re great at that one.

          When it comes from people like yourself, it doesn’t carry any authoritative weight.

          You know they don’t actually have degrees in irony, right? You can stop trying for that A+ any time now.

          In fact, you don’t even unpack that statement in I didn’t actually bother reading your article.

          Fixed that for you.

          It just sounds good and makes you look smart.

          D’awww, thanks! I’d say the same about your comments, except…well, you know. All the not-sounding-good and not-looking-smart stuff in them would make a liar out of me.

          I did provide all the sources I needed to: different passages of your post, and the numerous research-related, writing, and structural deficiencies therein. That’s what a “criticism” is, by the way.

          You do get that you’re not dissecting Shakespeare, right? This is a sociological blog, and you are commenting on a sociological article. Sociology is a science, not an art. That means you have to reply to it as such, or you’ll be completely dismissed. This is why I provide scientific links, which you soundly ignored. Seems you didn’t pay attention to your gen eds when you got that mystical English degree. I hope this has been a learning experience for you.

          You didn’t even address my encapsulation of your overall thesis:

          Thesaurus.com doesn’t always make you sound smarter, you know.

          “what it seems to suggest is that stereotyping of or negative things that happen to men is justified because it happens more-so to women”. You didn’t argue with that, so presumably you agree that is an accurate encapsulation of your argument.

          “I specifically acknowledged that there are negative male stereotypes in media, and explained how it is a negative reflection on society, and how men are more worthwhile than women, even when they embody negative stereotypes. I care about these stereotypes insomuch as they reflect misogyny. No, I don’t care if your delicate fee-fees are hurt because sometimes men in media aren’t perfect. ” There, I encapsulated my direct reply in quotation marks for you. I hope it thoroughly encapsulates my stance on this issue. It’s important to encapsulate one’s encapsulation. Encapsulate. Encapsulate. Encapsulaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate!

          And, yes, if you’re not mature enough to move away from that bizarre perspective that it’s okay to treat an entire identifiable group with discrimination and disrespect, you are terribly mistaken.

          Whew, that’s a relief. It had been like two sentences since you said anything ironic, I was worried.

          In fact, it fundamentally contradicts one of your basic tenets, that “Men are not oppressed” (see title).

          Also as stated all over this blog: Learn the sociological meaning of the word oppression. Didn’t any of your professors teach you about context and how you can’t read something in a vacuum? Because that’s what you’re trying to do, and you are just failing all over the place because of it.

    • pleasure_past says:

      From my memory, I can say with a large measure of confidence that I have seen just as many, if not more, female than male characters in works of fiction.

      I want to know what books you are reading. No, really, honest-to-Lucifer I want to know. Because if you can point me toward well-written fantasy books about believable female protagonists with support net-works made up even 50/50 of girls and women, anywhere near in number to the fantasy books I have read about male protagonists, or about protagonists with support networks made up almost entirely of men, you will be my new best friend. We will ride our unicorns to Lothlorien every day and dine on chocolate frogs. And that’s just fantasy, which is a fairly modern genre.

      Also, for someone who thinks sources are so important… where are yours?

      what, does a man have to be ripped and wealthy and famous to be deserving of women in general?

      No. Ripped, wealthy, famous men do not deserve women. Good-looking men do not deserve women. Nice men do not deserve women. Men who support feminist causes do not deserve women. Men who devote their lives to traveling around the world, saving buses full of women from certain death every single day do not deserve women. No man ever deserves women. We are not prizes to be won. There is nothing you can ever do that will make you “deserving” of a woman. When women seek male partners, they aren’t seeking a worthy owner, they are seeking someone whom they are sexually comparable with and whose personality and life-style goals compliment their own. There is nothing a man can be and nothing a man can do that will put him into some mystical category of men who “should” have women in their lives.

      In any case, this is dramatically different from the standards that are imposed on women. Women aren’t held to ridiculous standards if we want to get a man, we’re held to ridiculous standards if we want society to treat as worth-while human beings. That’s why women are always punished more harshly, both in the media and in reality, for being outside of mainstream beauty standards. Men who don’t meet beauty standards may occasionally be seen as unworthy of a girlfriend, but women who don’t meet beauty standards are seen as unworthy not only of a boyfriend, but also of a job (http://unemploymentality.com/2009/05/fired-for-not-wearing-makeup/) or of equal pay (with other women! Never mind with men!) for a job (http://www.livescience.com/14271-weight-workplace-salary-job.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Livesciencecom+%28LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed%29) or of being on TV (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2142023/Armpit-hair-A-feminist-statement-No-untamed-body-hair-pits.html) or of just being allowed to live our lives unharnessed. For men, female validation is just female validation, but for women, male validation is the validation of the ruling class. Having or not having the validation of men is the difference between being view as a worthwhile human being by society or being seen as worthless. That is why women are taught to lower our standards and believe that any male attention is better than none. (And we’ve been told that for centuries. Hell, it’s still a very modern notion that it is not better for a woman to have a husband who beats her than for her to have no husband at all.)

      Also. Questions. What the fuck are they?

      Indirectly, however, what it seems to suggest is that stereotyping of or negative things that happen to men is justified because it happens more-so to women.

      Learn to read. Not talking about male rape or about DV against men is not the same as denying that it’s important. It’s just wanting to have one discussion that is not about men.

      Just get the fuck out of here with your condescending bullshit and come back when you know how to read. Your “criticisms” will be a lot less insufferable when you have a high enough reading comprehension to understand what you’re criticizing.

      • Mike says:

        “Ripped, wealthy, famous men do not deserve women. Good-looking men do not deserve women.” – “Also, for someone who thinks…[context is] so important” (fixed that for you) you seem to be taking a lot of your critics’ points out of context. You don’t address their arguments, because you can’t come up with any valid counter-arguments.

        “Also, for someone who thinks sources are so important….” – A critique is a critique is a critique is a critique is a critique.

        “Learn to read. Not talking about male rape or about DV against men is not the same as denying that it’s important”. Dismissing it with a nonchalant attitude does suggest it’s unimportant. It also contributes to systemic inequality because, you know what? Men includes Hispanic men and Asian men and African American men. By dismissing the discrimination that occurs against these men in the family courts, you are contributing to racism. And it is a gender not a race issue. Look up the Tender Years Doctrine.

        And, not going to publish this comment bunnika? It’s probablly because you’ve realized you’re wrong and have found someone who has more knowledge in this area than you. Please tell me you are not a TA or RA who teaches undergraduates.

        • bunnika says:

          You don’t address their arguments, because you can’t come up with any valid counter-arguments.

          Make a coherant list of arguments and they will be refuted. I and others have addressed every point we can shake out, but frankly, most of these “criticisms” are such convoluted wordsalads that an argument may have been intended that wasn’t properly conveyed. Please feel free to fix this; provide rational, clear arguments, and I’ll tackle them (so long as they don’t break the rules for comment publication).

          A critique is a critique is a critique is a critique is a critique.

          As I’ve said before: “You do get that you’re not dissecting Shakespeare, right? This is a sociological blog, and you are commenting on a sociological article. Sociology is a science, not an art. That means you have to reply to it as such, or you’ll be completely dismissed. This is why I provide scientific links….” A legitimate critique of a sociological piece (including editorials) requires legitimate sociological sources. If you can’t do that, you’re not offering a “critique,” just an unfounded opinion. My opinion is founded in the sociological resources I have linked. If you can’t manage the same, there’s no reason why anyone should take you seriously.

          Dismissing it with a nonchalant attitude does suggest it’s unimportant.

          I don’t think any rape or assault deserves nonchalance. You’ve inferred that purely from the fact that I don’t want to talk about it when discussing feminist issues. Please provide a single instance of me saying male victims don’t matter, violent crimes against males aren’t a big deal, or anything like that. Putting it on a shelf so I can discuss relevant issues is not nonchalance. I don’t talk about lots of important issues, because they’re not relevant to what I’m writing. If I didn’t constantly have MRAs like you coming here to bully me about feminism, I’d be free to discuss the victimization of women without having to justify why I’m not also talking about men. People like you force me to pointedly shelve an issue that, otherwise, would simply go unmentioned, like transphobia, trickle-down economics, or any of thousands of other serious issues that are not relevant to my writing.

          It also contributes to systemic inequality because, you know what? Men includes Hispanic men and Asian men and African American men. By dismissing the discrimination that occurs against these men in the family courts, you are contributing to racism.

          No. Educate yourself on intersectionality and kyriarchy. By your logic, every white male is oppressing women, because women of color exist. See how this is an endless circle of fail? As I’ve said before: A man of color can oppress a white woman because of male privilege. A white woman can oppress a man of color as a white person. How these privileges play out is largely a matter of context, and the individual privileges can greatly impact one another. For example, only 3% of rapists ever get jail time, yet of that 3%, a disproportionate number are men of color (most often black men) because the justice system’s slant in favor of men is outweighed in this scenario by it’s detrimental slant against people of color.

          And it is a gender not a race issue.

          And it is a sex, not a gender issue. Pls 2 be googling the difference.

          And, not going to publish this comment bunnika? It’s probablly because you’ve realized you’re wrong and have found someone who has more knowledge in this area than you.

          I’ve made it clear several times, in several places, when and why I don’t publish comments. I’ll tell you right now, if you return with another useless comment like this one, you’re done, and your comments won’t show up any more. Because so far, you’ve been all bluster and no content, and you’re wasting my damn time. Provide me with sources and legitimate arguments, and you’ll get published and I’ll reply again. Come back with this crap and you’ll be populating my ban list.

          • Mike says:

            I would like to apologize for being rude in the preceding comments. Some of the language in the blog, such as that “Men are not oppressed”, initially led me to believe that you were de-legitimizing the problems that face men in contemporary society. After reading your comments, I am convinced that you were not de-legitimizing these issues and that it was a misinterpretation on my part.

            I do in fact identify as a feminist but one who is still coming to terms with its ideas. I think it’s beneficial to think critically about feminist beliefs just as there is value in critically reflecting on any belief system. After considering the evidence and reflecting on your arguments, I am starting to agree with you that “misandry is coded misogyny”.

            I’m sorry for being over-critical of your editorial here. You have a good writing style and your sources lend support to your conclusions (the links in your comments).

            • bunnika says:

              Thank you for this. Yours were far from the worst comments I’ve received (that honor goes to those too vile to publish), but it still heartens me that anything I’ve said has made an impact on someone who didn’t enter the conversation agreeing with me. Truly, this is a great comment to read on what has otherwise been a rather difficult day.

              I think it’s beneficial to think critically about feminist beliefs

              I wholly agree with this, largely because “feminist” is such a blanket term that there is no tried-and-true, hardline approach to feminism that everyone can (or should) agree on. Accepting anything like this without reflecting on it is just blindly following, and that’s not good for any cause, because inevitably, every person, every organization, every belief system will make a mistake. Everyone in this fight is human, and god knows all people are capable of error. Ask me sometime about the really gross opinions I had about “reverse racism” a few years ago. >.<

              As far as feminism as a belief system goes, there are a lot of problems in the movement. Hell, google “RadFem 2012 transphobia” for an easy example. I identify as a “radical feminist,” but I do not stand behind the actions of that organization (and transphobia is just the tip of the iceberg, unfortunately). For that matter, I regularly have to call out feminist groups I follow (or am somehow involved with) for being ableist and classist, and there’s a historically huge problem with the feminist movement and racism.

              There is far too much variance in what people call “feminist” (whether I believe that to be an accurate description or not) to just nod along with everything anyone says. One theory of feminism says this, another says the opposite, a third tells them both to go to hell. And my own beliefs are constantly expanding and refining, to the point that I can positively say there are beliefs I held a year ago that I’ve grown out of, at least in part. That’s sort of the point of feminism, imo–to encourage examination of not just the female experience, but how that inequality affects all of society, and perpetuates ugly social roles that need to be bent, deconstructed, abolished.

              I write because I want to examine my own views, hear those of others, and see if my opinions hold fast in the face of scrutiny. A lot of what’s been said here has solidified my position, and as much as it can be exhausting to hear the same arguments again and again, sometimes some legitimate questions come up that make me glad I had a chance to answer them. If you had any idea how deeply misogynistic I was just a few years ago, you’d know why I still write, hah. It wasn’t until I started really listening to what other women were saying that I started to understand how fucked up my opinions were. If I can ever, in even the tiniest way, help someone else do the same thing, then it’s worth it.

        • pleasure_past says:

          “Also, for someone who thinks…[context is] so important” (fixed that for you) you seem to be taking a lot of your critics’ points out of context. You don’t address their arguments, because you can’t come up with any valid counter-arguments.

          Uh, no, you didn’t fix it. That statement of mine was a direct response to L. What you just said doesn’t make any sense as a direct reply to me, because the word “context” doesn’t even appear in the comment you replied to.

          Also, I wasn’t aware I had a critic. I am not bunnika. Go figure, she is not the only feminist in the world.

          Please explain to me how anything I said was not a valid answer.

          A critique is a critique is a critique is a critique is a critique.

          This is completely not true. It is entirely possible for critiques to be worthless. L’s most certainly was. For example, “‘Can’t read. Better go. Better. I’m tired to move,’ isn’t proper grammar!” is not a valid criticism of James Joyce. “But people don’t actually talk like that!” is not a valid criticism of Shakespeare. “But you can’t really access other worlds through wardrobes!” is not a valid criticism of C.S. Lewis. Saying those things about those authors only shows your own ignorance, and you will have it coming to you when you are treated to laughter and scorn from everyone with the slightest idea what you’re talking about, including the authors themselves. L’s criticisms were not valid. I very clearly told him why. As did Bunnika.

          You, I notice, are not actually even attempting to show either of us that there was any logical fallacy or factual error in our replies. You’re just insisting that all critiques are valuable purely because they’re critiques as though this is a proven fact and not your own opinion. That is your personal philosophy, and you can’t really expect Bunnika to live by it when you haven’t sold it to her (good luck with that).

          Dismissing it with a nonchalant attitude does suggest it’s unimportant.

          Except that’s not what she’s doing. She’s just wanting to have a discussion that isn’t about those issues which she admits are important. Since you want to talk about racism, I’ll use a racism analogy:

          Black Person: “So racism against Black people—”
          Asian Person: “Wait! You’re talking about racism against Black people!”
          Black Person: “Yes, I am. I am Black and I am affected by racism against Black people, so—”
          Asian Person: “But people are racist against Asian people too!”
          Black Person: “Yes, they are, but I am Black, and I am affected by racism against Black people, so I’d like to talk about it and how it—”
          Asian Person: “Oh! So you’re saying that racism isn’t important unless it happens to you?!”
          Black Person: “No. I am saying that racism happens to Black people in addition to other racial minorities, and it’s all equally important, but I am Black, and my understanding of racism is specific to racism against Blacks and I think that sometimes it is more effect to treat racism against Black people as a separate issue from racism against Asian people, because the two different types of racism have different histories, different contexts, and manifest in different ways. I’m not saying that it is never okay to talk about racism as a whole, without specifying race, but I think that sometimes it is helpful to have race-specific discussions about racism. So, because I am Black, I would like to have a discussion that is specifically about Black people and the issues that Black people face.”
          Asian Person: “So what you’re saying is that racism against Asian people isn’t important! You’re a racist!”

          Not wanting to talk about something right at this moment is not the same thing as dismissing it as unimportant. It is not going to become the same thing no matter how many times you and your MRA buddies want to insist that it is. If you still don’t understand that, please see this post about delicious cake. If you still don’t understand even after reading that, please just go away.

          It also contributes to systemic inequality because, you know what? Men includes Hispanic men and Asian men and African American men. By dismissing the discrimination that occurs against these men in the family courts, you are contributing to racism. And it is a gender not a race issue. Look up the Tender Years Doctrine.

          Yeah. No. It doesn’t work that way. The fact that some men are gay does not make me a lesbian homophobe. The fact that some men are disabled does not make bunnika a wheel-chair using ableist.

          Nevermind that no one has dismissed gendered stereotyping in family courts. Bunnika has not said that it’s not real. I have not said that it’s not real. I haven’t seen anyone say that it’s not real. What Bunnika said, and what I’m saying now, is that these things are the fault of misogyny, not misandry, and by working to end misogyny we are working to end those things.

          And, not going to publish this comment bunnika? It’s probablly because you’ve realized you’re wrong and have found someone who has more knowledge in this area than you. Please tell me you are not a TA or RA who teaches undergraduates.

          Huh. So you really didn’t realize that I am not bunnika. Reading is hard, right? Why, if it weren’t so hard, not only would you have read the name of the person you were quoting, you might have read bunnika’s easily located and plainly worded commenting policy.

          For what it’s worth, I am an undergraduate, and if I went to a school that allowed to TAs to teach, I’d wishI had a TA as awesome as bunnika.

  29. Love you to says:

    Women are terribly underrepresented in our nation’s prisons. Is anyone going to do anything about this horrible misogyny? Women need more freedom to be locked up behind bars, get longer prison sentences, and receive the death penalty.

    • bunnika says:

      I know this is sarcasm, but it’s partially correct. Women are often convicted and sentenced more leniently than men because of misogyny. Society looks upon women as delicate and largely incapable of difficult physical and violent tasks.

      • Love you to says:

        So when women are treated unfairly it’s misogyny, when men are treated unfairly it’s still misogyny. I love how it’s always automatic evidence of male patriarchy if men over-represent in any positive field by even a few percentile but when men are overrepresented in prisons, prison sentences, suicide, on the job death and injury, military death, early death, homeless population, etc. it’s still somehow that same male patriarchy that supposedly favors men and gives men more rights that causes it. You go on and on about the lack of women in science and technology, upper management, politics, and basically any other high level job but conveniently ignore the majority of men in oil rigging, construction, coal mining, roofing, deep sea fishing, and I could go on.

        That implied monopoly on victimization is the main reason why I just can’t support feminism. You claim to want equality and equal rights but hold on to the standard that only women can be hurt, only women can be the victim and even when men are hurt it’s still women who are the victim and the ones truly hurting.

        And where do you get the “partially correct” from, which part of my previous post is incorrect the make me “partially correct”?

        • bunnika says:

          So when women are treated unfairly it’s misogyny, when men are treated unfairly it’s still misogyny.

          No, men can be treated unfairly for any number of reasons, ranging from the personal to the social (if said man is a social minority, e.g. a man of color, queer, etc.). But sex discrimination is based in the devaluing of females and femininity.

          I love how it’s always automatic evidence of male patriarchy if men over-represent in any positive field by even a few percentile but when men are overrepresented in prisons, prison sentences, suicide, on the job death and injury, military death, early death, homeless population, etc. it’s still somehow that same male patriarchy that supposedly favors men and gives men more rights that causes it.

          No. It is not about “favoring” men in these instances, but about the systemic assumptions about women. Men as a social group are not unfairly imprisoned, women as a social group are often unjustly set free because of the social stereotypes about gentle, loving, delicate womanhood.

          You go on and on about the lack of women in science and technology, upper management, politics, and basically any other high level job but conveniently ignore the majority of men in oil rigging, construction, coal mining, roofing, deep sea fishing, and I could go on.

          Actually, I don’t go “on and on” about any such thing, but if that makes you feel better, sure. I’ve also already addressed how the lack of women in stereotypically masculine jobs is a result of the systemic misogyny that declares women unfit for physical (or particularly “tough” or “manly”) labor. See: Women being excluded from the military, front line combat, etc.

          That implied monopoly on victimization is the main reason why I just can’t support feminism.

          What monopoly on victimization? You do realize that I’m very pointedly saying MEN ARE VICTIMIZED BY MISOGYNY, right? That doesn’t make their victimization any less real, and frankly, I’m disgusted when people like you devalue their experiences just because you don’t like to acknowledge the source of them.

          You claim to want equality and equal rights but hold on to the standard that only women can be hurt, only women can be the victim and even when men are hurt it’s still women who are the victim and the ones truly hurting.

          Your reading comprehension blows. Read the rest of my comments here, re-read my actual posts, and try to realize how well and truly incorrect you are in this baseless assumption. Return with something that actually contributes to the conversation, or don’t return at all. I’m tired of wasting my time on people repeating the same arguments I’ve already refuted. If you can’t be bothered to read what I’ve said, I can’t be bothered to answer you.

          And where do you get the “partially correct” from, which part of my previous post is incorrect the make me “partially correct”?

          You said: “Women need more freedom to be locked up behind bars, get longer prison sentences, and receive the death penalty.” This is a value judgment on capital punishment that doesn’t apply to my writing, and I’m not going to clog up this post with unrelated conservatism. Agreeing with you wholly would be casting my vote in favor of capital punishment, and that has no place here.

  30. Rachel says:

    How do you…how do you deal with this? My brain is about ready to explode. Ah…

  31. Sean Connell says:

    I’m reading this a while after the fact, so I don’t know how relavent it will be for you anymore. I just wanted to thank you for the time and energy you spent responding to all of the comments on here. I have a really difficult time articulating points when debating with MRA because they are often so dismissive, bull-headed, and silencing of anything dissenting of their opinions.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you as a queer person, a feminist, and a person with a penis, for giving me a concise and intelligent way to frame an argument that will likely not be heard anyway. Even if it doesn’t move people at all in a debate, it makes me feel better knowing there are ways to engage with that kind of dismissive and privileged response.

    • bunnika says:

      Totally relevant! This is still my most-popular entry (it still gets linked on MRA blogs, and the men’s rights thread on Reddit, among other places) though I don’t publish a lot of the comments. (I’ve got no problem tackling privilege, but all-out hate speech and threats of violence don’t see the light of day.) It’s why I revisited it a year after I originally wrote it, and why I still reply to the comments here, and will for as long as I write this blog.

      I started writing this blog because I was tired of floundering when confronted with privileged rhetoric. I wanted something solid to link to, something that said cool-headedly all the stuff I’d normally sprinkle with more than my fair share of expletives. It’s damn fucking hard to keep your head straight when you’re under attack, when you’re confronted with bigotry. It makes me happier than I can say to know that my blog is a reference not just for me, but for others in my situation. Comments like yours are why I have the strength to keep making these posts, to keep tackling these subjects. So these comments always relevant, because they give me the fuel to keep going. :-)

  32. Seth says:

    I can’t… I just can’t. This post is such an insult to women everywhere. You think you’re so damn enlightened because you can generate fallacy after fallacy about how “women are oppressed, and men rule America”.

    The woman who actually accomplished something in their lives didn’t sit on their asses complaining about male driven society, they went out to prove something. It’s true that woman were once oppressed in the U.S, but you can thank people like Cleopatra, Marie Curie, and Amelia Earhart that it’s not that way anymore.

    By sitting here announcing to the world that you still feel oppressed because there are more men in public office, you’re just showing the world exactly why that is. Playing the victim never got anyone anywhere.

    Just know that while you’re here creating a fake issue; there are thousands of intelligent women out there actually getting something done and making society a better place.

