The Philosophical Void of Modern Feminism

	posted by Matt on 10:51 AM April 22nd, 2006
	Submitted by Patrick Bryant: The feminist movement, which initially was based on the desire to achieve equality and dignity for women, has been hijacked by a core of mostly-lesbian misandrists who have turned it into a doctrine of hate, blame, and imagined superiority. Those three elements make it remarkably similar to Nazi doctrine. This would all be of little consequence, and the movement would have been disregarded long ago along with the mindless blame and hateful mutterings of other extremist groups like the KKK and the Neo-Nazis, were it not for the fact that feminism has become an institution in American politics. Click "Read more..." for the rest.

	As someone who has traveled the world, I've found that activist feminism is an almost exclusively American phenomenon, and it can be further defined as being comprised almost exclusively of the white middle-class to upper class bourgeoisie women. It is rare, for example, to find a black woman who claims to be a "feminist". It should come as no surprise that this division among women also defines the social group most affected by the narcissistic consumer economy. The real root cause for allegiance to feminism is probably best defined by Carl Jung's definition of the Electra Complex: if there is a perversion in the development of females or if their aggression is somehow stifled, resentment can be displaced towards the dominant male (the father) or patriarchal cultures in general. This explains both lesbianism and its closely related manifestation: feminism. Rather than seeking equality and parity with men, the popular feminist seeks superiority. Consequently, the popular feminist movement can be viewed as a sexist partisan force; and yet this partisan force has been treated as though it were a gender-neutral humanist movement that has been afforded an invalid yet powerful position in modern American society. Of its core values, the most prominent is the overthrow of the "white male 'good-old-boy'" network (known in the 60s and 70 by the more gender-neutral term: "The Establishment"). What the movement tends to neglect is that this 'good-old-boy network' is based on class, not on gender, and that the average working class white male is no more welcomed into that network than are working class females. The methods used to overthrow this network come straight from classical Marxism: wherein Marx stated that it is appropriate for the "under class" to use any means necessary, however brutal, to wrest power away from the "upper class." The history and eventual collapse of the USSR is a classic example of the failure of this doctrine: eventually, EVERYONE comes to see themselves as being in the "underclass," and what results is a kleptocracy where everyone feels justified in stealing from everyone else. However, Marx suggested that the primary social division was between a "ruling class (the class of people exerting power or authority) and a laboring class. Since most white men fall into Marx's definition of the laboring class, I am sure even Marx would be appalled at the rationally vacant concept of women in the "proletariat" attacking their own men! Unfortunately, since the popular feminist movement has defined the "enemy" as being males, rather than the upper ruling class, they have irrationally converted the issue from a class struggle into a gender struggle. By drawing the battle lines between genders instead of between classes, the movement does real and significant harm to its own sons, brothers, husbands and fathers, who invariably get caught in the "friendly fire". The net effect over time is to corrode and undermine the feminist movement's own interests by: 1) marginalizing struggling working class males by erecting hurdles to effectively supporting their families 2) increasing the number of single parent families supported by the mother alone, and 3) deactivating what is historically the most powerful weapon in any class struggle: the family The hurdles to working class men come in the forms of special entitlements reserved exclusively for female students. If the current trend continues there will be no more males graduating from college by the middle of this century. This vicious cycle threatens to marginalize men to such an extent that women will be hard pressed to find a man who is capable of supporting a family. And in the future, fewer men will be able to afford to attend college without the tuition subsidies and entitlements reserved exclusively for women. Due to this redistribution of education that progressively excludes men, an oppressive and evil class system built along gender lines - as currently imagined by the feminists - will eventually become a reality, with the women in the upper ruling classes and the men in the lower labor class! This, whether consciously or unconsciously, appears to be the final end goal of the American Feminist movement. Such a matriarchal society is not without historical precedent. And when such societies existed in the past, they were among the most oppressive, unjust, warlike and bloodthirsty in human history. An example of the blamefulness practiced by popular feminism is their common reaction to economic compromise. The desire to seek a career, for example, instead of nurturing a family involves a significant compromise. All compromises involve giving something up. However, true to form, the feminist movement even goes so far as to blame men for what is surrendered by choice when making this compromise. Here is an example of that type of blame: "Our oppressive male-dominated American society has forced women into a 'cruel trade-off': if they focus on their careers in their youth, it's extremely difficult to get pregnant after age 40." (The Phyllis Schlafly Report, VOL. 35, NO. 12, JULY 2002). No one is FORCED to follow a career rather than have children. Having children is a personal choice. The basic premise of the argument expressed by Ms. Schafly is transparently bogus. When confronted by the injustices of American feminism, a common argument heard from feminists is that the injustices produced by their movement, the repression of working class males, and their selection of men as victims regardless of their social class, is a case of the "pendulum swinging too far the other way," and that in any social revolution there are bound to be innocent victims. I am sure those were the rationalizations