Why I Hate Men Part 3: There Seems to Be A Pattern Here

17 Sep

I’ve been away for awhile, and I’m a little surprised at what has been going on in my absence. People are still using porn? Seriously? Get with the program, dorks. And what’s up with all this pro-rape nonsense? Men are reacting to the proliferation of feminist discourse in popular culture by proving feminists right? Good job, idiots. Am I to understand that men’s failure to come to grips with reality and their verbally and physically violent reactions to women’s assertions of their own humanity mean that men are unfit for membership in civilized society? Surely we don’t want to go there.

As valuable as I find the recent spate of female-supremacist tracts making their way around my circle of political acquaintances (an example can be found here) in shifting the discursive framework away from the baseline assumption of male superiority, I’m not ready to release my grip on the hope that my dearly-held theory is correct: gender isn’t real, there’s no such thing as “female” or “male” behavior, social conditioning rather than biology dictates the structure of social hierarchies and ensures the perpetuation of male supremacy. But lately it’s REAL hard to avoid coming to the conclusion that there is just something wrong  with men.

You see, though I’ve been absent from the ol’ blogosphere, I haven’t managed to avoid learning of the more egregious instances of recent local and international male behavior.

In the space of the past week or so, a 40-year-old man in Yemen married an eight-year-old child against her will and then raped her to death on their “wedding night;” a man in India raped a four-year-old on a bus; as many as FIFTY men in Lahore, Pakistan raped a five-year-old girl and left her in the hospital for going on six days now; and a UN study emerged that claims that one in four men in the Asia-Pacific region admits to having raped a woman or child (and lord knows how many of them have done so but would not admit to it). Forty percent of those who admit having raped claim to have done so because they “wanted to punish the victim.” Half expressed no remorse. I could go on.

But lest we fall into the trap of exoticizing sexual abuse — i.e. allowing the men in our midst to deflect attention from their own behavior by invoking the caricatured image of the depraved “Oriental” savage who sexually enslaves his women as a foil to the purported relatively gentlemanly deportment of the Western male* — let us have a look at what men have been up to closer to home. A man in Raleigh, North Carolina raped a twelve-year-old girl the other day. A New Jersey man raped a ten-year-old girl several times over the course of the last few months, threatening to murder her family if she told anyone what he had done to her. A new report indicates that the number of women in the US Navy who have been raped by men in the US Navy has increased by 50 percent in the past year. At least ten boys cheered as one of their friends recently raped a woman in Wilmington, Delaware and injured another woman with a knife. I could go on.

In recent weeks, a teacher in Laredo was busted for spreading child pornography, an Air Force master sergeant in Maryland was arrested for sexually assaulting a seven-year-old girl and a six-month-old BABY in the making of child porn, a school photographer in Florida (Florida — of course) was charged with raping a fifteen-year-old “escort” and distributing child pornography, a Virginia elementary school art teacher was arrested for possessing and distributing child pornography. I could go on.

George Zimmerman, high on impunity (which he apparently still enjoys), recently threatened his wife and her father, claiming to have a weapon. Shellie Zimmerman, after the incident, stated through her lawyer that she would like to “end her marriage with a whimper and not a bang,” likely a reference to the fact that domestic homicide (read: the murder of women by men in their own homes) can be predicted based on the kinds of behavior Zimmerman has habitually exhibited. In Connecticut alone, at least six men have killed their wives or girlfriends since the beginning of this year, the most recent being Gregory Pawloski, a man who had spent ten years terrorizing his wife before he eventually shot her. A man in San Jose, California stabbed his female partner to death last weekend. A man in Granite Hills, Minnesota shot his girlfriend to death a few days before that. I could go on.

Speaking of guns, has anyone other than me nearly lost count of the mass murders that men have committed in recent memory? In case you were wondering, the average in the US has been one mass murder for every two weeks since 2006, and men have committed mass murders claiming the lives of four or more victims TWENTY TIMES since the beginning of this year. A man shot and killed at least thirteen people just yesterday morning, for fuck’s sake. I could go on.

I’m not digging very deep here. These are cases that made the news within the last few weeks. A few other things made the news recently. “Bestiality brothels” are all the rage these days in Germany (Germany — of course), where raping animals is now being described as a “lifestyle choice” by the men who frequent them. There is — I swear to god — an organization in Germany called ZETA that plans to protect men’s “right” to rape animals should the Bundesrepublik choose to outlaw doing so.  In related news, a man in Shropshire, Great Britain made a video of himself having sex with a horse and two dogs. The night before his court hearing on bestiality charges, he was looking for work online as a stablehand. An elderly man in Australia recently shoved a fork handle four inches into his urethra for “autoerotic” purposes. I could go on.

What in the hell is the matter with these people? I mean, really.

Clearly, we have a problem. MRAs and male supremacy apologists seem fond of the pseudo-sciences of evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology as explanations for sociopathic male behavior. I’ll admit that it’s tempting to simply acquiesce and grant that they’re correct: men are simply constitutionally unsuited to civilized society.  Few men are prepared to eschew aggression in the face of challenges to their sense of entitlement. Few are capable of allowing anything to stand in the way of their sexual urges, no matter what the consequences (usually to others, naturally). Few seem willing to take anyone’s humanity other than their own into account. The number who are capable of recognizing — let alone remedying — the existence of male privilege and its daily social manifestations is downright infinitesimal. Could it be possible that men are just fucked?

Maybe I’m less of a misandrist than the average MRA, because I’m still not ready to give up on the possibility that men can behave like decent human beings. Men aren’t biologically destined to become rapists, they’re not hardwired to be destructive perverts, they don’t have to derive their lifeforce from the suffering of women, children, and other men. Men aren’t all ineluctably doomed to witlessly wander the Earth, oblivious to the effects of their behavior on others’ lives and on the planet. When they do so, it’s a choice. It’s a choice that appears predetermined, but it’s a choice.

The choice men face in their everyday lives is whether to participate in the cult of masculinity in the face of evidence that to do so is destructive. Each of the examples above of sociopathic male behavior began in a moment in which a man had to choose between sating his own (however warped) desires and behaving like a civilized member of society. In all but one case (ol’ fork-dick), the key personality trait these men seem to be missing is empathy. It’s quite likely that empathy inheres in all human beings and is beaten out of little boys (while society encourages women to exercise empathy to the ouster of consideration of their own needs). These men were probably all aware that to fulfill their own desires would cause negative consequences for the people they used, damaged, or killed in the process, but that awareness was not enough to limit their behavior because it was purely abstract, unattached to a feeling that could approach the intensity of the emotions or desires that catalyzed their actions. In other words, they lack a well-developed sense of empathy.

Abandoning ingrained behaviors and the social benefits that derive from them makes life difficult for men in the current milieu, but it’s probably a lot easier than confronting the fallout of the continued effects of masculinity on the world will be. The question remains, however, whether it will be possible — before it’s simply too late — to force men to not only realize that aggressive masculinity is the root of war, environmental degradation, and the destruction of women’s and children’s lives and bodies the world over, but to also take on the task of reclaiming a sense of empathy and exercising it.

(I should really change the name of the series to “Why I Hate Masculinity,” but MRAs really seem to like the current title.)

* See Philippa Levine, Gender and Empire.

237 Responses to “Why I Hate Men Part 3: There Seems to Be A Pattern Here”

  1. Leah Sweeney September 17, 2013 at 11:49 AM #

    Welcome back! You might take solace in noting that the internalization of pornography has finally gotten ridiculous enough that even it’s greatest cheerleaders are starting to feel compelled to comment. Nina Hartley was recently quoted (by the pseudo-champion of social justice, the Huffington Post, no less) as saying that pornography is “not meant to be a rulebook” for sex. This coming from the same woman who, a few years ago when composing a retort to Dr. Chyng Sun’s “The Price of Pleasure”, had the gall to insist that porn had no effect on people because they “know” it’s just fantasy. Just like women “know” models eat tissues to stay that thin and a BMI of 16 isn’t sustainable, so no woman even suffers a loss of self-esteem by comparing herself to the women in magazines. I mean, shit, it’s obviously the consumer’s fault if they believe what your product is selling them, right? Women don’t experience self-loathing because they live in a world that is relentless in telling them they don’t measure up somehow- it’s actually their own fault for successfully internalizing that socialization.

  2. Nick Nakorn September 17, 2013 at 1:26 PM #

    Another great article. I don’t think men should, or can logically, hide behind the ‘nature/nurture’ debate because being human means we can override ‘urges’ with socialised and civilised behaviours if they are taught and encouraged. Sentience can and should be used to temper and eradicate any unsocial behaviour yet our society still rewards those red in tooth and claw. I was lucky enough to be brought up largely by my grandmother, mother and older sister and male culture was a massive shock to me when I encountered it at school. I am in no doubt that many male predilections for power and domination (regardless of actual benefit to the individuals concerned, I might add) might be hard-wired as much as they are socialised but, as thinking entities with a large degree of self determination of action, there is no reason why we have to follow our hormonal instructors; if it turns out that it’s all nurture – so much the easier – but I’m under no illusion as to how difficult a transformation to a more civilised culture will be.

    • Justin September 17, 2013 at 2:21 PM #

      They say that the root of all evil is money. I don’t agree with that. Money can be used to fund a homeless shelter, help a sick uninsured person who can’t afford medicine.

      The root of evil is a lack of empathy. The inability to feel for others. That is what causes people to do things that they would not want done to themselves. They fail to follow the golden rule.

      Males are programmed with an entitlement attitude and that causes many problems. The attitude is placed there by society. We teach boys to be aggressive. We excuse male behavior at a young age, and then wonder why men engage in more serious violence later in life.

      Are males born aggressive. Well there must be some kind of nature involved because males have 9 to 10 times the testosterone levels when they become teenagers compared to women and we testosterone increases aggression (although the science behind that is more complex than I wish to get into here).

      My conclusion is that men are indeed born with more aggression biologically. But, society is to blame for “opening the door” by teaching men to behave in a rough-and-tumble manner, and not control themselves. Men CAN learn to control themselves regardless of biology. If we continue to teach men that they aren’t capable of controlling themselves, than we are inviting disaster.

      • Lucas Prassas September 17, 2013 at 4:02 PM #

        If biology was that significant, the ratio of male-perpetrated violence to female-perpetrated violence probably wouldn’t be anywhere near as disproportionate as it is. Overstating the role of hormones ultimately implies that violent men are somewhat less at fault than violent women. Also, caring about such conclusions is one thing, but taking offense (in general; you obviously did not) is another; if you’re a man, and you’re not violent, but all other men are, why should you be insulted by someone pointing that out, unless you’re secretly ashamed of being the only nonviolent one? I see men try to defend their “nice guy” honor for all other men surprisingly often, not realizing that they are defeating many of their own assertions. Collectivist influence is extremely difficult to avoid, but it is almost always desirable to try doing so, IMO.