    • bunnika says:

      Speaking purely from an American standpoint:

      In a nation where conservatives are limiting abortion rights, with some states requiring medically-sanctioned rape via transvaginal ultrasounds…

      In a nation where women are still paid less than 80% the salaries of men in identical positions…

      In a nation where employers discriminate against women interviewees based on their marital and/or parental status…

      In a nation where women have their clothing/lack of virginity/level of intoxication/etc. scrutinized to blame them for their rapes rather than the rapists…

      …misogyny isn’t real because Cleopatra. Are you trolling for the lulz?

      1. I’m a woman somewhere, and this post is not an insult to me, or a myriad of other women who have read and commented here. Plz 2 b not speaking for us as if we’re a monolith.

      2. I’m getting plenty done, as evidenced by the people who comment here and send me emails thanking me for helping them understand issues, for giving them the confidence to speak up for women. What exactly are you accomplishing by admonishing me on an ancient blog post? Bolstering your ego is about it, because you sure as hell haven’t provided anything even verging on legitimate argument in this comment.

      3. Two–count them, two–references to me just “sitting” here. Pretty asshole thing to say to someone in a wheelchair. Of course I’m fucking sitting, and everything I get done I get done while sitting. Fuck you and your ableist linguistics. And while you’re at it, learn what a fallacy is, good christ.

      • Seth says:

        “In a nation where conservatives are limiting abortion rights” :

        The conservative arguement against abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women. They’re arguing because they believe it’s murder (the situation would play out the exact same way if it were men who had to carry the child). Misogyny is nowhere in the equation.

        “with some states requiring medically-sanctioned rape via transvaginal ultrasounds” :

        Are you EVEN being serious right now? Transvaginal ultrasounds are now considered rape by radical feminists?! Rape is forcing yourself sexually on another person, and is all about one person deriving pleasure from domination another. What the hell is sexual or dominatingly pleasurable about giving an ultrasound?

        Does this mean that if someone brushes up against my dick, then I can make a rape claim? Million dollar lawsuits, here I come.

        “In a nation where women are still paid less than 80% the salaries of men in identical positions” </strong. :

        There absolutely is a wage gap, though it is easily explained with a little bit of logic and understanding of the world. First of all. it's already proven that men work around 5% longer than woman (which accounts for about a quarter of the gap on its own). Also, men and women tend to gravitate towards different things when looking for a career. Women are more likely to pick a more comfortable position, with more personal fulfillment, and less traveling. While men are more likely to take a less fulfilling and desireable job that requires more traveling.

        Believe it or not, many women DO think about having a family over having a career (though I know you probably consider them a disgrace to fiminist society, and that they're just doing what the world expects them to). This being true, many more women are going to be more inclined to chose a position that doesn't require much commitment, so they can easily leave, or cut their hours, when they're ready to have children. It's the same job, but the woman has found a comfortable company/position, while men are more likely to chose a job with less desireable characteristics in order to achieve higher pay.

        Nothing is wrong with either choice. It's simply the subtle differences in thinking left over by the process of evolution.

        “In a nation where employers discriminate against women interviewees based on their marital and/or parental status” :

        What? Who? Should I even comment on such an absurd statement? It’s not discrimination to refuse a high-stress job to a single mother. The same would happen if a man walked into the interview and said he was a single father. The ONLY time this would ever happen would be if someone competing for the same job had the same qualifications as you, and the only difference was the fact you/me were raising a child alone. It’s not unfair, it just makes sense that the job will go to the person who has the least prior commitments (albeit you are equally qualified).

        “In a nation where women have their clothing/lack of virginity/level of intoxication/etc. scrutinized to blame them for their rapes rather than the rapists…” :

        The only people who do this are pigs. Any person capable of reason will never blame the victim of a rape. There are not nearly enough people who say this to consider it a “national problem”. People being *accused* of rape are actually getting thrown in jail extremely easily, with far less evidence needed for someone accused of something else. Clearly the judge and jury are not blaming the woman.
        —————————————-

        I wasn’t using Cleopatra as an example of someone who helped end misogyny. I was simply using her as an example of a woman who was a powerhouse. She ruled in a time when misogyny was very much real, and she was respected. SHE overcame misogyny when it was actually a problem for women.

        1. My mistake, perhaps I was a bit hastey in my generalization. I guess I should have said that this post is an insult to intelligent , driven , and rational women everywhere. I apologize for that.

        2. You’re getting nothing done besides inciting misguided anger in the women (and maybe some men) who read this and don’t know any better. My ego has nothing to do with anything. I was just upset to see yet another person who would like to play the victim and blame someone else for their unhappiness, instead of making a meaningful contribution to society.

        3. Hahaha this made me laugh. This HONESTLY made me laugh. Now I’m sure that you’re just complaining to complain. If you can’t see that was a (very common) figure of speech, then there just isn’t help for you. But yes, ok, apparently I’m misogynistic, so why not add ableist? Hell, lets tack on racist, ageist, homophobic, “left handedness hater”,” freckle hater”, “people with 10 figers and toes hater”, and whatever else you feel is appropriate. I’m sorry I spoke to you as a normal person in society, instead of feeling sorry for you and tip-toeing around your feelings?

        • bunnika says:

          Abortion has nothing to do with women. You…you’re a special one, I can see that now.

          Pls 2 B learning the definition of rape. If you want to have a tumor removed, it would be rape if your doctor forced you to have a rod shoved up your ass first because of arbitrary, medically-unsound legislation. Stop talking about rape now, because you’re gross.

          Also, read all the other comments here, because you’ve presented nothing new, and I’m tired of debunking the same bullshit. I’ve got things to do, an ass to be sitting on and all.

          1. Oh noez, a random man on the internet doesn’t think I or the other women here are intelligent, driven, or rational. Well we’ll all just be crying into our pillows and shutting the fuck up now, because owsies. ;___;

          2. “I know you are, but what am I.” Tremble, feminists, this one’s got our number!

          3. There is no oppression against lefties, or redheads, or non-polydactyls, but yeah, I’m sure you’ve got a lot of other bigotry boiling in you. I’m just calling what I see.

          Return with something of substance, or don’t return at all. I repeat: Read the comments where I have already debunked all your blather here. Hell, read my other posts on these subjects. Read all you’d like, but if you don’t bring anything new to the table, you’re done talking. Or, rather, I’m done publishing. Because I’m tired of you pretentious twerps thinking you deserve to take up my bandwidth, when your understanding of sociology would get you a big fat F at even a freshman level.

    • tatjna says:

      Dude, who the hell do you think you are to speak for women anywhere?

      I’m a woman, getting on with it, and I’d like to point out that it’s possible to get ahead in life and make society a better place while acknowledging that an oppression exists. Or are you one of those idiots that thinks because America has a black president, racism doesn’t exist either?

    • Ashley says:

      “This post is such an insult to women everywhere”

      you’re not even a fucking woman, assface. what kind of male privileged dumbfuckery do you have to engage in to actually think men have the right to speak for WOMEN? that’s right, our opinions don’t matter, you’re the man here! your voice negates ours! shithead.

      and why the fuck would we thank cleopatra, marie curie, and amelia earheart for freeing us from oppression? female oppression is not gone, its alive and kicking and perfectly demonstrated by your dickhead beliefs that men can speak for women and that inequity in the work force is due anything but social inequalities. women make CHOICES to pick certain jobs because of CHILDCARE, you know, and men don’t feel the need to do the same because they know they have the male privilege to offload that responsibility onto women, and there ain’t nothing misogynistic or oppressive about that, not at all! that there is equality, folks!

      and by the way, the gains we have made are due to the FEMINIST MOVEMENT, not to fucking cleopatra.

      i know his comment is a month old but it enraged me. don’t publish if you want ofc, its got swearing and namecalling and all, but i have to at least write it to get the pissed-offness out of my system.

  33. ghostwolf says:

    I’m not here to criticize your blog. But I am interested in knowing what your vision of an idealistic world is.

    • bunnika says:

      Running on the assumption that you meant an ideal world….

      From a social stance, a world without prejudice. A world where a man won’t make more money than I do for the same job, and where I won’t be hired over a person of color simply because I’m white. A world where poverty is not forced on minorities, and the rich contribute to the welfare of all, because they believe in the importance of helping their fellow person. A world where the “war on Christmas” won’t be brought up every damn time someone says, “Happy holidays.” A world where rape rates plummet (for all sexes), because it is acknowledged for what it is, and punished as it deserves. Elevators in every apartment building, same-sex marriage unflinchingly flourishing, an end to prejudice, hate, and war.

      What I’ll settle for? ADA compliance in even just 20% of the stores at the mall. Rapists getting jail time, and not having those punishments heavily skewed to punish assailants of color rather than equally guilty whites. A country that gets the fuck out of the Dark Ages and happily implements universal healthcare like every other first-world nation on the planet. A country where a Muslim, Hindu, atheist etc. could be elected president without people screeching about their status as a non-christian like it’s an inherently bad thing. A country where I can marry whomever I damn well please, and not being threatened and harassed for my sexuality. A world where I don’t have to second-guess every choice of behavior and clothing, thinking, “If I get raped tonight, will I be blamed because of how I dressed, or because I had a drink?” A classroom where my kindergartner doesn’t get harassed because she chooses buzz cuts over pigtails, and roughhousing over playing house.

      TL;DR a better fucking reality than what we’ve got.

    • Rachel says:

      Wasn’t there a time period full of idealists? Oh, wait? There were SEVERAL? Did anything ever really change? I don’t remember…

  34. Feminism is stupid says:

    Women have been put on a pedestal since the beginning of time. At every point in history that women were oppressed, so were men. I don’t understand how anyone can be so ignorant as to believe in things like “Patriarchy” and the wage gap myth. And no person with a truly free-thinking and open mind (who does not see a statistic and immediately accept it as fact without questioning the methods of study) could ever believe that 1/3 of women have or will be raped.

    • bunnika says:

      Read the myriad of my comments here, and the countless verified sources I have included, or stay off my blog. You’re wasting my time.

    • Do you not understand that this so-called “pedestal” was also a prison, a form of oppression? It was also highly selective – women who did not adhere to societal rules of behavior (be modest, dress this way, look this way, don’t speak, don’t talk back to men, don’t have opinions, don’t have a job, don’t be single, and on and on) were sure as fuck not included. Women both on and kicked off the pedestal were abused, raped, and murdered by the hundreds. In medieval times, a woman who slept with a man who was not her husband could be murdered. In Victorian times, a woman who did not mind her tongue or who dared to complain about her oppressive, disturbing conditions and social isolation could be confined to a mental hospital where she would be “professionally” abused; A woman who did not marry by a certain age (usually around 25) was ostracized from society; Women who wanted careers were relegated to being secretaries and school-teachers. Male social scientists theorized that women inherently had less intelligence than men – and these studies were published and widely accepted in academic circles. Even today, a woman who sleeps with a man she isn’t in a relationship with is a “slut” and can be abused and discriminated against for it. A woman who is a “bitch” can be murdered or raped by a man and people will feel sympathy for the man. A woman who is abused by her husband is asked “what did you do to piss him off?”

      Give me the male equivalent. Go ahead. Tell me that being “forced” to financially support an unwilling, probably too young wife is exactly as bad and as oppressive as being raped nightly by your older spouse whom you cannot leave because if you do, you will be shunned by society and probably die. Tell me that being “forced” to treat a woman to dinner when you take her for a date is exactly as oppressive and terrible as being murdered by the drove and never having society even so much as notice. Tell me how men having to act macho sometimes is exactly as oppressive as women being forced to be sexually available to men all the time, 24/7, but not too much or she’s a slut, and if she does it wrong men can and will rape her.

      Tell me, jackass. And while you’re at it, you can shove that last comment up your ass. Actual studies show that not only is it PROVEN that at least one in every four women will be a victim of rape in her lifetime, but that that number is actually CONSERVATIVE and may be much higher. Do you really want to start adding “rape denier” to your enviable list of crimes tonight?

  35. David Williams says:

    Holy shit. I am certain that this will not get published because I am just affirming everything you’ve said in the entirety, after reading through all of your comments, other people’s comments, your blog posts cited here, the blog post up at the top in question… just holy shit.

    I’d like to address a couple of things though, and I am not looking for your praise or the praise of anyone that has been making comments.

    1. Bunnika is a damn good writer. There’s more to making these posts than just spewing out gigantic words that people need to look up (like thesaurus guy) and trying to confuse bigots. She puts the terms and phrases in such a way that even someone like me, with zero understanding of what “mansplaning” is, can understand the jist of what she is saying. I only have a bachelors in Creative Writing, but I can tell when someone is a very talented writer, and she is both talented and entertaining.

    2. If you feel like Bunnika talked down to you, or was too sarcastic, or made you feel small, it is because you are being small and putting yourself into that position in the first place. I realize that this is difficult to explain but if you have a good argument, it will be difficult for her to point out that everything you say is a fallacy, or irony, or bigotry, or misogynistic, or racist, or whatever you happen to accidentally reveal when you make your argument.

    3. Her logic is actually pretty upstanding and not what I would call manipulative. Think of it this way, many of the subjects that men are arguing against, or arguing for, are actually derivatives of sexist or misogynistic ideals. For example, a man’s life being ruined by divorcing his wife and courts automatically giving custody of his children to his wife, even if he is a good father and is able to take care of them, the societal idea of a woman is a house wife and a mother, someone that can and should be taking care of her children. If you lift up a woman from that trope, and you instead put her on the same pedestal as any other human being you would see courts looking how good of a parent the individual is, rather than their sex. That is why it is misogynistic, because they are looking at a woman as a mother first, and a man as a provider first. Both of these things are just plain wrong.

    4. Women aren’t just basket-weavers anymore. I don’t get how anyone in their right mind could even begin to think that women only fit a narrow place these days. How the fuck old are you people? I cannot imagine that young men in their twenties, early thirties, fuck even forty year or younger men could think that. Women are trailblazing through all sorts of professions, and I personally am quite excited. I am tired of writing novel’s from a woman’s perspective and asking my female friends authors opinions, and I am writing these stories because they are what *I* want to read. I want more strong female protagonists, I want females at the center of video games, and at the center of my stories. I want strong women to be just as frequent leads in movies, and culture, as their male counterparts. You should too. Human beings are awesome and all of them should be equal.

    To Bunnika,

    Thanks for making me feel offended. Thank you for making me stay up all night reading what you put here because someone mentioned your post in a random twitter off of a web comic artists twitter account who randomly put into goggle “Misandry is” and got your post as the top one. I honestly have not found a subject that made me feel like this for a long time and I am humbled by your ability to so eloquently express your ideas and make them so crystal clear.

    • David Williams says:

      Oh and my apologies on number four, obviously I feel women should be treated equal in all fields of study, politics, medicine, sciences, literature, social, whatever, everything. Not just in writing or design, but everything. It’s not even because of a different perspective, but because it is just the correct thing to do, the only right thing to do.

    • bunnika says:

      On this entry, all comments get published, so long as they’re not blatantly cruel (ie, comments threatening to physically harm, rape, or murder myself, my followers, or anyone really). It’s sad that I even need to make that statement, but plenty of comments have gone straight to spam because of it. :-/ Newer entries, including the revamp of this entry, are safe spaces, where comments need to obey my my comment policy. Really, if someone emphatically agrees or passionately disagrees, if they do it in a non-threatening manner, I’ll give them a place to say their piece.

      That said, thank you for a refreshing comment. :-) You’re right in that I won’t have much to reply to it with, but still, comments like this are wonderful to have, not just for myself, but for my followers. A lot of women who have commented here continue to get comment notifications, and I know how draining it can be to suffer through the awful ones. It’s nice to be able to publish a good comment when they come up; sometimes we all could use a reminder that there’s hope in this fight, and that we’re not alone.

  36. Matty says:

    Oh, oppressed minorites… Here’s a topic that refuses to exhaust itself, no matter how much progress we’ve made or are making.

    As a gay man, I believe that the only minorities that have any kind of disadvantage are gays (who don’t have the right to marry yet) and the physically disabled (as they’re aren’t handicap accessible entries into every single building). That’s it. Once gays actually aquired the right to marry, I would cross us off the “Please feel sorry for me, my life is the absolute worst :( :( :(((((” list (that was some more exaggeration self-deprecation, though I feel like radical feminists give the world enough of that).

    I live in upstate South Carolina (body of the bible belt), and have to say that I’m treated pretty darn awesome. Sure, there’s a douchebag every now and then, but that doesn’t mean I’M oppressed; that simply means that HE is stupid. All-in-all, no one here really cares about your race/religion/gender/sexual orientation. If you’re a friendly and compassionate person, then people generally like you. Simple as that.

    The same goes for this feminist crap. Many people here have already debunked the wage-gape myth (though you offered no rebuttal other than “ignorant penis possessor, you’re so dumb that I can’t argue with you, get off my blog!”… Or however you worded it.). Also, as many others have pointed out again, no one with any sense actually blames the vitims of rape. Courts actually require a substantial amount of evidence that you *didn’t* commit the crime; otherwise, they’re more likely to convict you.

    A little off topic (but you did mention it), even in the deep south, I rarely hear people complain about a president “not being christian enough”. Sure, the majority of people here are christian, but they’re more worried about a presidents ability to lead a country, rather than his ability to pray for one. Even though I don’t agree with many people here when it comes to election day, I completely respect their opinion as long as they can back it up with some valid arguement.

    I’m sure you’re just itching to throw out the word “self-hating homosexual” to me. Though, before you do, first consider the fact that I’m completely comfortable with myself and the people I associate with. I don’t hate myself. Instead of “demanding”, and “bitching, and “feeling sorry for myself” about not having the right to marry; I simply act myself. When people notice that I’m gay, but not so self-righteous, they feel more comfortable around me. This opens the door for me to have an intelligent conversation about gay marriage (and why I believe what I do). I’ve changed many hearts and minds by doing this. Just being a calm, normal, caring person.

    • bunnika says:

      1. Read my comments here, and read the dozens of sources I have provided proving my point, or keep your ignorant fingers from typing your ignorant bullshit.

      2. I’m a wheelchair user, and don’t you dare to speak for me, or even so much as imply that my oppression as such is limited “wah there are stairs places.”

      3. As the only outed queer in my high school, I call your bullshit what it is: Bullshit. And it’s queerphobic as shit to talk about “the gays,” and doesn’t lend any credence to your ridiculous claims, so either you’ve got one hell of a streak of internalized queerphobia, or you are just so massively ignorant that it’s a miracle you manage to survive in the world.

      4. Back to point 1, actually: I’m just gonna let the wolfpack getcha, ’cause like I said, I am fucking tired of repeating myself.

    • pleasure_past says:

      As a gay man, I believe that the only minorities that have any kind of disadvantage are gays (who don’t have the right to marry yet) and the physically disabled (as they’re aren’t handicap accessible entries into every single building).

      Are you fucking kidding me? As a gay woman, I want to first of all say that it shows your extraordinary privilege even within the queer community if share the delusional that the worst thing that happens to us is not being allowed to marry. Our youth are disproportionately likely to be homeless and unlike heterosexual homeless youth are regularly turned away from shelters. Our women are sexually assaulted by straight men regularly in some areas. We’re regularly denied even the most basic rights to parent our children no matter how they were conceived. Trans* people (who are also often denied the right to marry their chosen partner even if they ID as heterosexual) can’t use public restrooms without fear. It’s still legal for certain institutions to refuse to hire queer people. Our representation at every level of the media is shit. We get violently assaulted at all ages and brutally bullied. To name a few. The fact that we can’t get married is a symptom of the problem, but it’s not the problem.

      Secondly, even if not being allowed to marry were the biggest issue this community was faced with, it would seem a little bit insignificant when compared to the broken treaties that Native Americans are still dealing with, the regular denial of medical treatment that trans* people are faced with, the frequent execution of Black and Latino offenders for crimes that white offenders are seldom put to death for, the immigration reforms that regularly tear families apart and have forced hundreds if not thousands of American children to flee to Mexico lest they be ripped away from their parents, the constant legal assault on women’s bodies, the denial of basic health care and decent education to our laboring class, and (both mentally and physically) disabled population who suffers from mass homelessness because people who are costing the health care companies a lot of money are always some of the first people to be let go in a recession and the government is absolute shit at taking care of our disabled population to the point that many of them can’t afford the medications and medical treatments they need just to live.

      That’s it.

      You realize that you are responding to a blog entry that was written by a physically disabled queer woman, right? I mean, how could you possibly not realize this? This information is easily viewable right here on this page. You had to scroll past it to post this comment. How do you not understand how condescending and ignorant you sound right now?

      You probably don’t. Luckily for you, queer women are pretty used to queer men being painfully ignorant condescending assholes to us.

      Once gays actually aquired the right to marry, I would cross us off the “Please feel sorry for me, my life is the absolute worst” list

      Oppression does not mean what you think it means. Paper-back dictionaries are a little old fashioned and they tend to cost money, so I won’t suggest you get one, but you might want to learn to use Google.

      (that was some more exaggeration self-deprecation, though I feel like radical feminists give the world enough of that)

      You honestly think that not being allowed to marry makes you one of the most oppressed people in American society today. Ha. There is no amount of admitted self-depreciation that is going to make this not laughably ignorant and frankly just embarrassing for you and for the queer rights movement.

      I live in upstate South Carolina (body of the bible belt), and have to say that I’m treated pretty darn awesome. Sure, there’s a douchebag every now and then, but that doesn’t mean I’M oppressed; that simply means that HE is stupid. All-in-all, no one here really cares about your race/religion/gender/sexual orientation.

      no1curr.

      What the fuck are you even trying to do here? Your central premise seems to be “I am the most oppressed person in the room, and I am not really that oppressed, so neither are you,” but you keep undermining that by being completely fucking ignorant about your own oppression, and apparently not being aware that you were speaking to people who share your oppression and can call you on it, and also by obviously not knowing or caring the first thing about any other oppression.

      If you’re a friendly and compassionate person, then people generally like you. Simple as that.

      You seem to be under this really weird impression that “oppression,” means “I don’t get everything I want all the time, and also sometimes people are mean to me.” This is not what ‘oppression’ means. Google really is wonderful and your life will be better for it if you learn how to use it.

      People do generally like me. I’m still oppressed.

      Many people here have already debunked the wage-gape myth

      If by this you mean “Women tend to work jobs that pay less!” then you have to acknowledge that many high-paying career fields are absolutely and unrepentantly hostile to women and women are still less likely to be hired than an equally qualified male because our work is considered less valuable. If by this you mean “Women tend to work shorter hours!/Not push for promotions” then you’re ignoring the fact that employers assume women will put their families, and that women are socialized to do so and punished far more than men if they do not do so, so women are generally passed over promotions even when they obviously want them. If by this you mean “But men ask for higher pay!” then you’re ignoring the way that women are socialized and the fact that things like asking for more money are generally considered negative qualities in a woman while they would not necessarily be considered so in a man.