on the lips of many Germans while their Jewish neighbors were being carted away to Auschwitz. The rationalization is clearly specious for anyone who claims their goal is social justice. "An Eye for an Eye" leaves everyone blind, and two wrongs never make a right. The most alarming rhetoric of the movement is more than vaguely reminiscent of Nazi propaganda. This comes in the form of statements like: "the Y Chromosome is defective" (Valerie Solanas, considered by many to be the first modern radical feminist). The feminist rhetoric that ascribes destructive attributes to all who have the genetic code that defines the male gender could have come straight out of Hitler's Mein Kampf! Then there is the rhetoric that men are exclusively responsible for destructive acts such as war. In fact, some of the most warlike leaders have been women. From Cleopatra in ancient history, to Indra Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, and Golda Mier in modern times, women have lead societies into battle at least as often as have men. War isn't caused by "testosterone poisoning," and depriving men of their testosterone making parts won't cure it - as the feminists would have you believe - but rather war is caused by greed and the desire to increase one's prestige - both characteristics that are evenly distributed between the sexes. If an enemy of peace were to be defined - a mindset likely to produce widespread death, atrocities and genocide - it is the very mindset of the American Feminist: blame, hate, and imagined superiority. This is the core lesson learned from the Holocaust: that blaming another group for your economic woes, hating another group because they are different and are imagined to be engaged in a secret conspiracy to keep you down, and thinking yourself superior and possessed of the manifest destiny to improve the world - are all of the essential ingredients for genocide. Or perhaps, in this instance, I could coin the term "gendercide." Be it the purges of Stalin or the Holocaust imposed on the Jews, all of these atrocities were justified by the belief that they were necessary for "the greater good" and that the victims were somehow inferior to the perpetrators. Tthe main impetrative that comes down to us from the Holocaust is that this type of destructive behavior MUST be called out and exposed to the light of day at its earliest inception. This must be done early, vigorously, and fearlessly because the particular form of psychosis that this type of thinking represents soon takes on a mob mentality of its own. I'm afraid that we are now several decades into this feminist psychosis, and in all likelihood, only a generational change will now reverse its impact. Fortunately, that seems to be coming to pass, as younger women are beginning to complain about the passive-aggressive character of the men that the "feminist age" has produced - men who were pummeled into feeling guilt over their own masculinity. Since the popular feminist movement has no philosophical defense, since its underpinnings are based on a set of false premises, and since it is eventually bound to bring about harm to women as well as men, the two antidotes to its fallacies are time, and men and women of courage who are not afraid to call its lies out into the light of day. Time is on our side, and as anyone who has ever debated a feminist will attest, their fragile doctrine cannot tolerate the light of logic any more than Count Dracula could stand the light of day. Popular feminism is based on frail and broken precepts that cannot withstand even a trivial assault by logic and rationality. But a word of caution: don't expect to change the feminist. Psychologically, the outlook of a feminist can best be viewed as a psychotic delusion, classically described as: "false, inaccurate beliefs the person holds onto even when he/she is presented with accurate information." Anyone who has argued with a feminist will find that definition fits well with their circular logic and their bending of reality to fit their distorted world view founded mostly on half-truths, myths and urban legends. They won't change their opinion because if they did, they would be forced to confront the atrocious injustices that they have supported. Just like the Nazi Julius Streicher who incited hatred and murder against the Jews, and whose last words shouted at the gallows of the Nuremberg Trials were: "Heil Hitler!" they refuse to see the blatant failure of their own doctrine. In a free society we all have a duty to confront dangerous lies that affect public policy, and you may help dissuade those around them from the corrosive effects of their falsely-held beliefs while helping to roll back some of the injustices already perpetrated on others. The best course for men is to not be afraid to act like men, to not give up their principles and sense of honor that make them men and reject the angst and self-loathing about your masculinity that you have been force-fed since birth. Unfortunately, since manhood is a learned set of traits, it takes only one break in generations to have its teachings lost to history, and in far too many cases, boys are raised by only mothers who are naturally unequipped to teach them manhood. In cases such as these, it behooves a man to either find a suitable mentor, or to live for some time outside the confines of the effects of the feminist psychosis that is generally defined by the borders of the United States. After living in Europe for several years, I can personally attest to the fact that women there will reward and nurture whatever remnants of masculinity an American male has managed to retain. Each generation has its challenges, and among those for this generation is rolling back the distorted realities of feminism. Were I to call myself a masculinist, you would have every right to call me a sexist. I am instead a humanist, who believes that everyone - regardless of factors like race and gender - should have the right to choose their own path in life. I am a man, and I object to the accusations assailed upon me by feminist rhetoric that - owning only to my gender - that I am an oppressor and a destroyer. As a father of two sons, I hope that this yoke of blame will someday be lifted from their shoulders, and that the feminists will learn to put down their arms and embrace what is good in men, rather than focusing on or imagining their flaws. Until then, I'll settle for people just seeing the truth.

