Category Archives: Radical Feminism

This is what Feminism looks like: Dehumanizing men.

Is this acceptable to you?

If not, then neither should this.


Go ahead, tell me to look the term “Feminism” up in the dictionary, so that I can know “what Feminism really means.” Tell me that Not All Feminists Are Like That. Share with me, how “Feminism is about equality of the sexes.”

I believe that I can find more of such things in a day than you can find of messages that promote that men and women are both worthy of dignity and how both should be treated justly, impartially and with kindness in a month.

When Feminism is deeply ensconced in the UN, Federal governments, corporate and local business, media and culture in general, there is no good reason to believe that “It’s only a few extremists.”

I hereby challenge anyone to make a cogent, reality-based, evidence-based argument for the claim that “Feminism is not a hate movement.” Convince me. I will listen to any argument that is cogent and fact-based.

Convince me. I pledge an skeptically rigorous and intellectually integral inspection of your arguments.

Tagged ,

Response to Arwen de Lyon, Facebook commenter

Another exchange on facebook–why does it keep having problems? Or am I being cut-off?

Link to screenshot of discussion

Arwen de Lyon said: Jamon I am a feminist and I am not living in the past. I envision a future where children’s items are not color coded by gender. I envision a future where women are valued for their talents and ideas, not their appearance, where we have the freedom not only to leave our houses and to vote but to become important, to be the movers ad shakers of the world and honored and remembered for it, not shamed, mocked, derided, and derailed as we are now.

First, that toys are colour coded means nothing, except that marketers have measured that usage of some technique sells better than others. This applies to all, the reason that it is done is not some form a discrimination, but because it works in achieving the goal of higher sales.

Second, women, like men, are valued for their talents and ideas. ALL human beings, without exception, are also valued for their presentation, not only women. You are creating a dichotomy where none exists. If you expect that to human instinct will change, then you will only be disappointed. You and I will always be judged on our appearance, regardless of our sex.

Third, You do have the freedom to leave your house and to vote–even Afghani women have this choice. Note that with every freedom–a right–comes the burden of duties. Can you tell me the corresponding duties and obligations of all parties involved? Can you tell me WHY some tribal Afghani women have the social restriction of remaining in the house without being accompanied by a “safe-male?” Go do your research.

Fourth, anyone with the genetic, mental and emotional make up can “become important.”  People don’t become movers and shakers because they are *permitted* to do so, but because they develop the acumen and skills to do so–they move and shake. None has the “freedom” to be honoured, or remembered, not shamed, mocked or derided. No man, woman, child is immune to this.

What I despise about Feminism is this very kind of airy-fairy grievance-mongering where attention to some claim victimization takes precedence over being self-responsible for their destinies.

Arwen de Lyon said: I envision a future where men know how to love and aren’t ashamed to cry.

Men _do_ know how to love, and any shame in crying is usually imposed on us by women. You can do your part: allow a man to express himself as he chooses to. Also, do not confuse women’s responses with men’s. Often, we do not feel the need to cry, we express our distress or emotion in different ways than women typically do. This is natural, and we are not obliged to do it in the same way you would.

Arwen de Lyon said: I envision a future where women and men of all sizes and ethnicities are represented, in everything from the highest echelons of politics to blockbuster epic movies and comic books.

This is already the case.

Arwen de Lyon said: I also envision a future in which family legacies are passed down through both genders of parents.

This is already the case. No child cannot be influenced by those that raise them.

Arwen de Lyon said: I admit, not everyone will embrace my vision of the future, but let’s not kid ourselves by saying feminists live in the past.

I personally don’t make that claim.

Arwen de Lyon said: Feminists are ahead of the attitudes of the times, we always have been, and we have played and continue to play an important role in changing the attitudes of the time, thank you very much.

This is false. Humans have always fantasized about their own personal version of Utopia. You mistake some form of liberalism as being “ahead,” implying a superiority. It is merely a reactionary product of the current time. I do agree that we can all play our part in creating a better world.

Arwen de Lyon said: Like I said I do not live in the past. I remember the past because if you don’t know history you are doomed to repeat it, and here we are once more.

I remember the past because I’m old and I’ve been there, have and still am living though it.

Arwen de Lyon said: Do you know that when feminists first fought for the right to vote, a right we can all now agree is basic and justified, feminists were also portrayed as man-hating caricatures?

Sloppiness. In which country? In England, for example, any land-owner could vote, male or female. Most men could not vote any more than women could. The Suffragettes actively spoke against black men having the vote. Finally, the vote was granted to men because they were imposed the duty of fighting wars, and this duty had to be balanced with a right. If the common man was going to fight and die for his country, it was agreed to, he should also have input on how the country was run. The common woman was later granted this right for no reason other than that men had it, yet, she still is still free of the call of duty to go to war. In the United States, women have the vote simply by reaching the age of majority, whereas men do not have the right to vote at this time, until he signs a document where he pledges to be conscripted.

Arwen de Lyon said: How is that any different from how people are reacting to the movement today? Oh, and don’t tell me about “females against feminism”. The name may be new, but the attitude is at least a century old; brainwashed and conditioned women have been against feminism since its conception. Tell me who is living in the past, and who has not changed.

How very condescending of you. Just as the original poster asked “What is your problem?” you imply that the very women you claim to stand for, if they hold a view other than your political preference, are somehow unable to think for themselves, victims to mental conditioning. You claim to value equality, but presume that those that disagree with you are somehow mentally inferior. Every argument that you’ve made, has been proven otherwise, countless times, yet you seem to believe that you have some special understanding that none other could have investigated, analyzed and come to a rational conclusion that is different than yours? The kind of self-absorbed ignorance that you are displaying is “the problem” with the world. While it is very prevalent amongst Feminists, it is not exclusive to it. We can find this kind of self-righteous attitude for all political, religious and cultural points of view. You, like most, never seem to think past the speaking-points that others have developed for you. Yet you will refer to others as “brainwashed and conditioned.”