      Also, as many others have pointed out again, no one with any sense actually blames the vitims of rape.

      And yet women are constantly bombarded with messages about the things we shouldn’t do if we don’t want to get raped and rape victims are literally told that they shouldn’t have done certain things if they didn’t want to get raped or that certain actions they took or histories they had will significantly decrease their chances of successfully prosecuting their rapists. Women’s bodies generally are considered public property unless we carefully guard them, and we are regularly demonized and blamed for it if it’s perceived that we did not properly guard them.

      Courts actually require a substantial amount of evidence that you *didn’t* commit the crime; otherwise, they’re more likely to convict you.

      97% of rapists have a substantial amount of evidence that they did not commit the rape. Huh.

      I rarely hear people complain about a president “not being christian enough”.

      no1curr

      “I am from the south!” is not a powerful argument. Stop using it. You have this weird misconception that if you haven’t experienced something in the south then no one has experienced it anywhere. That is completely fucking ridiculous and illogical.

      For the record, I have heard people complain about the president not being Christian enough. We do live in a nation where 50% of the voting population wouldn’t vote for an Atheist.

      Even though I don’t agree with many people here when it comes to election day, I completely respect their opinion as long as they can back it up with some valid arguement.

      no1curr.

      Really. Why are you even telling us this?

      I’m sure you’re just itching to throw out the word “self-hating homosexual” to me.

      Naw. I’m a homosexual, and I think I hate you enough for both of us. That’s good enough for me.

      Though, before you do, first consider the fact that I’m completely comfortable with myself and the people I associate with. I don’t hate myself. Instead of “demanding”, and “bitching, and “feeling sorry for myself” about not having the right to marry; I simply act myself. When people notice that I’m gay, but not so self-righteous, they feel more comfortable around me. This opens the door for me to have an intelligent conversation about gay marriage (and why I believe what I do). I’ve changed many hearts and minds by doing this. Just being a calm, normal, caring person.

      no1curr.

      ~Militant lesbian out.

  37. Eric says:

    I’ve just read this whole page which let’s face it is pretty intense on both sides and at the end of it I thought of a wonderful saying of Carl Sagan who had the most wonderful way of simplifying fundamental truths. In this instance he was referring to the nucleur arms race but it seemed appropriate from what I had read and the tone of what i had read from both sides of the issue. He said, and without going to google this might not be verbatum but near enough. “That it was akin to two people standing in a room up to their knees in petrol arguing over who had the most matches” Time and time again I read “I have this evidence” followed by “Oh yeah well I have this evidence” Also time and time again i saw valid points (on both sides) being ignored or dismissed off hand. Cherry picking statistics or manipulating points of language does nothing but further intrench fixed ideas. The fact of the matter (to a greater or lesser degree) everyone gets screwed over by those further up the chain and it matters not a jot what sex or race that person is. People who seek power do so not because of their sex or race they do it because of their personality and psychology. The higher that person rises invariably the less they become concerned by the whole rather than aspirations of themselves. History shows that women that reach the top are just as ruthless as their male counterparts. I’m yet to see a woman leader of a country not prepared to be as ready to go to war as any of her male equivilents, it is the nature of power. I’m getting on in years and have a long memmory, back in the early 80’s Margaret Thatcher set about, and succeed in completely destroying the working class in the UK putting tens of thousands of people out of work. Now there have been plenty of male leaders who have done the same, abuse of power is not a fundamentally male thing, it’s a personality thing and personality has no regard for what body it happens to reside in. The personality merely uses that body to it’s best advantage.
    Those in power use every advantage, including relying on the prejudice of others, to hold on to that power.
    There has always been an inbalance in the world and probably there always will be because the best way to hold on to the command of the ship is during a storm.
    The only hope is that if great masses see and understand the plight of all the better the chance for a better society.
    I live in hope that before my time on this beautiful little planet is up that will come to pass, the odds are well against it but i do live in hope. It’s called empathy people, but please don’t start demanding that one side has to do it before the other side will contemplate it.

    • bunnika says:

      I thought you had me at “tone,” but then you threw out this gem:

      “it matters not a jot what sex or race that person is.”

      Don’t trip over your privilege on your way to the figurative door.

    • pleasure_past says:

      In this instance he was referring to the nucleur arms race but it seemed appropriate from what I had read and the tone of what i had read from both sides of the issue. He said, and without going to google this might not be verbatum but near enough. “That it was akin to two people standing in a room up to their knees in petrol arguing over who had the most matches”

      Um… No. The Cold War and the nuclear arms race were all about hostile countries threatening each other and trying to look more powerful than all the others. Feminists have not been threatening MRAs anywhere in this thread, though MRAs have certainly been threatening feminists, and that’s made all the worse by the fact that our central argument is “You have more matches. You were born with more matches and people continue to give you more matches.”

      The fact of the matter (to a greater or lesser degree) everyone gets screwed over by those further up the chain and it matters not a jot what sex or race that person is.

      Lol. You just said that everyone gets fucked over by the chain of power and then in the very next sentence denied that there even is a chain.

      People who seek power do so not because of their sex or race they do it because of their personality and psychology.

      Oppression isn’t about seeking power, though. Quite the opposite, it’s very often about being given power that you did not seek and having power that you do seek denied to you, in either case for trivial fucking reasons.

      History shows that women that reach the top are just as ruthless as their male counterparts. I’m yet to see a woman leader of a country not prepared to be as ready to go to war as any of her male equivilents, it is the nature of power. I’m getting on in years and have a long memmory, back in the early 80′s Margaret Thatcher set about, and succeed in completely destroying the working class in the UK putting tens of thousands of people out of work. Now there have been plenty of male leaders who have done the same, abuse of power is not a fundamentally male thing, it’s a personality thing and personality has no regard for what body it happens to reside in.

      If what you took away from this post and the comments was that women are saints who are incapable of abusing power, you didn’t actually read shit, and you really should just go away until you can approach discussions of social justice with an open mind. Absolutely no one here is denying that Margaret Thatcher or even a great number of women quite a bit worse than her have held power around the world throughout history and hold power to this day.

      There has always been an inbalance in the world and probably there always will be because the best way to hold on to the command of the ship is during a storm.

      You just said that power imbalances are perfectly natural and then in the same sentence said that they were man-made, within a comment that as a whole is arguing that they don’t exist. You have a serious problem with contradicting yourself.

      So. Here’s what I would recommend you do: Sort out your ideology so that it’s at least internally consistent, learn how to read what people are actually saying and not what your preconceived notions of them tell you they should be saying, and then try rereading some of these posts and comments with an open mind. Please do not comment again unless you’ve had a radical change of mind. (That said, I am not bunnika, and this should not be interpreted as her attempting to censor you, because it isn’t.)

  38. Eric says:

    I don’t really want to get into a verbal slanging match with you, after all we know absolutely nothing about each other. I was trying to be general in my thinking and not make any personal comment or attack directed at anyone or any particular thing that had been said.
    I don’t see myself as having any particular privilage, certainly no privilage over any other person. I live by choice a simple life, I seek no status nor seek great wealth. Everytime we “seek” something we do so at another persons expense, Status only exists because few have it, so for that idea of status to be kept going the vast majority have to miss out. wealth, power anything you care to name has the same deal attached to it. The only privilage i acknowledge is I have is being lucky enough to have been born in a country of reasonable wealth and prosperity but again the vast magority of peolpe on the planet miss out on that, I have it at their expense thanks to the global system of power we live under at present. I think you too have that same privilage as does everyone who actually has the time and money to afford to be here.
    The statement of mine you took exception to is something I believe to be true. what matters is the value of our humanity. No I am not a religion pusher, I’m an athiest.
    I live in a country when in the recent past the four most powerful positions were all held by women at the same time, Prime Minister, Govenor General, Speaker of the House and Minister of Justice and yet for the average person there was no change in the way society functioned. I am pretty sure that happened for two successive government terms. All of those women were born out of the 70’s female movement and yet once in power did nothing to specifically address any outstanding issues of womens rights. Those women were voted to power by both men and women who belived they had the right stuff to make our society better and yet they failed. Two of our political parties have co-leaders and they are referred to as such, in both cases it is a woman and a man. Change in society does happen, sometimes quickly sometimes it takes time. What should concern us all is that every one of those changes is for the betterment of all and not at the expense of one over the other.

    • bunnika says:

      we know absolutely nothing about each other

      Untrue. I know that you’re a privilege-denier.

      I was trying to be general in my thinking and not make any personal comment or attack directed at anyone or any particular thing that had been said.

      That try? It failed. Instead, what you did is demonstrate that you didn’t read shit here, and instead wanted to feign philosopher to elevate your status as Marvelous Mediator. Fail.

      I don’t see myself as having any particular privilage, certainly no privilage over any other person.

      Fuck you.
      Are you male?
      Are you heterosexual?
      Are you cisgendered?
      Are you thin?
      Are you a citizen of a “First World” nation?
      Are you able-bodied? And if not, are you able to perform daily tasks without a wheelchair?
      Are you chronically ill?
      Are you white?
      Do you live above the poverty line?
      Do you have insurance or receive free/reduced cost health care?

      This list could get really long, so I’m snapping it here. If you can answer “yes” to even one of those questions, you have privilege. And you have that privilege because you live in a society where people who lack that privilege pay often violent dues to the bigots who want to make sure you keep that privilege.

      I live by choice a simple life, I seek no status nor seek great wealth.

      Yay? We have this in common, but it’s not in any way pertinent to the discussion.

      Everytime we “seek” something we do so at another persons expense

      Oh my god, stop playing philosopher, you suck at it. By this shitty logic, seeking happiness is always at someone else’s expense. Hell, you seeking a “simple life” would be at someone’s expense. I really hope you’re trolling with this, because the second-hand embarrassment I’m feeling right now is almost painful.

      The statement of mine you took exception to is something I believe to be true. what matters is the value of our humanity.

      Yet you show no ability to empathize–a key center of humanity, at least that of value–and instead want to pretend you’re not privileged, because it makes you feel better.

      No I am not a religion pusher, I’m an athiest.

      Relevance?

      I live in a country when in the recent past the four most powerful positions were all held by women at the same time, Prime Minister, Govenor General, Speaker of the House and Minister of Justice

      See the comment on Cleopatra and shit. I live in a country with a black president, but that doesn’t mean racism is abolished. And let me specify this very clearly: I am a white person. I have white privilege. I am oppressing people of color simply by nature of that privilege. I do what I can to mitigate it, but it is literally impossible for a privileged person to never ever ever be bigoted against a social group over which they have privilege. Some of us just have the empathy to not do the disgusting denial you insist on vomiting all over my blog.

      All of those women were born out of the 70’s female movement

      Literally just quoting this because lulz “70’s female movement.”

      What should concern us all is that every one of those changes is for the betterment of all and not at the expense of one over the other.

      And if you actually gave even one-eighteenth of a damn about that, you’d stop denying your privilege, you’d work to not be a bigot. But instead you do this, which is oppressive bullshit. Now, as a previous commenter told you: GTFO with your bigotry. Come back with something of merit, something maybe possibly verging on not being a back-patting asshole, or don’t come back at all.

    • tatjna says:

      Hey Eric,

      Are you from New Zealand? Because I’d just like to point out that since those women aren’t in power any more, the gender wage gap has increased to the widest it’s been in 10 years. Meanwhile, the women’s unemployment rate has gone from the lowest it’s ever been in 2008 to women now topping the unemployment rate.

      The government, which is now mostly made up of men, has slashed funding to rape crisis. The politician who referred to those powerful women as front-bums is being reinstated into the male-led party he was removed from, and an independent report from the United Nations has told the government to pull its socks up with regard to the country’s treatment of women.

      And every time this stuff comes up in the news, the comments are full of white, middle class men like you who don’t think they have any privilege, saying in one breath that we don’t need feminism any more because we’re all equal, and in the next saying women get paid less because they don’t work as hard or are not as good at maths or shouldn’t be taking jobs from good men anyway. Men who never have to think about the gender pay gap as anything other than a thought experiment, telling us it doesn’t exist at all.

      What those powerful women achieved wasn’t noticed by you because you don’t have to live it. That is your privilege.

      New Zealand is no shining example of women’s rights.

    • pleasure_past says:

      I seek no status nor seek great wealth.

      I literally JUST told you that privilege is not about what you seek. It’s about what you’re given without seeking.

      All of those women were born out of the 70′s female movement and yet once in power did nothing to specifically address any outstanding issues of womens rights.

      I really don’t like repeating myself any more than bunnika likes repeating herself. No one here is arguing that women are always good, or even that women always act in the best interests of other women. You aren’t actually reading anything on this page. It’s obvious you didn’t even read the comments we wrote in direct response to you.

      It’s really awesome for you that you have the privilege to think that sex and race don’t matter. Other people, meanwhile, are worried about whether or not we’ll be told it was our fault if we get raped tonight, or whether or not our sons will be shot the next time they walk to the convenience store to buy skittles. Sex and race matters a great deal to us. It has to.

  39. Eric says:

    Yes I am male, the name sort of gives that away but somehow you seem to have jumped to the conclusion somewhere along the line i am white and middle class, I’m neither, I’m brown and pretty poor. . Nor did I say the feminist movement wasn’t needed or important.
    I fully agree with you that my generation has made mistakes and a lot of them but we have also had our successes even if at times they might seem minor or insignificant but any success is a step forward.
    Remember we all get judged by the generation that follows us, mine is being judged by you as your generation will eventually be judged but it certainly is not my place to judge yours and i don’t.
    You may not believe it but i am gratified to see conviction and determination in your beliefs. Younger people should be standing up and shouting at injustice where they see it, if no one does then nothing much changes.
    Injustice in the world is easy to find, changing it can be hard work but the trick is to not replace one injustice by another, not that i’m suggesting that is happening merely it is something that can happen.
    Anyway I shall leave you to your discussion as i don’t wish to highjack your thread. The main reason I came across this was for the first time a few months back I heard the word misandry and had no idea of what it was so I set about trying (as much as possible) to understand the view from both sides, I didn’t come with the intent of being a fly in the ointment. I just see very few young people these days but I am interested in where they see the future lay.
    Take care and even if you don’t believe me I do sincerely hope you can create a better future than mine did, we did try but we didn’t completely fail either.

    • bunnika says:

      I assumed nothing from your name; that sort of gender essentialism is itself misogynistic. I assumed you were male by your privileged statements. And I assumed nothing of your race, you must be confusing me with another commenter (women are not a monolith), or you assumed something I never said, or you misunderstand what questions are. I asked if you are white, and you think that’s an assumption? Yet you ignore many of the privileges I asked about, I assume because you benefit from several of them.

      If you wanted to talk racial prejudice, I’d leave you to it, even if you were saying racism doesn’t exist. (Though, I wouldn’t give you a soapbox on my blog, I’d just stay out of your personal space.) I’d disagree with you, and support POCs voicing their disagreement with you, but the fact is, my white voice should never be heard over that of a POC on issues of racism. Yet you can’t give me that respect on sexism, and continue to lecture me on a prejudice you are ignorant to, that I live with every day.

      Your posts are riddled with contradictions. There’s no such thing as privilege, but we should fight it. I’m seeing bigotry where there is none, but I should call it out. This isn’t about a generation gap, it’s about ignorance. Gloria Steinem isn’t my generation, but she is brilliant and understands the dynamics of bigotry better than most of my generation. Hell, my six-year-old has a better understanding of gender roles and sexism than most of my contemporaries. This is not about age, it’s about a true desire to change the world for the better, even when the thought of relinquishing our privilege scares us. It’s about giving a voice to the unheard, a microphone to the quiet, and a bullhorn to the passionate extremists. If privileged people could stop duct taping the mouths of minorities, it could be about discussion. But most privileged people aren’t ready for that, you’re too scared. So maybe you should just start with not mansplaining all over the place. If you really want improvement, put up or shut up. Or maybe both at once.

      You think privilege isn’t real? Okay, borrow my wheelchair, and try to spend a day in my city shopping and eating. Just try. It’ll be super fun, honest. Especially restroom trips! It’s not like the ADA is a joke and businesses purposefully make choices that prohibit handicapped people from using them. No no, that would mean that able-bodied privilege is actually a thing! Can’t have all us cripples thinking we’re being treated poorly, oh no. Ableism? THE HELL YOU SAY!

      Being a minority doesn’t mean you don’t have any privilege (I suggest googling “intersectionality” and “kyriarchy”). You say you’re a person of color, so I’m not going to argue race with you (and have already pointedly said I have privilege over you because I’m white). But if you’re heterosexual, thin, male, able-bodied (in any way), above the poverty line, or have any sort of affordable health care, you have privilege over me, and I can call your bullshit on every single one of those points. Now check that goddamn privilege or you’ll be going to my spam filter.

  40. Vent says:

    *Golf clap* You have wasted your time.

    • bunnika says:

      A lot of women have told me how much this has helped them. Even if I don’t get through the “the other side,” helping a social minority feel secure and understood isn’t a waste of time.

  41. C. U. says:

    You’re funny! Those comments you keep posting are stupid and hilarious.

    I made a video about you and your blog on YouTube (and some of the comments on it), debunking the illogical arguments in your post and making fun of you and your petulant demeanor in general.

    Here it is if you want to see it:

    I don’t really care if you find my voice annoying in the video, by the way.

    Was all of that immature? Compared to all of the nonsense and rudeness you’ve been giving to people who didn’t fall for your propaganda? Not even close.

    I’m what I’m about to say about you and other feminists offends you, I’ve got some big girl panties for you to put on.

    You truly are a feminazi, unable to discern discrimination from oppression, and what makes it worse is that you don’t care for men’s issues and only want women to have all of the benefits and none of the responsibilities…at the expense of the well-being of men.

    Feminism is nothing but a hate-filled movement that promotes sexual apartheid and openly calls for the mistreatment of men. Your blog is a prime example of that, stating that misandry does not exist and that the only gender issue is misogyny. How self-centered and gynocentric is that?

    There are no such things as good feminists. When you follow a horrible movement, none of your members can be considered “one of the nice ones.” It’s like saying you’re a “good Nazi” or a “good Klansman.” Illogical.

    True, not all of you are bad people, but no “good members” can exist in a bad movement. Because of this, you shouldn’t expect people to say, “You’re one of the good ones.” Also, it is for this reason that being a feminist neither excuses nor exonerates you, so that’s enough with the dumb NAFALT argument.

    If you leave a nasty response to this comment, I’m only going to show it to others on YouTube. Your deleting this comment wouldn’t surprise me since you’re so close-minded, even to those who actually agree with you.

    • bunnika says:

      1. I don’t know how it works when you’re just flailing angrily at YouTube, but when you run a blog from a legit blogging engine, they have nifty little tools, like the one that told me about your video series back when you published it. Any particular reason it took you half a year to cobble together the guts to bring it to my door directly?

      2. Don’t hoist your insecurities upon me. Unlike some folks, I wouldn’t sink to the level of insulting someone’s physical demeanor (ie: your voice), especially when their “arguments” leave so much worth ridicule.

      3. I really don’t need to know what sort of panties you have lying around.

      4. Okay, Limbaugh, some of us grew out of the Holocaust-linguistics, and I think it’s time the rest of you followed.

      5. Most of this comment is utterly empty and I can’t do anything beyond point you skyward and tell you to read better.

      6. I don’t expect people like you to think I’m a good anything. Someone like you thinking I’m “one of the good ones” would mean I’m doing a damn shitty job.

      I don’t give one half of a rat’s ass what people like you have to say about me, my blog, or my movement. Please, share on YouTube. Lord knows I’ll be sharing this for shits and giggles, myself.

  42. Bunnika's Blog for Dummies says:

    Hey Bunnika! Great blog. Unfortunately it fell on so many deaf ears :/…

    A lot of people really seemed to miss your entire thesis(!). I reworked it: “the attitudes and social conventions that are perceived as misandrous are really the product of misogynous ideas and patriarchal norms.”

    I decided to rewrite your blog and simplify it for those who were either already constructing a retort instead of absorbing what you were saying or just have awful reading comprehension (demonstrable fact):

    Bunnika didn’t say that:
    1) men do not experience hardships;
    2) that crimes perpetrated against men aren’t horrific;
    3) that crimes perpetrated against men should be ignored/not addressed (she actually said the opposite…); or
    4) that women can’t have prejudice against men.

    What Bunnika did say is that the patriarchal notions of devaluing femininity accounts most for the conventions and attitudes that are perceived as “misandrous”.

    Let’s examine the two favourite examples of MRAs: “men are less likely to be granted custody rights” and “male rape and other forms of abuse isn’t taken seriously/occurs more frequently than it does to women”

    Several other commenters have provided links to sources of varying legitimacy that show statistics of the frequency of rape/violent crimes committed against men, as well as the court rulings in custody battles. The numbers are, for the sake of this argument, irrelevant though.

    I don’t believe rape, and other types of violence, perpetrated against men isn’t taken as seriously because it (may or may not) happen less. Fuck, how often does a plane get hijacked and flown into a building in North America? Not very often but we still take it *very* seriously. No, the reason why society, by-and-large, appears not to take violent crimes committed against men seriously is because of a patriarchal norm: men are tough and strong whilst women are soft and docile. With rape, it is even more complicated because we still cleave to this notion that rape is an expression of sexual desire rather than an expression of power over another person. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule: i.e. sadists who need to hurt another person in order to get themselves off or statutory rape which is a technicality rather than a malevolent action.
    So if a man is beaten, people typically react by saying “if you were a real man, you could have fought that person off”. When women are beaten, on the other hand, people see the need to protect them and express more outrage.

    With rape, people tend to think men are eternally horny and thus can’t be raped… Simple as that. (AskMen, a man’s magazine, turned whether “male rape was a real thing” into a discussion topic: http://www.askmen.com/dating/love_tip_3800/3838_men-raped-by-women.html … Talk about internalized misandry ;))

    So whether you agree or disagree, you need to actually argue Bunnika’s original point which is misandry comes from patriarchal ideas about men and women.

  43. BigDick says:

    Wow you are a dumbass cunt bunnika. Why don’t you go ride some cock, maybe you wont hate men so much. You’re probably really fat and smell like tuna fish and previous partners have hurt your self worth by telling you to go douche your floppy bacon ass beat up arby’s roast beef looking cunt. Men don’t like fat bitches, we opress them by not poking them with our fuck sticks. Get on a tread mill, go do something productive instead of whining about evil males, and then you may get laid.

    Have a nice day. Too bad we don’t live in the cave man days because you would have really felt oppressed when the males didn’t want you and you died because no evil male would protect your sorry ass.

  44. Matty says:

    “As the only outed queer in my high school”

    OH! You’re in highschool?! This blog and your attitude make much more sense to me now. I wasn’t 100% sure where your ignorance was rooted, but now everything is pretty clear. I feel like an idiot for expecting you to be rational.

