MarketWatch commentator devolves into male bashing

There's a contagious mental illness that has spread among many men. I call it male schizophrenia: all men are bad except me. I mean, it's amazing this man can get up in the morning and put together a decent English sentence, given his own inherent belief in his own ineptitude and unworthiness. It's an illness that is necessary if one is to live in a feminist universe, in which everything female is worshipped. It's a thought process that goes like this: I can find some value in myself if I find no value in myself. I must denigrate myself and all men to please my feminist mistresses--then I can be worthy.

Speaking of history: History (a subject invented by men) tells us men have invented almost everything that has made our lives anything more than brutish and short, from the wheel to the cell phone. There have been no female Steve Jobs, no female Edisons. This writer blinds himself to history if he believes women will suddenly become what they have never been: inventors. In the last 40 years, Steve Jobs gave us the Apple and the iPhone and the iPad. Women, collectively, gave us women's studies and "The Vagina Monologues." The extent of their vision is the mirror. And they have spent most of those 40 years denigrating men--and men like this one have believed what they said. It's a form of insanity, something we men recognize because we also invented psychology.

We may be on the "brink of total destruction" precisely because of men like this--not men in general, but men who, like this idiot, have retreated spiritually and psychologically before the onslaught of feminism.

@El Cid. I would recommended/request that you take care in how you choose to phrase things. While telling us what women have given us is fine, claiming the extent of their vision is simply generalizing and woman bashing, making you no better then the "feminists" (not women) who have denigrated men for these last few decades. Furthermore, you risk becoming the very misogynist they claim all MRA's to be. Remember, feminism does not equal women, as there are feminists who are men (As this article shows) and there are woman who are not feminists. It's no different than your making the distinction between men like this and men in general, found in your last sentence. Therefore, attributing feminist faults as being woman traits does both yourself and women a disservice. Just something to think about.

You're right that woman does not equal feminist--and I get frustrated with the feminists, including the man who wrote this article. And the real problem is not male vs female--it's the idea in that person's head, not their sex, that is the problem.

At one point, I tried to be very clear that it's feminists, not women, that are the problem. I wanted to avoid the "misogynist" label. At this point I don't much care. The term was invented to shame men into submitting to feminism. It was designed to manipulate, not tell the truth. It's applied to anyone who doesn't agree with feminism.

Problem is, feminism is a "women's" movement and it thus reflects on all women, especially as its ideas are adopted by large numbers of women. As a result, women as a whole cannot escape blame--nor criticism--for feminism. Pointing out (correctly) that "not all women are feminists" lets the average woman off the hook for what has been done in her name. Thus, feminism continues on because the average woman cannot be held accountable for its excesses. She is not to blame; she merely takes advantage of the sweet social contract feminists have pushed for.

As to "bashing" women for the extent of their vision, well, they need to come up with a vision that exceeds their vaginas. Mother Teresa had a different vision that was worthy of respect; she set out to help the lowest of the low in India--and she was hated by the feminists. Mary Fisher, another woman I respect, became a doctor in the 19th century and set up practice in the rugged badlands of southwestern Colorado, traveling by horse in the snow to help the sick. On the other hand, I have little respect for what the average modern woman has become: an entitled princess who cares not how her actions affect others. It's all about her, her body, her choices, her monologue with her vagina. In short, she's adopted the feminist vision of womanhood. It's fair to criticize her for having done so.

Still, you're right about one thing: it's not "women" per se that are the problem--it's the feminist ideology they've bought into. It's about the sin, not the sinner. There are still women out there who deserve respect, who are fair minded, who can understand what men go through. At one time, such women were the majority. Now they're the minority. Feminists have told us women are above criticism--men can't criticize women without being female-bashing misogynists. In the end, it's that belief I reject. Women are human beings; being criticized comes with the territory.

Most of the rest of your post boils down to a subjective opinion on where pointing out the poor behavioral changes brought on by feminism ends, and just thinking poorly of women in general begins, so I won't go into it any further, I just wanted to raise my concerns to your consideration.

However, this quote I have issue with:

"Problem is, feminism is a "women's" movement and it thus reflects on all women..."