        • Justin September 17, 2013 at 6:14 PM #

          Lucas Prassas:

          My position is that men are more aggressive and violent for two reasons (1) Society raises men to be more aggressive and (2) males are biologically driven to be aggressive.

          Studies show that testosterone injections increase aggressiveness. I cannot ignore the science. Men are born with more of the hormone. I make no excuses for male misbehavior.

          My opinion is that men are perfectly capable of controlling themselves, but some choose not to.

          So I feel that its both nature and nurture. Not just one or the other. -If a person argues that it’s only biology, than that may be construed as a justification for male aggression, and one could arrive at the conclusion that men cannot be trained to be better by society.

          Too many parts of our society glorify male aggression. One solution is to stop such glorification.

          I am shocked that society does so little to change the way boys are raised. I hope we do something about that very soon.

          • Lucas Prassas September 17, 2013 at 6:43 PM #

            yeah increased testosterone is obviously tantamount to increased aggression, but women still have the same/similar stuff, just less of it; it seems like, if biology could come anywhere close to competing with socialization, most women would probably be pretty freaking violent too, but women who initiate violence seem almost anomalous, especially for constituents of the most oppressed group of people ever. IMO, even the best of us are shitty, stupid animals, regardless, until the Singularity happens, if it does. also, i post here because i want something to be done, as well, not just “petitioned”, but if we’re talking groundbreaking, hypothetical legislation, as many posts suggest, why bother with stupid crap like censorship (which might increase violence, IMO), and not just try stuff like constant, mandatory surveillance/escorts, female-only authorities and government (would probably reduce pointless violence toward both men and women, by at least a little), leaving everything that actually merits enjoyment alone? It doesn’t seem like it would be any less feasible than totally enforcing a porn ban, anyway, what with the technologies we have now/will have in the future; would it?

            • Horses Not Zebras October 29, 2013 at 10:49 PM #

              Sorry, my first comment was @Justin.

              @Lucas Prassas: I think you underestimate how much higher testosterone levels are in men as compared to women. Yes, women have testosterone but far, far less of it. So much less of it that it could easily account for the differences in violence between the sexes.

      • rjjspesh September 17, 2013 at 9:53 PM #

        Agreed. If we know that testosterone makes people pissy, then why do we start out by giving little boys toy guns and the WWE when they are teenagers. Why do we as a culture have to set fire to the fuel?

        • Lucas Prassas September 18, 2013 at 6:33 AM #

          I think even most of us that recognize how pointlessly barbaric culture is are more enslaved by it than vice-versa; the delusional manpride of ancient times may not be a universally accepted virtue anymore (at least, not officially), but the basis of our entire sociopolitical reality is derived from it. That’s why I say the only way to even significantly mitigate it is either the Singularity (would take the human” out of humans) or completely erasing and replacing the patriarchy with anti-patriarchy in EVERY aspect of our lives (thereby reducing violence, and making whiny proponents of pointless, barbarian manpride much more easy to identify, isolate, and suppress, which would save me a lot of knuckle injuries, as it would for most other slightly-less-insane-than-manbro people).

      • Horses Not Zebras October 29, 2013 at 10:45 PM #

        Herein lies the problem with any argument based on socialization:

        If society is to blame for indoctrinating little boys to be aggressive, then who is society? Men ARE society. Society IS men. It’s males who make the rules for other males.

        So why do men socialize each other this way? They could stop at any time. No one forces them to do it.

        The answer can only be that there is something innate in men that seeks to be aggressive, to want to dominate and destroy. I believe that “something” is testosterone. But whatever it is, it seems clear to me that it is inborn.

  3. Susan September 17, 2013 at 4:22 PM #

    Don’t have time to post at length, but must say thank you, thank you. Your intelligence, anger and humour is a refuge. I feel as if you have allowed me exhale for the first time in months!

  4. rjjspesh September 17, 2013 at 9:42 PM #

    Yes! YES! YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!

    Not only is there a new 9D post, but it’s fucking awesome. Will share this like crazy

  5. S September 17, 2013 at 10:53 PM #

    wow that first link is eye opening. I always felt that women are beautiful and complete and powerful and males were just sort of stunted and lacking in comparison and that is basically a scientific confirmation I guess. girls and boys are different. well by that I mean when I was a child I always felt that *I* was way smarter and better and superior than most of the children around me and by most of the children around me I mean male children. the only other children I felt urges to connect or share or felt drawn to were other female children. in particular the more physically active or strong ones. to this day I feel some drawing towards big tall women. I don’t think in sexual way. I’m pretty sure I am not a lesbian. does this mean heterosexuality is also a thing the Y chromosome did to ensure it doesn’t die out immediately?

    it’s interesting these feelings that I had as a child that sort of got buried are coming back to me in a clearer way. through science! is someone going to dispute the science? because of this I’m going to pay way more attention to my feelings from now on because they are probably right. is this what women’s intuition is?

    my immediate feelings when I read about the rapes listed in the post, I wish rapists would just die. I don’t really care how, I hope they just die. I think a world with no rape (no rape as in no one being raped ever, in case that was unclear) is an absolute necessity. ABSOLUTE as defined on http://www.merriam-webster.com:

    ab·so·lute
    adjective \ˈab-sə-ˌlüt, ˌab-sə-ˈ\

    : complete and total

    : not limited in any way

    : having unlimited power

    NECESSITY as defined on the same site:

    ne·ces·si·ty
    noun \ni-ˈse-sə-tē, -ˈses-tē\

    : something that you must have or do : something that is necessary

    : the quality of being necessary

    NECESSARY as defined on the same site:

    1nec·es·sary
    adjective \ˈne-sə-ˌser-ē\

    : so important that you must do it or have it : absolutely needed

    : unable to be changed or avoided

    so worded differently I guess that would mean that rapists cannot exist. how do you make rapists not exist?

    I hope the whole ‘I wish rapists would die’ thing doesn’t get me into any trouble. remember these are just feelings! also I just know someone is going to have problems where I say that I felt superior to male children when I was younger. but listen, the definition of SUPERIOR as found on the very same site: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superior

    1su·pe·ri·or
    adjective \su̇-ˈpir-ē-ər\

    : of high quality : high or higher in quality

    : great or greater in amount, number, or degree

    : better than other people

    (‘other people’ as in human males, in this case)

    that is an accurate description of how I felt! I am just being honest.

    I am really glad you wrote this post your writing is so good to read.

    • Nereida Filomena September 18, 2013 at 1:41 AM #

      Some RFs believe that heterosexuality is a social construct and I am one of them. You have the power to chose lesbianism. Feeling sexual attraction to men is unnatural and 100 percent eroticized torture and trauma bonding. Here is an article you may find helpful that is critical of heterosexuality but believes it could work without patriarchy. It is great to be exposed to criticism of this type: http://shehasthepower.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/heterosexuality-nature-nurture-or-disorder/
      Here is a video on what trauma bonding is if you are not familiar with the concept: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTgAtEcmbgA
      “All women’s “attraction” to men is 100% eroticised trauma bonding / stockholm syndrome. There is no other form of attraction to men possible than that. None. Any woman “sexually” or “sentimentally” attached to a man is ONLY trauma-bonded to him. This is a universal rule under patriarchy.” The author is 100 percent right. http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/grooming-pimping-into-heterosexuality-politics-of-love-pt-ii/
      One chromosome cannot create a complete oppressive social institution that is heterosexuality.
      Don’t apologize for wanting rapists to die. Don’t apologize for feeling suprior to males as a child. You were and you still are. One female life is worthless thousands if not millions of men. Men are genetic shit, they contribute extremely little to the taxing process that is pregnancy and childbirth and then demand to be called “fathers” for jacking off in a woman’s body, using her body as a sex toy.
      We are not simply chattel to men. That does not acknowledge the scope of male violence. Objects owned are not fucked/tortured but womyn are. Animal husbandry is a worthy comparison though hence men in this article raping animals.
      Yes you are feeling womyn’s intuition and it is absolutely heart touching that memories from your childhood you forgot were recovered by reading that post. One of the ways men separate us from ourselves and make us dissociate is by traumatizing us so much we forget what it was like to be girl children. You cannot know how happy it made me to read what you wrote about remembering again.
      Rape definitely exists. Part of radical feminism is reclaiming language that suits womyn because it is often used against us. Rape is heterosexual intercourse. Hetness and rape through a radical lense is virtually indistinguishable. PIV (penis in vagina sex) is rape. The concept of “rape rape” is anti feminist and anti woman. If you have been fucked by a man you have been raped. I realize e even some RFs reject this notion and I understand why arguments such as “takes away the violence of REAL rape” obstructs womyn’s reality and perspective. It is a form of male mental colonization and it makes me sad for them.

      If womyn do not get sad for each other, who will?
      Surely not men.
      I could wait forever for men to have empathy.
      But I refuse.

      • Lucas Prassas September 18, 2013 at 11:36 AM #

        obviously disagree with the all sex is rape argument, but i have no real evidence for it, and can’t do anything about it if true, but i will address an implied point you made that surprised me: you seem to think (expedited) death is a punishment; it isn’t. fear of death is as patently irrational as the religions that sensationalize it and all other patriarchal concepts. anyone one who is appalled when you say you think rapists should die (as opposed to being subjected to commensurate rape and/or other torture, which is more amoral than immoral, though usually not worth the time, money, or effort spent, IMO) is bluffing to sound politically correct, a rapist/wannabe rapist, or both. I would have loved to have the option of dying most of the times I was incarcerated, and I’m a person of maximal demographical privilege who has never come close to getting tortured at all, let alone raped.

        • Nereida Filomena September 18, 2013 at 12:08 PM #

          Shut up scum you don’t have the experience of being female to know anything about receiving male violence into our internal organs. Mansplaining genetic shit.

          • Lucas Prassas September 18, 2013 at 1:03 PM #

            blah blah i know i’m supposed to pretend i don’t know you’re trolling to impugn sex-negativism for any number of reasons.

            • Horses Not Zebras October 29, 2013 at 10:56 PM #

              @Lucas Prassas: There is nothing whatsoever wrong or inconsistent about a woman feeling negative toward sex in the way it’s currently practiced in heterosexual relationships. Nothing at all.

      • Justin September 18, 2013 at 2:06 PM #

        >”One female life is worthless thousands if not millions of men.”