    I saw this and it reminded me of this blog.

    http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4459018/French+Femenism/

    I do hope you realize that this blog is a disgrace to REAL femenism (as well as the fight for equal rights for LGBT people in America and around the world).

    • bunnika says:

      I’m supposed to accept feminism as dictated by someone sharing a misogynistic, homophobic, ableist link to “discredit” me. Yeah I’ll get right on that.

  45. profreedan says:

    “Sorry men you are not oppressed”. That’s just a stupid sweeping statement. So men who come from oppressed minority racial groups are not oppressed? Men who live in countries run by dictatorships who, alongside women live in poverty are not oppressed. Do you not understand class dynamics or do you believe all men to be privileged even if they are dirt poor living in countries run by power hungry leaders?

    It’s not an insult to men that they’re told they can be as slovenly, ill-mannered, and lazy as they wish and still expect a beautiful, capable wife.”

    Erm that’s not the message that these TV shows are sending out. They are telling men that they ARE slovenly, ill mannered and lazy and their beautiful, capable wives have to put up with their crap.TV tells men they are useless, stupid, violent and a threat to women and children. If you think TV is pro-men and anti-women you arn’t watching TV at all.

    And as for saying TV plots is male driven, give me a break! Most TV serial dramas (soap operas) centre around women and show women as angels and men as demons.

    • bunnika says:

      Learn to read comments before reiterating the same derailing drivel I’ve already refuted. I’m not hand-holding every knee-jerking child through all the same lessons.

  46. profreedan says:

    So you are refuting men get portrayed as dumb asses on TV? You don’t want TV then.

  47. profreedan says:

    I never said it was misandry. I am saying it is stereotyping and prejudiced thinking.

    • bunnika says:

      Stereotyping created and enforced by the patriarchy, and if it encourages prejudice in women (which is an argument I’m not having), we lack the social power to turn that prejudice into anything meaningful. This is derailing. Coming into a post about oppression and making it about unenforceable “prejudices” or moot stereotypes isn’t respectful to the conversation, and accomplishes nothing to obliterate those patriarchal stereotypes.

  48. profreedan says:

    Why would the patriarchy create anti-man stereotypes if patriarchy is supposed to be for the benefit of men?

    No I’m not derailing. I was mearly challenging your reading into the way men are portrayed as dumb asses on TV and your claim that it suggests men can be as dumb and slovenly as possible and still get themselves a capable wife.

    And I certainly do not see why these stereotypes should go unchallenged and unprotested just because they cannot be used to oppress.

    • bunnika says:

      The stereotypes should be challenged, and I explain why in my post. Just like I explain how those negative stereotypes of men are a result of patriarchy, and do not actually harm men. Read this post, read the comments, and read the follow-up post. There is literally nothing you have contributed that hasn’t been said and replied to time and again, and I’m sick of people expecting me to hand-hold them through the same spiel. If you can’t be bothered to read, absorb, and understand, I can’t be bothered to repeat myself over and over again.

      Also, dear lord learn how nested comments work. For the sake of the next person you pull this with, because I’m not going to be publishing any more of your repetitive comments. Say something new and worthwhile that reflects your reading and comprehension of what I and others have presented, and then we’ll talk.

  49. profreedan says:

    Oh typical way of shutting down a debate. Just say “Read what I’ve said before” and accuse your opponent of not absorbing what you have written. Nice one.

  50. God Said says:

    You are such a prig.

  51. bakraarkab says:

    Please post a statutory warning on your blog saying *may cause automatic vomit*. I messed up my keyboard after reading your “who is bunnika?” section. Also you if could link your blog in some bulimic forums I bet you could get all the donations you are asking for. I also think you are no different from meg lanker simons.

    • bunnika says:

      If you enjoyed that, check out my book, How To Induce Vomiting in 50 Words or Less. Now available on Amazon Kindle for just $9.99!

  52. I just spent over an hour reading the comments. /head desk 4ever I don’t know how you do it.

  53. Justin says:

    I’m mystified at your apparently infinite reserves of patience, bunnika. Knowing that someone as rational and even-handed as you identifies as a “rad fem” has actually got me seriously re-evaluating my prejudices vis a vis that term. A huge thank you for that! I disagree with virtually nothing you’ve said on any subject, and I would ordinarily never waste my time or yours with my critiques in any case, but you’re doing such great work and are so open to thoughtful debate that I can’t resist the temptation to offer just one thought.

    As a formally trained linguist, I can’t help but despair at how much misdirected and useless argumentation these kinds of debates tend to spawn. Sure, probably a majority of the pissed-off guys who respond are antifeminist asshats who aren’t going to like what you have to say no matter what, but there are also quite a few who might be willing to listen to reason if it weren’t for the jargon barrier. This barrier is real, it is damaging, and it can turn a semi-decent guy into a total prick, as has actually demonstrably happened a couple of times already upthread on this very page. Please don’t misunderstand me–I’m not for a second insinuating that you IN ANY WAY are to blame for the uncivil behavior or general cluelessness of any commenter, or admonishing you for failing to live up to any standard. Indeed, you’re a fantastic writer and communicator and I truly hope you keep doing what you’re doing, as you see fit.

    However, I’m very confident that a significant amount of the endless frustration that always erupts on this subject is unnecessary and occurs only because people are talking past each other. The term “misandry” is a great example. Anyone who’s reasonably well-educated in the sociology of all this knows how reasonable it is to sneer at the very notion of misandry–that is, according to the sociological definition of that term. The problem is that, in addressing the general public, most readers/listeners will have little to no sociological education and won’t be at all familiar with such specialized definitions. This is certainly a shame, but it is a reality. The general, nonspecialty definition of the term “misandry” is simply “hatred of or prejudice against men”, as readily confirmed by checking virtually any well-regarded dictionary, Wikipedia, etc. Being a linguist, I’m not for blindly parroting dictionaries as though they had some magical authority, of course, and I most certainly understand that the oppressive attitudes of the majority can and do affect their editorial processes. Still, all available evidence, as well as ordinary day-to-day life experience, certainly seems to indicate that the vast majority of the general public uses the term “misandry” to mean “prejudicial hatred of men”.

    Now, obviously, in the whole MRA world, that term has grown into something much more sinister, and become a grotesque, reactionary mirror image of its proper academic usage. I understand that feminist protests that “misandry doesn’t exist” are primarily aimed at undermining that appalling phenomenon–and it certainly should be undermined! Inevitably, though, a great many average guys, even feminist sympathizers, are being alienated when they hear “misandry doesn’t exist” as an opening salvo, and naturally interpret that to be a wholesale denial of the very notion that any woman hates men or mistreats them purely on account of their gender. Most feminists probably have little sympathy for guys who draw that conclusion, because it seems so obviously absurd that one would think the only person who could make such an uncharitable assumption about the feminist position must be a person who was hell-bent on assuming bad faith in any case, and that therefore any efforts to adjust phrasing in consideration of such a person are inappropriate and utterly wasted. I strongly disagree, and I think we’ve seen clear evidence to the contrary in this very comment thread.

    There will always be legions of shitheads dumping hate into these debates, but there are also a number of reasonable middle-of-the-road type guys who WANT to hear feminists on these issues, understand you, and agree with you. Ideally, such guys would slow down and educate themselves a bit, gain a proper appreciation of the terminology, and so on, before drawing unwarranted conclusions. A responsible guy doesn’t make lazy assumptions about what feminists are referring to when they use the term “misandry”. I get that. Unfortunately, people are only human, and will generally not do that. Why not nip all of these misunderstandings in the bud by using unambiguous phrasing? It needn’t take any additional time, or weaken the message; a simple “misandry isn’t the problem you think it is” rather than the more categorical “misandry doesn’t exist” would be both accurate and readily understandable by the layperson. Less unnecessary outrage, less wasted time, fewer ready-made strawmen with which angry guys can make hay! A win all around! :) Interested in your thoughts.

    • bunnika says:

      This barrier is real, it is damaging

      I have come to believe in the reality of a linguistic barrier (that I just haven’t written about), but it’s not because of this sort of behavior. I believe that linguistics can be an ableist barrier, but that’s a hard line to draw. If someone engaging in a conversation says they are neuroatypical and have problems with SJ linguistics, that definitely deserves accommodation, and I will gladly give it. That’s not really what’s happening in these scenarios, though.

      it can turn a semi-decent guy into a total prick

      I suppose this is where a line gets drawn between our schools of thought. Not that I disagree with this, but rather that I don’t think a “semi-decent guy” is worthy of much respect, certainly not to the degree they’re demanding of me. A fully-decent guy? Sure. But a fully-decent guy isn’t going to jump at a semantic chance to turn into a dick.

      My feelings on the word “misandry” have evolved, to the point that I now understand why it is embraced by some feminists, and I’ll use it satirically myself. It’s a term that is inexorably linked with the men’s rights movement, and the definition they give to it is utter garbage. But to take it at face value, “a woman who hates men,” that I can regard casually now in some circumstances. I will always refuse to accept the MRA definition, though, and as countless attempts at explaining that an individual woman hating men can certainly exist have just been fruitless, I’m sort of exhausted by the word. It’s ridiculous. Of course an individual can hate anyone for any reason. I’ve never argued against that, don’t care to, because I know the truth of it. But that’s what it always gets turned into, which is why I’ve just grown weary of the conversation, and can’t be shitted to have it anymore.

      the general public uses the term “misandry” to mean “prejudicial hatred of men”.

      This I disagree on, simply because I’ve not encountered much of the “general public” using or even knowing the word. It is a word latched onto strongly by MRAs, and sometimes a trickle-down to those “egalitarians” who think reverse-racism against white people is a series problem we need to tackle, etc. I just can’t bring myself to respect the arguments of people so blatantly self-absorbed. Lord knows I used to think I suffered from “reverse-racism” because I encountered people of color who were in some fashion mean or hateful to me because I was white. But I was also a really ignorant, selfish dillhole at the time, so I get why nobody took me seriously. Retrospect.

      Now, obviously, in the whole MRA world, that term has grown into something much more sinister, and become a grotesque, reactionary mirror image of its proper academic usage.

      I get that you academically see that, but honestly, you can’t really understand the extent to which MRAs infect a feminist’s life until you’ve had experiences like mine. The comments I publish here? A teensy, tiny fraction of what I actually get. And a lot of what I actually get is from very proud, self-identified MRAs who threaten me with beatings, death, and rape. This culture is a lot bigger, and a lot scarier than people who’ve not been the targets of it realize. It’s why I’m not allowing them any more power than I’m absolutely forced to relinquish. It’s why I will eyeroll at the word “misandry” whenever a man discusses it as a legitimate problem.

      a great many average guys, even feminist sympathizers, are being alienated when they hear “misandry doesn’t exist” as an opening salvo, and naturally interpret that to be a wholesale denial of the very notion that any woman hates men or mistreats them purely on account of their gender.

      These are the half-decent men who need to learn to be fully decent. Sort of like I’m still crawling my way to fully-decent white person. And just like I don’t expect people of color to hold my hand through the swamp of my own privilege, I don’t have the patience for the endless stream of men who demand that of me and feminists like me. (A rough example of this phenomena has floated around Tumblr plenty.) And yeah, it took a while for my ego to deflate enough for me to learn these lessons, but I don’t think I’d’ve learned them any better, come to them any sooner, if people of color had been more gentle with me. Fact is, folks tried the gentle approach, and I was an asshole. Then people got pissed, and I finally started to actually listen. It’ll always be a “your mileage may vary” scenario, but it worked for me, and I respect it for that, so I embrace it. Still, I’m a hell of a lot gentler than a lot of feminists out there, and yet I’m still not gentle enough. There will always be privileged people who think minorities aren’t doing it nicely enough. I spent a lot of years being really nice and gentle and mousy about these things, and it got me nowhere (or rather, nowhere good). This works for me as well as anything, and also allows me to maintain a little self-respect and sanity.

      Most feminists probably have little sympathy for guys who draw that conclusion, because it seems so obviously absurd that one would think the only person who could make such an uncharitable assumption about the feminist position must be a person who was hell-bent on assuming bad faith in any case, and that therefore any efforts to adjust phrasing in consideration of such a person are inappropriate and utterly wasted. I strongly disagree, and I think we’ve seen clear evidence to the contrary in this very comment thread.

      Again, I think your disagreement would not be so strong if you’d spent the years I did, being kind and delicate about it, and being rewarded with physical and sexual violence from men who just couldn’t be pleased, regardless of how the subject was approached. At that point, you have to realize that it’s not about them, it’s about you, it’s about protecting yourself from being their punching bag, and keeping your sanity while you do it. Since I’ve taken up this approach in my daily life, stopped accepting that coddling that men demanded on these subjects, there’s been a huuuuuge drop in the amount of violence and rape I’ve suffered at the hands of the men around me. Can’t argue with results.

      Why not nip all of these misunderstandings in the bud by using unambiguous phrasing?

      Like I said, my feelings on the literal linguistics have shifted a bit since writing this, but I can’t really explain how that would change the actual discussion without making a whole big thing out of it. Again, the problem is, even when I take the time to hand-hold through the absolute clearest of clear explanations, it’s met with hostility and demanding even more compromise from me in return. Give an inch, they take a mile. I’m just not willing to give the inches anymore. All it ever got me was ugliness. But by keeping my inches, I’ve found that the men who remain in my life are a much higher caliber of male. The kind who listen to me, apologize when I call them on privileged shit, and don’t blink an eye at a silly, steam-blowing “ARG I hate men!” sort of comment. Because they have perspective. And I just don’t have the energy (or the recovery time) to deal with men who lack that.

      • Justin says:

        Excellent points, all! I was already very much convinced that, as a guy, I’ll never be able to have more than the vaguest imaginings of the sheer endless horrorshow of human depravity that confronts women who dare to speak up as you do all the time on this blog. Of course, it never hurts to be reminded once again. :) Anyway, all I’ll say is that I hope you didn’t misconstrue my first post to be an exhortation toward gentleness and hand-holding, as it appears you might have. That’s a worn out old trope that I rejected long ago. I agree wholeheartedly that feminists will get much better results by being absolutely firm, unyielding and unapologetic. When the facts are on one’s side, it’s usually an error to give an inch–as you so rightly point out, uncharitable folks will take a mile, and before you know it you’re on their terms and you’ve already lost the plot. I think your existing level of “gentleness” and consideration for the reader/listener is quite perfect as it is. What I was humbly suggesting was not that you go easier on the semi-decent guys–who, as you rightly point out, really do need to grow up and become fully decent guys–but that perhaps “all comers to this public forum need to be thoroughly acquainted with academic terminology” is a hopeless expectation. I’d never dream of even raising this issue if this were a private space, as in the analogy with the high-level college classroom, but as I stumbled onto this post through some very tangential Googling, my feeling is that we’re sort of “out in the town square” here. By ensuring that eye-catching headlines and opening paragraphs don’t rest on specialty definitions of loaded terms that can easily cause a casual reader to wildly misconstrue the intended meaning, the discourse that arises in the wake of your otherwise flawless work might be just a bit less headache-inducing for all involved. Obviously it’s your call, and I can see why you might have valid reasons for wanting to eschew such considerations, but perhaps it’s food for thought?

  54. Frog says:

    Hi there!

    Long term supporter of fairness and rights for all. I do sometimes get annoyed at what I see as the some prejudice towards the male gender, that while I understand the concept of the “Patriarchy” I do sometimes feel that we are all tarred with same brush and just as we have bigoted foolish males we sometimes do have the same with the female gender who might use ideologies to excuse pretty shoddy behavior, and I feel sometimes If any speak out against that they are grouped together with bigots and misogynists. A lot of posts I read I do not agree with, but I do admire the points, the education and the ideas they convey and agree they have merit.

    Please be gentle with me, long time reader on these debates ,never posted before, I come here not for an argument like so many I see here, but to ask and speak and perhaps improve my knowledge and understanding.

    I have recently discovered the whole “misandry” debate and also ideas to do with “oppression” and particularly “privilege”. As a male, who has not had a particularly easy life, If find these difficult to digest, though I must admit there are some very good points.

    I do find bigotry and denial of systematic female oppression to be very annoying and I look at the behaviour of some of the men in society (In all strata’s) as somewhat disgusting.

    I nearly said “the behaviour of my gender”, but I didn’t I didn’t want to associate myself or all men with this behaviour and I don’t think it’s fair to be associated with what I see as *people* being foolish or bigotted. Just as I don’t associate all muslims with fanatics (this is a big thing in the UK right now), or say all Football fans with violent thuggish behaviour.

    I am not saying you do this, but at it’s roots the idea of the “patriachy” does have some associative bias, and while some reasoning I have read is sound and some does say pretty interesting things, often the writing slips into the unsubstantiated prejudice, over generalization of the opinionist. I feel a lot of males do get angry with and react to this in a natural way.

    I find the idea of “privilege” interesting However I tend to find these things very overreaching in that they look at the “system” as a whole, but don’t seem to address local ecosystems. Such as
    for instance there is racial prejudice in the world based on human psychology and although sociological reasoning would say that being “white” (although I’m actually a coffee colour :) ) means that racial oppression which is prejudice and power does not exist. I feel that those that are have experienced this on a local scale (while agreeing that globally they are in a minority are somewhat marginalized. (and here I talk about not personal discrimination but prehaps prejudice shown by groups albeit locally)

    I am a male of mixed race suffering from a marginalized disability for which there is little treatment or cure, this disability is mocked by many and although I can get around with a stick I feel that while others have it worse this psychological degrading behaviour makes things maybe worse than those that have more understanding and support at times ( I know this is arguable). I feel as if I have less privilege than others. Does the fact that I’m reasonably well educated and live in the west count as privilege? Of course it does! But does everything equal out? Am I more privileged than someone in a poorer country with little education, wealth, who has a healthy working body? ( I ask, to get an opinion, not to state a truth)

    Is it reasonable to blanket deny ideas because they are in a privileged state and not part of the group they talk about, so if anyone has an idea that contradicts what a member of that group says, irrespective of relative intelligence and reason is that to be dismissed as being from a privileged position, isn’t that rather Ad Hominem? Of course one could then say well the less privileged haven’t had the resources to have the same broader outlook , which is not right and a source of inequality, but does that mean that which the privileged says is not valid?. Are all males blanket more privileged than all women. Might not a woman have “privilege” on a local scale or in a specific area above which would then make the males reaction natural? I’ve tried to argue from both sides of the fence here to show perhaps that both sexes have natural behaviour and also both may have a point.

    I hold a Mathematics Bsc studying for a second degree in Psychology with a social sciences component so this is all very interesting to me. My illness has a neurological component causing a kind of word blindness and making it hard to concentrate, and I’m not feeling great at the moment so please please do excuse any rambling and typos.

    Many thanks for reading!

    • bunnika says:

      we are all tarred with same brush

      But we aren’t. A very basic look at the way women’s bodies and lives are legislated against, the extremely slanted rates of domestic and sexual violence between the binary genders, the pay rates and workplace protections for them, shows that women are tarred with brushes that never touch men.

      the female gender who might use ideologies to excuse pretty shoddy behavior, and I feel sometimes If any speak out against that they are grouped together with bigots and misogynists.

      I’m going to assume there’s just some cognitive dissonance here, and you’re trying to talk about female individuals using those ideologies. The problem is that you are confusing personal prejudices with institutional oppression. Someone being nasty because of personal prejudices is a whole ‘nother debate, for several reasons. The big one is that no matter how angry a minority may be about their oppressors, they do not have the power to enact vengeance on a large scale. Any small-scale actions they take based on that prejudice may or may not be morally condemnable, but it does not hurt the oppressor’s entire social group. For example, a woman killing a man just for being a man is wrong, and she deserves personal accountability and punishment for that action, but it is not part of a social dynamic that keeps men perpetually victimized while praising women for violent tendencies. A man killing a woman is part of that social dynamic, a sexist social dynamic, and so it is treated differently. You can speak out against individuals without speaking out against an entire minority. Saying “murder is wrong” does not marginalize women, and if it is left there and not extrapolated to a false sense of “female privilege” you’re highly unlikely to get called a bigot.

      As a male, who has not had a particularly easy life, If find these difficult to digest

      Absolutely nothing about privilege says that each individual who has it will have an easy life. In the broader social sense, this is reflected in how having one privilege doesn’t mean you have them all–for example, being male doesn’t change that you lack able-bodied privilege, and that you struggle because of that. In the narrower personal sense, it’s just naive. Neither I nor feminist I put any stock in claim that being male means you’ll have an easy life. But it does mean that you’re less likely to be raped, less likely to be murdered by an intimate partner, that (if cis) you are not having your body legislated against, you are paid more than women, etc., and those are things that make your life easier. If individual struggles were calculable in this sense, it’d just be a matter of tallying up our minority score cards and we’d know who has it best. Life is not that simple.

      I nearly said “the behaviour of my gender”, but I didn’t I didn’t want to associate myself or all men with this behaviour and I don’t think it’s fair to be associated with what I see as *people* being foolish or bigotted.

      This sort of distancing tactic actually pushes you closer to those people than just owning your privilege does. I am white, white people are racist, white people do racist shit. It is impossible for me to exist as a white person without benefiting from that racial privilege, and acting like I’d never be racist is insulting to people of color who have, can, and will experience that racism. Not intending to do bigoted things does nothing to shield minorities when you do them unintentionally (and you do, and will continue to, though you can actively work to lessen those occurrences).

      Just as I don’t associate all muslims with fanatics

      As I’ve discussed in other comments, you cannot appropriate the oppression of a minority to explain your privileged hurt feelings. This is itself islamaphobic.

      the idea of the “patriachy” does have some associative bias

      No. Pointing out the reality of privilege is the opposite of “biased,” it is a reaction to bias, it is the result of systemic oppression, and this is nothing but refusing to acknowledge privilege. Again, the hurt feelings of an oppressive party are at best laid beside at worst expressed as worse than the actual oppression that starves, rapes, and kills minorities. No.

      I find the idea of “privilege” interesting

      This paragraph confuses me (both because you identify here as white, but as biracial later on, thus confusing the racism analogy; and because it’s just jumbled beyond what I can 100% suss out). I’m taking away that the gist is more of this individual-experience-doesn’t-equate-to-social-prejudice stuff I already tackled.

      I feel as if I have less privilege than others….But does everything equal out?

      Again, back to the it’s-not-a-score-card thing. You lack able-bodied privilege, and thus have less privilege than someone able-bodied. But that does not negate your other privileges, any more than an able-bodied person’s bigotry against you would be “equaled out” or erased if they were a woman or lacked some other privilege you have. I think perhaps you’ve entered this discussion without actually looking at my blog; I am in a wheelchair. An able-bodied person of color both has privilege over me for being able-bodied, and is the victim of my white privilege. This is not a contest.