Arwen de Lyon said: “If you’re so uncomfortable with using the term “feminist” because it is gender exclusive, then how about the myriad of examples of people using terms like “men” or “man” even when they mean both men and women? Do you also have a problem with the term “mankind”?

This isn’t a good argument. The term Feminist refers to a political ideology, and you are conflating a precise term with common usage of two meanings of a generalized term.

Arwen de Lyon said: How about when religious people refer to God as “Him”?

Again, this is not a good argument. “Religious” people refer to the Judeo-Christian god as a male because it is depicted as a male. Not all gods are male. Your choice is a very localized both in culture and in language.

Arwen de Lyon said: Could it be that what you in fact dislike is a movement, somewhere, shining the spotlight on women instead of men for once?

You are projecting your argument onto your Jamón. The correct way of assessing that information is to ask, not to transform or strawman the argument.

The reason that I’m not a Feminist is precisely because, as a whole, most Feminists are no more educated than you have shown yourself to be on the matter, as one-sided, and unbalanced and hypocritical.

Privilege from the Feminist perspective

Tagged , ,

Christina Hoff-Sommers: Why do you call yourself a Feminist?

I can appreciate Christina Hoff-Sommer’s sentimental attachment to a movement of her youth. There are still Elvis fans, but Elvis is dead, and so is her Glory Days movement. At what point does a bunch become a heap? At what point does the number of angry, man-hating paranoid and surly law-making, influence-wielding, self-proclaimed Feminists become the majority so that the term takes on a new meaning?

I’ve gone so far as to give up the title “Egalitarian” as a position, and simply refer to myself as impartial, the true antonym to the terms “sexist” and “racist.” While many women are getting their faces burned with acid, so are men. While many women are homeless, so are men. While many women are subject to domestic violence, so are men.

Are we in fact striving for an impartial and mutually respectful society? Are we truly willing to let go of long-held cultural and even instinctual prejudices? If so we must choose the vehicle best suited to ourselves and for a collective of individuals that firmly believe that character and a sense of duty must be the fundamental tool for change, rather than some long-gone ideology.

Tagged ,

Feminists: trivializing consent. How seriously are we expected to take your message now?

The triviality and childishness leaves me speechless. We’ve moved from the significant and worthy issue of women being respected and treated with dignity, to women-children playing “I’m the Queen of the castle, you’re the dirty rascal.”

Trivializing the crime of rape with pre-sex forms in pink boxes and cute, flirty underwear does not address the dark gravitas of the crime of rape, nor does it in any way “raise consciousness” in a way designed to protect women–or men.

It is as though these people don’t understand what rape is a crime, not a political talking point.

Tagged , ,

The Invserse Peacock Tail: Feminist political tactics exposed.

Power, is nothing more than the ability to perform work. To move something. To influence a chain of cause and effect.

Human relationships are always about power. The ability to cause good things to happen, or bad. All humans having functional muscles and brains have some degree of power, regardless of sex, race or social caste.

As humans, we are all subject to a hierarchy of needs. See Malow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

When we run into other humans, our very first evaluation is a threat assessment. Is this person dangerous to me, or to my interests? Or do they have value that will promote my well-being and support my interests.

This evaluation is complex, and  is continually on-going and subject to change. When, over time, and individual behaves in a manner that we consider neutral or positive to our well-being, we develop trust; we develop a habituated sense of security based on the ability to predict another’s choices in regards to us and our interests. The inverse is simultaneously true. When we can accurately predict that someone can and will bring harm to us or our interests, we develop distrust. Taken to the extreme, we have fear–an emotion designed to help us avoid situations harmful to our survival and well-being.

The constant interchange between people has two levels. The first is physical safety, the second is the safety of one’s interests; direct and indirect threats. Much of our socialization is based on these fundamental instincts. Protect ourselves, protect our young, our homes, our jobs, the tools that permit us to do the job, the relationship with those that can provide us the tools, etc.

People are too-simply and instinct-powerfully labelled “good” by  those who use their power to our benefit or that of our interests, or who at least use it in a manner that is neutral to these. “Bad” people are those that use their power to our detrimental us or our interests. “Evil” is simply an adjective indicating the willingness to do harm to us or our interests.

Once direct relative safety has been secured, we lazy humans, followers of The Path of Least Resistance feel emboldened to, though social interactions and have other reduce the load on us to meet our own needs, or to meet needs that we cannot. A baby has the need for food and security, and makes use of physically built-in triggering mechanisms to evoke an adult to provide for them, for example. We use psycho-social techniques of doling out approval to make a person feel secure, or insults, a technique to lower one’s estimation of one’s social status to threaten abandonment or expulsion to the role of social outcast, which, which instinctively is a precursor to pain and death.

We fawn over celebrities in hopes of gaining acceptance so that we may share their social status (“groupies”). Celebrity is nothing more than The Path of Least Resistance acceptance that an individual has something to offer based on other people’s response. Some people are celebrities for the work they bring, others are simply celebrities for being well-known. This is one of the flaws in the value evaluation mechanism of the human creature.

Generally speaking, we treat those with greater ability to change things than we have with more deference than those of lesser power.

All of these sort of things are built-in. And it is the root of all of our social interactions. It happens on a one-to-one scale as it does on a global scale.

Politics is nothing more than the management of power and resources via relationship and social interaction.

Victim politics, for example, is the tactic of appealing to our sense of empathy (help another, help one’s self) and to our instinct of caring for those with less power. The slow perniciousness of this technique, however, is that it is a form of theft via fraud. The more hyperbolic–that which is exciting to the senses–a claim, the more the instinct of empathy and protection are triggered, the more another is moved to meet the so-called victim’s needs.