        I totally agree.

        >”We are not simply chattel to men.”

        I totally agree.

        >”PIV (penis in vagina sex) is rape.”

        I am concerned that if we call all heterosexual sex to be rape, than it could cause some people to arrive at the absurd conclusion that rape is acceptable, since we all know that PIV sex is necessary for carrying on life. It’s a stretch, I know, but we don’t want anybody thinking that rape has some ounce of justification.

        My concern is that the statement could actually be misused for rape apologetics.

        I understand where you’re coming from. Many women in relationships with men are pressured to have sex when they aren’t in the mood just because he selfishly wants it. We should fight that kind of pressure because that is part of patriarchy and how society trains men to expect women to just do what ever they want.

        • Horses Not Zebras October 29, 2013 at 11:07 PM #

          @Justin: Er, no. We don’t “all know that PIV sex is necessary for carrying on life.” Ever heard of in vitro fertilization?

          If a woman WANTS to have PIV for the purpose of procreation, I suppose that’s fine if that’s what she wants to do. But that’s PIV with the intention of conceiving. There’s absolutely no reason to have PIV at any other time. Its costs to women are far higher than its very limited benefits.

          • Michael Moran January 2, 2014 at 9:07 AM #

            If that’s the case why do lesbians who use strap ons exist? Sorry to be so crude but I want to know your response.

            • CPB January 21, 2014 at 10:23 AM #

              I don’t speak for anyone but myself, but here’s my answer anyway:

              Lesbians do not want ‘penis’ in the traditional sense. A dildo is not a dick; it just happens to be shaped like one because, duh, it fits. You conveniently ignore the fact that the vast majority of lesbians seeking orgasm do so using a variety of other methods barring dick or dick shaped implements. And what the fuck do lesbians have to do with the risks associated with heterosexual PIV anyway (STDs, pregnancy, etc)? Nice derail, Michael Moron.

        • Michael Moran January 1, 2014 at 6:04 PM #

          I’m far more concerned that this idiotic idea that all sex is rape will trivialiseactual rape. Imagine going up to someone who had genuinely been raped then saying you could relate because you had had PIV one time

          • CPB January 21, 2014 at 10:37 AM #

            Yeah, right. Your actual concern is that if more women stopped to consider the consequences of their actions, then fewer women would be willing to fuck you. Self-preservation is always a man’s #1 priority even when a woman’s life is at stake. Running a cost-benefit analysis of PIV sex and then determining that the reward does not outweigh the risks is called ‘logic’. Nothing trivial about that….

      • BloodEagle December 8, 2013 at 8:43 PM #

        since I cant reply to your main posts because you use censorship. I will reply to this.

        What happened to you to make you hate men so much? (sorry if anything did)
        Why do you generalize all of us, when you should make it a case by case basis?
        Seriously, your outlook is the same type of thinking Hitler had..

        • Sugarpuss December 10, 2013 at 10:41 AM #

          What makes men hate women so much? Why do so many men kill & rape women? Why do men advocate rape & sex trafficking by watching porn? It’s not “just a few”, you fucking sorry piece of shit. Go crawl back to the sewer from which you came.

          • Sugarpuss December 10, 2013 at 10:44 AM #

            Oh, and Lulz @ yet another Hitler reference. Hitler was a MAN. In fact, ALL of humanity’s most atrocious crimes were committed by MEN. Coincidence? I think not.

            • Sugarpuss December 10, 2013 at 10:55 AM #

              Oh, and look at that name. BloodEagle?

              Yeah, that has peaceful, non-violent, law-abiding citizen written all over it. *smirk*

            • Michael Moran January 2, 2014 at 9:06 AM #

              Well we live in a patriarchy so the chances of a female leader coming to power at all were pretty slim, perhaps if there was actually a chance for a female fascist to come to power we might see whether this is true. Society has never allowed the condition where in a Josephine Stalin or a Juliet Caesar may arise so to speak. I mean look at Margaret Thatcher, she was cold and hard in her rulership as much as any man.

  6. Nereida Filomena September 18, 2013 at 1:13 AM #

    Hey Deuce! I am really happy to see you writing again! You are the one who woke me up for sugar sweet, pomo, sex pozzie feminism and your series against porn particularly is amazing and debunks anything that is argued in favour of porn.
    Now however I am more trust your perceptions, witchwind, femonade, lucky nickel and she has the power than just gender critical.
    I think reforming men is a waste of time. Their actions speak of their hatred of females and however unwittingly by well meaning feminists arguments about socialization are often used against mothers who are often forced to give birth. I have chose to reject PIV and relationships with men entirely and have chose to be a lesbian.
    I am a grateful I found radical feminism and you helped me in that awakening. I think the gender critical is also great at showing us all the data showing just how deep socialization can run and that is good but there comes a time when one must confront that men are not victims of patriarchy because they benefit from it. They created it for themselves and really I think patriarchy is just the fertilizer to the seed that is male violence. It nourishes and feeds it but it is not the cause, not the root.
    Just because the enemy (men) use science as a weapon of misogyny does not mean that we should not be critical of men’s genetics, biology and neurological make up. Logic is not solely the domain of men and I think the witch burnings in history were men’s way of killing women who were in the know of healing and claiming that domain for itself. Men know how much women would change if we could use science for the good of our own.
    You know the Lorde quote about master’s tool? I keep that central to my thoughts. Men are useless to life, to think of, to try to reform. Don’t give birth to them, don’t fuck them, don’t give them the energy (gynergy) they crave and you are well on your way to their downfall.. I agree with those who say they are born fucked. This is not a justification or and excuse for their violence ever and they chose to rape but even gay men you may have noticed are invasive and misogynistic.
    Even in supposed matriarchal societies there was rape. In time and place men have raped. They stick their dicks into anything even corpses. You are only going to disappoint yourself believing in their humanity. They are only half humyn at best. Men rape because they love it and they are jealous of us. They have womb envy. You see it often with trannies. Maybe in the future men will murder women for their wombs and stick them inside their own bodies. Luckily this is impossible now because the male body rejects it and anti rejection drugs only work for so long.
    Save you hope for women- the handmaidens who try their best to bring other women down. For all those loving to survive.

  7. Nereida Filomena September 18, 2013 at 1:17 AM #

    Sorry I meant “from” libfem not for.

  8. Nereida Filomena September 18, 2013 at 1:42 AM #

    9D I think you should stop letting men particularly trolls comment on your blog is this is to be a female friendly space. Just my 2 cents.

    • Nereida Filomena September 18, 2013 at 12:00 PM #

      *if* this is to be a female friendly space. Just a note to the male scum who replied I do not read comments by or respond to doods. Waste of gynergy.

  9. Nereida Filomena September 18, 2013 at 1:51 AM #

    You know critique of porn supporters and in favour of anti-porn could be endless couldn’t it? If you’re up for it I would love to see more of your anti porn series! You rock!

  10. Nereida Filomena September 18, 2013 at 3:23 AM #

    A robust sex difference in the splenium of the corpus callosum, reflecting greater interhemispheric connectivity in women, was observed on magnetic resonance images from 114 individuals. In addition, bulbosity of the corpus callosum correlated with better cognitive performance in women but not in men
    Cell numbers: men have 4% more brain cells than women, and about 100 grams more of brain tissue. Men need more brain tissue in order to get the same things done.
    Cellular connections: even though a man seems to have more brain cells, it is reported that women have more dendritic connections between brain cells.
    Corpus collosum size: it is reported that a woman’s brain has a larger corpus collusum, which means women can transfer data between the right and left hemisphere faster than men. Men tend to be more left brained, while women have greater access to both sides.
    Limbic size: current research has demonstrated that females, on average, have a larger deep limbic system than males.

  11. Moses Seenarine September 18, 2013 at 5:11 AM #

    ecofeminists have placed male sexual insecurity and evolutionary insignificance as the basis of male desire to transcend women and animals for the past 10,000 years

  12. Leah Sweeney September 18, 2013 at 5:17 AM #

    It’s nice to hear some men participating intelligently in the discussion. The role of testosterone on the human psyche, however, is less than empirically proven. There is a rather sizeable difference between drawing a correlation between a hormone and a behavior,and proving a causality between the two. We have fairly clear evidence on the role of testosterone in the development of anatomical structures during fetal development, but everything else is a lot of supposition. There are a lot of “what ifs” with regards to postulating what women might be like if we interacted differently with the environment. For example, male and female children have no real differences in size until about puberty. I have a 10 year old boy, and he is no taller (and on average, quite a bit scrawnier) than his female contemporaries. Puberty, wondrously enough, is the age at which males and females are most motivated to look and act in accordance with their gender. It’s generally the age at which females start to realize how “fat” we all are and diet. What if malnutrition plays a central role in the average size disparity between adult males and females? Did you know that juvenile female rats show a measurable increase in testosterone production if their genitals are stimulated to mimic maternal grooming (mother rats normally spend more time grooming the genitals of their male offspring than the females)? Hormone levels aren’t innate- they change based on environmental factors. Remember, science is subject to operator bias and a lot of data gets interpreted to support the theory that the researcher has set out to prove.

    • Nereida Filomena September 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM #

      Sexism runs deep in men even scientists who claim to be unbiased. We must draw our own conclusions because they sure as well won’t. I am well aware of biases by researchers and all of them are sexist. All men are sexist. Men have downplayed the differences that makes females better than males or framed it as if it it somehow advantages males. Trust me you do not have to worry about pro female biases in male dominated science.

    • Justin September 18, 2013 at 2:41 PM #

      > “Hormone levels aren’t innate- they change based on environmental factors.”

      Hormone levels do differ by gender genetically. But my point is it’s NO excuse for male violence, patriarchy, domestic violence etc..

      What I believe is that hormone levels differ between males and females, yet men are perfectly capable of behaving. Some men seem like hopeless cases, but I believe that they have the capacity to make the decision to act appropriately.

      What I call the “Dude Culture” encourages men to follow patriarchy’s expectations (act aggressive, expect sex from a woman anytime, think porn is cool, expect women to do all the chores etc). The way I understand this to work is men tell each other that they should act a certain way/view women a certain way. This in turn programs men into becoming the scum that most of them really are.

      Men can select to go along with the Dude Culture, or resist and fight it.