      Is it reasonable to blanket deny ideas because they are in a privileged state and not part of the group they talk about, so if anyone has an idea that contradicts what a member of that group says, irrespective of relative intelligence and reason is that to be dismissed as being from a privileged position, isn’t that rather Ad Hominem?

      The idea that there is any amount of education or knowledge that can grant a privileged party better understanding than the lived experiences of a minority is itself privileged and the root of prejudice. Could there be solitary individuals from either side who’d contradict this sociological principle? Yes, as with the whole individual prejudice thing. There are very enlightened privileged parties and very socially-brainwashed minorities, but that still doesn’t excuse privileged behavior, and cannot be used as a basis for social discussion. That leads to things like the rich people in power deciding they “know better” than the poor, and that cancelling wellfare is “for their own good.” It leads to things like the men in power deciding they “know better” than women, and outlawing abortion “for their own good.” There is nothing positive to come from trying to assert superiority over a minority in discussion of a prejudice you don’t experience, but there is a hell of a lot of negativity.

      Are all males blanket more privileged than all women.

      With regards to binary gender/sex equality, yes. Full stop.

      Might not a woman have “privilege” on a local scale or in a specific area above which would then make the males reaction natural?

      Not as women. Again, one privilege does not negate another.

  55. Frog says:

    Thank you for your comments, most interesting and educational.

    Sorry about being confusing about race, my thoughts might not have been organized, I am mixed race but live in a white western culture which mostly partake in(while being very open and interested in the cultures of other races)

    Forgive my ignorance, but I spoke about disability and privilege not for a contest or because I feel hard done by or for any argumentative idea, but for a response to the comparison, I am indeed aware of your own situation as expressed by the blog. All my questions are me putting my ideas out and waiting for a valued response to learn something of anthers perspective or I admit, better knowledge in an area I am new to, I apologise if I have come across in any brusk or insulting manner!

    I understand your point about distancing, but I feel your example is an over generalization, some white people do racist shit, but it doesn’t follow that white people are racist. I was a victim of racism as a boy , all the white kids called me nasty names but I don’t blame all of white skin colour for that or say they are all racist, just as I don’t believe all males are the same.

    Very with you on the last paragraph very good points, but although power comes with abuse and corruption is it fair to say no amount of education can grant better understanding of lived experiences? Many people do or say things that they would not know really why they did it they are reacting viscerally, however someone might analyse this to do with socio-economic issues or psychological ones to find a reason behind things.

    You explanation of privilege and not being a score card is very educational and clear. However , take a rich white elitist woman who may lets say be racist. If she is being oppressed as a woman. Depending on the circumstances she will be speaking truth, but does that mean she is an oppressed individual? More importantly, You are clear that privilege is not a score card, but if you partake of various privileges that abuse and marginalize others, doesn’t it become hypercritical to talk about oppression, it’s like say, you know what I could be a richer elitist racist white person if it wasn’t for the oppression of women? (Not trying to be insulting at all). It does seem that like any cause that has good and valid points it does seek to promote itself by isolating other aspects at play here. Prehaps if we improve peoples attitudes to people in general and get them to respect each other as a side effect all the pieces of prejudices such as elitism, racism, sexism will fade, indeed prehaps behind the sophistry change cannot be affected until a holistic approach is taken (I realise this must be the old humanist take on this, but again I’m just asking for your ideas on this)

    I understand the concept of perhaps taking about the Muslim race in the same context I could be seen as lowering it to a group which is insulting for it to be compared to, and I understand that their actions come from a privileged position, but surely there is some fundamental wrong or right and being angry at fanatics for causing violence and destruction is valid? Many Muslim and Muslim communities decry this behavior themselves, are they indoctrinated?

    One point though, you speak of Cognitive dissonance and mistaking personal prejudices with institutional oppression. I don’t really feel that when speaking out against people who hold feminist view points but also convey personal prejudice as speaking out for the whole movement persay. but that their interpretation of some ideas are wrong, or perhaps some ideas in the movement are wrong, that doesn’t equate to feeling that as a man I’m being institutionally oppressed. And that maybe the case with a lot of people who cry misandry. It is possible that feminists might have an associative bias to one another and so either allow things that go to far in the sake of fighting prejudice or even might be a little blind to it, that men are reacting naturally to?

    I have used the term misogynist and misandry purely because they are defined words, as many do, I was ignorant of the feminist/anti feminist arena and that it is used to dismiss feminist ideas, could it be being involved in this area as sensitized some to a particular context? As you have said women can display personal bias, could it be that they are not being feminists but displaying misandry? And again if feminists who do not do this sort of thing , due to issues I noted in my first paragraph could they lend to this by ignoring such items? Are all feminists completely right in their means and thoughts? Or is the male reaction to feminists with personal prejudice?

    • Frog says:

      Also within the area of over generalization , I think many men would have a problem with
      if a woman kills a man it is wrong, but if a man kills a woman it is part of a social dynamic.

      There HAS been a tradition and culture of violent abuse towards woman, but to say that a womans crime is not in the same magnitude or nature than that of the same crime committed by a man? Can’t we just say these are two screwed up individuals doing things for personal reasons and psychology rather than being part of a social dynamic? correlation not being causation? In fact can it be that any violence towards women is by horrible people rather than social dynamic. Yes they will have been influenced by media.society but could it be that it is caused not by any real influence, but the people they are themselves?

      • bunnika says:

        Look, there is a lot of just not getting it going on here, and I just cannot hand-hold through all of this. Read everything I’ve already said, in response to you and others, I’ve already addressed everything you bring up. And you’re really not getting what I’m saying directly to you even, as I said nothing of “magnitude” of crime (whatever subjective values you want that to cover), and you just keep extrapolating the personal to the political and the political to the personal when I very specifically explain why that doesn’t work in about nine hundred different spots.

        You get it or you don’t. You’re not required to agree with me, but I’m not required to answer the same question over and over into infinity. My patience has limits, and they’ve been reached. I’ll go ahead and re-point to commentary on this subject that is actually far more applicable here than it was when I originally linked it. It’s not my job to convince people to agree with me, and I’m not going to continue to repeat myself in futile hopes that maybe this time things’ll magically get through.

  56. Frog says:

    Okay Many thanks for your comments and time taken to reply :)

  57. Prog says:

    Sorry, but you’re not going to convince people that society hates women. And you’re not going to be able to downplay the suffering of men. It’s often taught that throughout history, females have been oppressed. Obviously, there are and have been plenty of cases of female oppression, but men have been just as, if not more oppressed than women over the course of history.

    Today, it is acceptable to mutilate the genitalia of newborn male babies, who then get to hear female’s whimsical preference on their mutilated genitals. Is there such a tenant in American society pertaining to females? No. How about the world? I’m still having trouble. (Note: Muslim extremism and it’s brutality toward women (and men) is not accepted to the same degree as circumcision, so don’t try)

    Also, the draft. Why do women get to enjoy the same rights as men while men are the only ones required to die in defense of those rights? That doesn’t seem fair at all. Is there a society that appoints women solely responsible for the protection of rights? No. Feminists talk about how hard they fought for their rights, and they did, but how dare you turn around and pretend that men have not done far more in defense of OUR rights. Let me put this into perspective: How did America gain its freedom? By fighting a war. Who fought that war? Men. How did the slaves gain their freedom? By fighting a war. Who fought that war? Men. How did ANY society gain freedom? War fought by men. How did women gain the right to vote? Marching… I hope you get my point. Obviously, women suffered to gain that right, but so did plenty of men, and plenty of men STILL suffer to protect the right that you get by default.

    It is a global norm that men die and women live. It’s okay when a man gets hit, it’s okay when a man dies in combat, it’s okay when a man dies on the job, but if any of those things happen to a women, it’s a virtual national tragedy! I like to use the protests in Tahrir Square, you know, where a woman was beat (next to a man who was also getting beat) during a protest. And what happened? The women of Egypt rallied! And rightly so. But that’s not what bothered me, it’s what they were saying: (not exact quote) “Drag me, strip me, my brothers’ blood will cover me.” In other words, they are throwing their disposable males under the bus. Talk about global oppression…

    There is a farrago of examples of male oppression, but no, according to you, it’s all a lie, right? Or at least, it’s not your fault. But guess what, IT IS! Societal conventions are dictated by society. Are you not a part of society? Do the opinions of women not have a direct influence on a free market??? Or men’s behavior around women? Clearly, women aren’t solely to blame for male oppression, men are too, same goes for female oppression. (yeah, i said it, feel free to call me a rape supporter, or whatever) But the only way to fix this is to stop pretending that women alone are the primary victims of sexism.

    The truth is, MEN ARE OPPRESSED. And what class of people are entitled to rights without having to defend them? What class of people get special treatment in nearly ALL sectors of litigation? What class of people are held at such high regard that entire societies are appalled at the idea of one being mistreated while the other class goes unnoticed? Oh, yeah, ROYALTY.

    As of today, men are oppressed, women are royalty.

    • bunnika says:

      Comment posted purely for teh lulz because seriously I will not continue to justify this repetitive, asinine word vomit with thoughtful replies.

      • Prog says:

        If you’re not going to use your brain, then my suspicion that feminists are a bunch of selfish man haters is correct. Of course you can’t come up with a valid rebuttal, their isn’t one. Instead, the best you can do is say (to the effect): “I am unwilling to put forth the effort to prove to my readers that what I say is factual and not biased. Because my readers are not looking for the unbiased truth, they’re looking for punching-bag, and in this case it’s men.”
        This is why feminism will remain on the fringes of society, highly stigmatized and regarded as an extreme. This is why you are losing your argument, you don’t actually have one.

        • bunnika says:

          No, you petulant manchild, it’s that I’ve already put forth that effort countless times in the comments here, and you’re either too stupid or too ignorant to utilize that resource, and I’m not holding your hand. I mean seriously, READING is that hard for you? You want me to hold your dick while you pee, too?

          • Prog says:

            Here we go… Why is it up to me to read the comments section to see if someone already brought up my arguments and if you already refuted them? Isn’t it up to you to have your arguments in the actual article? Why the hell would I scroll through pages of nonsense (which is mostly more feminist dribble)? Wouldn’t it have been smarter of you to do some real research on the subject so you can coherently refute many of the arguments against feminism, instead of relying on the comments section to cover the ground you missed? (Which is a hell of a lot) Yet another example of shifting the blame… I read your sorry attempt at an article, I rightly ignored a majority of the comments and brought up SOME of my issues. Then, like the unprofessional you are, instead of patiently defending your beliefs, which you should damn well expect to have to, you call me names and attempt to emasculate me. Your credibility is nonexistent, as expected.

          • Prog says:

            Look, I’m not here to compare war stories. You’ve been hurt, and like so many other women, you lash out, and rightly so. But please, don’t forget that men DO suffer. We my not suffer in the same way, rape (as much) and other forms of violence, but we do suffer. My mother used to put her cigarettes out on my ass before I got strong enough to fight her off. She used to kick me on the ground and tell me she should have aborted me. Physical abuse stopped when I got stronger, but not mental abuse. When I had cancer, she through me out of her house while I was going through chemo. She then proceeded to through my stuff out the window, including my computer, which broke, so in anger I kicked her door. She called the cops, and I was arrested for domestic violence… So please, don’t sit there and tell me that statistics tell the whole story, they don’t.

            You said that there is no “institutionalized oppression” against men. Well, I gave you several examples, the draft, social acceptance toward violence against men, and circumcision. Explain to me how those do not qualify as absolute, worldwide, systemic oppressions.

            • bunnika says:

              You are so fucking stupid I am not publishing any more of your ignorant drivel.

              Of course I’m “unprofessional,” I’m a goddamn personal blogger, not a writer for the New York Times. And as you obviously didn’t notice, I did include many new points in the refurbished version of this article linked at the very top (which again, you were too stupid to notice).

              I don’t owe you my time, effort, or energy in guiding you through the delicate waters of Not Being an Entitled Prick, so shift that to me all you want, you are the one who came to my page, uninvited, and started demanding special treatment. What a magical world men live in where they can expect to be so catered to.

              Do fuck off, ’cause you’re going straight to spam now.

              • C.U. says:

                Typical feminist bunnika, always being extremely rude to people with different opinions like the petulant, irrational Cultural Marxist she is while refusing to simply answer questions.

                It is YOUR responsibility to explain your claims and defend your beliefs, not others’. People are not going to have time to read a massive comments section where you do nothing but repeat your invalid points while your pets back you up like the drones they are. As Prog pointed out, if you were as smart as you think you are, you would have placed your additional talking points from the comments section into your article, so people wouldn’t have to ask you about your views so much.

                And, no, your new article doesn’t cut it. Besides, an additional talking point and a few added paragraphs, it’s still the same garbage you spewed out here.

                Stop assuming that everyone should already understand what you’re saying and that everyone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong. That’s some massive egocentrism right there. They are not mind-readers, and you shouldn’t have a closed mind. You can explain your points in a calmer, more rational way…like an adult.

                You are an adult, NOT a child, so start acting like one. You do yourself no favors by behaving like a three-year-old with a temper tantrum just because you don’t like the thought of dissent.

                People are not always going to accept your beliefs at face value, nor do they have any obligation to do so, and people not always going to agree with you. You will have to grow up and accept that.

                And, no, I’m not a misogynist for disagreeing with feminism. Feminism is a doctrine, NOT a gender, and it does NOT fight for women’s rights because it constantly treats them like unaccountable children.

                That’s the irony here. You literally belong to the most misogynist cult in existence: feminism.

                Here’s an enhanced rebuttal of your new article from me with sources this time (and I don’t want to hear any lame excuses you have for not watching it like “I already explained this”):

                Here’s a Canadian WOMAN who refutes feminism quite well:

                Here’s a MUSLIM WOMAN who refutes feminism quite well:

                And, before you throw the “‘Gender symmetry’ in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review” paper by Michael Kimmel at me, here’s a refutation from Donald Dutton in 2006:

                http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/Dutton_Corvo-Transforming-flawed-policy.pdf

                https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://lab.drdondutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Dutton-D.G.-Corvo-K.-2006-Transforming-a-flawed-policy.pdf

                Of course, you’re probably going to censor me AGAIN (of course, being a feminist, you are most likely NOT open to rational discussion), but it’s not as if you’re going to win. Go ahead and censor me. You’ve already made yourself look like a fool in the comments section. Why make it worse? Don’t act as if this comment will never be seen because that’s an outright lie. Look up the “Streisand Effect.”

                If you truly rely on censorship to make a point, then you are a dishonest, provincial human being. You have no argument and rebuttal, and you are afraid you’ll be proven wrong. Typical feminist.

                If you truly believe that you are correct and that feminism isn’t a lie, then challenge my claims, and don’t back down with censorship. Prove me wrong, and don’t censor any more of my comments (or any more comments in general). Go ahead. I’m waiting.

                No? You can’t? I knew it! Feminists can never be honest.

  58. vivicaliqueur says:

    This is pure ignorance. We live in a world where being a man means that you are automatically seen as a criminal. So much that when a woman is abusing a man and the cops are called the arrest HIM instead of the insane abuser. We live in a world where if a woman get’s pissed at a man after sex she can claim down the line it was ‘rape’ and ruin the man’s life just for the fun of it. We live in a world where when a man gets his penis chopped off people laugh at this and say he deserved it because they trust a psycho woman who has no problem doing such a criminal act rather than listen to the man’s story.

    We live in a world where men have always been mandated to go to war and die so that entitled ‘princesses’ such as yourself can use the very technology men created to bitch about how oppressed you are. Sweetheart, you do NOT know oppression. You are a first world brat who can’t stand the fact that men are human beings and have a voice and are also required to have human rights. It, for some reason, really pisses you off that a man is actually, yes, a human being just like you are, thought you don’t act like one. A human being recognizes other human beings when they are being treated as sub-human.

    The Violence Against Women’s Act is another way for women to legally treat men like criminals at every turn and get away with it. Instead of Humans Against Violence, who is assumed to be the criminal here? Oh that’s right! Men.

    Female circumcision would never be permitted here yet we circumcise boys as if it’s the normal thing to do, so don’t tell me you don’t have a say over a man’s body against his will. That is a lie.

    As for being a minority?? YOU are NOT a minority! You don’t get special privileges for having a vagina!

    You want equality? Then act like it! Lay down your entitlement and join the draft.NO? Then start treating men like the humans they are who are not created to be disposable so you can come online and bitch about ‘patriarchy’.

    Rape statistics that you share are a total lie and you know that. Including prison rape, men get raped more than women do. Also, what is not in the rape statistics is female on female rape. Women are proven to be just as likely to rape men. But when men talk about it they are laughed at. Oh but yeah, men sure are privileged.

    And those men dying early inhaling pesticides to make sure you have food on your table, they can die for your right to eat as a human, but they can’t have a voice? Yeah, OK.

    You are an ungrateful person with no reality based logic. Oh but ‘patriarchy’ right? How about, gender roles served their purpose in order for all of us to survive. It was gritty as hell but we made it and men have ALWAYS been treated as disposable. Or, are you saying women are victims of survival? ‘Oh no, I survived! Damn men, those misogynists!’ Total insanity!

    You want traditional gender roles to end but only for women. You want to continue to keep men as disposable if you believe that misandry is a ‘myth’. Pure, pure ignorance. Wake up.

    • bunnika says:

      First of all, check your fucking ableism at the door. Your “psycho” and “insane” bullshit can go fuck itself.

      We live in a world where if a woman get’s pissed at a man after sex she can claim down the line it was ‘rape’ and ruin the man’s life just for the fun of it.

      Perhaps you and I live in different worlds. I live in the world where only the single-digits of rapists actually see any jail time. Call me when you live in the real world, too.

      We live in a world where men have always been mandated to go to war

      Welcome to the patriarchy, where women are declared too “weak” and “frail” to be soldiers. Feminists fight against those stereotypes, and advocate for equal military opportunities. But women in the service are raped at twice the rate of women outside the service, so to say it’s a “hostile, misogynistic environment” would be the world’s biggest understatement.

      the very technology men created

      Okay then.

      Sweetheart, you do NOT know oppression.

      I’m a queer female cripple, go fuck yourself with your assumptions. And that “first world” bullshit is nothing but a derailing tactic to avoid fixing all the disgusting bigotry that exists right here, bigotry like yours. And go fuck yourself with your pet names, I’m not your ~sweetheart~.

      It, for some reason, really pisses you off that a man is actually, yes, a human being just like you are, thought you don’t act like one. A human being recognizes other human beings when they are being treated as sub-human.

      I’m sorry, gimme a minute, my irony meter just exploded.

      The Violence Against Women’s Act is another way for women to legally treat men like criminals at every turn and get away with it.

      You know, or a way to counter the fact that women are disproportionately the victims of partner violence at the hands of men. You know, again, in the real world, which you don’t seem to live in.

      Female circumcision would never be permitted here

      Hundreds of thousands of girls in the United States suffer genital mutilation. Illegality does nothing to stop people from destroying the genitals of little girls, an act that usually goes beyond the analogous removal of the clitoral hood and includes removing the clitoris and/or labia. Learn yourself a thing.

      You don’t get special privileges for having a vagina!

      Equating being female with having a vagina is transphobic, get the fuck out with your bigoted ignorance.

      Lay down your entitlement and join the draft.

      I don’t support the military actions of this country and believe the draft should be abolished, I’m not going to campaign to expand something that I think should be eradicated, that’s fucking asinine.

      Then start treating men like the humans they are who are not created to be disposable so you can come online and bitch about ‘patriarchy’.

      Yes, because nothing oppresses people like blogging. God, I’m so oppressive. I should be ashamed of myself, golly gee.

      Rape statistics that you share are a total lie and you know that. Including prison rape, men get raped more than women do.

      Prove it. Oh yeah, you can’t.

      Also, what is not in the rape statistics is female on female rape.

      Don’t use queer women to advance your misogynistic agenda.

      Oh but yeah, men sure are privileged.

      Glad you’re starting to see that. :-D

      And those men dying early inhaling pesticides to make sure you have food on your table, they can die for your right to eat as a human, but they can’t have a voice?

      What is this even? Where did I discuss farm workers’ and migrant workers’ (who make up the majority of those employed on farms in this counter) rights? Oh yeah, nowhere, you’re just inventing random shit.

      Oh but ‘patriarchy’ right? How about, gender roles served their purpose in order for all of us to survive. It was gritty as hell but we made it and men have ALWAYS been treated as disposable. Or, are you saying women are victims of survival? ‘Oh no, I survived! Damn men, those misogynists!’ Total insanity!

      Okay at this point you’re just banging your forehead repeatedly on your keyboard, right? Because this is just word vomit.

      You want traditional gender roles to end but only for women.

      This makes no logical sense. If traditional gender roles ended for women, they would end for men as well by default because women would have equal access to those roles currently held by men. Learn how to logic.

      Now get the fuck off my blog.

      • vivicaliqueur says:

        Learn how to logic? You’re grammar is off ;)

        ‘Now get the fuck off my blog’. Classic feminist drivel. You had to approve my comment for me to be on your blog so own your shit.

        The only reason you approved my comment was to pour your feminist masturbation all over your page.

        Just because you’re handicapped does not make you oppressed or give you the right to hang onto victim. You have plenty of rights as a human being and validation as well as systems set up specifically to help your needs. That’s not oppression. Men do not have systems set up to specifically help their needs or stand up for their rights like you do as a woman, who is handicapped.

        As for ableism, I don’t think so sweetheart. I had a boyfriend who was handicapped so you can shove that lie up your bum.

        The rest shows your blatant disregard for men as human beings. Patriarchy does not,nor did it ever, exist. That is a feminist lie.

        As for female on female rape, so you’re saying women don’t rape?

        As for female genital mutilation in the US. I’m interested to see where you are getting that information.

        Enjoy your ignorance! Is it really as blissful as people say? Because you seem miserable.

        • bunnika says:

          You’re grammar is off

          lol that’s the point are you like new to the internet or

          (btw loling forever that you typed this with the wrong “your.”)

          You had to approve my comment for me to be on your blog so own your shit.

          So you complain that I won’t publish your bs, then complain when I do. There is no winning with you fools.

          Just because you’re handicapped does not make you oppressed

          You clearly know nothing about being a cripple (and no, dating a handicapped person doesn’t give you any magic insight; it’s really gross that you would use a person that way, I feel horrible for your boyfriend). Here, learn.

          As for ableism, I don’t think so sweetheart.

          You are being ableist, and that shit does not fly here. But you’re already a misogynist so you wanna use some homophobic slurs and go for the trifecta?

          The rest shows your blatant disregard for men as human beings.

          You’re trying to turn me into a strawman, but it won’t work.

          Patriarchy does not,nor did it ever, exist.

          You seriously don’t believe that patriarchy has ever been a thing? Not even when wives were bought and sold, when women couldn’t vote or serve in the military? Never? I can’t shake my head at you hard enough, little one.

          As for female on female rape, so you’re saying women don’t rape?