Political Feminism relies on the technique of amplifying the perception one group’s power (men, white men, cishet white men) and the obfuscation of another group’s (women, non-white men, non-white cishet men) power. This creates a false sense of imbalance of power, and en mass–or should I say  en classe, reducing the status of the former group and of raising the social status of the latter.  It is literally creating “bad abusive men” and “good girl-children”. It triggers another instinct: our innate sense of justice, that is, the instinctive measure of an exchange of value and/or power. Since it is safer for us to reduce the power of “bad” people and to increase the power of “good” people, this technique is an excellent way of appropriating value and power.

The Political Feminist technique is the mirror of the peacock’s tail. I wonder if I could refer to it as The Wounded Peacock’s Tale.

It is brilliant, manipulative and utterly self-serving; it is pure perfidy. It is, exactly what it claims to combat.

I welcome your thoughtful counter-arguments.

Tagged , , , ,

This is what Feminism looks like.

This is what Feminism looks like

Apparently, this originated at

Tagged , ,

Feminists: Warning signs that you are in a cult

I claim that Second and Third wave shares many attributes with that of cults, that “Feminism” is in fact a quasi-cultish set of ideologies and movements; I place a special emphasis on Third-Wavers.

The text below originates from the Edmonton Society of Mind Abuse.

Warning Signs that You are in a Cult

If you suspect the group you are in is harmful, but are not sure, ask yourself these questions:

  • do they claim to have a special corner on the truth, something no other groups has?

Do Feminists do this? Most certainly. White men can never understand the plight of women and people of colour–that is to say, everyone, except for white men

  • are you told to not question what is being taught, as the leadership are godly, honest, have divine authority and you must trust them?

Check. It is not, that a feminists are explicitly told so, but that the behaviour of the group discourages thinking along anything other than party lines.

  • are you discouraged from asking questions as to why members have left, and expected to accept the reasons the group leadership gives you?

Not so much, but rather that those who leave or speak out against feminism are typically demonized.

  • do they put down other churches, groups, etc, while pointing out their faults and errors to build themselves up? do they use peoples faults and sins as examples of what to do and what not to do?

Most definitively.  They put down other ideologies, especially those that counter Feminist ideologies. They use terms such as “rape apologist”, “slut-shamer”, “sexist”, “racist” and 50 shades of “-phobes” and “-ists”.

  • are you made to feel your failures, as though your performance is not up to par to their righteous standards?

Most certainly. See above.


The more radical activist types do, but not the coffee-shop variety of feminists.

  • do they stop you from reading anything negative about themselves?

No, in fact, they seek it out so as to immediately name-call and shame those who do, or who even in the subtlest way hint at it, or even so much as dare to disagree with their dogma. Radical Feminists do not want you to ignore something when you have the opportunity for self-righteous outrage.

  • do they call those who fall away enemies, dogs, or cancer, even using examples from the Bible or other such materials?

Frequently. Yes. See “-ists” and “-phobes.”

  • do they place and emphasis on evil and the devil, declaring that the world outside is a threat to the group?

PATRIARCHY! The War on Women! Phallogocentrism! Misogyny!


Tagged , ,

Feminism’s Theft of Moral Authority.

The Theft of Moral Authority

Creative Commons License

Dear Feminist,

There are those of your kind that commonly try to sell me the notion that Feminism is a force for good. They would claim to continue in the tradition of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony all while raising funds for campaigns that imply that all men are rapists and that you aren’t a real feminist unless you believe in Patriarchy Theory, Rape Culture and Free Bleeding. “But not all feminists are like that,” you exclaim, “Those Feminists aren’t True Scotsmen.”

My experience of feminists is that if not ALL like that, you are, in fact, the greatest majority numerically, the most powerful, the most influential, and the most harmful faction.

There is a crime known as Stolen Valour. The crime is one of falsely claiming to have earned medals of distinctions, to have engaged in certain battles or actions or of having committed great deeds create impression of valour–it is a claim to unearned valour.

For a Modern Feminist, this is a common sort of behaviour, that of leaning on the credit of others for a moral authority that you do not possess. And you do it casually, and even innocently.

When I hear “Let me tell you what Feminism really is about” I can correctly predict that over 99% of the time, the eager feminist will attempt to paint a noble and grandiose vision that rest the ideas of their Second and Third wave Feminist apologetic on the moral authority of the First Wave Feminists. It’s like clockwork. It is the primary go-to response, the primary article of faith.

And why do you do this? For two reasons. The first is that once there was a time where women were institutionally treated as lesser than men. These were genuine grievances and they have been rightfully addressed and resolved.

The second reason is that without this moral authority, the Patriarchy Hypothesis, “Women’s Ways of Knowing”, Rape Culture and the like would be seen for what it is: addle-minded, post-modern bigotry and wishcraft. If it were not for the works of a number of fair-minded people many years ago on whose name and cause you can draw on for a semblance of moral authority, your present ideas would be regarded much as we do The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

So, when you call yourself a “Feminist” and try to tell me what “Feminism” means, unless you are specifying your exact beliefs and act according to purely Egalitarian principles and do so in a consistent manner, your apologetics will remain as bereft of morality as they are of logic.

Your bigotry was never their goal.

Tagged ,

Does the ‘F’ Word Scare You ? A response to feminist apologetics.

This is a response to Akriti who wrote Does the ‘F’ Word Scare You ?

Too long? Here’s a summary:

Your essay is an exercise in conflating First Wave Feminism with Second and Third Wave Feminism. Essentially, you have expounded, at great length and repetition, a  No True Scotsman argument. You are attempting to stretch the cloak of the First Wave Feminist’s moral authority to cover the later incarnations, and so tear the remainders at the seam. You do a disservice to genuine egalitarians by excusing bigots, a disservice to bigots by excusing them of responsibility, and a disservice to all by muddying the waters of what is “Feminism” is and by conflating all forms of “Feminism” as being a form of egalitarianism. You then, having conflated the values and ideas of the various groups, claim that if your mishmash of 2nd and 3rd wave feminism are not adhered to, that the egalitarian tenets of the 1st wave are violated, thus conclude that non-feminists must be bigots. Then you plagiarize work from, and end up self-celebrating your moral righteousness.