      • Lucas Prassas September 18, 2013 at 5:31 PM #

        If we are, indeed, talking about practicality of shifting society away from the barbarism (especially manifestations unique to the ruling demographic), I think straightforward resistance may be an unnecessarily arduous route. Even sex positivism is incredibly unpopular, and it goes out of its way to not directly challenge the only remotely rational contributor to patriarchy (libertarian approach to sex). The vast majority of humans are driven to the heights of delusion by patriarchy, whether it benefits them or not (how many women do you REALLY think would be any more willing to listen than almost all men, if someone to explain radical feminism to them?). Fighting isn’t smart with lunatics; I live in one of the most ignorant places I know of, and deal almost exclusively with these kind of people. They can rarely even fight worth shit; they’re just way more determined to make you suffer, often so they feel a bit better about their own suffering. Let’s face it; social reform is a non-moron’s game, and almost everyone is the worst kind of moron (I’m close enough to this, IMO, but almost everyone I know in real life thinks I’m a fucking genius), regardless of their apparent disposition. There are extremely effective ways to convince most people of pretty much anything that aren’t even that difficult, and none of them involve a shred of honesty or sincerity. Religion, corporations, politicians, and hell, patriarchs in general, didn’t get where they are by offering quality information, or quality anything, for that matter. Even if you argue that those were all made by (almost always) white men, for (almost always) white men, since they were, it still doesn’t matter, because they aren’t rationally desirable goals. It’s pretty clearly established that patriarchy isn’t good for men; they just think it is.The only way to appeal to that kind of idiocy is more idiocy. No remotely dignified person does this, AFAIK, even if they pretend to be a vehement moralist, but marketing rhetoric is too valuable of a tool to be inherently evil, IMO. There’s no need to even change the content of whatever idea you’re trying to promote; just advertise it well enough, and it’ll sell/succeed, no matter what anyone says, including the hordes of mantrash. If patriarchy can sell blatant, offensive caricatures of “feminism” on fucking TV, and cause a probable majority of self-proclaimed feminists consider it a huge step forward, I highly doubt it’d be that infeasible to replicate the effect on the world’s dumbest group of people. It would probably still take multiple generations, but that’s better than non-whitemen being grudgingly considered citizens of the nicest countries, by most of the population (in misogyny’s case, most people don’t even seem ashamed to admit that they don’t like or respect women/consider them actual equals, whereas even the most hideously racist dogs won’t say the N-word). Okay, I sounded a bit pompous, that was a shit post, and I’m not a real expert on anything, but for real; is this really that implausible? I’ve never heard much of an explanation as to why not, and I’d hate to think it is dismissed by respectable activists for the wrong reasons, if it truly is as unheard of as I suspect.

        • Lucas Prassas September 18, 2013 at 5:55 PM #

          **:”most of the population (parenthetical segment)… after over a century/maybe longer of honest protest.”

          • Lucas Prassas September 18, 2013 at 6:27 PM #

            **”in misogyny’s case, most men (not people; AWFUL typo, bet I’m gonna get fucking trolled, even though I want a serious answer this time. FUCK; stupid fucking MRAs all over the goddamn place)

            • Lucas Prassas September 19, 2013 at 3:04 AM #

              okay i’m kind of mad at myself for doubting this long enough to participate as much as i have, but this is pretty obviously an MRA-run site. i’m sure there are some people out there who genuinely believe they’re feminists with similar attitudes, but come on. this is a calculated effort, with a calculated agenda. aca demy does the same thing (in reverse) on their own damn forums, ffs. this is by far the most clever mra scheme i’ve seen yet, but still a blatant caricature of the mrm’s patented “feminist”. if it wasn’t for the regularly commenting “fans” with a style supiciously similar to the author’s, i may have written it off as a stylistic gimmick, as the writing appears professional, but no. this blog even appears to be the only one of kind, and i’ve been around enough to know that even the dreaded “tumblr feminists” (not to be confused with feminists that actually post on tumblr) are pretty much all MRA-hype. honestly, i respect the veritable troll genius that went into this, but this a bit too politically weighted (in a malicious way) for me to keep playing along. This will be deleted, obviously; I’m just here to let you know that I have multiple backed up copies, hard copies, and access to several acquaintances’ computers/connections, in case any of you (probably one guy) decides to hack my shitty comp, if it turns out many other people on the net are dumb enough to believe this shit, and i have to explain it to them.

              • Sugarpuss September 20, 2013 at 8:49 PM #

                ^^^Clueless douchebag.

                This isn’t an MRA site, you bumbling moron. I’m sitting here, as I type this, with a tampon parked in my bloody vaginal cavity. Not exactly “manosphere” material, if ya know what I mean.

    • CPB September 19, 2013 at 5:16 AM #

      Any person who has raised children of both genders can see a stark difference in behavior. Puberty acts as a catalyst for exacerbating these behavioral differences, but the differentiation exists long before pubescence and, yes, testosterone is proven to correlate highly with aggression and violence. At some point – I’d say when about 97% of violent crime is attributable to a single gender – there is a case to be made for a genetic component.

      “There are a lot of “what ifs” with regards to postulating what women might be like if we interacted differently with the environment.”

      This sounds like apologist BS. You can’t honestly be suggesting that women would have an equal chance of being sociopathic war mongers if only the *environment* changed, especially given the biological differences in brain structure, size, and strength. Give me a break. Dismissing genetics, which proves structural differences in the brain occur due to testosterone, while simultaneously cleaving to nebulous environmental factors is nonsensical. These structural differences in the brain take place *solely* due to testosterone. Men and boys would have brains entirely identical to women if not for the testosterone surge that takes place on the SRY gene of the Y chromosome in-utero (six weeks to be exact). This lends credence to the theory that bad male behavior is largely rooted in biology rather than the result of social conditioning which just acts as a catalyst that encourages and allows male violent behavior. Lax laws concerning rape and other violent crimes against women are a perfect example of how environment can encourage their shitty behavior in the worst way, but the drive to victimize doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

      “Hormone levels aren’t innate- they change based on environmental factors.”

      Correction: Hormone levels *are* innate *and* subject to change based on environmental factors. Malnutrition can effect one’s size, but all other things being equal, men on average are faster, stronger, and – yes – taller than women due to genetics. The entire female gender is not malnourished. Sorry to disappoint, but this is not up for debate.

      Overall, conflating genetics, puberty, and social conditioning really makes it sound like you are suggesting the disproportionate amount of women experiencing eating disorders is genetic, but size and strength is not? Am I missing something here? Teenage girls in general become more cognizant of their appearance because they are transitioning from childhood to fuck-doll-with-a-pulse-hood (otherwise known as female ‘adulthood’). The media and men in the vicinity are constantly reminding them of this: fathers, brothers, classmates, co-workers, even the dip-shits they walk past on the street shout out their approval – or god forbid – disapproval. Men of every heinous stripe wouldn’t want young women to forget for a single second that their self-worth is entirely rooted in their appearance. This ensures her constant attention to vanity which oftentimes leads to eating disorders and other derivations of body dysmorphia. So, it would seem that the fuckability mandate is a purely social construct (aka environmental) especially when you consider the media’s fluidity concerning attractiveness (e.g., full figured just decades ago and now ‘thin is in’; media tired of the Pamela Anderson look and now Angelina Jolie is the gold standard, etc.).

      “Remember, science is subject to operator bias and a lot of data gets interpreted to support the theory that the researcher has set out to prove.”

      Why are you having such a hard time remembering the fact that nine times out of ten women are subject to the *male* interpretation of data since the scientific and academic communities are largely male? Not to mention that much of the time men desire to ‘prove’ their ridiculous notions about the supposed superiority of men and inferiority of women correct. Additionally, women are socialized away from scientific and mathematical pursuits as it tends to get in the way of learning how to apply makeup and eat dicks. Ugh.

      PS Women are never seen as full-fledged human beings at any stage of our lives and are often infantilized well past puberty so your ‘concern’ regarding bias towards women (and against the ills of testosterone) is laughable at best.

      • S September 19, 2013 at 10:46 PM #

        I think Angelina Jolie is so beautiful I remember being mesmerized when I saw her in a movie when I was a teenager

        • S September 19, 2013 at 10:49 PM #

          it was that movie about women in a mental institution I forget the title right now

      • Nereida Filomena September 20, 2013 at 2:51 PM #

        Awesome response! Such thoughtful analysis. Thank you.

      • Sugarpuss September 20, 2013 at 9:10 PM #

        [...] bad male behavior is largely rooted in biology rather than the result of social conditioning which just acts as a catalyst that encourages and allows male violent behavior.

        Yes. Exactly. You took the words right outta my keyboard! Most men are pretty much fucked in the head from the get-go; our misogynistic culture just fans the flames a bit.

        So, for anybody who thinks Little Peter acts like a little monster because he watched one too many episodes of Robot Chicken, I’ve got two words for ya: Ancient Rome /a>.

        • Sugarpuss September 20, 2013 at 9:10 PM #

          I fucked up that tag. :(

    • CPB September 19, 2013 at 9:44 AM #

      I forgot to mention, testosterone levels were found to be significantly higher among violent crime offenders than drug abusers and property crimes. Even female prisoners who were more aggressive and violent had higher levels of testosterone. Environment and situations overall can certainly play a role, but the *base* levels of testosterone for these prisoners were higher. They were no longer among the general population where they could be subjected to a variety of different social situations that could influence behavior and their testosterone levels were *still* higher than average. No ‘what if’s’ required.

      Alternatively, I’ve seen these studies you’re referring to where the conclusions about testosterone’s effects on behavior were inconclusive. In those cases, T hormones were administered in relatively small doses for a very short time period (around one week) and the data was collected almost entirely by self-report surveys. Anecdotal evidence is largely useless, since we rarely consider our own behavior aberrant, offensive, or – in this case – aggressive. When the men who had received testosterone were observed objectively (by researchers and participants) their behavior was noticeably different.

      In other words, some studies are certainly biased in a desperate bid to convince the public that testosterone is a neutral hormone and men do not posses an innate tendency to rape/abuse/etc, but at the end of the day, there is far more evidence to suggest that T is a catalyst for violence and aggressive behavior; especially considering women are dwelling in the same god damned environment except under much more turbulent, unpleasant, oppressive circumstances thanks to – you guessed it – men.

      Men also dictate these socially conditioned circumstances that you are constantly referencing in your bid to convince someone out there that testosterone is not an innately aggressive hormone. It would appear that men are just fine with their sociopathic lack of empathy and expressing emotions of any kind – barring anger, of course – since they’ve given themselves and their ilk the OK regarding victimization. No matter how you slice it, men are responsible for dictating and perpetuating the current misogynistic, violent sociopolitical climate and that has been my – and presumably 9D’s – point all along.

