Category Archives: Feminism

On the “gender balanced” cabinet in Canada.

On the “gender balanced” cabinet in Canada.

The deed is done. This is an experiment that we’ve never tried. Let’s see how it works out. We will either learn that there is a serious discrepancy in the performance of the ministers, or not.

We should be very strongly on guard, however, to immediately slap down any criticism of quota cabinet ministers who might complain that they are being harassed “because of sexism or racism” or other such common excuses. Having accepted the position granted by the ideological lottery, they must now endure the same treatment that all non-quota ministers have received since day one, and that comes with the position.

I am strongly against quotas, I think that the means is ill-conceived, but we’ve now got what we’ve got, and we have to deal with current reality. We should ensure, however, that no future cabinets are selected on this basis. This is the Left’s one, multi-year shot at proving their point. If it turns out that selecting a cabinet based on sex, or race is a successful experiment, then it should be proof that “non-white men” are competent, and “non-white men” should step up on their own steam and power, and not expect future free handouts of power-positions.

We often hear that one reason women don’t step up is a lack of role models. We’ve now held the hand of a variety of people and plunked them on the purple cushion… and under Damocles’s sword. There you go, kids, there are your role models. It is time now, for them to make the case, to show, rather than tell. Should it happen, however, that some do crash and burn, you don’t get to blame sexism, or the system. You may not reach for the argument of “historical oppression.” You must hold the individual accountable.

To do otherwise is to put ideology before results, and to demonstrate a complete disconnect with the reality that we are a mass of living people dealing with the incremental and life-or-death mundanity of daily life.

Tagged

Feminism is politics, not morality

One of the problems with gender ideologues and zealots is that they fail to recognize the distinction that Feminism is politics, not morality.Feminism is politics, not morality

Tagged , , , ,

This is the real basis of Feminism

Woman High On Drugs Finds Out She is Fat.

Admittedly, there’s something that’s quite funny about the video. But at the same time, what this drug induced person, whose inhibitions and self-awareness are obviously shut right down, is showing us the uncensored contents of her psyche.

There is not a single woman that I know that doesn’t feel this way, or fear it, despite their great pains to hide it.

And this, my friends, is the true root of Feminism: the inner turmoil that comes from our primal urge to belong. There was once a time when what people struggled for were women’s freedoms as granted by rights. Those goals having been accomplished, today’s identity politics Radical Feminism is based on assuaging that which gives the urge to howl.

Men are rapists! Why? Because men find some women so sexy that they can’t help themselves, is the unspoken narrative. This is the inverse of the video, it is being so sexually attractive that belonging is beyond inevitable, to the point that others are crazed beyond self-restraint.

Women are oppressed by The Patriachy. Why? Because we care for victims. The greater the victim a woman is, the more she will be cared for, even if they have to alienate everyone to get it.

Feminism is nothing more than the wounded. I would suggest that we teach them that men in general have our equivalents and to the degree that they stop behaving abusively, and increase basic human courtesy and respect, they’re chances of getting what they want will improve.

Dear Feminist women. You’ve got every single right in law that men have, and some that we don’t. That’s covered. We instinctively love you, despite our better judgment at times. That’s covered. Your final step is to abandon your means-goal driven ideology and to focus on what you really want: the best life that you can have, including genuine, deep and rich relationships based on respect.

Failure to do so will only continue to drive more and more men away.

Tagged

An excellent case study on Feminist use of language to frame thoughts

Feminists are excellent at is controlling the mental framing of an argument. Notice that in every instance that Mike made a point, that she immediately changed the scope of the conversation. She does not announce “I am now changing the scope!” She does it entirely by presupposition, in a fluid manner. This is the tool that all skillful Feminists use, I would guess, 80% of the time. The benefits is that it seems conversationally “natural” and that to to stop the technique, one must get bogged down by refuting the presupposition, point by point, where as a response she need only apply the very same technique to the rebuttal. The only way to counter this that I’m aware of is to be able to simultaneously shift the frame again in such a way that her presuppositions are refuted, presuppositionally, and to grab the frame back and hold it.