Let us begin.

” I’m a feminist  ” – These three words come across to a lot of people as some sort of a threat.

No more so than “I am a Scientologist”.

A threat that will overpower men.

No. Of bigots who wave the flag of egalitarianism while using the pole as a club the moment they believe that no one is watching.

A threat which will  prove fatal for the established structures of society.

No. Of organized activities that work to further women’s interests, all fair play, decency and consequences to others be damned.

A threat that might just lead to the doom of humanity.

♪ Dun-dun-duunnnn! ♪

High time, we clear the blurriness around the world’s most misconstrued and hated ‘F’ Word – Feminism.

Yes, let’s please!

Feminism is not a threat. Its not a curse. It is indeed a blessing.

You have failed to specify what you mean when you use the word, or perhaps you intend it as Humpty Dumpty does: “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

When you start speaking/writing about feminism, it’s like diving your nose into a cess pool of ignorant shit.

* Ahem *.

That’s the best analogy I can give here. Most people on hearing the ‘F’ word assume that, to be a feminist is like ,“Get out of my way, I don’t need anyone.” .. or something along the lines of “So you’re a feminist. That means you hate men, right?”

Why not simply use a definition, instead? The greatest failure of your essay is a lack of specificity. I don’t know whether it is born of lack of knowledge, or a deliberate dissembling, but I’ll assume the former. I don’t believe you are a fanatic, but one who is likely of the good willed, but lesser informed.

Allow me to gently correct your previous point. There are two classes of people who hear about feminism. Those who aren’t particularly involved, and those who are.

To those who aren’t particularly involved, the general and uninformed impression is a that of a vague, First Wave feminism, an attempt at egalitarianism that mistakes the 1800’s wishes of “equality FOR women TO men” without having updated their view to include current day circumstances.

Among the involved, there are three camps.

1. The greatest number are those who accept feminism uncritically. They view it as a positive;

2. there are those, anti-feminists, such as myself who have investigated, and continue to investigate feminism from roots to branches and view the modern-day incarnation as a nonsensical yet persuasive ideology, on par with Scientology and;

3. the smallest group of those who are completely uninterested and view it as a mere academic matter that irrelevant to themselves and to society in general.

Pretty sure those people have no idea what feminism means.

You err in your certainty.

There are dozens of people who won’t identify as feminists, probably representing thousands upon thousands of other women (and men) who then won’t either.

There are more likely thousands growing toward many millions, globally, that actively refuse and reject the title of Feminist–but neither of us have the true numbers in either case. The most frequent reason for that the average person rejects “Feminism” is having observed the behaviour and listened to the speech of, and considered the ideas of those that name themselves “Feminist”, generally, knowingly or not, are Radical Feminists. They are those who shy away from “the ick factor”, the very one your essay attempts to claim does not exist and yet requires correction.

And they are just perpetuating the idea that being a feminist is a dirty thing to be… which, if you think about it, is probably the best example of why feminism is relevant.

No, these people are expressing their reasons based on observation and knowledge of the ideas, speech and behaviour of those who name themselves “Feminist”. Not only is your assessment incorrect, but your argument to relevance does not follow.

I don’t believe that anybody should be pressured into identifying with a group, movement or label. So don’t interpret this as me believing everybody has to identify with something or another.

I’ll accept that.

However, I think the problem we have here is that people aren’t identifying as “feminists” when they otherwise would because they don’t want to be associated with the dirty stigma, or rather, they don’t really know what it means to be a feminist.

You are correct in that many refuse to self-identify as Feminist due to the stigma, but you have no basis for claiming that lack of knowledge is it’s basis. This is, at best, wishful thinking on your part.

Just because people have demonstrated extreme actions before and identified with “feminists” does not mean that accounts for the concept in and of itself.

Your argument is that the individual do not represent the whole. I’ll accept that, up until the point where the majority of said individuals that adopt the title Feminist adopt behaviour that is nonsensical, harmful, or extreme become the representative majority. Further, one need not be an extremist to demonstrate the bigotry or falsehood inherent in feminism. A mere constant and low-level demonstration of the values of Radical Feminism is all that is required to make the point; in other words, a constant drip will erode stone more surely as an explosive burst of water.

Feminism, mind you is NOT a dirty word.

Were it not, you would not be defending it. Your very efforts in this essay show that you recognize that the term “Feminism” in fact does have a stigma and is thought of as a “dirty word”. It is the very reason for your apologetic and attempt to reframe it.

But first: what the hell is feminism, anyway? Feminism is the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.

That is one of two senses of the word. “Feminism” has two distinct senses. The first is that of “women’s equality to men”, the second sense is that of advocacy of women’s rights and interests. I’ve addressed this here:  Is feminism not just a label and a vehicle for someone who supports women’s rights? Your definition of the term “feminism” has a number of errors.

  1. It is incomplete, it focuses on only one aspect of the commonly accepted definitions of the word;
  2. your definition implies that the term “feminism” has one exclusive meaning, a rookie mistake, considering that anyone reading your article also has access to online dictionaries;
  3. you treat feminism as a monolith, when in fact it is not, and feminist themselves acknowledge that there are at least 47 variants of feminism, many contradictory;
  4. you treat the term “feminism” as though there is a general agreement as to the sense of the word, which I’ve already disproved; Feminists themselves acknowledge all the above.

You hear it – ‘of the sexes’ – not only of women.

See above.

Many people who are diametrically opposed to the feminist movement believe that it is a ‘war between the sexes,’ and that feminists are campaigning for their rights at the expense of men’s rights.

This is only because Radical Feminism, which is also the mainstream variant, pointedly promotes the notion that there is a war between the sexes. When there is a preponderance of evidence in writing by key Feminist members, when this it taught in university level “women’s studies” and when politicians, seeking to please a lobby speak as though it were true, when the majority of the movement explicitly claim that this is so and include this fundamental message in presupposition, when the actions that individuals and groups of self-proclaimed feminists behaviour act in accord with the this notion, it would be unreasonable for anyone to agree that it is otherwise. In short: we believe it because Feminist say it, and act so.