      • Lucas Prassas September 19, 2013 at 11:31 AM #

        tryin too hard to seem legit dude/female employee. ur obviously pro, but you could have at least waited a little longer after last post. this site is too obviously mra(-funded, probably, due to professionalism, but who knows?), anyway, but have fun i guess. i only almost fell for it cuz im not nearly as smart as i sometimes sound. i wish yall would give real sex-negatives a chance, tho, since google yields like zero such sites besides this one and maybe a few other “crazy” troll sites.

        • Nine Deuce September 19, 2013 at 11:32 AM #

          Hey, crazy guy, what the fuck are you talking about?

          • Lucas Prassas September 19, 2013 at 11:46 AM #

            oh yeah right like it’s soooo crazy that the entire purpose of this site is to recycle old, but real sex-negative arguments and fill them with cuss words and stereotypical MRA-style “misandry/female supremacy”/ other names for a thing that basically doesn’t exist in real life. even if you weren’t, no one that reads would be dumb enough to make their already absurd unpopularity worse. real feminism is politics, asshole; quit treating like a stupid game, if you’re that concerned with clinging to your audience’s suspension of disbelief. i have a copies of this, as well, in case i decide to go make more people notice your shenanigans.

            • Nine Deuce September 19, 2013 at 11:50 AM #

              You got me. I’ve spent six years and written 250 posts satirizing feminism in order to prove MRAs right. And thanks for the lesson on what feminism is. You can rest easy in the knowledge that you see through all the bullshit and go back to smoking meth now.

              • Lucas Prassas September 19, 2013 at 11:54 AM #

                I’m sure you’re laughing all the way the bank. You bore me; I’m gonna go find something else to do.

                • Nine Deuce September 19, 2013 at 11:56 AM #

                  Oh, good. My private jet is about to take off for Malta anyway.

                  • Lucas Prassas September 19, 2013 at 4:52 PM #

                    oh whatever. whatever your motives, you’re obviously not interested in anything other than upsetting pretty much everyone who stumbles upon this site, or you would have blocked all of the insulting/shocking comments, including most of mine. have fun being the closest thing to an MRA that isn’t one, if you really aren’t.

                    • andemilybites September 22, 2013 at 4:28 PM #

                      What is this total fool on about?

                      Welcome back ND!

                • CPB September 21, 2013 at 4:37 AM #

                  For the love of BUDDHA find something else to do with your time.

                • Nereida Filomena September 23, 2013 at 6:18 AM #

                  yeah she must be making bank with this free blog. Your comments make so little sense I actually laughed out loud.

        • CPB September 19, 2013 at 11:11 PM #

          You retard, I added to my first reply by posting a second time. God forbid someone know what the fuck they are talking about when they get on the internet. The gibberish you’ve been spouting here is pretty embarrassing.

          • Lucas Prassas September 20, 2013 at 10:23 AM #

            Adroit way of reminding you find me how fucking entertaining you find me. Also, I’m sure whoever else you think is watching is so much more convinced by your credibility, now that you jumped on the totally sincere asshole bandwagon, and cussed out the only (unwelcome) troll on your website that’s even trying to reason with you. I’m sure it’s more worth it for you, though, as long as you get to abuse your credentials in order to do as much social damage to feminism as one thankfully obscure group of moderately diligent bloggers and/or comment authors (depending on which accounts are actually other people, and not just various personas of one person) can plausibly be presumed to do.

            • Lucas Prassas September 20, 2013 at 11:54 AM #

              blah i’ve been typing stupidly for too long… anyway, I obviously can’t KNOW anything about any of you, but I’m those of you heavily involved in this site’s feedback are aware how calculated your words sound to guests that are inclined to think about what you people are actually accomplishing. if y’all were actually bad at this, I wouldn’t bother trying to indicate to whatever traffic you normally get that this is pretty much as unlike any credible/mildly respectable, non-satirical politics-related site one will find anywhere else on the net. Obviously, serious visitors seem to be either ignoring everything other than their own debate, or just not posting, but I do worry that some people (that aren’t quite incorrigibly ignorant) may assume that this is feminism (I know the author has stated/alluded to this not being the case, but only uncommonly non-stupid people can override connotation with denotation), or remotely representative of any comparably acceptable ideology, and I happen to be the only person with literally nothing better to do than attempt to prevent that from happening. The author has been prudently playing it cool and not deleting my posts, for a while now, so I may take the hint and discuss this elsewhere, if I find a worthwhile community that will even my dignify my acknowledgment of your existence (not that I blame most serious forums for not doing this, but I refuse to ignore, give up on the moronic majority, since there are nowhere near enough intelligent people to get anywhere without them). copied, in case you decide I’m no longer worth the showmanship.

              • CPB September 21, 2013 at 12:41 AM #

                Because men crashing into a feminist blog and dictating to women what feminism is all about is not being an asshole? Got it. You’re pissed off because I debunked the pretentious, libertarian, self-serving garbage you’ve been crapping out complete with Illuminati-esque conspiracy theories.

                Because we aren’t all kissing your feet and calling you our almighty savior we must be part of the MRA. Because I make cogent points rooted in facts that fly in the face of your bullshit, I must be one of 9D’s evil secret agents. ‘Desperate for attention’ does not even begin to describe you, troll.

                PS The world doesn’t revolve around you or your dick. Seek help and learn to type.

                • Lucas Prassas September 21, 2013 at 10:18 AM #

                  still tryin, huh? also “feminism” lol, you know better than to call it that at this point (even the author has addressed this, as i mentioned). annnd there’s your arguments, which i’ve already mentioned are mostly valid, established ones, just recycled with satirical amounts of cussing and insults. obviously you’re having at least as much fun as i am, though, so here’s to even more of your epic disregard for your own verisimilitude (intentional, I’m sure; you’ll keep your male privilege as easily as I, regardless of your ultimate success or failure at being convincing).

                  • CPB September 23, 2013 at 1:35 AM #

                    I’m not a man, idiot.

                    PS Swearing is for adults.

            • Nereida Filomena September 23, 2013 at 6:20 AM #

              Dude you’re paranoid lay off the meth.

              • Sugarpuss September 23, 2013 at 1:19 PM #

                ^This.

        • Nereida Filomena September 20, 2013 at 2:55 PM #

          lol this comment was hilarious.

          • Lucas Prassas September 20, 2013 at 5:06 PM #

            Regaining some verisimilitude, now, but the fact that this is one of the few places left on the internet that where almost everyone isn’t completely ignoring my comments (or responses thereto) still doesn’t seem too likely to help with your side’s collective appearance of legitimacy. Honestly, the only reason I’m even telling you that, at this point, is because the fact that I’ve apparently lost that much efficacy (using my real name, anyway, but that’s part of the novelty) is starting to make me sadder than it does anything else. You’re generally one of the more MRA-ish seeming ones anyway, so feel free to cuss me out some more if you run out of different angles to play, or just prefer to, but you know how the internet works, and I’m not even trolling decently anymore.

            • Sugarpuss September 20, 2013 at 10:07 PM #

              Does anybody have any idea what this Lucas Prassas character is prattling on about? All I see is a giant wall of garbled word salad. He might as well be typing in wingdings.

              • Lucas Prassas September 21, 2013 at 5:53 AM #

                Oh, look; you bolded the “ass” in my name, hahaha. You’re obviously not trying to sabotage the credibility of anyone other than me!

                • Sugarpuss September 21, 2013 at 12:32 PM #

                  You’re obviously not trying to sabotage the credibility of anyone other than me!

                  Uh, what?

                  • Sugarpuss September 21, 2013 at 12:45 PM #

                    92: I realize that every village must have it’s idiot, but must the idiot of this village be….Lucas?

                    I don’t know, maybe you find his bizarre meanderings amusing (it’s your blog after all), but I fail to see his entertainment value. I’ve gotten bigger kicks from heat rash.

                    • Nine Deuce September 21, 2013 at 12:58 PM #

                      I’m just trying to figure out his train of thought (I like the idea of getting rich writing a radical feminist blog on behalf of MRAs).

                    • Sugarpuss September 21, 2013 at 1:31 PM #

                      I’m just trying to figure out his train of thought[...]

                      Oh come on. He never left the depot.

                    • Lucas Prassas September 21, 2013 at 2:44 PM #

                      While I’m probably not the most consistently entertaining troll out there, that really seems like a bit of a stretch, coming from you. Now, some of the people on here seem gifted enough with other styles of disingenuous rhetoric that I am quite sure they could do much more entertaining than I’ve ever been, if they cared to but you are pretty clearly the lowest-tier troll that’s posted here more than once or twice, despite being decent enough, in general. I’m the first (probably the only, since this seems to be a longer-term intellectual investment for you and the other central participants/possibly personae) to totally break character in this one, which I know to be a lazy habit, but this comes up pretty high on Google, IIRC (query being “sex negative”, I think? I’ll check again in a minute), so I consider it justifiable to provide a less dramatized explanation of how perfidious many elements of this site appear to be, for a purportedly non-MRA, feminism-related blog.

    • lizor September 28, 2013 at 3:48 AM #

      Thanks Leah Sweeny. I don’t buy the “masculinity-because-of-testosterone” bullshit either. If testosterone is truly the culprit behind all of this criminal behaviour then FFS get on a patch already.

  13. Leah Sweeney September 19, 2013 at 12:03 PM #

    So you believe that male and female behaviors are, in fact, biologically dictated and therefore gender is not a social construct? That is the BIGGEST apologist argument ever- men can’t help but be violent and aggressive because they’re “hard wired” to be that way. “It’s the testosterone!! The testosterone made me do it!! The testosterone makes me view all women as an interchangeable set of wet holes!!” In which case, why even bother? Just arm yourself and find as remote a location as possible to hide away from the scourge that is the human male. And I am totally suggesting that science has a male-based bias which absolutely feeds a biologically-rooted gender specific behavior theory. I’m not quite sure how my comment was interpreted to suggest that science has a bias in favor of women. Yes, males and females have differences in size, strength, agility and the ability to make a fucking sandwich. But the book has not been written with regards to how pronounced these differences would be if both sexes were socialized in roughly the same manner. There are no test subjects which have not been exposed to gender specific socializing influences. We do know that increased muscle mass increases production of testosterone. Therefore, women who are more athletic have higher testosterone levels than their waifish counterparts. And they don’t appear to be any more inclined to randomly beat the stuffing out of anyone nor assault weaker people’s genitals. Granted, even a female who benches 250 may not have testosterone levels which quite approach that of the “average” male. But the fact that women with higher testosterone levels don’t generally transform into sociopaths gives greater credence to the theory that their socialization plays a key role in how they behave towards others. It is precisely because they are not raised to feel entitled to bully the weaker, that they are encouraged to exhibit “nurturing” and “caring” behaviors, that they often feel the need to “compensate” for being stronger by “showing a soft side” that puts them in a position to resist the impulse to behave more violently. And I agree, the tendency towards anorexia and other such forms of psychological pathology are the result of women being groomed to become a thing to be used in the pleasuring of men. Again, not sure how my comments were construed otherwise.