          Learn to read; what I said was stop using women like me in your misogynistic agenda. Queer women do not exist for you to manipulate into your talking points. Oh hey, guess that means you hit that trifecta after all. Lemme guess, I’m not oppressed as a queer person either, right? Riiiiight.

          As for female genital mutilation in the US. I’m interested to see where you are getting that information.

          From these wild things called “facts,” discovered while doing this unbelievable thing called “research” for when I (*gasp*) wrote about male circumcision and FGM.

          you seem miserable

          You’re absolutely right, I am extremely sad for you. No one should have to go about life so misinformed, it’s a goddamn shame.

          Now read all those links and come back with something of substance or you’re done.

  59. Pingback: My reply to bunnika’s blog ‘Sorry Men, you are not oppressed:The magickal mysteries of misandry’ | The Vivifier

  60. kathleen says:

    Wow, the people on here are really dumb.
    Here, I’ll fix it for everybody.
    Females are indeed horribly oppressed and the most raped in third world countries. Males are also raped, but not “more than women” like that ignorant twat stated. However, it still counts and rape is still rape. NOBODY should be raped. Committing such an act on anyone is horrible and should just stop.
    Also, to those that think females aren’t oppressed, please research the third world countries where many females are treated like how the African Americans were early last century.
    No matter the gender, the oppression on innocent people around the world needs to STOP.

    • Dentie says:

      “However, it still counts and rape is still rape. NOBODY should be raped. Committing such an act on anyone is horrible and should just stop…
      …No matter the gender, the oppression on innocent people around the world needs to STOP.”

      This is a sensible message that everyone – male, female, transgender, black, white, whatever – should get behing.

      Wonder why Bunnika doesn’t. Huh.

      • bunnika says:

        It’s really fucking gross that you think trans people are all a third gender and not men or women.

        I “get behing” transphobes staying off my blog.

  61. P. Rover It says:

    you are dumb

  62. Alex says:

    I found a great article about the anti-male world.
    WARNING! BEFORE YOU CLICK: There may be porn ads on the side/bottom of the page. Make your window small enough to block them out if it makes you uncomfortable.
    Here’s the link:
    http://www.bestgore.com/guest-post/societal-misandry-in-the-anti-male-world/

    • bunnika says:

      I can’t “make my window small enough” because I’m legally blind and need everything zoomed to a large degree.

      That said, I’m not chomping at the bit to listen to propaganda from someone who has porn on their blog. Obviously there’s prejudice there (as porn is misogynistic and approving of porn adds on your page is approval of a bigoted industry). Besides, if someone has something to say to refute what I’ve posted, it can be said here. I feel no need to go chasing bigots.

  63. Alex says:

    Now that you’ve allowed me to do so, I shall.

    Again, here’s the source:
    http://www.bestgore.com/guest-post/societal-misandry-in-the-anti-male-world/

    And here’s the article (very long and in-depth):

    Recently, I had my eyes open to what is such an integral part of our culture that it is hardly even noticed – Societal Misandry. Societal Misandry created an Anti Male World that’s been bashed into our minds so tightly, strong anti male bias and preferential treatment of females are not only considered normal and therefore don’t raise any concerns when they occur, any attempt to level the fields is met with strong opposition from both the oppressors and the oppressed. In other words, the indoctrination is so thorough, that even though it’s a privilege (legally and socially) to be a woman, while it downright sucks (legally and socially) to be a man, both men and women would automatically assume it was the other way around, and would in all likelihood assume offensive stances against anyone suggesting otherwise.

    A good way to see what I’m talking about it by looking at the way we’re expected to perceive violence against women, versus the society’s expected perception of violence against men. When we see on television images of a man receiving a hard kick in the crotch, everyone is expected to find them funny and everyone, both men and women are expected to laugh. Kicking a man in the crotch has become a staple of comedy. But when we’re shown images of a woman receiving a hard kick in the crotch, everyone is expected to express outrage and everyone, both men and women are expected to call it an assault. Best Gore, of all places, is a good example of how far reaching this Societal Misandry is, as any depiction of violence against women is instantly met with calls for the alleged perpetrator to be lynched, castrated and slowly tortured.

    I’m ashamed to admit it, but I was tainted by the societally anticipated anti male discrimination just as badly as everyone else and like everyone else, I failed to see it when it presented itself in all its glory. When Mark was arrested, a female prosecutor made no attempts to hide that she hated men down to the last stinky atom of her body, and that she drew personal gratification from being able to put men down and ruin their lives just because they were men. Yet because constantly putting men down and ruining their lives just because they are men has been such a staple of western societies, it didn’t occur to me in the slightest that it was wrong.

    Today, after decades of being berated and put down, men got so cowed, they can’t even fight back anymore. They have no other option but to laugh with everyone else at the images of men being kicked in the crotch and assume themselves that every male, including themselves is an unfeeling future rapist that’s best castrated and lynched at first opportunity. Does it really surprise anyone that suicide rates of males are 4 or more times as high as those of females, when boys are forced to grow up feeling alienated?

    How are boys not supposed to feel alienated, apologetic for their existence, and eventually suicidal when even school books are feminized and anti male, placing a lot of focus on the assumption that wars are the result of the innately violent nature of men, while placing virtually no focus on making boys proud for what men have achieved, such as the discovery of mathematics, the printing press, electricity, the steam engine and other important inventions that transformed the world into the modern, physical labor saving, technologically advanced place we inhabit today? Even the legal system that protects women’s safety and women’s rights was invented by men.

    This societal misandry is even propagated by the media, especially the television. If you paid attention, you’d notice that sitcoms are replete with images of oafish, bumbling males who in their awkwardness can only ever move forward with the assistance of smart, smug females. You’d also notice how crime shows depict men as evil murderers and rapists, how feminized male stars relentlessly pursue them and when they get them, they slam these evil rapists against a wall and bark: “you low life scumbag!” But when the occasional episode revolves around a female suspect, she’s never slammed against a wall and called a low life scumbag cause in her case, there surely must have been a good reason for murdering the child.

    It is the same with TV commercials. Typically. as the scene opens, some buffoon of a man is struggling to have a clue as to what something is all about. Before long, an all-knowing woman, rolling her eyes and shaking her head in pity, saves the day by helping the stupid buffoon of a man not utterly ruin everything with the use of the product advertised. Sometimes, not to be too repetitive, a version of a TV commercial in which it is the children who are all-wise that help the buffoon of a man figure things out as they step in with the product. And of course, all of us, both men and women are expected to laugh: “Hahaha, look at that stupid guy. What an idiot!”

    I made this post to once and for all counter the disillusion that women are disadvantaged in life because of male privilege and patriarchal oppression. I was once the victim of this disillusion myself, so I know all too well how saturated it is, and suspect many Best Gore readers were tricked by societal misandry to embrace the anti male world too.

    Note that instead of making this article a collection of my own thoughts, I built it almost exclusively on references from what should be for the most part considered “reliable sources”. All claims that follow are based on scientific studies and researches by university professors and are therefore verifiable facts, not opinions.

    Bodily Integrity

    In many countries, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States, a woman has legal protection of her bodily integrity (her body, her choice)[73], but a man does not (his body, not his choice).[72]

    What that means is that Female Genital Mutilation is illegal, while Male Genital Mutilation is not only legal, it’s often not even regulated so it can be performed by anyone (pedophile Rabbi is not a schooled and trained surgeon). Frequently, genital mutilation of men is performed before the victim is old enough to make consenting choices of his own.[71]

    In some countries, such as the Philippines, boys are under societal pressure to undergo genital mutilation, and in Indonesia, the act of genital mutilation of boys is exaggerated by public humiliation.

    In the Netherlands, girls have the right to bodily integrity and mutilating their genitals is illegal. Boys do not have this right and mutilating their genitals is not only legal, but covered by certain health insurances.[36]

    Rape

    In many countries, the definition of rape does not include men being raped by women.[1] In the UK, if a man uses his penis to penetrate a woman without her consent, it is rape – a crime punishable by up to a life in prison. However if a woman uses a man’s penis to penetrate herself without his consent, it’s not rape, it’s merely “causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent” – a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison. In other words, a woman can’t legally “rape” a man. In the anti-male world, for women there are “lesser” crimes.[2]

    On Wikipedia, under Laws Regarding Rape, I found this:[3]

    There are no national standards for defining and reporting male-on-male, female-on-female or female-on-male offenses, so such crimes are generally not included in rape statistics unless these statistics are compiled using information from states which count them as rape.

    In Ireland, teenage boys can be prosecuted for underage sex while teen girls are exempt.[41]

    In Israel, women cannot be charged with rape, only men can.[42] It is the same in India.[43]

    Anti Male Bias in Dictionaries

    When Mark was first charged, Oxford Dictionary’s definition of “Rapist” was “a man who commits rape“. After countless complaints, the definition was amended into “a person, typically a man, who commits rape“. The anti men sexism and anti men gender based discrimination is embedded so strongly in our societies, not even dictionaries try to hide it.

    By the same logic, the definition of “Terrorist” should be “a person, typically a Jew, who commits acts of terrorism“. Except that that’s not a good example because women are perpetrators of rape equally often as men, but terrorism has been dominated by the Jews since they invented it. And I’m not merely talking about the invention of modern terrorism which started with Jews bombing King David Hotel, the site for the British Military Command in Palestine back in 1946, killing dozens of innocent people and blaming it on Muslims, which is when word “terrorism” was first used. I’m also talking about the earliest known use of acts which would be known as terrorism today – Sicarii (which translates as dagger-men) as they were known by the Romans were the Zealots of Judea who carried on underground campaigns of assassination of Roman forces, as well as anyone else they felt had collaborated with the Romans.

    Rape Policies on College Campuses

    On April 4, 2011 (it became known as the April 4th Dear Colleague Letter), the US federal Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) sent a letter to colleges and universities throughout the United States that receive federal funding, mandating policy changes in the way schools address matters of sexual harassment and sexual assault on campus.[4]

    The letter reduces the standard of proof required to convict a male student of rape to “preponderance of evidence” and “strongly discourages” colleges from giving male students the right to question their rape accuser. The directive also requires all universities to allow alleged rape victims to appeal the results of college disciplinary hearings, subjecting the accused to “double jeopardy” which is illegal in US courts.[5]

    Fake Rape Statistics

    The 1994 study by Eugene J. Kanin, Ph.D., published in the Archives Of Sexual Behavior, Volume 23, No 1, conducted in a small metropolitan community in the US found that 41% of rape accusations filed by women were false. A follow up study, found 50% of rape allegations in college to be false. 53% of the women admitted they filed the false claim as an alibi.[6][7]

    The findings, which were published by the forensic experts (unbiased researchers who are neither pro feminist, nor anything else) concluded with:

    the research on accusations of rape, sexual harassment, incest, and child sexual abuse indicates that false accusations have become a serious problem. The motivations involved in making a false report are widely varied and include confusion, outside influence from therapists and others, habitual lying, advantages in custody disputes, financial gain, and the political ideology of radical feminism.

    According to a US Air force study, 60% of rapes allegations are false. A full 27% of the allegations were confirmed to be false by the woman admitting to making them up.[8] It however also must be said that the military is pushing rape cases harder to appear like they are being “fair” to women.

    A rape prosecutor from Colorado by the name of Craig Silverman said:[9]

    During my time as a prosecutor who made case filing decisions, I was amazed to see all the false rape allegations that were made to the Denver Police Department. It was remarkable and surprising to me. You would have to see it to believe it. Any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes that there is. A command officer in the Denver police sex assaults unit recently told me he placed the false rape numbers at approximately 45 percent.

    The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey conducted by the US National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that women make up 40% of all rapists and men are 50% of all victims outside of prison.[13]

    As the case of Duke Lacrosse Players from Durham, North Carolina suggests, men who are falsely accused of rape can have their names smeared and their lives ruined, while their accuser is protected and is likely to face no punishment, or at most a light one.[47]

    However these figures do not take into account social stigmas that force men into suppressing their victimization for fear of being viewed as effeminate, weak or incompetent, and cultural tolerance and glorification of women who falsely accuse men of rape.[58]

    In India, a senior woman lawyer confirmed that females making false allegations of rape is at epidemic levels.[66]

    This one is just… Serial false rape claimant who was eventually jailed after destroying 11 lives.[68]

    Violence Against Victims of False Rape Accusations

    I already said in the introduction to this article that even the readers of BestGore, both men and women are guilty of strong anti male bias. It reflects in the way they react to any news of alleged violence against women, but you hardly ever see anything comparable when men are subjected to unspeakable atrocities, which happens far more frequently and with far greater ferocity.

    Good example if the story of a man who was falsely accused of rape and was lynched to death for it. He was later found to be innocent. Here’s another alleged rapist was beheaded, stabbed and mutilated.

    A few example not on Best Gore:

    Teenage boy named Cory Headen from Courtenay, British Columbia, Canada was beaten to death with a baseball bat after two girls falsely accused him of rape.[10]
    Woman falsely accused a man of raping her in order to sue for a $1.5 million settlement. Brian Banks spent 5 years in prison. The woman then casually confessed that the accusation was fake and said she wanted “bygones to be bygones” but did not want to have to pay back the money. Where are calls to have this bitch castrated and tortured slowly?[11]
    Town of Davis, California goes ape shit after a woman cries rape, claiming that she was raped by teenage skater boys. Cops go overboard questioning dozens of boys, feminists and their ilk hold rallies for the “victim”. Male hating graffiti is spread across town, including such perks as “Dead Boys Don’t Rape” and “Curfew for All Men”. The “victim” admits the allegation was fake, the woman is not charged but feminists and their ilk don’t accept the possibility it could be fake.[12]
    Sentencing Disparity

    Research by David B. Mustard, University of Georgia concluded that women receive lighter sentences and a higher chance of acquittal, simply for being women. Average sentence for same crime under similar circumstances (armed robbery):[14]

    Male: 51.52 months
    Female: 18.51 months

    A Queens Family Court Judge John Hunt analyzed the cases of eight teenagers who had come before him – four boys and four girls – and found that probation routinely recommended tougher treatment for boys, doing all they could to spare all but the most violent girls from prison time.[15]

    In Canada, if a man kills a child, it’s considered murder, punishable by up to a life in prison with no parole for 10 to 25 years. But if a woman kills her children, she has the rights to be charged with Infanticide, which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years and no minimum sentence. Men do not have that right.[44]

    Law Professor Sonja Starr from Michigan University found in her 2012 study of federal criminal cases that men receive on average 63% longer sentences than women do, and women are twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted all together.[45]

    The following is based on 1990 – 2000 US census:[46]

    For every 100 girls ages 15 to 17 in correctional facilities there are 837 boys behind bars.
    For every 100 women ages 18 to 21 in correctional facilities there are 1430 men behind bars.
    For every 100 women ages 22 to 24 in correctional facilities there are 1448 men in correctional facilities.

    In a recent case from Canada, a 26 year old woman who gave oral sex to a 5 year old girl was found to NOT be a pedophile. Imagine if it was a man giving oral sex to a 5 year old! Talk about sentencing disparity.[67]

    Another recent case of serious double standard from Houston, Texas – woman teacher, pedophile and sexual predator seduces a 16 year old boy and sexually violates him. She’s sentenced to no jail time, only a $5,000 fine and a probation. No word on whether she will also end up registered as a sex offender, which likely means that she probably won’t as it would have been mentioned in the article. Imagine if roles were reversed, if a male teacher seduced and sexually violated a 16 year girl. We wouldn’t hear the end of it from the ranks of feminazis, and the guy would be sentenced to 20+ years in prison and spend the rest of his life knocking on people’s doors to tell them that he was a pedo and a sexual deviant. Not to mention the little fact that prosecutors agreed to the plea deal because Nikki Scherwitz agreed to send apologies to the mother and the district, but not to the victim![69]

    Domestic Violence

    Basic domestic violence resolution policy in just about every western country is “arrest the male“. Yet women are known to be more or equally physically aggressive with their spouses/partner than men in their relationships.

    A reference examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners – an annotated bibliography by Martin S. Fiebert from the Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach found that women are perpetrators of physical and emotional abuse as or more often, and are as or more aggressive with their partners as men.[16]

    Domestic violence study directed by John Hamel, the Editor-in-Chief of Partner Abuse, a Springer Publishing Company – a three-year research project, conducted by 42 scholars at 20 universities and research centers that included information on 17 areas of domestic violence research concluded that “the victim is not always the one hit, but sometimes the one arrested.“[17]

    The study also found that men are not only disproportionately arrested in domestic violence cases, but sometimes arrested for arbitrary reasons, citing, for example, that police often arrest the bigger and stronger party in cases where the perpetrator is unclear.

    Even though study after study proves that women are as frequent or more common instigators of domestic violence as men, the “arrest the male no matter what” resolution policy automatically presumes the innocence of the woman and guilt of the man regardless of who the aggressor is.

    International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, Vol 5 Issue 1, January – June 2010 published a study on male victims of intimate partner violence in the United States in which it quoted a study by George and Yarwood who found that police have threatened 47% of male victims of intimate partner violence with arrest, ignored 35% of male victims and 21% were actually arrested instead of the female perpetrators.[18]

    Study titled “Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse: How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State” by Linda Kelly, Professor of Law at Indiana University School of Law, found that when abused men call the police to report domestic violence committed against them by their female partner, they are three times more likely to be arrested than their spouse that is abusing them.[19]

    Pro Footballer Warren Moon was arrested after he was assaulted by his wife who threw a candlestick at this head and kneed him in the groin. To prevent further assault, Moon restrained his wife but as soon as police arrived, they arrested him and charged him with domestic violence. His wife later confessed that she was being unduly violent while he did not retaliate in any way which lead to his acquittal, but as was the case with feminists from Davis, California who simply would not accept the possibility that a woman falsely accused a man of rape (I mentioned the case earlier, see reference [12]), in this case women’s group again insisted that Moon be charged. In Anti Male world dominated by Societal Misandry, a man is expected to be held responsible for woman’s criminal deeds.[22]

    A University of Florida study found women are more likely to “stalk, attack and abuse” their partners than men.[33]

    A 2007 Center for Disease Control study found that almost a quarter (24%) of relationships had violence, about half (49.7%) was reciprocal. In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70 percent of the cases.[34]

    Restraining Orders

    As if being subjected to domestic violence by their female partner was not bad enough for men, to make matters even worse, in the anti male society, women can easily file a restraining order, and just because they are women, judges don’t even verify allegations, they just issue the order.

    How easy is it for women to get a restraining order? In 2005, Santa Fe District Judge Daniel Sanchez issued a temporary restraining order to “protect” Colleen Nester who alleged that what CBS talk show host David Letterman said on his show were in fact coded messages spoken with an intent to harass her and express his desire to marry her. When asked why he had issues the restraining order on such a ridiculous allegation, Judge Sanchez replied that Ms. Nestler had filled out the restraining order request correctly.[24]

    In a 2010 study on partner abuse titled “A Closer Look at Men Who Sustain Intimate Terrorism by Women“, Professor Denise A. Hines PhD of Clark University and Emily M. Douglas PhD of Bridgewater State College found that of 302 men who experienced domestic violence by their wives, 38.7% reported that she filed a restraining order against him under false pretenses.[25]

    Domestic Violence Hotlines and Shelters

    Research by the US based National Parents Organization found that 64% of men who made distress calls to tax dollars funded domestic violence shelters were told that the shelter was only helping women. Most reported to have been laughed at and hung up on, or told that women don’t commit domestic violence therefore it must have been the caller’s fault.[20]

    According to the research by Mankind Initiative, in the UK there are only 13 organizations that offer refuge or safe house provision for male victims of domestic violence with a total of 78 bed, of which 33 beds are dedicated to male victims only (the rest being for victims of either gender), and of these 33 dedicated beds, 18 are for gay males only. In comparison, in the UK there are over 260 organizations with around 4,000 beds dedicated to female victims of domestic violence.[21]

    In other words, in the anti-male world, at least 50% of domestic violence victims are men, but there are at least 100x as many shelter spaces available for women cause men need to just deal with it and stop whining that they are being abused. Afterall, if they sought help, they would be just laughed at and blamed for being perpetrators themselves.

    Child Custody

    According to the US census on Custodial Mothers and Fathers, women receive custody of the children in about 84% of custody cases.[23]

    Research on Child Maltreatment by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families found that 81.2% of children who were maltreated, were maltreated by a parent (the remaining 18.8% were maltreated by people in nonparental relationship with them, such as daycare stuff, foster parents, neighbors, legal guardians, relatives, etc.). Of children maltreated by a parent, 38.3% were maltreated by a mother, 6.0% by a mother and other person, 18.1% by a father, 0.9 by a father and other person, and 17.9% by both a mother and a father.[70]

    We however need to take into account custodial mothers and fathers disparity as outlined by the census listed above. According to the U.S. Population Reference Bureau Data Brief, 71% of children are raised in a nuclear family, 29% are raised in single-parent families. If women receive custody in 84% of cases, we can presume that 84% of children that grow up in single-parent families are mother-led. Thus, of 29% of single parent families, 24.36% are mother-lead, and 4.64% are father lead. For the benefit of women, let’s round these figures to 24% mother-lead and 5% father-lead.

    Thus, the following can be deduced:

    76% of children grow up with a father present, while 95% of children grow up with a mother present.
    That means that for each 100 children who grow up with a father present, 125 grow up with a mother present
    Of all maltreated children, 62.2% are maltreated by a mother (sum up of 38.3% maltreated by a mother, 6.0% by a mother and other person, and 17.9% by both a mother and a father) and 36.9% are maltreated by a father (sum up of 18.1% by a father, 0.9 by a father and other person, and 17.9% by both a mother and a father)
    That means that for each 100 children maltreated by a father, there are 168 maltreated by a mother
    Thus, taking into account custodial disparity, mothers are 1.34 times more likely to maltreat their children than fathers.
    It is truly alarming that women are granted custody of the children after a split 5 times more often than men, yet they are 1.34 times more likely to be perpetrators of maltreatment then men. In other words, maltreatment of children would be reduced by 25.4% if instead of to the mothers, custody of children was awarded to the fathers.

    Considering that according to the Health and Human Services, 0.78 million children were maltreated between 2004 and 2008, by giving custody of the children to the fathers instead of to the mothers, 198,120 children could have been spared maltreatment!

    Scholarship Discrimination

    A first-of-a-kind study of NCAA participation and scholarship data conducted by the College Sports Council (CSC) found that female students are accorded far more opportunities than male students to compete and earn scholarships. Girls were awarded scholarships almost twice as often as boys – for every 200 boys, 320 girls got scholarship.[26][27]

    Hate Crimes Discrimination

    Pursuant to the 1964 Civil Rights legislation, the US Department of Justice will not investigate cases of bullying if the victim is a white male.[28]

    On some airlines, such as Air New Zealand, men are banned from sitting next to kids on airplanes, simply because they are men and societal anti-male bias dictates that every man is a presumed rapist. British Airways have recently changed this discriminatory policy.[54]

    Homicides

    As a reality news website, there is no other place where Woman Privilege can be observed more clearly than on Best Gore. One just needs to click on “All The Gore” button in top menu and go from page to page to see how utterly rare it is for a woman to become a victim of violence. And not only is violence against women rarer than violence against men, the severity of violence is also beyond compare.