This is what has led to the rise of a ‘Men’s Rights Movement’

False. The Men’s Rights Movement has arisen due to the inequities that men face in politics, law and culture to correct the issues.

(which sadly is not a movement for equality but anti-woman).

False. The Men’s Rights Movement is not anti-woman in the least. It is pro men and boys, and pro women and girls. It is in fact, nothing more than a swell of people who believe that all humans deserve fair treatment decently observing that the current legal and social environment not only do not support this goal, but actively works against it. The Men’s Rights Movement, ironically, seeks to achieve what First Wave Feminists claimed to have stood for: equitable rights for all, that is until they were consumed and mutated by parasitic gender ideologues. We also bring a concept novel to most Feminists: that with equal rights, come equal obligations and duties. The Men’s Rights Movement has nothing to do with Feminism. It’s merely that Radical Feminists have become parasites gone rampant. The Men’s Rights Movement is an immune reaction to the infection of Radical Feminism.

Feminism is not about hurting men, but about empowering women to be equal to them in all areas of society.

This is the Equal To versus Equal With fallacy. Radical Feminism presume that men’s circumstance is the measure by which women’s success must be measured. Feminists gaze at the top 10% of the world’s men and claim that all women should have these same advantages. Rarely do they notice the 90% of men who do not have these same advantages, nor do they attend to the fact that men who have achieved success in life, by its very definition, is that they have sought a goal, worked for it, and achieved it. They accepted the duties and obligation of creating their own opportunities.

Here’s the thing – Feminism is about gender equality. Feminism is “equalism”, which, by the way, isn’t a word.

Which variant of Feminism? Certainly not Radical, or Mainstream Feminism. Again, while you pick the prettiest cherries, you fail to attend to the rotten fruit in the bowl and somehow hope that fine words will cover the stink of the rot. This is my main issue with Feminists that make claims to some form of egalitarianism.

I, as an anti-feminist–a position, incidentally, unrelated to the Men’s Rights Movement–recognize the rot, and throw it out. The decay is so pervasive that the term which you cherish now represents all that you wish it would not, but you and others try to talk us out of our own senses. If your intentions are genuinely egalitarian, I welcome your shoulder to our collective wheel, but your broad-sweeping claims are demonstrably false.

I think “humanist” is the one I’m are looking for. Feminism is about fighting for women to have the same rights and freedoms afforded to men.

I have already addressed the Equal To / Equal With fallacy that you are now repeating. It is incompatible with your claim.

Feminists want equality, not supremacy.

Egalitarians seek equality. Radical, or Mainstream Feminists seek to advance women’s interests, and damned be the men–or women that they may incidentally harm in the name of their ideology. In many cases they attempt to re-write language, history and laws to minimize the roles and value of men, and attempt an inverse promotion of women. I am willing to concede that there may be no general acceptance of an intentional goal of domination. I do note, however, that though political manoeuvring, that the result is slowly coming to fruition.

Hating men is a different thing altogether.  Ever heard the term misandrist? It’s like misogynist but for hating men instead of women (feel free to look it up in the dictionary). There’s a difference between “feminists” and “misandrists.”

But what you cannot argue is that a goodly number of Feminists imbue your movement with the patina of misandry.

Yes, ‘misandrist’ is a word people should despise , not feminism.

Feminism deserves being despised for what it is, regardless of the attached misandry. Radical Feminism as it is practised is not only misandrist, but misogynist as well.

 Feminism and misandry are, by nature, mutually exclusive.

Of course not. They are not automatically inclusive, but by no means are they exclusive.

You can’t want gender equality on one hand and hate one of the genders on the other. That would make no sense at all.


Humanism is the goal we are all striving for. Humanism is the dream.

Then abandon feminism, and become a Humanist. Humanists strive to achieve Humanist goals. Feminists strive to achieve Feminist goals. The two are often at odds.

Pat Robertson had famously said a very obnoxious thing in the 90s, which is – “The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.”

While Robertson is obnoxious, and does bring his own *ahem* “unique” perspective, he is correct in a number of things.

  1. Radical/Feminism is an expression of, and is based on Marxist socialism;
  2. it is also anti-family, and bends laws, politics and cultural messages to that end;
  3. it also has lobbied for and successfully brought about conditions that encourage women to leave men at a whim;

An observation: many feminist factions actively root for the destruction of capitalist systems; and another: Lesbian feminists would claim that one cannot be a feminist without being Lesbian.

Sadly, the sentiment still rings as true in the ears of many today.  It’s an understatement to say that feminism has a bad rap. It does, sadly though.

A well-earned, bad reputation based on the words and deeds of self-proclaimed Feminists.

Feminists don’t hate men.

Correction: some feminist don’t hate men. Some do.

We hate patriarchy.

From your very article:

Patriarchy says...

Image taken from Does the ‘F’ Word Scare You ?

There is no “Patriarchy”. The Patriarchy Hypothesis, is a tenet of Feminist Theory. Contrary to your chosen example, a non-human, non-existent Patriarchy cannot “say” anything. It is Radical Feminists who say the above and, in the same breath, disclaim responsibility for their words, a good example of the psychological phenomena of “projection”. The very image that you use in your article demonstrates the conflict between First Wave and later waves of Feminism.

Back to the issue. None of the conditions that meet the “10 dimensions” to meet a Patriarchal society–using the correct sense of the word–are found in North American society, and I might risk saying as much for the Western World.

  • lack of property control by women
  • lack of power of women in kinship contexts
  • low value placed on the lives of women
  • low value placed on the labor of women
  • lack of domestic authority of women
  • absence of ritualized female solidarity
  • absence of control over women’s marital and sexual lives
  • absence of ritualized fear of women
  • lack of male-female joint participation in warfare, work, and community decision making
  • lack of women’s indirect influence on decision making

“While the term patriarchy generally refers to institutions, the term is sometimes used less effectively in describing societal attitudes.”