<  Duke Case Update | Teacher Cleared of Rape - Too Late  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Comments... (Score:1) by mcc99 on 11:47 AM April 22nd, 2006 EST (#1) Lot of food for thought. Overall, a good essay. I would only mention two things. First, I don't think lesbianism, or female homosexuality, is much different from male homosexuality in that in the vast majority of cases, I don't think people "choose" to be straight, gay, bi, or something else. However the problem with "modern feminism" is that it seeks to politicize sexuality, making it a tenet of feminism that for a woman to be "truly liberated" she must "give up" heterosexuality, as if it was some kind of choice. Now sexual acts can be acts of choice, ie, someone need not be straight to have heterosexual sex or gay to have homosexual sex. But sexuality, the basic set of desirings and inclinations re emotional attachments or physical attractions, are pretty much already in place long before a person can decide whether or not their sex acts will be determined by their political/gender-political persuasion. The case can be made, too, that sexuality is for many such a complex phenomenon as to defy even fairly complicated rhetorical analysis. So while it's true to say that modern feminism has sought to make lesbianism a pillar of the personal expression of its adherents of their loyalty to the cause, I would suggest that this is far from an accurate representation of genuine feminine homo- or bi-sexuality overall; there are simply far too many gay and bisexual women in the world who do not fit the profile of the "modern feminist". Secondly, regarding Marxism, making a case that the fundamental issue that feminism is overlooking is that it is a class and not a genderal struggle that should be deciding the course of social activism causes a lot of issues that are valid concerns for men to be simply left aside. For example, pursuing the class struggle model still places men in a position of service (as provider, etc., the traditional role) to women, just women of their class, and focuses all attention on a struggle for class advancement vs. social and legal justice/equality for men. One of the reasons Marxism didn't last very long is because it refused to recognize the types of social issues that arise independent of the context of class struggle in a society. Because of this, it treated everything like a nail and used a hammer on it rather than seeing that nails aren't the only things that go to build up a house. So not surprisingly, it didn't stand the test of time-- sort of like modern feminism!

Re:Comments... (Score:1) by pbryant on 03:27 PM April 22nd, 2006 EST (#2) Thank you for your insightful critique of my essay! My essay is perhaps too brief. There are many points in my essay where I decided to forego elaboration in the interest of brevity, and I admit that there are many, many issues pertaining to men that I do not address. The essay is, probably more than prose, an outline of my high level points of argument. I agree that a person’s sexual orientation is determined by factors that are very fundamental and perhaps even biological. But that’s an issue over which there has been much valid debate, and it’s beyond the scope of my intended points. I do know that no amount of political debate would change my own sexual orientation. I personally remain heterosexual -- regardless of the costs that my political views might cause to me in that realm! Fortunately, not all women in this culture have been radicalized. There is one point that I would like to expand upon: my parallels drawn between the Holocaust and men’s issues today. To illustrate, here is a quote regarding the Holocaust: “The Holocaust, the persecution and the murder of millions of Jewish people and additional victims, was not the work of one man or a few. It was made possible by the actions and choices of hundreds of thousands of people, in and out of the Nazi party, in and out of Germany. It was made possible by millions of bystanders who allowed it to happen. Jews were targeted simply because of who they were, because of a twisted belief in "racial science," which often led to misperceptions, scapegoating, and stereotyping.” “The dehumanization of an individual begins when someone is demeaned with a scurrilous nickname. Once individuals are seen as easy to make fun of, or less worthy than the "right" people, the slippery slope towards mass murder starts.” -Warren Marcus, director of teacher workshops and conferences in the education division of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Quoted from: http://www.education-world.com/a_curr/profdev066.s html I ask the reader: in the context of men’s current struggle in this culture, how familiar do those words sound when applied to the issues here at hand? While pondering that point, consider for example the negative imagery with which men are treated in advertising: as bumbling fools and incompetents. The harm being done today by the inequitable education afforded to boys and men – due to gender bias in educational methods at the primary and secondary school levels - and gender-exclusive entitlements given only to women at the college level, has the net effect of attempting to relegate the vast majority of men to the roles of factory-fodder and manual laborers. The fact that men retain any status at all in this current climate is a testament to their resilience. The inequitable Federal social welfare and State child support schedules create a new class of underprivileged children: those who remain in families with their fathers. Veiled in the spurious logic of “putting the child’s interests first,” many children who are with their father in a second marriage have their basic needs neglected by the child support laws that drain away funds from the father to support the children of the first marriage. This is a case of “robbing Peter to pay Paul.” The subtext and actual agenda of these public policies is to undermine the socio-economic status of fatherhood, and to relegate fathers to the role of a wage-slave and redundant and superfluous familial component. The child support policies are then enforced by debtor’s prisons, marginalization (revoking basic necessities like driver’s and professional licenses) for fathers who cannot pay, and indentured slavery for those who can carry the burden. I doubt that anyone here objects to providing support to their children that provides for their basic needs. But the prospect of raising children who are with you in poverty, in order to support children who are living with your former wife in relative opulence, makes clear the intent of those who designed the child support schedules: women who keep a man in the household do so at their own and their children’s peril. Throw the bugger out! Equal access to a quality education used to be the great equalizer in this country that allowed for upward mobility for the working class. It was the light of hope for under class parents who wished a better life for their children. But now, due to the gender biases that have been built into the American educational system, that light of hope has been greatly diminished. This constitutes nothing less than a new holocaust being perpetrated against men and boys in this culture. I draw parallels from Marxist ideology because it illustrates a brutal, unjust and ultimately-doomed form of class struggle. I am by no means an aficionado of socialism – I have lived in the old USSR and Sweden, and seen first hand how socialism is morally vacant and spiritually hopeless, and how it promotes personal irresponsibility, while offering nothing but disincentives to personal ambition and achievement. I do feel that the feminist movement is pushing our economy and culture in that direction, and I feel it is anathema to the values upon which this culture was founded. -Patrick Bryant

Never again ! (Score:1) by Gang-banged on 09:08 PM April 22nd, 2006 EST (#3) (User #1714 Info) The Holocaust, we are told, should never be forgotten, in order that no-one inflict anything similar upon any group again. Since the above we have experienced McCarthyism, the KKK and now Feminism. What is wrong with our leaders, our law and our Secret Services that the last of these horrors not simply flourishes, but is largely promoted by government agencies and financed out of government money ?