The KKK was a "white people's" movement. Should all white people be held to account for it? Many white people benefited from the KKK (at the time, black people moving into a neighborhood reduced property values (for right or wrong, this was true), so keeping them out of neighborhoods, even if it wasn't you, but the KKK who did it, was a benefit. There are other things like that, that now are unreasonable, but at the time were beneficial). Another analogy is our own government. They are (supposedly) representatives of the people, they are the peoples voice in government... Do you want to be held to account for the choices they make? Should you be held accountable for Biden's VAWA, simply because he is a representative for you, as a citizen? Just because it is a movement for women, shouldn't mean it reflects on all women, just as the talaban shouldn't reflect on all Muslims, and the truly woman hating, "they belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen", make me a sammmich (for real, not just as a jab at feminists) kind of men (some can be found on the men's rights reddit) shouldn't reflect on all men or even all MRA's.

Kratch, you had me right up until you said this: "Another analogy is our own government. They are (supposedly) representatives of the people, they are the peoples voice in government... Do you want to be held to account for the choices they make?"

To which I would respond that if more people felt they were responsible for the decisions of their elected officials, perhaps they would take greater interest in electing those officials. So yes, I do believe that in a democracy you - as in the people (even and perhaps most especially people who don't vote) - should be held responsible for the actions of their government. As they say, freedom isn't free. We often forget that as a people.

Now I would posit that an elected government is different then political movement. Political movements - such as feminism - are only reflections of the members of the movement, and you are correct by saying we shouldn't "lump" all women in with feminists. Certainly, not all women are corrupt, however women and men that are feminists through thought, word, and/or deed are part of the movement and therefore are among the "blamed" (for want of a better word).

That said, I personally believe that a percentage of feminists - even potentially a very large percentage of feminists - are more naive to the positions of their feminist-leader-overlords and are unaware of the mens rights movement and the status of mens rights. Therefore, I perhaps controversially believe that a percentage of feminists may actually become our allies at the end of the day. To put it another way, I'm not sure which is worse: the feminist-female who honestly believes that men and women are equal but who believes that women are oppressed and men are privileged, or the traditionalist-female who honestly believes that women should have equal opportunity, but that men and women have fundamentally different duties. Why? Because we all know a man's duty: to die for some mythical greater good. Personally, I'll take a thoughtful feminist over a dyed in the wool traditionalist any day.

I respect women who do something worth respecting. Same with men. I have lost respect for the average American woman and what she strives for. She, however, is largely an historical anomaly.

As to your KKK analogy, it's interesting for several reasons. The KKK was actually very popular for a while--back almost a hundred years now--and thus did reflect badly on white people. Also, Jim Crow laws reflected poorly on white people. Ditto for slavery, inasmuch as it was in this country primarily something whites did to blacks. Ditto for the treatment by whites of indigenous populations in this country. No, not all white participated in these and many opposed them. But their acceptance among a large number of white people is reflects poorly on whites.

In addition, the Women's KKK promulgated many negative stereotypes about black men that ultimately were adopted by feminists as negative stereotypes about all men. Black men were rapists. Ditto for all men today. Black men were irresponsible. Ditto for all men today. Black men were violent. Ditto for all men today.

When large numbers of women adopt these negative stereotypes, it's not unfair to say they reflect poorly on women. I understand some women don't share these--but feminists certainly have managed to use these negative stereotypes to make life heck for a lot of men. A lot of women promulgate them--and a lot of men. And we have formulated laws and policies based on these stereotypes, just as we did with the Indians and the blacks and the Chinese and others.

As I said, I understand your point: better to distinguish the two than lump them all together. But men were called "misogynists" way before MRAs came into existence--it's one of the reasons we came into existence. Using the term was a way to convince men to buy into the snake oil feminists were selling--all men are bad. And I'm not saying the opposite, though you may think I am. But women--all women--are human beings and they can screw up. The current generation seems intent on sending out memos in which the subject line is always "Me." There's even a women's magazine called "Self." Still, you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar--which seems to be your point. Fair enough. But I'm human and I get vinegary about some of these issues because I've witnessed the damage done.