I will point out something humorous: note that the absence of Gynophobia–an abnormal fear of women–is a criteria for the existence of “Patriarchy?” Incidentally, if anyone can point me to Whyte’s oft-cited but completely unfindable by me 1978 study, I’d appreciate it.

Patriarchy is the notion that men have wittingly or not created a system by which women are disadvantaged by men, for men’s purposes. If you believe this, then you must accept that men are either stupid, psychopathic, or bestial. And you claim that this basic tenet of Radical Feminism is not misandry, the hatred or contempt for men? The very notion of patriarchy theory is seeing men as simultaneously all-powerful and morally inferior. And I assure you, that while the greatest majority of Radical Feminists claim to not “hate” men, that is, to experience a passionate dislike, their every behaviour demonstrates otherwise.

Also, please stop cribbing your arguments. If you actually care about making this a better world for everyone, I would urge you to review your core beliefs with a dispassionate and skeptical eye. Please review them without the aura of the familiar adherence, but as a strange and suspicious new idea that you have never visited. Inspect it’s implications and presuppositions. Only by an objective inspection of this idea will you free your mind of it.

People have got to understand that Feminism is not equal to hating men. Feminist doesn’t mean “ a person who hates men.”

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies that advocate for women’s interests and equality with the false perception of a man’s advantaged situation. While the hatred that is demonstrated by Radical Feminists is not prescribed by the ideology, adherence to it demonstrably leads to it, however.

 Feminist means “ a person who believes people should have equitable places in society regardless of their gender.”

Again, you are attempting to conflate First Wave Feminism with the latter versions.

Some women claiming themselves to be feminists (who have got it all wrong by the way) may be misandrists.

The individual doesn’t represent the group, but what of when the group is mostly composed of people who behave as though they were?

But it’s by no means a criterion to join the club.

But it most certainly can be a by-product.

Though they’re not even that loud, but can seem so because the anti-feminists somehow like to cherry pick quotes and ignore the much greater number of feminist writings, people, and organizations that say otherwise.

Do not make me break out the YouTube videos, Sister.

I find it interesting that you accuse anti-feminists of being cherry pickers when you have based this very essay on cherry picking. This, by the way, it very, very typical of feminists. It is an hypocritical blind spot that generated by the ideology’s wish to cloak itself in the moral authority of the original Feminist egalitarianism while using the No True Scotsman fallacy to kick sand over the turd that is the modern incarnation of Gynocentric Radical Feminism.

Don’t tell us that Not All Feminists Are Like That. Tell them to Not Be Like That.

Until such time as we see Feminists policing Feminists with the same force and vigour that is applied to Men’s Rights Activists, your statement’s credibility is essentially nil.

Some individual females can hate men. You might even argue based on what you find on the internet that most feminists hate men.  It’s irrelevant. What is relevant and what matters is that feminism, distilled down to its absolute core, is about gender equity.

I’m willing to grant you a certain amount of lee-way on this. I will, as I previously have, concede that individuals do not necessarily represent the whole. Where I expect you to stand up is to accept that the preponderant majority by their words and deeds, when they self-identify using a label, do in fact represent the label. The only way out of this argument is to divorce yourself from that group. One way of doing this is to adopt and use a sub-division label in a fairly consistent manner. One such example might to self-identify as “an egalitarian feminist”, but then again, this leads to the issue of conflation.

In all truth, there is no way that you can claim to be both a feminist and be egalitarian or humanist. Here’s the good news: there is no need to accept the label “feminist” to work for women’s interests and rights. You can work towards most of your goals without the word. The word “Feminism” is baggage.

I offer you the following challenge.

I don't really need feminism at all


I recommend reading Christina Hoff Sommers‘ book “Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women.”

Most feminists actively disagree with the belief that women are better than men

The problem, once again is that there are many feminists who inspire both men and women to believe, if not that women are superior to men (which many, many do), then at least that men are morally inferior to women. The net result may be even worse.

[…] and think that feminists who are anti-men are going against the fundamental principles of feminism, which says we’re all deserving and worthy human beings – women, men, trans-genders everyone – and should be treated as such. So men-hating isn’t a part of that goal…

See above. Everything above.

Frankly speaking not an issue to be given any weightage.  It’s an unfortunate reactionary sentiment bought into by some people (misandrists) who also identify with the feminist movement.

Your complaint is that feminism has become synonymous with misandry and bigotry, and you have agreed that that feminists believe this, non-feminist believe this and that the public believes this. This is the very reason for your essay. Yet– you would claim that the claim that feminists are perceived as misandrists bears no weight?

The whole “feminists hate men” thing has been tossed around for quite a long time now.  It’s not new.


The first feminist women who began advocating for equal status of women in the US did so in the late 1700′s, but it didn’t really pick up steam until the late 1800′s.

But this group was not widely perceived as misandrists.

What crazy radical things were these feminists , you call them man-haters asking for, by the way? Primarily, the rights to own property, to attend college, and to vote. In response to these requests, they were were labeled as anti-family, anti-God, anti-men radical hedonists.

Oddly enough, this resembles the charges made against Men’s Rights Activists: misogynist, anti-woman, radical rape apologists, etc.

That labeling has continued to today,

Well, in fact no. Women do have all the above requested rights in The Western World, current day, specifically because men accepted the arguments and acquiesced to making the changes.

because — surprise! — a group with a lot of power (men) tends to do whatever it can to maintain that power (dismiss equal rights as radical). Its not new. It’s happened with every oppressed ethnic group (from the Irish to the Africans) . It happened with oppressed religious groups (from the Catholics to the Muslims).

Yes, as is happening to men, here and now.

 And it continues today with the oppressed gender group.