    • Justin September 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM #

      > “We do know that increased muscle mass increases production of testosterone.”

      It works both ways. Testosterone allows more muscle growth, of course. When men lift heavy weights (6 reps or less) the body releases a little bit more testosterone to help deal with the micro fibers that are torn in the muscle. This in turn allows for increases in strength.

      Heavy weight lifting also boosts sex drive in men.

      Whereas size growth tends to come from fatigue (exhausting the muscle with lots of reps), rather than heavy weights.

      Muscles release testosterone, but testosterone allows the original building of larger muscles. Both are true, but a chicken and egg scenario results. As boys enter teen years to mid 20s, the increase in testosterone allows for greater muscle growth. Prior to roughly age 12, male and female muscularity are similar.

      Many women in the gym refuse to touch the weights in fear of “getting big.” The truth is that it takes a lot of work for men to get big muscles, and women don’t have the hormone profile to do it. The super-muscular female body builders of course have taken steroids and testosterone injections.

      So, with more muscle on the body, the heavy lifting causes the male body to release more testosterone to repair the micro-fiber tears.

      Thus, testosterone is the initial and primary origin of muscle growth.

    • CPB September 19, 2013 at 11:26 PM #

      Did you even read what I wrote? My argument is that testosterone acts as the *catalyst* for violent/aggressive behavior and that social conditioning perpetuates and encourages these base aggressive desires. You know what I love even more than repeating myself endlessly?

      “Yes, males and females have differences in size, strength, agility and the ability to make a fucking sandwich.”

      …outing male trolls. The desperate desire to prove that the disproportionately male aggression and violence does not stem from a hormone that has proven to elicit aggression many times over is getting dire. Read what I wrote and then read it again and again until you and your detachable cock ‘get it’.

      “But the book has not been written with regards to how pronounced these differences would be if both sexes were socialized in roughly the same manner.”

      No shit. Because the world over you can’t find a single place where women are socialized to believe that we are superior and men are inferior. You steep you entire argument in a sea of ‘what ifs’ and completely ignore actual scientific facts. THAT is the problem.

      PS I already explained how your ‘point’ was so easily misconstrued.

    • Horses Not Zebras October 30, 2013 at 12:00 AM #

      “In which case, why even bother? Just arm yourself and find as remote a location as possible to hide away from the scourge that is the human male.”

      Yes, exactly. That’s just what women should do. You said it yourself. The trouble is that you thought you were being sarcastic. That you and others like you find the idea so incomprehensible.

      “How could women live without the mennnnz?!”

      How can we possibly live *with* them?

  14. Leah Sweeney September 19, 2013 at 4:26 PM #

    My point was simply that testosterone is not the boogeyman. My point is that men are not inherently irascible, killing and raping machines (which is not to say that they don’t frequently seem as though they are doing their best to prove me wrong). My point is that women aren’t biologically incapable of atrocity. My point is that there are more biological similarities between the sexes than differences. In fact, there are more differences between two individuals of the same sex than there are between “all males” and “all females”. My point is that everything is “up for debate”. The only people who benefit from this whole “Men are from Mars” manner of thought are the jackasses who sell books trying to convince people that the only way they can relate to someone whose genitals differ from their own is by buying a shitty book. I don’t see how this whole testosterone focus leads us down a path which is any different from biological determinism. My point was precisely that we need to question what we think we know “scientifically” about what differentiates the sexes. Obviously, we are not biologically identical. But I don’t see how you can argue that there’s an innate tendency in man towards aggression (whether testosterone-based or because of differences in the size of the amygdala, etc., etc.) without concluding that women are “by design” more submissive and docile. Even if we argue that women are “naturally” more peaceful and egalitarian, how is that any less sexist? Once upon a time, the goal of feminism was to present women as fully formed human beings- with flaws and strengths. Capable of a wide range of thoughts and feelings and emotions and abilities that are not dictated or limited by hormones or differences in brain size.
    And my apologies to Nine D- I imagine having to read all this “intellectual ping pong” in the process of moderating gets a bit tedious.

    • CPB September 20, 2013 at 12:18 AM #

      “My point is that women aren’t biologically incapable of atrocity.”

      That you honestly believe the striking disparity of violence between the genders is entirely due to social conditioning in the face of so much documented science is inconceivable to me.

      “My point is that there are more biological similarities between the sexes than differences.”

      Biology states that women and men are different based purely on physicality, no social conditioning there. We all bleed the same color blood and have a four chambered heart…well…duh. However, it’s nonsensical to have a discussion about disproportionately gendered violence and only attend to innocuous similarities in the face of evidence that high T levels predisposes one to violence.

      “My point is that everything is “up for debate”.”

      Unfortunately, no, certain things are not up for debate. Increased testosterone really does beget aggression and violence that is not dependent on social conditioning or circumstances. Studies have proven this to be true many times over and I could have sworn I explained this in detail. Biological differences are stone cold facts and not up for debate either, sorry.

      “I don’t see how this whole testosterone focus leads us down a path which is any different from biological determinism.”

      Really? Because I explained that it was patriarchal society encouraging men to behave *in accordance with* their biology. That chest-beating-neanderthal-bullshit-posturing-picture-of-masculinity doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Where do you think this obsession men have with violence and aggression stems? It’s biology. Obviously, we all have free will and are capable of making our own choices. Just because men don’t go around raping and killing everything they see does not mean that testosterone does not predispose them to violence in a way that far outreaches women; it does and this disparity is very well documented. Women are not “more docile” by design, we are less aggressive by design, greater communicators by design, and make easy targets for men by design because we are physically weaker. Why is that so difficult for men and male apologists to comprehend?

      “Once upon a time, the goal of feminism was to present women as fully formed human beings- with flaws and strengths. Capable of a wide range of thoughts and feelings and emotions and abilities that are not dictated or limited by hormones or differences in brain size.”

      Ugh, can the melodramatic bullshit. Ignoring the male propensity for violence and stark biological differentiation with baseless red herrings will get you nowhere.

      PS Read what I wrote next time, ‘bruh’.

      • CPB September 21, 2013 at 7:30 AM #

        Also, docility/submissiveness is entirely the result of social conditioning. Who should submit to whom, when, how, and why has never been dictated by biology, whereas size and strength always will. The fact that men have never had any qualms about using violence or threats (thanks to their biology) is what has placed women in this unfortunate, patriarchal predicament in the first place. I believe differentiating between biological fact and sociological myths that have been forced upon women for thousands of years is the key to change. Men resist the ‘testosterone is an issue’ argument because then the issue lies solely* with them and they won’t be able to slough all responsibility for bad male behavior onto women any longer.

        Anyway, conflating biology with environmental social conditioning is what’s undermining your arguments. Hopefully I’ve finally made myself 100% crystal clear here.

        * – T is 9 to 10 times more prevalent in men so, yes, male violence and aggression will always lie solely with men despite the fact that women posses the ounce of T required to fuck these mongoloids against all logic.

        • Lucas Prassas September 21, 2013 at 10:32 AM #

          ooooh look, you used the work “mongoloid”… guess you ain’t playin’, if you’re willing to act like other kinds of bigot to “enhance” your point, since this is the internet, and no one can prove that the absurd, blatant discrepancy between your writing level and your writing style are anything other than a coincidence, huh?

          • Lucas Prassas September 21, 2013 at 10:33 AM #

            WORD*, not work, lol guess you can always default to arguing with my typing skills, failing other things.

  15. Leah Sweeney September 20, 2013 at 4:20 AM #

    Well, I guess men really do have a monopoly on aggression.

    • CPB September 21, 2013 at 12:17 AM #

      Because when women are aggressive they make cogent points. When men are aggressive they rape, murder, assault, stalk, and commit genocide.

      • CPB September 21, 2013 at 4:15 AM #

        Not to mention the fact that the MRA are obsessed with the argument that mothers (single or otherwise) and their inability to provide a precious utopian ‘environment’ for their sons results in violent, gang-banging, sexist, racist, drug-addicted convicts. Ah, the great ‘nurture’ rhetoric. Thanks, but no thanks.

        Forcing men to acknowledge their issues with aggression and violence including where these issues originate, and teaching young men how to curtail this behavior, is far less damaging than willful ignorance.

        Oh, and you can cram that oh-so-subtle attempt to shame me for proving you wrong where the sun don’t shine.

        • Sugarpuss September 21, 2013 at 1:20 PM #

          You’re wasting your time on this idiot.

          She has a boy child, and is, therefore, personally invested in denouncing certain biological realities. She has squeezed out a potential rapist from her loins, and is probably feeling rather desperate to defend her little monster. Mothers of sons are the worst! They will defend their rotten sprogs to the death, and they are always the first ones to make bullshit claims like “women can be as bad as men”. And anybody who doesn’t live under a rock knows that’s the biggest lie ever.

          • Nereida Filomena September 23, 2013 at 6:15 AM #

            To be honest I don’t think mothers of sons can be radical feminists and if they do its a harsh reality that little boys and girls are not equal- one has a high capacity for violence. Ted Bundy’s mom supported him to the end.

            • golden boy phenomenon February 27, 2014 at 5:20 PM #

              I agree with this about the mothers of boys (in general, of course). When my sister had her “golden penis” child two years ago, she became obnoxiously sexist. She went from talking about how her daughter in positive terms, to bitching that her dolls were “slutty” and totally shafted the poor kid in favor of the “golden boy”. Now the pre-teen daughter is framed as causing ALL the problems in the family, while the male child is kowtowed to like a little tyrant.

              I quit speaking to her when she started allowing the toddling male child to interrupt our conversations and allowing him to quote “correct” us. I told my sister that as an adult woman I was offended that she expected me to defer to a fucking toddler because he is male. It was absurd, but she really thinks that encouraging him to “act like a boy” which means teaching him that he has the right to interrupt adult women and that women should defer to him at all times.

              I really feel that my sister is raising a future date rapist and it makes me sad. Her boy child is encouraged to be loud, destructive and obnoxious while the girl is snapped at for every minor infraction. I really think that my sister is transferring her views about her husband onto her son. I have seen what can happen to men who are “mother-enmeshed” and treated as mom’s surrogate spouse(usually because the father is a cheater or emotionally unavailable) and it ain’t pretty.