This highlights, what I think is a difference in classical communication style between men and women. People who have “a masculine mindset” tend to all make the same error when dealing with such people: we reach for the explicit. But, like sex that does not need words, acceptance of ideas is often based on the non-verbal, and being explicit is actually counter-productive.

This particular debate about sexual consent on the BBC’s ‘The Big Questions’ provides a text-book example of both the arguments, techniques used. There are also two members, a man with short and white hair, and the woman sitting next to Mike Buchanan who simply nail it.

This video is worth keeping kept as a case-study.

Tagged , , , ,

Women Nowadays: a litany of horrors, GoodMenAmongUs a balm

There was once a YouTube channel called “ViolentWomenAmongUs” that had some 1500 to 2000 news clippings of women perpetrating horrible deeds. It was taken down. Another has taken its place. I don’t know if it is the same person.

The channel, like this one, is soul-sickening and rage inducing in its variety, persistence and sheer mass. Here is a more recent example.

Whereas the previous channels are an important resource to help re-balance the notion that women are precious, special, victimized princesses incapable of anything than goodness and light, it wasn’t enough.

I was so affected by the channel’s content that I had decided to create my own channel: GoodMenAmongUs *

https://www.youtube.com/user/GoodMenAmongUs

Where our society tells us that men are horrible, violent, abusive rapists, I felt the need to show the other side of that coin. The Good Men Amongst Us channel is designed as a soul-balm to those who feel that men are being treated as little more than the evil puppets of the patriarchy.

I only update it sporadically, as my mental state requires, or as I run into a fortunate example worthy of putting up on the channel. It isn’t enough to be negative, one must be positive.

I invite you to subscribe, to pass it along to those who you think might benefit from it, and to send video recommendations of the like via a private message on the channel.

* I am embarrassed to say that the channel should have been properly named goodmenamongsTus :)

Tagged

The Men’s Rights Movement is not the inverse of Feminism

This is a comment that I had left to an interlocutor on social media. It is, I think, a good and relatively short introduction to the difference between the Men’s Rights Movement, Feminism and why so many Men’s Rights Activists are anti-Feminist as well.

I’d like to shorten this to an elevator pitch. I welcome your feedback.

The men’s rights movement is not the inverse of Feminism. It is not “Feminism for men.” That there was once a woman’s rights movement that eventually gave way to Feminism, does not imply that people who now strive for equivalent rights for men (such as gaining reproductive rights) use an equivalent, but sex-reversed mental framework.

A refresher. Feminism’s three phases can be simplified to this: 1. Fighting for actual rights in law. 2. Re-examining women’s roles and sense of identity relative to society. 3. Trying to re-write cultural norms.

At the moment, men are fighting for our actual rights in law, and re-examining our roles and sense of identity relative to society. We are not, however, trying to re-write cultural norms on the basis of an androcentrically oriented mental framework.

The women’s rights movement was a good thing, and I don’t think you’ll hear any MRA say otherwise. Feminism was sharp split from the women’s rights movement. It went from being about equal rights and responsibilities, to the post-modern, neo-Marxist critical theory-based framework that accepted the notion of class warfare (patriarchy theory) that posits that not only are women oppressed and subjugated, but added “by men.”

Ever since, Feminism has been actively doing three things.

The first, is to seek women’s advantage–deserved or not–regardless of the cost to men.

The second was to infiltrate and lobby government with the tenets of Radical Feminism: that women need to be protected from men, that men are a danger to women, and to implement these presuppositions though legislature and policy.

The third, was to promote the cultural message that men are perpetrators of women’s victimization.

All of this translates to tangible, measurable active harms to men, legally and culturally. It may work to women’s advantage and interest, but is in no way fair, or impartial. This is a far cry from equal pay for equal work, or equal opportunity, or equal rights under just law.

Does disagreement with these behaviours in anyway diminish women’s legal or moral standing? It does not. If men want to re-balance law so that it is genuinely sex-neutral, does this detract from women’s rights? It does not. If men speak out against the negative stereotypes propagated against us, does this mean that we want to foster inverse negative stereotypes about women? Of course not. And if men are angry with the way that we are treated, does this mean that we hate women? It doesn’t.