You Are Obviously Tenured? (Score:2) by Roy on 09:17 PM April 22nd, 2006 EST (#4) Excellent treatise, Matt! Only a tenured academic could write this boldly! Does your Department Chair know about your MRA affiliations? Does she have any clue about your true sentiments? You teach HIStory, right?

Re:Excellent, continue your good work. (Score:1) by Radioactive on 02:00 AM April 23rd, 2006 EST (#5) Excellent essay, thank you for your words and inspiration. I will refer to it often. Thank you very much, Bill

Re:You Are Obviously Tenured? (Score:1) by mcc99 on 09:59 AM April 23rd, 2006 EST (#7) Just to be clear, I didn't write the essay... Patrick Bryant did. I was the first to comment though. :-) -- Matt

While we theorize (Score:1) by Davidadelong on 04:48 AM April 23rd, 2006 EST (#6) I find it interesting that most people fail to recognize the fact that our curent situation is supported by, and came into being by the good graces of our government. Quoting anyone to support the fact that we have as a People been manipulated into a gender war that makes us weak as a People is somewhat mute. I will not postulate about why, because why doesn't matter; what does matter is that it has been done and continues to this day. How can a responsible Person allow their Children to suffer what we have suffered? How can one hide behind theory, and rethoric when it is obvious that action is called for? See V for Vendetta, aside from its' obvious entertainment quality, it shows what is necessary for our future as Citizens. "It is a good day to die!"

Godwin's law is invoked (Score:1) by Little Lion on 02:09 PM April 23rd, 2006 EST (#8) http://manoppressed.blogspot.com The parallel with the Nazi's is historically flawed. The women's movement has no Hitler. There is no war machine. No concentration camps. The thesis that the women's movement is largely a white woman's movement seems correct. This is where the racist element enters: the focus on women's health by feminists has further depressed the health of minority males.

Re:Godwin's law is invoked (Score:1) by pbryant on 06:44 PM April 23rd, 2006 EST (#15) The movement's archetype for Hitler is Valerie Solanas. I only provided one short fragment of her hate-filled diatribe in the essay. Her "Manifesto" is every bit as vicious as anything ever proposed by Hitler. Let the reader decide. The full text of Ms. Solanas’ rantings, which comprise what I can only call The Feminist Mein Komf, are compiled in her "S.C.U.M. Manifesto" (Society for Cutting Up Men) which is widely distributed and can be viewed at http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm. While there aren't yet any concentration camps (no thanks to Ms. Solanas), and the situation for men is not yet so severe that they are being marched en masse to death camps. Instead, in this culture they die with a whimper rather than a bang; homeless, under educated, marginalized and disenfranchised. Shall we define "gendercide" as only the killing of the body, or shall we include the killing of the mind, spirit, and hopefulness as well? I agree that the focus on women's health issues, and the lopsided public funding of medical research into those issues, has had a deleterious effect on the health of males, and minority males are the hardest hit. Until men's longevity is approximately equal to that of women (which it was at the turn of the 20th century), funding for health issues should be applied to regain that parity.

Re:Godwin's law is invoked (Score:1) by Davidadelong on 11:05 AM April 25th, 2006 EST (#27) "NO concentration camps." On the contrary, the federal government dispursed funds across the U.S. in the seventies and eighties for counties to build maximum security county jails. Even when there was no need for these high security prisons the counties took the fed funds and built the prisons. I was a volunteer probation officer that was afforded a pre opening tour of one of these prisons in WI, a pilot project state in cooperation with the fed. gov. Wake up and smell the coffee. We now have more People incarcerated than any other country in the world, and they are mostly Men. Divide and conquer, as we fight each other we are enslaved further. The war machine that you refer to being absent is definately there. they have learned their lessons from history and are using psychology as their war machine, and guess what, it does work! "It is a good day to die! By the way, if you doubt they are using a similar system to oppress us read George Goebells diaries. Here is a telling quote from that intelligent monster. " There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the stronger, and this will always be the man in the street. Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology. Hatred and contempt must be directed at particular individuals." See any correlation now?

Feminism restricted to the U.S.? Huh? (Score:2) by Dittohd on 02:31 PM April 23rd, 2006 EST (#9) >...live for some time outside the confines of the effects of the feminist psychosis that is generally defined by the borders of the United States. Are you serious? What are you talking about? I'm amazed that nobody has called you on this point so far. Fathers in England are having all kinds of trouble seeing their children after divorce just like here. Hence Fathers 4 Justice. I see a lot of the same complaints from men on this website about how men are treated in the courts in Canada. I've heard about ridiculous child support awards in Australia just like here in the U.S. So what is the real common denominator? If it all started here in the U.S., it sure isn't restricted here anymore.