              I don’t know what the solution is, but I just wanted to share my experience that sometimes women reinforce the sexist stereotypes when raising boys, too.

              • Sugarpuss February 28, 2014 at 1:11 AM #

                Yuck. I’ve seen a lot of what you describe too. Thanks for sharing the gory details!

                • golden boy phenomenon February 28, 2014 at 11:32 AM #

                  Thanks sp. I’m sad that this is happening with my niece and nephew, but I won’t tolerate being around that kind of bs anymore. The worst example I have ever seen was from a woman who wrote books about abstinence. I was raised in a christian cult and this woman wrote a book for teen girls about “purity” and asked me to read the manuscript. I was already skeptical about religion at that point but what she wrote really blew my mind.

                  In the opening paragraph she relates a story about being in a bank and a woman in front of her is wearing a miniskirt. Her boy child(maybe six or seven years old) says something to the effect of “we know what kind of lady THAT is!” and his idiot mother PRAISES him for it and spends the next few paragraphs talking about how her precious boy won’t be sullied by sluts like the lady at the bank. Talk about setting the kid up to be a serial killer! I was so pissed off by that statement that I destroyed the manuscript and didn’t respond to the ladies requests after that.

                  She still works at a Christian gulag in Texas called Teen Mania where she teaches girls to hate themselves and that they are responsible for the bad behavior of men. You might Google them (click on the recovering alumni link-my teen mania experience) if you want to see how sick it is. I know of people who are working to expose the abuse at that place, but it is an uphill battle.

                  Anyhow, women as mothers have a responsibility to teach boys respect and self control but too often instead treat them like little dictators who are not responsible for their actions and are entitled to be demanding judgmental assholes. *sigh*

                  • Sugarpuss March 1, 2014 at 2:28 AM #

                    In the opening paragraph she relates a story about being in a bank and a woman in front of her is wearing a miniskirt. Her boy child(maybe six or seven years old) says something to the effect of “we know what kind of lady THAT is!” and his idiot mother PRAISES him for it and spends the next few paragraphs talking about how her precious boy won’t be sullied by sluts like the lady at the bank.

                    She might want to inform her bratty son that the woman wearing the miniskirt is doing so because that is what mainstream American society expects from women. Being modest is practically a crime, these days. The “Be fuckable or die” mentality is very pervasive. Then, oddly, when women obey, like the above example, that is also a crime worthy of punishment. Men have created an interesting little catch 22 for us, so that nothing is ever right, and we’re always in the wrong, no matter what we do.

                    Some of the biggest fucking asshole males I’ve ever known were really major mama’s boys. You would think that it would be the opposite, but no. They emit an especially unique brand of misogyny; very passive aggressive and self-righteous. I knew a dude who lived with his mother, taking care of her because she was seriously ill, and he was a real piece of work. it was very important to him to be seen as a “nice guy”, so when called on his fucking arrogant attitude, he would insist that he was “none of those things” and just generally treated me as if I was imagining things. Two words come to mind: closet asshole. But that is how it usually works; the worst people usually have the best reputations. They fool a lot of people. Bundy, Gacey, etc, are perfect examples of that sort of thing.

  16. deedee82 September 20, 2013 at 8:56 PM #

    I feel really depressed when I read your articles but at the same time I’m happy to know that someone else cares.

  17. deedee82 September 20, 2013 at 8:57 PM #

    I feel really depressed when I read your articles but at the same time I’m happy that someone cares.

  18. Leah Sweeney September 21, 2013 at 7:09 AM #

    Let me preface by saying I have no delusions that anything I say will alter your trajectory. I understand that you’ve given this a lot of thought and are firm in your convictions. Do know, that in spite of your many assertions that I am too addled to even construct a logical argument, I have also given the debate many years of consideration.

    I also understand that it is impossible at this point for me to say anything “right”. Obviously, we aren’t gonna bond and wind up brushing each other’s hair and buying matching BFF necklaces. I’m good with that. But while I’m not going to pretend to know anything about “who you are”, I will say that your style of argument feels more like bullying than an earnest desire to make someone else understand your point of view.

    Endlessly declaring how tiresome it is to repeat yourself is not tantamount to elucidation. If someone does not appear to be smelling what you’re cooking, just saying it again and again may not make it any clearer. It’s like raising your voice when you are trying to speak to someone who doesn’t understand English. (If it makes you feel good, you can reframe that scenario so that I’m the “stoopid” foreigner who doesn’t understand what you’re saying. I have a feeling that would give you a lot of satisfaction so that’s my gift to you.)

    Also, accusing anyone who doesn’t parrot your ideas of having a dong does not mean “you win”. I will concede that “dude” is a state of mind and I may well fit your definition to a T (see what I did there, I said “T” like in testosterone but it’s also a common phrase so it really brings the whole thing full circle). But it doesn’t mean I’m a man. I tend to choose my phrases carefully, so using the action of making “a fucking sandwich” was deliberate. Because the same scientific school of thought that tells us testosterone correlates with action and a “git ‘er done” attitude (which are often euphemisms for aggression) also tells us that estrogen correlates with emotional lability. So you don’t want to give a women too complex a task, like science, because she’s going to get all hysterical and weepy when things get too difficult. She’s way better suited to housework so the stakes aren’t too high when she gets all flustered.

    Furthermore, since estrogen levels in women tend to fluctuate all through the month, it’s pretty much a given that women are going to be all over the map with their feelings all the time (says the traditionally schooled behavioral psychologist). Really, it’s no wonder there are so many “malcontented feminist types” out there- it’s our biological nature to be dissatisfied with men’s behavior no matter what they do.

    Your prisoner scenario is an example of abnormal testosterone levels, at any rate. And it holds true for female prisoners as well as males. So if you’re suggesting that we sharpen our pitchforks and go after anyone with a unibrow, I’ll take it under consideration.

    Finally, testosterone levels in male and female neonates show a fairly wide gap. By about 6 months, they’re nearly identical and remain so until about the age of 9. So the stark behavioral differences you have noted in children before puberty will have to be blamed on some other biological factor. Or even socialization.

    Because we do actually start socializing our children on the day they are born. By the time they can make any sense out of language, they have been labelled “boy” or “girl” countless times. I invite you to read Cordelia Fine’s “Delusions of Gender” for an amusing account of a charming hippy couple who underwent fantastically elaborate measures to raise their children in a “gender neutral” environment. They were ultimately unsuccessful, as they could not isolate their children from the socializing influences of other people.

    And socialization is brilliant, because it does not require constant consideration to make it happen. We all do it. Men and women. All the time. Women shave off their daughters’ clitorises with bits of broken glass in Africa and it’s not because they hate them. And it doesn’t require engineering by a committee of men who meet regularly to discuss how these behaviors should be reinforced. I’m not saying that it doesn’t ultimately “benefit” the men of these communities and that the origins are not the direct product of their distant male ancestors. I’m just saying that it happens on autopilot at this point.

    Regardless, I am honestly not trying to engage in the verbal equivalent of pinwheeling at the bike racks after school with you. But I do plan on continuing to come to this site as long as the author continues to post. And I do plan on commenting when inspiration strikes, as long as I am allowed to do so.

    • Lucas Prassas September 21, 2013 at 10:07 AM #

      obviously i mostly agree, but two nitpick, if you don’t mind; “emotional liability” caused by estrogen sounds very dubious to me, considering that testosterone has a much stronger effect on negative emotions/manifestations thereof, as far as i know (not any kind of expert, though, as i’ve said). I think the majority of stereotypes can be classified as follows: denial of negative traits (men being much more abrasively truculent/predisposed toward hollow, unjustified verbal “bitchiness”, and pretending that such behavior is “feminine”, due to its perceived implication of a insecure fear of “proper” aggression) and exaggeration of positive traits (men having substantially greater muscle mass, and pretending it ultimately gives them more than an unrealistically immoderate/insurmountable physical advantage in most strength-intensive situations.)

      Second, ritual mutilation of the clitoris is obviously a social construct, or every culture probably be much more likely to do similarly, and with similar frequency, but I generally think such cultures are much more ubiquitously and viciously hateful than cultures that don’t regularly sanction these things. Similarly, I’d surmise that the vast majority of, say, males in Muslim theocracies unambivalently hate all women with profound, obsessive intensity, whereas the vast majority of first-world males have a more subtle, partially restrained contempt for them, almost entirely due to socialization.

      • Sugarpuss September 21, 2013 at 12:52 PM #

        Get lost, troll.

        And take your friend Leah with you.

        • Lucas Prassas September 21, 2013 at 2:29 PM #

          oh wow as if telling any troll to “get lost” tells anyone anything other than “Haha, that was a funny post. I want to see more!” You really seem to be quite a bit worse at the deceit aspect of this than anyone else on this site, which wouldn’t be intended to offend, if you weren’t the initial reason I suspect this to be a candidate for MRA site (not a half-bad one, overall, especially if it really is the whole site, which admittedly seems less likely than a significant portion of the comment authors being the only actual MRAtards, what with their vaguely patronizing emulation of the blog’s general stylization, and the fact that regular MRAs seem to moderate everything but inane, assenting hate speech out of their sites very promptly. However, if the stories are true about that demmian guy that runs reddit’s “Feminism” sub being an MRA, I’d say he takes the cake). Honestly, if it wasn’t for the crass, hyperbolic silliness of some of it being so remniscent of textbook MRAs, I’d have guessed this was a sex-positive feminist site trying to discredit sex-negativism, since that would seem more appropriate for the amount of effort and intelligent reasoning that has to have went into most of the assenting posts (even the “crazy” ones; I think some work could be done on this aspect of it, as a person with a legitimate diagnosis that knows many others), but I think at least a few of y’all just have to be straight-up MRAs. If I didn’t do a lot of Web searching, I may have believed in the existence age-old “straw feminist” myth having a real-life version SOMEWHERE on the net, but there’s usually a pretty clear difference between sincere ignorance (like, say, a fundamentalist sermon) and satirical ignorance (like most of you guys, and probably quite a few “official” internet MRAs, though most of these are just exaggerating their real misogyny to be more of a deterrent nuisance when they need to be, IMO, given the inherently idiotic, but nonetheless prevalent nature of bigotry).

        • Nereida Filomena September 23, 2013 at 6:15 AM #

          ^This!