    The homicide trends study by the US Bureau of Justice Statistics found that the victimization rate for males was 3 times higher than the rate for females.[29]

    Workplace Deaths

    Again, one needs only to look around Best Gore to see that men die or get injured performing their work duties more often than women.

    Majority of employees who do dangerous jobs are men. First world governments put significant effort to encourage women to enter fields traditionally made up of men, but no encouragement is made to take on the burden of doing dangerous work.

    Last summer 19 firefighters died in Arizona. All of them were men. Not surprisingly, feminist blogosphere did not explode with calls of gender equality.[74]

    Boys are brainwashed from an early age that to prove that they are masculine, they have to take on dangerous jobs. If you need an example, consider and army recruitment ad.

    According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, men account for 92% of all fatal work injuries.[30]

    Congressional Research Service on American War and Military Operations Casualties provided the following statistics on deaths of military servicemen:[31]

    Operation Enduring Freedom (from October 7, 2001 through February 6, 2010): Total deaths 973, of which 953 were male. Total wounded in action 4,949 of which 4,899 were male.
    Operation Iraqi Freedom (from March 19, 2003 through February 6, 2010): Total deaths 4,365 of which 4,261 were male. Total wounded in action (since May 1, 2003) 31,103, of which 30,495 were male.
    Suicides

    Suicides are perhaps the best indicator of how much it sucks to be a man and what privilege it is to be a woman. When one is pushed to go through with suicide, to make the ultimate sacrifice (as opposed to just making a scene in order to win the drama queen of the day award – calls for attention with fake suicide attempts are, as preponderance of becoming a fake rape victim, also a domain of women – in other words,) and to take their own life, the pressure on them must have been unbearable.

    For every 100 females ages 15 to 19 that commit suicide, 549 males in the same range commit suicide. For every 100 females ages 20 to 24 that commit suicide 624 males of the same age commit suicide.[48]

    One confusing factor in all this could be the finding that women attempt suicide more often than men. This has mostly to do with the fact that women often attempt suicide not because they mean to kill themselves, but to draw attention to themselves. Whereas most men who attempt suicide do it because nobody pays attention to their problems.

    There are many mechanisms, including governmental institutions and non governmental organizations dedicated exclusively to help women to cope with stressful situations. But hardly any or none at all dedicated to men. With few outlets for men to cope, and with pressure on them being higher than on women, things can build up and go past the breaking point quickly. Add to it societal pressure on men to cope or be called a girl, a sissy or a deadbeat and it’s easy to see why men actually go through with suicides, as opposed to using them as a call for help.

    Homelessness

    The 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development found that 63.7% of homeless in the USA are men.[32]

    Affirmative Action

    In many countries, affirmative action in favor of women is allowed while affirmative action in favor of men is illegal.[35]

    In Canada, an employer in a male dominated field is allowed to discriminate against men and hire women preferentially, whereas an employer in a female dominated field isn’t allowed to hire men preferentially. While affirmative action pretends to be a noble cause, what it does is give women a net advantage in the workplace as a whole and discriminates against men in the workplace as a whole.

    Children

    In the Netherlands, women have the right to give up an unwanted child for adoption immediately after birth, thereby stripping themselves of all financial responsibility for the child. Men do not have this right.[36][38]

    In the US, a woman can name any man she chooses as the father. The man gets a letter in the mail, if he does not prove he isn’t the biological father within 30 days (problems with postal service are not an excuse) he is now the father, cannot contest it and must pay.[49]

    As per Hermesmann v. Seyer, a woman is entitled to sue the father of her child for child support even if conception occurred as a result of a criminal act, like statutory rape, committed by the woman.[55]

    Conscription

    In some countries, military service is mandatory for men. In many others, men are required to register for selective service.

    In the USA, most male U.S. citizens and male immigrant non-citizens between the ages of 18 and 25 are subjects to the Selective Service System which makes them potential subjects to military conscription.[39]

    In the Netherlands, men between the ages of 17 and 45 are subjects to the draft.[40]

    Government Spending Disparity

    The following figures are from British Columbia, Canada but expect similar government spending disparity in most western societies:

    In 2008/2009 the province dedicated $561,360 on grants toward men’s resources and $98,983,236 toward women’s resources.[50]
    In 2009/2010 BC government spent $1,516,460 on grants toward men’s resources and $57,562,373 toward women’s resources.[51]
    In 2010/2011 BC government spent $3,740,800 on grants toward men’s resources and $48,331,443 toward women’s resources.[52]
    Female-owned businesses get free government money for no reason other than because they are run by a woman (i.e. if you took two businesses of equal niche, size, income and other factors, with the only difference being that one is run by a woman and the other by man, it’s that one difference that will open doors for the one run by a woman to free government money).[53]

    Health Research Disparity

    Obamacare contains 148 special provisions and programs for women but none for men, even though health and life expectancy outlooks for men are much grimmer than for women. The US federal healthcare spending is already 65% on women.[56]

    Men die on average 7 years earlier than women. Before the age of 65 men are three times as likely to suffer heart disease and twice as likely to die from lung cancer than women.

    An entire branch of the UN is dedicated to women issues, but nothing for men.[56]

    There are branches of federal governments dedicated to women’s health issues, but none for men.[57][59]

    Alleged Wage Gap

    Feminazis like to use the allegation that women are paid less than men as basis for their attacks on men. A 2009 study funded by the US Department of Labor titled “An Analysis of the Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women” found that the alleged pay gap only exists because it’s merely a snapshot of average yearly full-time incomes that does not account for overtime (about 90% male), type of work performed, or other voluntary, non-discriminatory factors. In conclusion, the Department of Labor proved that the alleged the pay gap is caused by choices, not discrimination.[60]

    Here’s also a video with Carrie Lukas, Independent Women’s Forum Executive Director who clarified the alleged wage gap that exists between men and women. Ms. Lukas argued that while labor surveys show women earn 77% of what men earn for equal work, in reality women earn, on average, as much or even more than men.[61]

    Here’s another well presented report on why alleged gender pay gap is now what activists claim.[62]

    Another well presented report by a woman who argues that equal pay statistics don’t like with like.[63]

    Feminism Killed Chivalry

    I have just read an article by a woman who wondered why a man would not offer to help with her heavy bag on an airplane. I would consider it a privilege to punch this bitch in the face.[65]

    Welcome to equality! This is what constant battering of men achieved. The reporter displays blatant misandry and insults men by likening them to peacocks, but in the same breath thinks she deserves special privileges just because she’s a woman. What a fantastic display of feminist mentality – to be disrespectful, entitled, conceited, and detached from reality all at once.

    Could a man in his mid 50′s realistically help a younger, attractive woman without being accused of reinforcing his sexist gender role by assuming that the woman couldn’t take care of herself, or more realistically, be assumed a creep and a rapist looking to get close to his victim? I wouldn’t help any woman either. I would probably not even look at her since mere eye contact may constitute harassment in the eyes of the feminist who seeks to destroy every man for being a man, and since this type of behavior is supported by the judiciary.

    Chivalry is dead, and rightly so. The reason? Chivalry used be a two way street and included a healthy respect for the men who displayed it.

    But man still have it in them. They just can’t afford to risk being cavalier for a realistic threat of having their life ruined by a rape faker. For a man, it’s legally and socially sounder to just treat a woman like another middle aged man.

    As for Ms. Katarina Kroslakova, author of the article – have you considered asking for help? I doubt it cause having troubles lifting your bag was not really your problem, as cabin crew would gladly help you with it if they saw you couldn’t do it yourself. Your problem clearly was your deluded sense of entitlement to privilege for being a woman. Your demand that men help you without hitting on you suggests that you have a long history of considering men beneath you and take great joy in rejecting them.

    Mother Nature Knows Men Have It Harder

    On a societal level, facts can be misrepresented in favor of those with bigger mouth (in this case “feminists”), so if you grew up in an anti male society, you have likely been brainwashed to believe that women had it harder than men. Wherever humans with their shortcomings and frailty are involved, duplicity is to be expected. One entity that is above human frailty and as such knows better, is Mother Nature.

    Despite what feminazis and their ilk of pussy whipped men would have us believe, Mother Nature knows that men have upon their shoulders burdens much harder to carry than women and as such will perish at a greater rate, so to compensate for it, she made it so more men are born then women. Nowadays, according to the CIA factbook, current world wide sex ratio at birth is 107 boys to 100 girls.[75]

    This is Mother Nature telling us that men have it harder than women so more of them need to be born to make up for the size of the burdens they have to carry throughout their lives.

    Feminism

    To gain an understanding that we live in an anti male world is not being anti-woman. It’s merely a call for social and legal equality between genders. Not total equality, as that is a ridiculous concept that’s impossible to institute. I’m talking about giving men rights that are denied to them, including human rights such as the right to bodily integrity or the right to access to opportunity whereby men currently have no right to be equal in outcome.

    Feminism, which is a destructive ideology that’s not only anti boy and anti man, but also anti girl and anti woman, should face societal and legal condemnation at minimum equal to terrorism, as its negative effects on the innocent are far more damaging and pervasive.

    Feminists argue against things like female genital mutilation in third world countries, but are okay with male genital mutilation in first world countries. Not to mention that feminists are completely blind to higher suicide rates among men, higher incarceration rates, higher victims of violence and work accidents rates, the draft, visitation rights for fathers, court rulings against fathers, alimony, perception of kind men as pedophiles, demonization and criminalization of male sexuality, pulling a “victim blaming” card if someone doesn’t automatically side with fake rape victim just because she’s a women, et cetera.

    We need to stop treating men like second class citizens who are beneath women – both culturally and legally.

    Conclusion

    Societal Misandry in most of what’s known as first world is heavily anti male biased. Most countries have various commissions on the status of women funded by taxpayer dollars, but nothing for men. Many countries provide tax benefits for businesses that are “woman-owned” and have contracts guaranteed to women-owned businesses, but not for men-owned business.

    Most countries have a violence against women act, and/or Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women, but nothing comparable for men, yet men are twice as likely to be the victims of a violent attack.

    Women are granted almost absolute rights to their own born children, yet men only get rights to their own children when granted by the courts or by the legal precedent of marriage to the mother.

    Women live on average 7 years longer, yet countries don’t have departments of men’s health, only departments of women’s health.

    Among women’s rights that men don’t have granted by legal precedent are:

    The right to abortion
    The right to abandon her child without her partner’s consent.
    The right to place her child up for adoption without or against the father’s consent
    The right to lower jail sentences for the same crime, more likely to receive probation than incarceration and also shorter periods of incarceration.
    The right “not to be offended” in the workplace.
    The right to have a man evicted from his home because she says she’s “afraid” of him.
    The right to make false allegations of rape, domestic violence or child abuse with relative impunity.
    The right to keep custody of children after divorce unless proven to be an unfit parent.
    The right to have a man arrested on only her word, with no supporting evidence, upon an allegation of rape.
    The right to women-only clubs, gyms or accommodations.
    The right to use depression, PMS, or “being controlled by a man” as a legal defense and having way more of a chance of it.
    The right to a standard of “self defense” that does not include an immediate threat.
    Responsibilities that men have which women do not by law:

    Selective service (The Draft).
    A requirement to list themselves on a putative father listing to have even the thinnest rights to their children.
    A requirement to support their wives (husbands can be charged with abandonment, wives cannot.)
    Responsibilities that men have which women do not by legal precedent:

    The responsibility to financially support their children (custodial mothers are not slapped with an “earn this much or go to jail” order. Plus mothers are rarely ordered to support their children who are in the custody of the father.)
    The responsibility to accept being forced into parenthood against their will.
    The responsibility to get over their past as men cannot use prior abuse as a legal defense, but women can.

    Furthermore:

    Men do not have the right to be recognized as victims of rape when forced into non consensual intercourse, nor do they have the right to have those who have perpetuated these acts against them to be charged as rapists.
    Men do not have the right to be recognized as victims of domestic violence and afforded the protections that women are. Men do not have the right to not be arrested for reporting being victim of domestic violence (as per mandatory arrest and primary aggressor laws).
    Men receive on average a 63% percent harsher sentence for identical convictions as a woman, an even larger gap than the racial discrimination in court.
    Men do not have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in crimes of sexual nature, in which they must often prove their innocence. This right has been effectively dismantled in the recent “Dear College” letter. This mandate is not applied generally to women.
    When accused of sexual crimes on a college campus, men do not have the right to be defended by an attorney. Men do not have the right to have their accusation tried and investigated by law enforcement professionals and scents vs given by judges.
    US women use 20% more healthcare dollars over a lifetime but pay the same premiums.
    US women use 50% more social security and survivor’s benefits but pay significantly less tax. In some countries women even get to draw benefits earlier.

    Protect Yourself

    I would like to propose to foster the equal valuing of men and women socially as well as their equal treatment under the law. However given the anti men toxicity of current cultural environment, I don’t see it as a feasible possibility. Leastways not in any foreseeable future. So I’ll propose a tip for men on how to protect themselves from societal misandry.

    Since the topic of self protection could get rather lengthy, and this post is already a monster, I’ll narrow it down to just one tip – Don’t Date!

    Just don’t date. Ever. No ifs, buts or whats. If you need to bust your nut, either masturbate, or get a whore.

    As a man in an anti male world, you will automatically put yourself at a disadvantage if you willfully participate in a dating game. If she won’t fuck you without you buying her something, pass on her right there, right then and save the money you would have spent while still facing the risk of sexual rejection, for an actual prostitute with whom you know what you get, when and for how much.

    With dating, you don’t know what you get, you don’t even know if you get anything at all, and at the end of the day, it will always cost you more. It will cost you not only in money, but also in time you will never get back, and you will have to play a tool to her with courtship and other anti male societal norms.

    The world is already in their favor, not yours. Don’t make it worse for yourself by playing their game.

    References

    [1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1 – A person (A) commits an offence if (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
    [2] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/4
    [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_rape
    [4] http://www.thefire.org/frequently-asked-questions-ocrs-april-4-dear-colleague-guidance-letter/
    [5] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903596904576516232905230642.html
    [6] http://falserapearchives.blogspot.com/2009/06/archives-of-sexual-behavior-feb-1994.html
    [7] https://archive.org/details/FalseRapeAllegations
    [8] http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm
    [9] http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=573
    [10] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/courtenay-man-gets-7-years-for-vigilante-killing-1.859939
    [11] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/08/brian-banks-accuser-caugh_n_1581605.html
    [12] http://articles.latimes.com/1991-08-20/news/mn-1241_1_davis-enterprise
    [13] http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf
    [14] http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/sentencing.pdf
    [15] https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/judged-bashes-probation-department-gender-bias-favor-leniency-girls-article-1.473763
    [16] http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
    [17] http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10741752.htm?PID=4003003
    [18] http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/carolettaijcjs2010vol5iss1.pdf
    [19] http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf
    [20] https://nationalparentsorganization.org/06/researcher-what-happens-when-abused-men-call-domestic-violence-hotlines-and-shelters/
    [21] http://www.mankind.org.uk/pdfs/21%20Key%20Facts_August%202013.pdf
    [22] http://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/23/sports/pro-football-jury-rapidly-acquits-moon-of-spousal-abuse-charges.html
    [23] https://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf
    [24] http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1643
    [25] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2913504/
    [26] http://collegesportscouncil.org/newsroom/display_releases.cfm?id=28
    [27] http://www.collegesportscouncil.org/20090715.pdf
    [28] http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/18/doj-white-male-bullying-victims-tough-luck/
    [29] http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2221
    [30] http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0009.pdf
    [31] http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
    [32] http://www.societyhealth.vcu.edu/files/HO-HAR2009.pdf#Exhibit3-4
    [33] http://news.ufl.edu/2006/07/13/women-attackers/
    [34] http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020
    [35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action
    [36] http://www.erishulp.nl/index.php?paginaID=12
    [37] http://mens-en-samenleving.infonu.nl/sociaal-cultureel/50134-vrouwenbesnijdenis-in-nederland.html
    [38] http://www.wetboek-online.nl/wet/BW1/204.html
    [39] http://www.sss.gov/
    [40] http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/krijgsmacht/dienstplicht
    [41] http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/boy-facing-sex-trial-as-court-upholds-romeo-and-juliet-law-26824861.html
    [42] http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape
    [43] http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Only-men-can-be-booked-for-rape/Article1-1021702.aspx
    [44] http://davidgbayliss.com/murder-manslaughter-infanticide-culpable-homicide-canadian-law/
    [45] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002
    [46] https://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs/phc-t26/index.html
    [47] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-01/duke-lacrosse-players-suit-over-false-rape-claim-may-proceed-judge-says.html
    [48] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/LCWK1_2002.pdf
    [49] http://reason.com/archives/2004/02/01/injustice-by-default
    [50] http://www.gaming.gov.bc.ca/reports/docs/rpt-grant-historical-fy-2007-08-to-2012-13.xls?
    [51] http://www.gaming.gov.bc.ca/reports/docs/fin-rpt-core-grants-2009-10.pdf?
    [52] http://www.gaming.gov.bc.ca/reports/docs/fin-rpt-core-grants-2009-10.pdf?
    [53] http://reason.com/archives/2004/07/01/confessions-of-a-woman-owned-b
    [54] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7957982/British-Airways-changes-discriminatory-seating-policy-for-men.html
    [55] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer
    [56] http://www.unwomen.org/
    [57] http://www.womenshealth.gov/
    [58] http://www.mediaradar.org/research_on_false_rape_allegations.php
    [59] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Commission_on_the_Status_of_Women
    [60] http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
    [61] http://www.c-span.org/video/?299089-4/wage-gap-men-women
    [62] http://www.examiner.com/article/gender-pay-gap-is-not-what-activists-claim
    [63] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/vickiwoods/7957186/Sorry-ladies-Im-not-worried-about-wage-gaps.html
    [64] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/vickiwoods/7957186/Sorry-ladies-Im-not-worried-about-wage-gaps.html
    [65] http://www.theage.com.au/executive-style/culture/quit-hitting-on-me-and-help-me-out-20140213-32jur.html
    [66] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Tougher-rape-law-leading-to-increase-in-false-cases/articleshow/30807940.cms
    [67] http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2014/02/20140221-141943.html
    [68] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9894588/Compulsive-liar-jailed-after-11-false-rape-claims-in-decade.html
    [69] http://www.khou.com/news/cnn/Teacher-gets-probation-for-having-sex-with-student–246607861.html
    [70] http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm08/cm08.pdf
    [71] http://www.humanrightseurope.org/2013/10/jagalnd-male-circumcision-does-not-violate-human-rights/
    [72] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_law
    [73] https://www.unfpa.org/gender/practices2.htm#21
    [74] http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/01/us/arizona-firefighter-deaths/
    [75] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2018.html
    [76] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-men-the-weaker-sex/

    • bunnika says:

      I do not have the spoons to tackle this word dump rn. Publishing so others can take a crack at it if so inclined.

    • bunnika says:

      Fade tackled the first part of this, so I thought I’d try the second part.

      Good example if the story of a man who was falsely accused of rape and was lynched to death for it. He was later found to be innocent. Here’s another alleged rapist was beheaded, stabbed and mutilated.

      Citation needed. All this shit right here requires legitimate citation. The link doesn’t talk about the rape allegations but in passing; how exactly is that “proof” of anything? And again with borked links. We’re onto you.

      women receive lighter sentences and a higher chance of acquittal, simply for being women.

      Because of patriarchal ideas of delicate women. Patriarchy, turns out its problems are systemic, who knew?

      But if a woman kills her children, she has the rights to be charged with Infanticide, which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years and no minimum sentence. Men do not have that right.

      You’re taking things out of context. From your own source: “Infanticide occurs when a female person causes the death of her newly born child when her mind is disturbed as a result of the effects of giving birth.” Only infants immediately after birth, due to post-partum depression. AMAB men do not suffer post-partum depression, so it would be impossible for them to meet the standards for infanticide. Read your own shit, jesus.

      You suck with continuity, btw. You’re now back to talking about sentencing (which you should have done when you started addressing it before the whole “I’m too ignorant to read my own links” infanticide thing), which I’ve debunked already. Move on.

      a 26 year old woman who gave oral sex to a 5 year old girl was found to NOT be a pedophile

      “Found” by one person. One person said she wasn’t a pedophile. She was convicted for the sexual assault. Stop assuming people aren’t going to read your links just because we’ll be overwhelmed by the glory of your argument. Your argument blows and so do your sources.

      Imagine if roles were reversed, if a male teacher seduced and sexually violated a 16 year girl.

      We don’t have to imagine. This shit happens all the time. And the girls are accused of being ~Lolitas~ or ~temptresses~ seducing teh poor innocent menz. Statutory rape laws are often wildly twisted, and feminists do not advocate the rape of children, stop pretending otherwise.

      Yet women are known to be more or equally physically aggressive with their spouses/partner than men in their relationships.

      Citation needed.

      an annotated bibliography by Martin S. Fiebert from the Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach found that women are perpetrators of physical and emotional abuse as or more often, and are as or more aggressive with their partners as men.

      I have better sources than you do. (PS you’re wrong in case that wasn’t clear.)

      police often arrest the bigger and stronger party in cases where the perpetrator is unclear.

      And you seriously don’t see how this is based on patriarchal ideas of strength and masculinity? Seriously?

      In Anti Male world dominated by Societal Misandry

      You Do Realize that randomly Capitalizing Words won’t make you Correct, right?

      A 2007 Center for Disease Control study found that almost a quarter (24%) of relationships had violence, about half (49.7%) was reciprocal. In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70 percent of the cases.[34]

      Funny how I’m the only one who actually linked the CDC intimate violence report. Probably because you don’t like linking legitimate sources, as they prove you wrong.

      in the anti male society, women can easily file a restraining order, and just because they are women, judges don’t even verify allegations, they just issue the order.

      Citation needed.

      And ffs stop citing blogs if you’re going to act like you’re providing legit sources. This is childish.

      302 men who experienced domestic violence by their wives, 38.7% reported that she filed a restraining order against him under false pretenses.

      *GASP* You mean people with restraining orders against them said the women were lying? The hell you say.

      According to the research by Mankind Initiative, in the UK there are only 13 organizations that offer refuge or safe house provision for male victims of domestic violence with a total of 78 bed, of which 33 beds are dedicated to male victims only (the rest being for victims of either gender), and of these 33 dedicated beds, 18 are for gay males only. In comparison, in the UK there are over 260 organizations with around 4,000 beds dedicated to female victims of domestic violence.