Re:Feminism restricted to the U.S.? Huh? (Score:1) by Little Lion on 02:52 PM April 23rd, 2006 EST (#11) http://manoppressed.blogspot.com Dittod is right: this is an international movement. Consider the efforts of the Planetary Alliance for Fathers in Exile (PAFE), an organization whose purpose is to help men, separated from their children and devastated by unjust family court judgments, seek asylum rebuild their lives in foreign countries. PAFE claims that 130,000 men have fled Australia, 100,000 men from the United States, and the same number from the UK. Around 4,000 men have left Canada. Incidentally, here is a link for Godwin's Law. I suggest emulating the style of the New Hampshire report on the status of men. They managed to show how feminist legal and political policies were harming and killing men, without spuriously invoking Godwin's Law, as our author has done repeatedly. Rewrite the article and leave out the comparisons with the Nazi's and Stalin. Things are bad enough on their own terms. If you want to be provacative, try pointing out how the white middle-class feminist emphasis on women's health has been bad for men's health and an utter disaster for the African American male. The men's movement could help the African American male. The feminists certainly are not.

Re:Feminism restricted to the U.S.? No. (Score:1) by oregon dad on 11:45 PM April 23rd, 2006 EST (#19) Actually it is being exported to other 'less developed' countries as one of the weapons in the US Military arsenal, and this is one of the main reasons the insurgents in Iraq are fighting so hard. It is well known that the women in a newly liberated country will begin demanding more rights and this is perceived by other non-christian cultures as a dreaded condition. When women seek to replace men in society - the deluge follows...low birthrates, high illegitimacy rates, lower salaries for all (as the workforce doubles when women enter) and general misandry appears.

Reply to "Philosophical Void of Modern Feminism" (Score:1) by Sheldon on 02:51 PM April 23rd, 2006 EST (#10) Your writing piece I generally agree with. Although there are a few decisive points I wish to address. You mention at the beginning of your piece that “feminism” was “hijacked by a core of mostly-lesbian misandrists who have turned it into a doctrine of hate, blame, and imagined superiority.” Any paper criticizing feminism is problematic because there are so many different forms and factions of feminism at this point, therefore terms such as “modern feminist” need to be clearly explicated for pupose of understanding.         We can’t forget that feminism was a Freedom movement in its original incarnation–and many types of it today are still about freedom. Mary Wollestonecraft (in my opinion she was the women’s movement Warren Farrell, I suggest you read her works if you haven’t already), Priscillla Wakefield, Margarat Fuller (please read, “The Great Lawsuit”), and the many others who fought against real oppression an struggled against it. The men’s movement and masculinism fit that bill too, and they are not just all about reaction to the change stirred on by feminists. But of course, you identify yourself as “humanist’ and I truly think that is excellent and even noble, but we’re not going to have the new incarnation humanists if we don’t have some kind of men’s movement first. And you do state that feminism was originally good and about freedom, but I think stating exactly the kind of feminism you mean to criticize is in order. You do seem to imply that this is all feminism is now, when actually it is one or two strong and very powerful factions. On the opposite end of theses types could be the independent feminists (McElrond, Paglia, and Sommers,) who often show their support for the men’s movement. Too many people in these forums throw around the word “feminism” too much. I wholly agree with your identification of “a bad seed” in feminism though. There is definitely a hateful, ideological feminist faction that is hugely powerful (and harmful) and gaining power. In fact, when you look at other powerful and influential movements throughout history that have developed into powerful and influential institutions (which feminism now has) it is rare that some negative faction does not develop; and feminism is not any different. But of course there are these factions of the feminist movement today that are known variably as ideological feminists, feminazis, misandric feminists, superiority feminist, radical feminists who more or less fit the criteria you present(I think there are over 40 different types of feminism now!) ; however, and this is my chief point, you MUST make that clear. You do mention “popular feminist” and “modern feminism” in your title, and that’s good–at least you don’t just say “feminism”– but you mostly do merely use the term“feminism” throughout your piece. And comparing‘feminism’ in general to Nazism is well to put it frank: deadly. The KKK and nazism are movements whose foundations were in prejudice, hatred, and misguided ideologies that deluded them into thinking they were right. Feminism certainly did not start out that way, nor is that all it’s about today.           Another problem with your piece (and the above quotation I cited from your writing) is the feminist=lesbian correlate. What proof do you have to back such a claim? I know quite a few feminists (some I like and some I dislike), and they’re either straight or bisexual (one claims she a lesbian but she’s actually bisexual). How can you make such a sweeping generalization? I think it harms your reasoning method a bit, because such statements diminish the believability on the part of the readers when you try to speak of fairness, yet not be fair yourself. “This explains both lesbianism and its closely related manifestation: feminism.” Again, you’re using the Lesbian/Dyke correlation, and again you don’t actually know if that’s true(and I sincerely don’t think it is). And you seem to veer off the path a bit too, simply mentioning “feminism” and not “popular feminism” or “modern feminism”or whatever.     I certainly, wholly agree with your point on the spurious co-relate between Marxist/socialist brand of feminism and Marxism itself. It is due time we expel this application of marxist theory: there are obviously just so many different variables that come into play between the sexes, and many different dynamics. “Such a matriarchal society is not without historical precedent.”         It’s also good to provide maybe evidence to back such a “fact”that there was a matriarchal society in some kind of atavistic past (I heard there wasn’t). But your fear is well placed, I think, about the future; we could possibly be in the initial stages of a matriarchal type of society. It is frighteningly likely. Just look at how the institution of feminism influences the institutions of business, government, law, and the resulting disservice that it does to men. Look at how feminism sits beside the lingering patriarchy in our societal structure–it must appear to you too that its about to push the patriarchy out of the picture. You see my feminist friends now would take issue with this: me not liking the idea of a patriarchy merely being replaced with a matriarchy. Of course, I try to reason with them (and yes I do believe you delusionsial pschosis theory may indeed by correct with many of the ideological brood.)that a matriarchy would just be abusive and oppresive as a patriarchy (and for most women too), but apparently, suddenly, to them two wrongs make a right. It is this kind of Monument of Irrationality with these types of feminists that I think necessitates writing peices like yours to sway the people who are teetering between deluded and enlightened–but again you must be a little more tidy.