That one is anti the-political-ideology of Radical Feminism does not mean that one is anti-woman. It means that the ideas that Feminism promotes and implement are bad ideas. It means that it is our turn to start cleaning things up, but first, we have to get people to stop the mud-slinging.

I hope this clarifies my point of view. I welcome your thoughtful response.

Tagged , , ,

Debate on Gender Roles: Nature or Nurture?

The sound quality is horrible, but the debate was somewhat interesting.

Camille Paglia from the University of the Arts and Jane Flax from American University discussed “Gender Roles: Nature or Nurture?” during a Janus Forum Debate on October 8, 2013. The Political Theory Institute at the School of Public Affairs, American University hosted the debate.

Tagged ,

Feminists: how to not appear insane

A Christmas gift to Feminists: Here’s how espouse Feminism and seem somewhat reasonable, and not a frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic when speaking to the public.

Wendy McElroy on “How Should Colleges Handle Sexual Assault?”

Tagged ,

The Feminist Narrative

The Feminist Narrative

? said _”You have it backward: feminism says men are not “naturally morally depraved” at all, and this “toxic” behavior of being sexually aggressive in inappropriate situations, such as walking on the street, is taught to boys as part of their gender role conditioning.”_

Setting aside that Feminist Theory merely _asserts_ that people are exclusively, or at least primarily driven by “gender roles” without any solid evidence and the the contrary of evidence, consider the ramifications of such a statement. Toxic masculinity is the notion that men are have a sense of entitlement, superiority, they are dominant, violent, predatory–it is all the negative aspects of evil _humans,_ as applied to men as people, with sexuality as the trigger, and that men do this because… ?

1. Such negative behaviour is not intrinsically abhorrent to us: we are morally depraved by nature; or

2. We are too self-unaware of our own behaviour to recognize the effect that it has on others: we are too stupid to recognize or self-correct; or

3. We don’t care: we are psychopaths.

Try as one might, this polite-company, plausibly deniable and obfuscated definition boils down to the very same thing that the nut-cases shout out-loud. A polite rephrasing of the same ideas is merely assent of the core concept while trying to sweep the distastefully blunt under the rug.

_”It’s actually patriarchal types, like male religious leaders, who preach that men can’t control their sex drives, so women must wear burqas, or that if a woman is assaulted, it’s her fault for wearing a sexy outfit, because “what did she expect? You can’t wave meat in front of a tiger.” This is very insulting to men.”_

Consider what you’ve just said here: “patriarchal types.” “Male” religious leaders. These are the people that promote that which Feminists claim to be “toxic” masculine ideals.

What is hidden in your approach is gynocentrism: an exclusively female-centred point of view that fails to account for two things. The first is that there is also a male point of view, which is equally worthy, and bears no relationship to how Feminists portray it. Second is female agency–that of women’s active participation in the world. Feminism lays claim to the female point of view, but it isn’t. It is merely a political ideology. You’ve painted men as perpetrators and women as unwitting victims.

This point of view is not only insulting to men, but to women as well.

_”Feminism seeks to free both sexes from being taught to act out in these stereotypical ways, and allow each person to be who they are without having to live up to an imposed standard of “masculinity” or “femininity”. “_

But this is not so. In the real-world, Feminism is the advocacy for women’s interests, and uses Feminist Theory as a justificatory framework to explain how women are victims to men. And how does it collect funds? By portraying women as victims of men, who are perpetrators. How do they gain power? By promoting that female victims of men must be supported, encouraged, empowered, because don’t we all know, the poor, weak little empty-headed dears aren’t fully adults, so must be protected from the big-bad man-driven world.

The narrative is a simple one: “In the tennis match of life, women are the ball. Care to make a donation?”

Feminism lays claim to the female point of view, but it isn’t. It is merely a political ideology.

Feminism is the very poison that it claims to fight against. The video that Cappy commented on is merely one more example of the ploy of making women look like the victims of men.

Here’s the same experiment reproduced. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXdMAXaMicc

But that doesn’t really make for a compelling, fund-raising under-dog story, does it?

Feminism is the new Creationism.

Tagged , ,