      Because 85% of domestic violence victims are women. Wild, that there’s a supply and demand dynamic, right? Totally bizarre, it’s almost like they’re providing a service to those who most require it.

      According to the US census on Custodial Mothers and Fathers, women receive custody of the children in about 84% of custody cases.

      Because men overwhelmingly don’t seek custody. But even male rapists get awarded custody when they seek it. More than half the country allows a rapist to seek custody from a birth mother. Let that sink in a minute, then fucking tell me how custody is biased in favor of women.

      Of children maltreated by a parent, 38.3% were maltreated by a mother, 6.0% by a mother and other person, 18.1% by a father, 0.9 by a father and other person, and 17.9% by both a mother and a father.

      Read your own fucking sources you shitwaffle. 42.6 percent were male, well over twice what you claim. Your numbers are way off, so all that made-up statistical vomit you spewed means nothing. But your mathematical reasoning is also wrong, so why does it matter? If women have custody 84% of the time, and men get custody 16% of the time, the numbers for abuse show that men are far more likely to abuse. Because 56.2% of perps were women, versus 42.6% of men. Even though you say women have custody 84% of the time. So either non-custodial fathers are climbing in windows to beat their children, or men are more likely to abuse. Learn how 2 math.

      That’s all the jackassery I can handle rn. Maybe I’ll debunk the rest of this later but it’s really repetitive and intellectually dishonest.

  64. Fade says:

    This comment by alex is too wordy for me to parse alone, so me and my sister are reading together. She will be called “sister”

    But when we’re shown images of a woman receiving a hard kick in the crotch, everyone is expected to express outrage and everyone, both men and women are expected to call it an assault.

    Do we even ever see images of women being kicked in the crotch enough for this to be a thing?
    ps kicking people is assault
    pps GUYS think that whole kicking people in the crotch shit is funny. i’ve never really seen it in shit directed or written by a woman.
    Sister: “MRAs have this meme that people get kicked in the crotch for funniness, but it doesn’t happen that often.”

    Best Gore, of all places, is a good example of how far reaching this Societal Misandry is, as any depiction of violence against women is instantly met with calls for the alleged perpetrator to be lynched, castrated and slowly tortured.

    sister: “Act like going out to get someone for violence is some huge witch hunt? Nice job proving your not a misogynist.”

    a female prosecutor made no attempts to hide that she hated men down to the last stinky atom of her body, and that she drew personal gratification from being able to put men down and ruin their lives just because they were men

    assuming this is real: One instance of a woman saying she’s harming man in a position of power. Imagine how hard it would be if there were a gazillion men in power who hated women? *cough* there are *cough*

    Yet because constantly putting men down and ruining their lives just because they are men has been such a staple of western societies, it didn’t occur to me in the slightest that it was wrong.

    Sister: “Can we just quote this bit and laugh?”
    Me: Can we just quote this bit and notice it didn’t occur to you it was wrong because it doesn’t exist

    Today, after decades of being berated and put down, men got so cowed, they can’t even fight back anymore.

    Sister: Because misandry don’t real.

    Does it really surprise anyone that suicide rates of males are 4 or more times as high as those of females, when boys are forced to grow up feeling alienated?

    Sister: Methods. Look up stats. and how not to be annoying
    Me; What sister is trying to say is that women attempt suicide more often, but men use more lethal weapons. This is not evidence of men having a huge “world is down on them” thing and its skeevy for you to try to turn it into that.

    even school books are feminized and anti male

    sister: Citation needed
    me: So are you saying all men have to act masculine? That sounds kind of anti male to me..
    Sister: Most people would talk about where in the books they feel is anti male, but trollboy knows there isn’t anything, so they can’t talk about anything in specific because its easier to make shit up
    me: and harder to refute

    placing a lot of focus on the assumption that wars are the result of the innately violent nature of men

    sister: I never learned that

    while placing virtually no focus on making boys proud for what men have achieved,

    yeaaaaaah no. No. IF people focus on “women” inventors its because MEN WERE ALREADY FOCUSED ON. MEN WERE DEFAULT IN HISTORY. you have entire freaking chapters dedicated to mens achievements. entire freaking school classes. Women’s studies is a thing because MEN were the only people being focused on in mainstream studies. take a guess why. Hint: The answer is definitely not “misandry”
    .
    Sister: Who here bets trollboy is the kind of person who also complains about there not being a white history month?

    Even the legal system that protects women’s safety and women’s rights was invented by men.

    sister: citation needed
    me: even if it was, it was just because MEN WERE IN THE GOVERNMENT AND HAD ACCESS TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
    me: This is paraphrased trollboy: Men were in power. This proves male oppression. Somehow
    sister: Also trolls whole rant can be summarized as “I think men rock and women suck. waaaah I’m a misogynist.”

    This societal misandry is even propagated by the media, especially the television. If you paid attention, you’d notice that sitcoms are replete with images of oafish, bumbling males who in their awkwardness can only ever move forward with the assistance of smart, smug females.

    I guess a five to one ratio of male writers to female writers means that evil women are responsible for this, no? Face it – men benefit from the bumbling stereotype. Housework -aka “women’s work” – is not respected and is generally expected that you do it for free. They are stereotyped as being unable to do this unrespected free thing, and demanded to do it less often. Who does that benefit?
    .
    sister: even if you had a point about bumbling housedudes hurting men its like they’re being written primarily by men so that would literally be a case of “stop oppressing yourselves” which spoiler space: doesn’t happen

    You’d also notice how crime shows depict men as evil murderers and rapists, how feminized male stars relentlessly pursue them and when they get them, they slam these evil rapists against a wall and bark: “you low life scumbag!”

    sister: Why do you hate feminized men? Why are you such a misandrist? Feminized men are still men

    me: Yeah, they’re calling rapists lowlife scum… are you saying that’s bad? b/c if you’re not, i suggest you to look at whose side you are taking.

    she’s never slammed against a wall and called a low life scumbag cause in her case, there surely must have been a good reason for murdering the child.

    I don’t watch crime tv shows so i’ll have to try to imagine how this happened… but let me go on a serious note here

    Parents do murder their children sometimes. you wanna know when it is portrayed as good? Its not when a mom kills her child. it’s when a mom (or dad) kills their disabled child. so i’m having a hard time imagining whichever episode you’re talking about being something thats not ableist garbage.

    I made this post to once and for all counter the disillusion that women are disadvantaged in life because of male privilege and patriarchal oppression.

    sister: “While proving nothing because i am a loser and i don’t know what the patriarchy is but i heard it described on the daily mail once”

    Note that instead of making this article a collection of my own thoughts, I built it almost exclusively on references from what should be for the most part considered “reliable sources”.

    doesn’t really mean shit if you don’t read those sources. I had a troll (like you) try to tell me a study he linked to provided evidence women suffered domestic violence less than men when if he read the numbers he would be able to see it literally said the opposite

    In many countries, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States, a woman has legal protection of her bodily integrity (her body, her choice)[73], but a man does not (his body, not his choice).[72]

    a) no
    b) you don’t even know what those phrases mean
    c) yaeh that totally explains why abortion is illegal (tho men can become pregnant and need abortions too, but mras will never admit this

    What that means is that Female Genital Mutilation is illegal, while Male Genital Mutilation is not only legal, it’s often not even regulated so it can be performed by anyone (pedophile Rabbi is not a schooled and trained surgeon).

    a) female genital mutilation involves removing a lot more tisssue than male genital mutiliation (if by that you mean circumcision)
    b) i’m pretty sure removal of an entire penis would be illegal too
    c) how do you get pedophile out of rabbi except w/ antisemitism

    sister: Bonus points for again acting like male circumcision is comparable to fgm when its not (even tho both are bad). it’s like they can’t just admit circumcision is bad w/o trying to compare it to fgm and also unsurprised troll is not talking bout coercive assignment on intersex babies

    n some countries, such as the Philippines, boys are under societal pressure to undergo genital mutilation, and in Indonesia, the act of genital mutilation of boys is exaggerated by public humiliation.

    Sister: You’re missing your citation i think it ran away and wanted nothing to do with you.

    In the UK, if a man uses his penis to penetrate a woman without her consent, it is rape – a crime punishable by up to a life in prison.

    sister: i think you have a point about male forced to penetrate not being defined as rape
    me: Too bad your trying to twist this into acting like male rapists are severly punished and female rapists are not, when 97 percent of predominately male rapists never see a day in prison link

    sister:it seems like the majority of this guys complaints can be filed under “the patriarchy hurts men too but I don’t want to acknowledge it”

    By the same logic, the definition of “Terrorist” should be “a person, typically a Jew, who commits acts of terrorism“.

    More of your freaking anti semitism

    and i’m sorry, but MOST RAPISTS ARE MEN. most terrorists in the US are white christian males, if you want it done by who does it the most.

    Except that that’s not a good example because women are perpetrators of rape equally often as men, but terrorism has been dominated by the Jews since they invented it

    citation needed twice over
    sister: Who invented terrorism? Like wut?

    me: please keep your bigotry defined to one axis. Right now, you are a raging misogynist. It is very annoying when we also have to deal with you being antisemitic too.

    The 1994 study by Eugene J. Kanin, Ph.D., published in the Archives Of Sexual Behavior, Volume 23, No 1, conducted in a small metropolitan community in the US found that 41% of rape accusations filed by women were false. A follow up study, found 50% of rape allegations in college to be false. 53% of the women admitted they filed the false claim as an alibi.[6][7]

    your problem is you think putting the numbers down to sources will make them reliable somehow when…

    [6] http://falserapearchives.blogspot.com/2009/06/archives-of-sexual-behavior-feb-1994.html
    [7] https://archive.org/details/FalseRapeAllegations

    oh yeah someone’s blog. so reliable much unbias.

    here links to a pdf on an actual study about false rape accusation. Hint. it’s .6 percent. Who do i believe? UK gov study or some guys blog?

    heres the article about that, btw. read something.

    The findings, which were published by the forensic experts (unbiased researchers who are neither pro feminist, nor anything else) concluded with:

    THE FINDINGS OF SOME GUYS BLOGPOST

    During my time as a prosecutor who made case filing decisions, I was amazed to see all the false rape allegations that were made to the Denver Police Department.

    sister: I’m really sure this guys a prosecuter. Like really. You can quote me on that.
    me: pell? Is that you?

    It was remarkable and surprising to me. You would have to see it to believe it

    you’re right. and we can’t. and it contradicts studies. so i’m not believing it.
    sister: “you would have to see it to believe it” you got that right

    Any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes that there is.

    me: “any honest veteran sex assault investigator would agree with me”
    sister: much citation. very believe

    A command officer in the Denver police sex assaults unit recently told me he placed the false rape numbers at approximately 45 percent.

    sister: Citation needed
    me: yeah, i’ve got convenient friends who can say anything i want to back me up. here is the former president of the united states living in my back pocket. he says you are boring

    As the case of Duke Lacrosse Players from Durham, North Carolina suggests, men who are falsely accused of rape can have their names smeared and their lives ruined

    yeah remember those steubenville rapists everyone was feeling sorry for EVEN WHEN THEY WERE CAUGHT ON VIDEO? or how the guy who exposed them might face more time than them? or how the advice they’re giving now is ‘don’t tape your rapes’ instead of ‘don’t rape’

    fuck. REAL rapists don’t get their lives ruined. so watch me cry a fucking river.

    However these figures do not take into account social stigmas that force men into suppressing their victimization for fear of being viewed as effeminate, weak or incompetent,

    you don’t even start with this after how hard you were bashing feminine men earlier in this article

    In India, a senior woman lawyer confirmed that females making false allegations of rape is at epidemic levels.[66]

    if a woman says something misogynistic it must be true!

    hint: please tell us her reasoning or evidence. a woman saying something as ridiculous as fuck does not make it true.

    sorry we’re too bored for this

    please stop acting like putting citations for some things makes all the things you say true

    and linking to someone’s blog post… is not a reliable citation. just cuz you put it in those fancy [9] numbers doesn’t make it any less wrong

    sister: also it would make for much easier reading if you left the citations where you were talking about instead of making us scroll up and down all the time. it would make you look less like a wikipedia article

    sister: also he has too many random citations to some dudes blogspot. all of your bad citations are souring up your good ones. if you have any

    me: your cdc article did not download i wonder if it is my computer or if *cough* someone *cough* put in a link wrong in hopes that “well i can’t see this stat” will translate to “so i must believe what trollboy wrote about it”

    me: sorry you have douchenozzles like this commenting on your wonderful blog bunnika and sister says hi

  65. Fade says:

    damn i borked my citation

    here that study

  66. Sleepy says:

    I wholeheartedly agree that the law is outdated/archaic to not include woman on woman, man on man or woman on man rape but what I find equally disgusting is that rape is classified solely a) penetration and b) by a penis. There are plenty of other ways someone can be raped and it doesn’t have to include those two things at all.

  67. hyenazine says:

    Your blog entry is fantastic! I feel bad that you are being trolled by all these people who are crying, “What about the MENZ?!” Has it occurred to any of these guys that not every conversation is about them? It’s also very sad that all the cases they bring up in regards to instances of sexism and discrimination towards men is a product of a patriarchal society (rather than a feminist one, which, in actuality, seeks to create a better world for all sexes). Even false rape accusations are encouraged as a result of society shaming women for engaging in sexual intercourse out of wedlock (and, even so, false rape accusations are so rare). I don’t understand why these trolls cannot see that patriarchy is the trigger for all the negativity towards both men and women.

    • bunnika says:

      Thank you. :-) You’ve pretty much nailed the issue, and I wish I had an answer for why so many men refuse to see it. I think because it’s scary to admit that the source of their power is also the source of their torment. The thought of relinquishing power, even if it would help them in so many ways, is just too scary. They don’t actually want equality, they prefer the status quo.

  68. sb says:

    Hey,
    I am a man from India, but I HATE MEN. I think around 99% of the world’s human male population should be exterminated and women should RULE.
    SB.

  69. Terry says:

    Having read some of your posts, and your replies to comments, from one woman to another, I mean every piece of what I am about to say in the most personal sense. Please stop this. There is a very real feminism movement that works toward the equality of men and women, to get rid of exactly this form of hate on both sides of the spectrum, both misogyny and misandry, (which i deny you to even comment on the existence of misandry on an equal plane as misogyny as there is an entire half of the world that you have never seen before and in that light have no place in judging, and nor do I, nor does any man have a place on judging the state of misogyny on an equal plane to misandry) to get rid of both male and female privilege, and strive toward true equality.
    We consistently fight blogs like this because they only work as coal to a fire. You are not unveiling some great injustice, you are not helping the world toward an egalitarian utopia, or even a female supremacist utopia if that’s your thing, you are perpetuating the last hate filled thrashings of the “rad-fem” movement which lives in the public eye, both men and women, as a group of idiots. No one needs this, and least of all you. The eye always sees what the mind is thinking, if a guy is holding the door open for you, its not because you are weak, or that you are perceived as weak, or that he has some other unsavory intent, he may just be a polite guy, hoping to brighten someones day. The more you think the world is a sexist place, the more it will be, please take that to heart.

    • bunnika says:

      I am part of a “very real feminist movement,” whether or not you find it palatable. My goal is not to make people like you comfortable. Nor is my goal “female supremacy” or any other such tripe. I don’t lash out at men who hold doors, or say “excuse me” when they bump into me, because this isn’t about basic manners that all humans should have. I’m not a “rad-fem” because I’m not trans exclusionary. Learn what you’re talking about before you go about slinging labels.

      If you don’t like my brand of feminism, don’t subscribe to it. I don’t like yours, so I speak against it. You wear your condescension like a cloak, and I suppose it would be impossible for me to penetrate that. I don’t care if people like you think I’m hateful, or ignorant, or delusional. I think you’re naive, see how that doesn’t change your stance? I’ll continue to fight my fight, regardless of the judgment of people like you. I don’t need your approval any more than I need your permission.

      • Terry says:

        Well aren’t you a viciously defensive young person. Oh how I miss the rebellious stage. I am afraid you missed most of the message I tried to send.

        I will first address your blatant and completely unneeded insults to my integrity. Firstly, while the term rad-fem has been adopted by the trans community to refer to trans-phobic and trans exclusionary feminists, it is not exclusive to them, you would know this if you would look up the definition of radical feminism, which is a, god forbid I say it, a label your views fit into.

        Also, I find the level of hipocracy kind of funny, “you wear your condescension like a cloak”. Most of your reply to my comment has been to put me into a state of condescension, to make me appear flawed and stupid, trying to throw me into the defensive. Simply put, poor form. No condescendence was meant by my comments, only an outside pleading.
        Secondly, not once did I attack the validity of your radical feminist ideals, nor the radical feminism movement, both do exist. What I did bring up is the fact that, regardless of “palatability” or “comfort”, your over victimization, open hatred and complete closed mindedness to fact is hurting both you and the your honest egalitarian views. Though I will mention the complete contradiction between your wanting to avoid labeling and your self labeling as part of a very real feminist movement

        To exemplify my over victimization comment, as I can already see you zeroing in on it, I am not referring to the true issues that exist like rape, this needs to be addressed and swiftly handled, what i am referring to is the “fuck some sense into these women” ideal which you seem to nearly boast that all men have (I wont even start on your generalization of an entire gender). Not once have i ever heard a man say anything to that effect, or even hint at the fact that that was his ideal.

        You completely missed my point on holding doors. The comment was the use of a common example of seeing things that aren’t really there tied back to the comment you made on the “male enforced belief” that women are weaker through their portrayal in media.

        Another piece you missed, never did i accuse you of holding a female supremacist view I merely brought it up as a light-hearted over extension during a heavy comment. I am glad that we agree that it is in fact tripe.

        You speak against and openly insult my feminist views but given your responses, expect all those who disagree with your views to just not subscribe, shut up, and allow you to continue on this self-destructive path? I apologize but I care far to much about humanity to allow that to happen.

        You are right, I don’t approve, nor would anyone with a world view, to say women are oppressed in the western world puts us to shame. If we feel we are oppressed, what are the women in third world countries? On the same level as us? No school, no job, no vote, no rights, an open acceptance of FGM. No one inside it stands against these issues, it is a social norm, to stand against them is a death sentence, hell, to even speak out against an action taken by “your man” is a death sentence. Would you seriously put yourself on the same level of true oppression that these women face every day? Discrimination yes, we westerners still have some discrimination issues that really need to be ironed out, but to say we are oppressed… You have the freedom of speech here without the risk of physical or mental harm, and I will fight to my end to keep that, but you better believe I will fight for mine as well. With my right to speech i have tried to show you that the radical aspect of your views are not only very judging and degrading to others, but are far, far more harmful to yourself and to the much needed aspects of the equality aspect of your views.

        • bunnika says:

          Well aren’t you a viciously defensive young person.

          Aww, using ageism to devalue someone. How quaint.

          I will first address your blatant and completely unneeded insults to my integrity.

          What, calling you naive? I’d hardly call that or anything else I said and “insult to [your] integrity.” Ego much?

          Firstly, while the term rad-fem has been adopted by the trans community to refer to trans-phobic and trans exclusionary feminists, it is not exclusive to them, you would know this if you would look up the definition of radical feminism, which is a, god forbid I say it, a label your views fit into.

          rad-fems are TERFs. You can have a feminist agenda that is radical without being a rad-fem. If you’re cis, you need to stop telling the trans community how to identify transphobes.

          Most of your reply to my comment has been to put me into a state of condescension, to make me appear flawed and stupid, trying to throw me into the defensive.

          If you feel defensive that’s your problem, not mine. My comment was a polite way to tell you to fuck off, but since you don’t appreciate politeness: Fuck off.

          Simply put, poor form.

          Here’s you thinking I care about your approval again.

          No condescendence was meant by my comments, only an outside pleading.

          Then perhaps you shouldn’t phrase things to sound like, “You ignorant child, listen to my wisdom.” You’re condescending as fuck, and if you can’t see that, just wow.

          your over victimization, open hatred and complete closed mindedness to fact is hurting both you and the your honest egalitarian views.

          This is some victim-blaming bullshit right here, congrats.

          Though I will mention the complete contradiction between your wanting to avoid labeling and your self labeling as part of a very real feminist movement

          What avoidance of labels? Because I don’t want to be lumped in with TERFs? I proudly label myself a feminist, have never stated otherwise. Up your reading comprehension.

          To exemplify my over victimization comment, as I can already see you zeroing in on it, I am not referring to the true issues that exist like rape, this needs to be addressed and swiftly handled, what i am referring to is the “fuck some sense into these women” ideal which you seem to nearly boast that all men have (I wont even start on your generalization of an entire gender). Not once have i ever heard a man say anything to that effect, or even hint at the fact that that was his ideal.

          Point to where I “boast[ed] that all men have” that ideal. Really, I’m interested to see it. In fact, point to a single place where I’ve said all men do all misogynistic things. You wanting me to generalize men doesn’t make it so. You’re constructing a might flammable strawman.

          You completely missed my point on holding doors. The comment was the use of a common example of seeing things that aren’t really there tied back to the comment you made on the “male enforced belief” that women are weaker through their portrayal in media.

          The linguistics of this are awful, what are you even trying to say? That I think men hold doors because women are weak? What? You’re making no sense.

          Another piece you missed, never did i accuse you of holding a female supremacist view I merely brought it up as a light-hearted over extension during a heavy comment.

          Learn that there is no sarcasm font on the internet.

          You speak against and openly insult my feminist views but given your responses, expect all those who disagree with your views to just not subscribe, shut up, and allow you to continue on this self-destructive path? I apologize but I care far to much about humanity to allow that to happen.

          LOL oh you’re saving me from myself, that’s it. Cute.

          I don’t force anybody to read. I have the right to just not publish comments if I don’t want to, because this is my space. Don’t like it? Make your own space, complain there. I can demand whatever I want of people in my own space. I can shut down comments entirely, or only allow comments with a minimum of three cat gifs. Amazing how your own space is your own like that.

          You are right, I don’t approve, nor would anyone with a world view, to say women are oppressed in the western world puts us to shame. If we feel we are oppressed, what are the women in third world countries? On the same level as us? No school, no job, no vote, no rights, an open acceptance of FGM. No one inside it stands against these issues, it is a social norm, to stand against them is a death sentence, hell, to even speak out against an action taken by “your man” is a death sentence. Would you seriously put yourself on the same level of true oppression that these women face every day?

          This is such a disgusting minimalization, used by re-victimizing those women for your own political agenda. They don’t exist to be your anti-feminist talking points. You’re repulsive.

          You have the freedom of speech here without the risk of physical or mental harm

          LOL where do I have that? Because speaking my mind has gotten me raped, assaulted, and abused. I’d say that’s “physical and mental harm,” you disgusting fucknut.

          With my right to speech

          Learn what free speech is.

          Now in case it wasn’t clear, I’m showing you the door. Bye now. For good.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s