Re:Reply to "Philosophical Void of Modern Feminism (Score:1) by brotherskeeper on 09:20 PM April 23rd, 2006 EST (#17) Sheldon, Your point is taken, BUT... I believe you eventually allow feminists (yep, a generalization) to destroy your arguments by getting you to buy into their fragmentation. It leaves you dithering and equivocating, without really being any fairer than you would have been otherwise. As you mentioned, there are at least 40 different kinds of feminism; everything from ifeminism to slut feminism (essentially chaos in my opinion). The point has been made by at least one very intelligent male (Gonzman) that if many of the types of feminism claim to essentially support justice for all (fairness for all, etc.) why at this point in history, call yourself an Xfeminist? I believe we are documenting the fact, on these boards, that nearly ANY endeavor with feminism in its name is either a contradiction in terms or seeks to damage men. Wendy McElroy is a case in point -- she writes articles that call attention to the injustices men face, but calls herself an ifeminist. By implication, she indicts many types of feminism. Is the term 'ifeminist' a semantic trick to make it easier for her to indict? Why, should I, as a man, trust anyone that goes by the term Xfeminist? (Note: unfortunately, at this point in history, titles that include 'Xmasculism' can be shown to be just -- the reverse does not apply.) We do need to be careful and accurate in what we say and do. But I, for one, don't really feel the need to split hairs. If you're an Xfeminist, you're either engaging in false advertising, or you seek to disadvantage men. Sheldon, call a spade a spade...

Re:Reply to "Philosophical Void of Modern Feminism (Score:1) by pbryant on 07:02 PM April 24th, 2006 EST (#22) That fact that so many factions in feminism have emerged – many of which repudiate the values of others – is itself an indication of the absence of a solid philosophical foundation to the movement as a whole. Just as the communists of the USSR would invariably demonize the previous regime, while offering a “new and improved” form of their failed philosophy, so too the plethora of feminist factions that each claim to have found the path to “the true way.” Political history has shown that this type of group behavior is nothing more than a thinly veiled effort to shed responsibility for the destructive acts of its own past.

rep:Reply to Philosophical Void of Modern Feminism (Score:1) by Sheldon on 08:14 AM April 25th, 2006 EST (#25) Well, who's calling themselves an xfeminist?     I only said I had feminist friends, not that I was a feminist, even though I perhaps could label myself a certain type of feminist (insomuch as labels contribute to understanding and expressing an affiliation with ideas you believe in). However, I am definitely more masculinist–is that unequivocal enough for you?– and my dithering is probably attributed more to, I concede, my years of pot-smoking, by the way). All I mean to say is that if they wish to call themselves ifeminists, for instance, why does that necessarily have to be a contradiction? Much of the fickle English language itself mutates by such etymological deviations. I concede, my rather long reply was kind of pointless, anyway; I merely meant to point out those inconsistencies (going from modern feminism to just feminism), and then started mentioning other things. I just mean to say that there is a variety, a great pluralism, to it (feminism). And different types are not all “factions”: some are bad, some are good, some are in between. There are already different types of masculinism now, and it would probably we well to differentiate between them too for better understanding(although I’m not saying this is necessary, at least yet). At any rate, it is not even really accurate to give “feminism” as the umbrella term; perhaps the women’s movement is fair enough, as Mary Wollstonecraft herself mentioned in one of her essays “a movement for women”, while “feminism” came a lot later. Likewise, I think, the men’s movement is proper, and not “masculinism”.         Besides, how do you think the men’s movement will suceed without the help of women or some dissident feminists? If these people wish to identify themselves as ifemisnts and be allies with MRAs, then why should you nit-pick that? As Fred Hayward said, “[women] are really important allies because given the power that women have in society and given the power that women have emotionally over men, I don't think there is any way a men's rights movement could be successful without women allies.” I happen to whole heartedly agree with him.