I would urge you (and all Feminists) to give up your buzzwords in favour of a dictionary. Oppressed. Further, note your phrasing. The. Oppressed. Gender Group. Yet earlier you had said: “Many people who are diametrically opposed to the feminist movement believe that it is a ‘war between the sexes,’ […]”. Your above quote is an example of why people hold such beliefs.

Most men aren’t bad ( I can proudly say that about my generation)

How condescending of you. And I bet some of your best friends are Black, too.

[…] but somehow think Feminism says they are.


~ Germaine Greer

In actuality,  sexism is the problem — sexism that a lot of men engage in and a lot of women internalize.

And that a lot of women engage in, and that a lot of men internalize.

Men engage in sexism because they’ve been taught to behave/think that way.  Women internalize it for the same reason.

See above.

Feminism asks both men and women to critically think about those normalized behavior and its impact, and holds people accountable to sexist thinking and behavior even if they didn’t initially realize it was sexist.

Feminism asks men and women to think of sexism as perpetrated by men and for women to think of sexism as perpetrated against them.

So yes, it’s natural to get defensive when someone brings up feminist issues because it’s likely you never thought you were doing anything wrong.

And it is natural to get angry when bigotry cloaked as compassion is directed at you, even when you weren’t doing “anything wrong”.

Does that make sexist behavior acceptable?  No. That’s why we need to do a better job as a society to teach people how to treat each other with equity.

I’ll buy that.

That’s what feminism is trying to do here.

That is not what it has been demonstrated, nor, the results that it has created.

Feminists are mothers, daughters, and all kinds of women who have wonderful relationships with men in their lives;

Feminists are also fathers, sons and all kind of men who have wonderful relationships with the women in their lives. So are Men’s Rights Activists, Egalitarians, non-politicals, Buddhists, Christians and so on. You are attempting to use normal human behaviour by the masses to support the point that Feminism is not an ideology that harms people. This does not follow.

[…] however, feminists hate some behavior displayed by men who are misogynistic, who put women down, who believe that women are not equal beings, and who sexualize women.

Feminists simply want to be treated equally and with respect.

Men’s Rights Activists want everyone to be treated with respect. This includes men as well as women. Not just a certain ideological group or sex. Anti-feminists recognize your statements for what they are.

Feminists absolutely do not hate men.

You are repeating yourself. This has already been addressed.

The statement is actually formulated to paint all feminists in one broad stroke, which is a shame.

And so are your apologetics.

Feminism has historically come in different waves starting from the drive for voting rights. To put it simply: not all feminists believe exactly the same thing.

So you finally own up to it. Excellent.

It depends on the era they come from and the point of view they have developed.

No, it depends on how much thought and research has gone into “Feminism” by the one who is evaluating (or not) the ideas.

It’s a shame that some men feel intimidated by a woman demanding the right to pay equity and other rights.

And then two sentences later, you conflate again. You also mischaracterize men in general, even though you use the qualifier “some”.

Asking for men to treat women fairly is not the same as hate.

Again with the conflation.

Feminists simply want women to have an equal place and equal status in society.

Which they do. Name one right in law, in current day North America that men have, that women do not.

Feminists are normal beings. They get married, have children, and love the men in their lives. And to be honest, many wonderful feminists actually ARE MEN themselves. They clearly do not hate men. Feminism isn’t about hate.

Once again with your broad-brush, and your NAFALT argument and the repetiting of “since people are good, and feminists are people, feminists must be good” argument. A syllogism result is only as valuable as its input.

There are some feminists that hate men and those feminists have lost the point of feminism. Feminism by definition is about equality.

Blah, blah, blah. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

You might argue that feminism is pointless in the first world, however inequality still does exist.

I do argue that feminism is pointless in the first world. The First Wave’s goals have been achieved. The Second and Third wave is merely moneyed gynocentrism following the Iron Law of Bureaucracy.

Women are still not always treated equal

Men and women will never be treated “equally”, but we may be treated with equivalent dignity and respect–or lack thereof–which I contend is the case.

[…] and the way I see it, anyone who believes in human rights and equality, is a feminist.

You see it incorrectly. Feminism is not about equality of humans, but equality of women using a strawman of men’s position as the standard, and of women’s advocacy.

Both men and women can be feminists,


feminism is about gender equality,

No. I’ve address this too many times, so far.

so it also includes standing up for men’s rights too.

Non sequitur. It does not follow.

Men are very involved in feminism, we just don’t see them as much.

Yes, and yes we do.

Men understand that these issues impact them as well, that patriarchy and double standards hurt them, and they want things to change.

No, feminists men believe these things. Yes, double standards, to which we see very few Feminists attempting to deal with internally do harm both sexes.

Feminism has normally been a wonderful movement, evening the turf, fighting for the rights of women and men.

No, it stopped being anything close to “wonderful” when it transformed into a gynocentric advocacy group that generated a class war against men.

We live in a world of measurable, glaring inequalities. Look at politicians, CEOs, film directors, law enforcement officers, comedians, tech professionals, executive chefs, mathematicians, and on and on and on—these fields are dominated by men. (And, in many cases, white men.)

The argument of numeric parity is a fallacy. Look it up, or find it here on my blog.

To claim that there is no systemic inequality keeping women and minorities out of those jobs is to claim that men are naturally better.

False. You have just said: “To claim that there is no systematic inequality keeping 92% of the population out of those jobs is to claim that men are naturally better”. Your very statement is an exercise in sexism, racism, bigotry based on ignorance.

If there is no social structure favoring men, then it stands to reason that men simply work harder and/or are more skilled in nearly every high-level specialized field.

Oddly enough, that is close to the case. While this statement IS a generalization, men do tend to be more career oriented, simply because the expectation is on us to to be high-status individuals who must be providers, which requires money, and protectors, which money assists. This does not dismiss hard working and focused women who achieve much on their own.

It’s fine (though discouraging) if you legitimately believe that, but you need to own up to the fact that that is a self-serving and bigoted point of view.

It is neither self-serving nor bigoted when it is factually measured. What IS self-serving and bigoted is in denying the conditions that lead to this on anyone’s part.