Regarding Gendercide (Score:1) by Little Lion on 03:47 PM April 23rd, 2006 EST (#12) http://manoppressed.blogspot.com Pbryant writes, "...Or perhaps, in this instance, I could coin the term 'gendercide.'" Adam Jones, Ph.D. has already coined this term for gender selective killings of non-combatant males. In Gendercide and Genocide by Adam Jones, Ph.D. Journal of Genocide Research, 2: 2 (June 2000), pp. 185-211, Jones writes: It is remarkable, though, how invisible or barely-visible the gender variable remains in this emerging literature, at least as far as non-combatant males are concerned. One is put in the position of piecing together disconnected fragments. Kuper, in his field-defining work, mentions in passing that "While unarmed men seem fair game, the killing of women and children arouses general revulsion"; but it is a specific reference to the Northern Ireland conflict, which has not (in Kuper's view and others') reached a genocidal scale.(48) The obfuscation of the variable in the wider literature may reflect the fact that it is non-combatant males who tend overwhelmingly to be the victims of gender-selective mass killing, and this remains a powerful taboo in the feminist-dominated discussion of gender.

Re:Regarding Gendercide (Score:1) by Little Lion on 04:01 PM April 23rd, 2006 EST (#13) http://manoppressed.blogspot.com I'm mistaken: the term was coined earlier; Jones writes, "The term 'gendercide' was first coined by Mary Anne Warren in her thought-provoking 1985 book, Gendercide: The Implications of Sex Selection." Jones builds on Warren's analysis and shows that it is useful to call the gender selective killing of non-combatant males "gendercide." Jones notes that the standard practice of "gendering" female victims, but not these victims is indicative of bias.

Re:Regarding Gendercide (Score:1) by khankrumthebulgar on 06:15 PM April 23rd, 2006 EST (#14) Funny that the term is being used so openly. It was Mary Daly the tenured Lesbian Professor at Boston College who advocated this. And Now we have some FemNag in the UK advocating aborting more Female Babies so Women in the future have more choices in male Companions. Is there no end to the selfishness and insanity of the FemNags? Apparently not, they are even willing to murder their own gender to obtain resources for their own benefit. How insane is that? Yet we have the Pussy Whipped Male apologists who want to have a middle ground with these insane Women. Nuts to that let them die alone with their Cats and Vibrators. Delusional Idiots to the end. And the latest laughable self delusion Oprah is spreading "50 is the New 30?!!! Yeah right, think again. Only brain dead American Women are that stupid. Patrick simply articulates much of what I have been posting for the last 3 years. And observing in my 50 years here in the US Gynocracy. Let someone else support it. When I retire I am voting with my feet and leaving this insanity.

Moving? (Score:2) by Dittohd on 07:46 PM April 23rd, 2006 EST (#16) >When I retire I am voting with my feet and leaving this insanity. Where do you plan to go? Where have you found it is better... and based on what? Hearsay? Personal experience? If personal experience, how long ago was it?

Re:Moving? Feminine women still exist... (Score:2) by Roy on 10:35 PM April 23rd, 2006 EST (#18) I'd like to hear more from men who have travelled abroad about their perceptions of non-American women. I've enjoyed getting out of FemAmerica on many occasions, and my impression is that women -- actual feminine women -- still exist. Brazil is a case in point. Unbelievably sexy women who can stop your heart just by being themselves. (Well, it doesn't hurt that the whole country is one big celebration of the human body on full display...) Any southern Caribbean island will also provide abundant examples of truly feminine females who are not in any sense subservient or docile, yet they have retained traits that were once admired as essential to feminine grace and allure. American women, by and large (and they are increasingly very large) have lost what once made them desirable. Feminism taught women how to be aggressive. Sadly, they have mastered that lesson, and now have nothing but aggression to prosecute their claim that they are still desirable. I'll pass.

Dirty Words? (Score:2) by Dittohd on 11:57 PM April 23rd, 2006 EST (#20) >truly feminine females who are not in any sense subservient or docile The feminist movement has always tried to discourage men from seeking women of other races (for example Oriental women) by labeling them as being subservient and docile and using these two terms as dirty words to accomplish this. I see nothing wrong with subservient and docile as traits in a feminine woman. I don't say that too much of these traits might not be good but too much of anything is not good. If you personally don't desire those two traits, fine. But there are plenty of men who do who haven't been cowered to the point that they are afraid to admit it. I see nothing wrong with either trait in a woman if a woman is that way and the man likes it. By the way, I would consider most American men subservient and docile these days. In fact, I would consider every legislator who repeatedly sells his soul to the feminists by signing legislation that's destructive toward us men as docile and subservient. What do you think? I saw a TV news segment several days ago where a camerawoman (looked to be about 35 years old) was attacked by an irate guy who appeared to be about 60 years old who was very angry and didn't want to be on camera. She immediately dropped the TV camera and ran off yelling "Help! help!" Was she docile? Why couldn't a 35 year old woman who was strong enough to carry a portable TV camera on her shoulder who says she has been in the business for 19 years get the better of a man who's about 25 years older than she? And I was wondering, who was she yelling for help from? Another woman? A man? What percentage of American women would have run away yelling for help? Wouldn't that make them all docile? And please don't give me that tired old claim that she was "strong" because she sought help. Give me a break!

Dirty Words? - P.S. (Score:2) by Dittohd on 07:28 PM April 24th, 2006 EST (#23) Ive been thinking about your comment and have some questions for clarification. 1. What is your definition of docile and subservient as traits in a woman that you find repulsive or unattractive in a feminine woman? 2. If a woman does all the cooking and house cleaning and clothes cleaning, folding, and ironing around the house and doesn't whine and cry about her man not doing 50% of all this, is she being subservient and docile? 3. If a woman doesn't tell her man to do it himself rather than do things for him around the house whenever he asks, is she being docile and sunservient? 4. If a man does things for his woman everytime she asks him, is he being docile and subservient? 5. Are you a feminist in disguise? 6. Are you a guy who's been brainwashed into thinking the way feminists want you to think? (If you are, my condolences).

I agree with everything... (Score:2) by Return of the King on 04:55 PM April 24th, 2006 EST (#21) Feminism IS attacking marginalized men/boys as the primary battlefront to achieve their matriarchal goals. Marginalized males could be classified as fathers accused on domestic violence, fathers who are getting divorced, boys from under-privileged families, poor men/boys... Feminism also attacks "patriarchal institutions" army, government, big corporations - with lawsuits (mostly bogus). Academic institutions are one sided institutions of female privilege today. Girls are mentored, experience grade inflation and are told that they are a victim class who must struggle against patriarchal norms while they thrive in educational matriarchal excess . Boys are drugged and disciplined. The net result is that feminism intends overthrough society by attacking the underclass of men. This is true Marxism, but in reverse. Feminsim is undermining the traditional family unit by removing the father. Yet the hypocritical aspect of feminism is that it advances the goal of lesbian families while attacking traditional fathers with hate laws. The State of Maine just released data that only 35% of its colleges are occupied by men. The state of Maine has a powerful feminist network in each of these colleges that attacks the incoming boys as patriarchal oppressors. The state, after finding this information out, has done next to nothing to create an environment that works for boys. Feminism creates invisible gender warriors who make it their life goals to subvert the efforts and advancement of men with unfair and subversive means throughout their life. Where does all the hate bring society? Broken families, higher rates of crime and incarceration, a society where the rights of adults are more important that the needs of children, a society where individual competition and achievement is replaced with a bureaucratic meritocracy, feminism empowers the government in stripping the civil liberties of all men. Society will become burdened with myriad laws that will intrude in all personal matters. The standard of modern media outlets are: that women are portrayed as strong and smart while men are depicted as incapable and weak. Women have choices: choices to kill their unborn without reason, to jail their husbands without shame, to abscond money from businesses based upon the bad behavior of an individual within that company... the list could go on and on, but the bottom line is that a man will never stand between a woman making any choice. Feminism is legal sexism. Start fighting back, I did. It is time the regular guy does too... for it is he who suffers most by feminist hate. Start talking to your brothers, fathers, friends and women you love too. feminism has to get exposed for what it really is - hatred.

Re:I agree with everything... (Score:1) by Hunchback on 09:07 AM April 25th, 2006 EST (#26) Feminism creates invisible gender warriors who make it their life goals to subvert the efforts and advancement of men with unfair and subversive means throughout their life. Amen to this. The degree to which the average Western(ized) woman has bought into the myths and mindsets of feminism should not be underestimated. Even women who never attended college, never sampled women studies, or even conversed with a feminazi, accept the lies they've been fed through the media. And, yes, given half a chance, they all do their little bit for the Sisterhood. In any position they occupy they will sabotage the efforts of men and boys, this without ever having once consciously thought of males as "Patriarchal Oppressors." Feminism is a cup of cyanide in the well.

Argument Misattributed to Phyllis Schlafly (Score:1) by JustSayNo on 02:07 AM April 25th, 2006 EST (#24) Good article, but I want to correct something that you attributed incorrectly to Phyllis Schlafly. It is true that her article of July 2000 contained the statement "Our oppressive male-dominated American society has forced women into a 'cruel trade-off': if they focus on their careers in their youth, it's extremely difficult to get pregnant after age 40". But this is not Schlafly's thinking; she is only pointing out -- so that she can refute it -- the crazy feminist thinking behind Sylvia Hewlett's entire book. Notice what Schlafly writes just prior to the sentence you've quoted: "Hewlett is busy portraying career-minded women as victims. She thinks that when 49% of $100,000-a-year women executives, but only 19% of men executives, are childless, that proves hard-hearted employers and government have discriminated against women during their childbearing years." Although in the past I never thought too much of Schlafly, I think that she's one of the few people who's been right about feminism all along. Let's not mis-quote one of the few women who has the intelligence and courage to speak truth to the hatred and foolishness that your article describes so well.

Thanks everyone for your comments (Score:1) by pbryant on 05:09 PM April 25th, 2006 EST (#28) I deeply appreciate everyone's comments to my essay posted here. You have accurately but kindly pointed out my errors. My purpose for writing it was to spark some thoughful dialog, and I see it has accomplished that goal. I admire the palpable passion in everyone's comments. I also hope that all of us can resist the natural urge to descend to the same methods that have been used by the... and my qualification here is quite intentional... RADICAL feminists among us. One cannot achieve social justice through unfair means. The qualities that distinguish most men are honor, fair play, and thoughtful reason. I thank you all for favoring me with those qualities in your posts. -Patrick Bryant

[an error occurred while processing this directive]