I recommend reading An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women.

If you do not consider yourself a bigot, then kindly get on board with those of us who are trying to proactively correct inequalities.

May I recommend that it would be a more effective practice for you to step out of  your cobbled-and-creaky boat and jump onto one that actually will take you to where it claims to? Which is more important to you–the vehicle, or the destination? You have many choices, but you cannot have one leg on the USS Feminism and the other on any other boat.

It is not enough to be neutral and tacitly benefit from inequality while others are left behind through no fault of their own. Anti-sexism, anti-racism, anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia—that’s where we’re at now. Catch up or own your prejudice.

Oh, and another reason that I’m an anti-feminist? I can’t stand the self-righteous, holier than thou moralizing that accompanies modern Feminism.

If there’s one movement that upholds the idea of equality – it is feminism.

See entirety of the above.

I can say that because there is a whole set of issues concerning men that feminists are working on .

You can say it, but that doesn’t make it true. And that you make claims is not the same as demonstration and results.

Feminists do not want men to lose custody of their children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.

No, in fact, the reason that men tend to lose custody of their children more often is because of the doctrine of “best interests of the child” which replaced the Tender Years Doctrine.

You claim to speak on the behalf of feminists. Why don’t you know this? Don’t worry, your ignorance of the facts is quite common among Feminists.

Feminists do not want men to lose custody of their children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy. Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy. Feminism never made that claim, patriarchy did and that is why we hate patriarchy. Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their “traditional” marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy. Again patriarchy! Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.  Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy. Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate “nice guys.” The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy. Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don’t is part of patriarchy.

The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy. Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy. Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of any gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy. Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it’s unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy. Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy. Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy. Patriarchy is what we’ve got to criticize, not just criticize – essentially oppose and change. If you really care about the issues mentioned as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking feminists, because feminism is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them. The fact that you blame feminists—your allies—for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting men isn’t nearly as important to you as resenting women. We care about your problems a lot. Could you try caring about ours?

To all the men who have had shitty lives and mistake that pain for “misandry”: I totally get it.  And I’m sorry if you haven’t found that so far in your life. But it’s not women’s fault, it’s not my fault, and it’s certainly not feminism’s fault. The thing is, you’re not really that different from the women you rail against so passionately —the women who are trying to carve out some space and assert their value in a world of powerful men. Plenty of women know exactly what it feels like to be pushed to the fringe of society, to be rejected so many times that you eventually reject yourself. That alienation is a big part of what feminism is fighting against. A lot of those women would be on your side, if you would just let them instead of insisting that they’re the villains. It’s better over here, and we have room for you. So stop trying to convince us that we hate you and I promise we’ll start liking you a whole lot more.

Wait a minute! I thought your arguments sounded more familiar than the mere repetition that is typical of feminists. You have just plagiarized good portions of If I Admit That ‘Hating Men’ Is a Thing, Will You Stop Turning It Into a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy? Even your editing mistake points to it.

You poser! “Reflections of a deeper psyche!” indeed. You’re as bad as Big Red.

Life  isn’t fair always, because of coincidence and circumstance and the DNA you were born with, and we all have to accept the hands we’re dealt and live within that reality.


But life doesn’t have to be additionally unfair because of imposed systems of disenfranchisement  that only affect certain groups. We can fight against that.

Which is why I’m an anti-feminist and an egalitarian and a Men’s Rights Activist.

Feminism isn’t about striving for individual fairness, on a life-by-life basis

I’ll say.

—it’s about fighting against a systematic ‘removal of opportunities’ that infringes on women’s basic freedoms.

On women’s basic freedoms. Not people’s. Weren’t you just a few paragraphs above stating that Feminists also worked toward equality for men? Lip-service with a slip of the tongue.

If a woman and a man have equal potential in a field, they should have an equal opportunity to achieve success in that field.

No. If they have equal skill, talent and experience, they should. Women do have the same opportunity as do men, in North America. Success is up to the individual.

It’s not that we want the least qualified women to be handed everything just because they’re women.

Feminists fight for quotas on the boards of long-established companies for “non-white men” regardless of equivalence of qualifications. This gender quota system has been in place for years in academia, where women are chosen specifically because they are women, even when of a lesser value to the task.

It’s that we want all women to have the same opportunities as all men to fulfill (or fail to fulfill, on their own inherent merits) their potential.

You’ve got it. Job done. It’s time to move on.

If a particular woman is under qualified for a particular job, fine. That isn’t sexism.

See above.

But she shouldn’t have to be systematically set up, from birth, to be under qualified for all jobs (except for jobs that reinforce traditional femininity).

She isn’t, unless you believe that women are stupid and weak, which might lead one to accuse you of misogyny. Do you have this belief? Or do you believe that she is just as able to handle the very same challenges than men do?

Hence, we have a lot of thinking to do as ‘humans’ – not as a woman , not as a man ; just as human beings.

Hence, my position.

We have to really ponder on the fact that every time we refuse to call ourselves a feminist, or make a disparaging comment about “feminists” as a group of people or “feminism” as an ideology and movement, we are inadvertently implying that women don’t deserve gender equality.

I have pondered this. The answer is no.

We are reinforcing the divide that already exists.

No. “We” are not. This is the primary mission of feminism. The Iron Law of Bureaucracy dictates it.

Feminism, therefore is not a threat, never was. It’s a movement, a change already happening that is benefitting both men and women. It is helping us realize our humanity. It is helping us prevent to image of ourselves imposed by patriarchy as a construct of society. It is helping us unburden ourselves of the continual fear of failing that construct. Feminism is a gift to us. It is a way we can deepen our own humanity and, in fact, sometimes even claim our own humanity for the first time. Humanity that has been long lost. Time to revive it.


I take pride in calling myself a  feminist. Do you ??

No. I choose Egalitarianism, anti-feminism and Men’s Rights Activism as a mean of creating a world that respects people.

I welcome your thoughtful feedback.

Tagged , , ,