    • CPB September 23, 2013 at 2:15 AM #

      Well, you’re right about one thing; the male trolls posing as ‘feminists’ can be rather hard to spot sometimes (and there are many who frequent this site). Even when a tired, misogynistic brand of humor is parroted ironically in the context of a feminist blog, it’s not a tremendous leap to assume you were a male troll since that shit is dropped here, in all seriousness, so very often. I take a no-holds-barred approach to discussing why I hate men so you’ll have to pardon the abrasiveness. I guess the social conditioning failed. By the way, you blatantly stated you felt I was unclear so I reiterated *and* expounded upon my points. I couldn’t tell if you were being glib or not since you continuously railed against certain things that I had already addressed in great detail as if you had not read (or carelessly dismissed) what I wrote. There’s a big difference between lax reading comprehension and confirmation bias…just putting that out there.

      “The same scientific school of thought that tells us testosterone correlates with action and a “git ‘er done” attitude (which are often euphemisms for aggression) also tells us that estrogen correlates with emotional lability.”

      Actually, *that* scientific school of thought does differentiate between actual physical/verbal abuse and assertiveness/confidence. The general consensus is that assertiveness and confidence are not ‘aggressive’ nor are they considered biologically gendered traits due to lack of evidence. The (biological) studies I referred to, and every argument made thereafter, solely concerned the ramifications of testosterone evoking hostile, abusive behaviors (physical and verbal). These results were gleaned from empirical testing and not just statistics. Hormones indeed have an effect on the brain and, yes, estrogen effects the brain as well (more prone to tears – yes, this is empirically factual). That men choose to *interpret* estrogen’s effect on the brain as ‘inferior’ and then proceed to associate anything they find loathsome with ‘femininity’ is social conditioning. The key difference being that there is no proof estrogen’s effects hamper our ability to lead while there is much evidence to suggest that testosterone is a potential menace to society if left unchecked. In other words, the male and female brain *is* structurally different yet misogynistic interpretations of female behavior have no basis in reality due to lack of empirical evidence. Testosterone and its role in violence and aggression, on the other hand, is absolutely rooted in scientific fact. By the way, you are the one who is invoking “traditional behavioral psychology” (Freud, among others, has been discredited and proven wrong by actual science, just FYI) in a desperate attempt to purposefully misconstrue my points. Cut that shit out and I might be able to take you seriously.

      “Your prisoner scenario is an example of abnormal testosterone levels, at any rate. And it holds true for female prisoners as well as males. So if you’re suggesting that we sharpen our pitchforks and go after anyone with a unibrow, I’ll take it under consideration.”

      Quit being glib. Violent criminals have higher rates of testosterone compared with the general population and the rest of the non-violent criminal population. The point being that the ills of testosterone rear their ugly head when they make an abnormally high appearance in women as well, even when those women had been subjected to a lifetime of the exact same socialization process. In this instance biology beat socialization. My actual “suggestion” is this: “What if” (your favorite phrase) women in the general population had T levels comparable to those violent female criminals (or men in general)? Would the amount of women committing violent crimes rise to a rate comparable to men? Coupled with the corroborating evidence gleaned from additional studies, my hypothesis would be “Yes, indeed”.

      “Finally, testosterone levels in male and female neonates show a fairly wide gap. By about 6 months, they’re nearly identical and remain so until about the age of 9. So the stark behavioral differences you have noted in children before puberty will have to be blamed on some other biological factor. Or even socialization.”

      Testosterone shapes the anatomical structures of the brain in-utero; puberty is not required for these permanent and irreversible changes to occur. These stark differences in subcortical structures are even visible in an ultrasound. We know (empirically via MRI mapping) that the amygdala (primitive seat of emotion; larger in males), various parts of the cerebral cortex (language, communication, ‘higher thinking’; too many differences to list), and that more connections between hemispheres (corpus callosum) occur in women. Gendered behavior congruent with the functions of the aforementioned structures can be observed as early as two to three and, in some instances, even infancy: female infants talk sooner and more often, and that male infants/toddlers display more verbal/physical aggression (rooted in amygdala) whereas girls display more relational aggression (damage relationships/self-esteem/status; rooted in communication). On the other hand, exactly when, how, and to what extent social conditioning has the ability to affect behavior is entirely reliant upon interpretation by researchers. For instance, if biology always takes a backseat to social conditioning then why does homosexual behavior exist? Surely the world’s population should be 100% heterosexual given the fervent myths about the ills/dangers of homosexuality and yet here it is: observable in animals, cross-culturally in humans, and even the brain differs structurally between straight/gay individuals of the same gender.

      Nevertheless, my arguments have never been steeped in black or white thinking and *both* biology and social conditioning work in tandem to create the monstrous male behavior women have been forced to contend with the world over. Your insistence that testosterone and associated biology has little/nothing to do with the current (disproportionately male) violent sociopolitical climate is my dilemma. When feminists ignore that there are marked differences in biology proven to effect cognition and behavior in multiple ways we end up looking more than a bit silly.

      “Socialization is brilliant, because it does not require constant consideration to make it happen.”

      Finally, for the record, misogynistic socialization is intoned by both women and men because men insist on *consciously* perpetuating their rhetoric. Socialization is never a passive process at any stage and, like a flame, needs constant fuel (or consideration about whether these myths should be perpetuated) to survive. If men suddenly ceased spreading myths about their superiority and our inferiority, then (predictably) gendered social conditioning would not retain its power over public perception to such a sizable degree. Unfortunately, preachers, politicians, academics, military officials, teachers, authors, screenwriters, etc. make a choice to actively oppress women rather than actively debunk/refute these superiority myths which would imply that their privilege is not some god-given right or deserved in any way. I believe, deep down, men know this is true and to stave off that insecurity they consciously, fervently, continue to perpetuate the illusion.

  19. Sugarpuss September 21, 2013 at 2:20 PM #

    Chaz Dean makes me want to puke. Yup, he’s back on QVC, hocking his wildly over-priced shampoos & little vials of witchdoctor hair serum. Another fine example of maleness. Lolz. Profiting off the insecurities of women. I hope that muppet-faced dickbag slips on a loofah sponge in the shower.

  20. Sugarpuss September 24, 2013 at 12:08 AM #

    I hate men with foot fetishes. That has to be the most ridiculous thing ever. It’s so creepy how men expect women to be perfect, right down to their fucking toes! Feet are designed for transportation, not the object of some pervert’s abnormal wank fantasies. I also find this particular obsession to be highly classist; only a rich woman has “pretty” feet. Who else has the time and/or money to sit around rubbing lotion into their feet all day & getting pedicures? I have never heard of any woman obsessing over a guy’s feet…yet men LIE and claim they are as much victims of unreasonable beauty standards as women are! HA!

    Take a good, long look at those in power. All men. All nerds. And all UGLY. Certainly not the oppressed class they try to make themselves out to be. Quite the opposite.

  21. Malavi Sengupta September 24, 2013 at 4:02 AM #

    I agree completely, except for 2 points:
    1. Evolutionary Psychology is not a pseudoscience. Some of the research in that field is flawed because of confirmation bias, etc. (That’s where the “women are evolutionary primed for monogamy while men like to spread the stuff around” bs came from) but if done right, you can learn a lot.
    2. Gender is not purely a social construct, there is a biological aspect in it. It is not a binary, and it is certainly more complicated than XX –> woman, XY –> man.

    • Nine Deuce September 24, 2013 at 4:17 AM #

      So, you disagree completely.

      • Lucas Prassas September 24, 2013 at 8:07 AM #

        You’ll delete this, I’m sure, but the frequency of “normal”-looking users popping up (full names and all) is also looking a bit suspicious, after you start to look into it, even if said suspicion doesn’t come from one with my (blatantly exaggerated, but diagnostically appropriate) tendency toward paranoia. I respect the level of art that went into this, if it is as fake/satire, (based on the less dramatized reasons I mentioned, like response rates, consistency/abrupt discrepancies thereof, writing levels, and verbal stylization) of sex negativism (or of MRAs mocking it; never thought about that, but I’d be much more comfortable with that, despite it having a similar probable effect on average readers, IMO), as most known/suspected serious MRA fakes (like demmian, as I mentioned) are hardly so entertaining. I get the impression the entertainment value IS worth it for you, though, else I’m sure you’d go the more seamless, politically correct route. Still, the most confusingly convoluted back-and-forth tends to be the best part, IMO, so maybe switch it up again for more rad conspiracy types?

        • Justin September 24, 2013 at 4:13 PM #

          My understanding of the Confirmation Bias is that it occurs when the scientist finds that the conclusions meet his or her expectation, the scientist declares causation, when perhaps the correlation was not actually the cause.

          Confirmation Bias, as an attack against any scientific study, would thus be an inapplicable form of criticism when the critic is really trying to say that the conclusion of the study was wrong altogether (eg, to say that the scientist made an error when they declared that testosterone indeed affects aggression and personality).

          It is one thing to say that the chap who conducted the study made an error in his conclusive findings; it is quite another to say that the results produced the correct conclusion, but that the reason for the conclusions was distorted by Confirmation Bias.

          Thus, criticizing the scientist with the accusation of Confirmation Bias when they concluded that males are inherently different, is an baseless criticism. What you are really trying to say is that the overall conclusions of the study were wrong, which is not Confirmation Bias.

          • Lucas Prassas September 24, 2013 at 5:26 PM #

            not too hard to beat this one, dude/not dude/fake person, sorry. i never said i was doing science, and i did say there is no proof to be had here, which clearly contradicts science’s requirements, and confirmation bias’s applicability as a remote concern. i know i won’t win here, anyway, but thank yall for being considerate about further explicating your intentions to ME, by bringing this account back, out of nowhere, and switching it’s side. pretty deft. also, i don’t mind you cherry-picking my posts to be kept; i don’t think this site is big enough to be the big issue i made of it, even though assuming disingenuous play of some kind is sound enough to conclude, based on apparent verbal patterns alone.

            • Lucas Prassas September 24, 2013 at 5:33 PM #

              “not a remote concern” is an exaggeration; nothing posted thus far is even sourced, so no substantively unbiased science is necessarily present at all, but the resulting, far from refutably biased accusation of bias (on my part) tends to eliminate the potential for any bias as a standalone refutation to either argument.

  22. Joseph September 24, 2013 at 4:18 PM #

    Certainly an eye-opening read. As a male, I have lived every day of my life for as long as I can remember with male stereotypes and society’s “expectations” of males being slammed into my head and it seemed to be rubbing off on others as well. To be a “real man”, one has to hide his emotions, be a disgusting raging misogynist, and give in to unnecessary norms and any one who doesn’t is a “fa**ot” or a “wuss”. Being around other males who have unfortunately fallen victim to this idea of “masculinity” or “male superiority” has ruined my life and is responsible for most of my depressive symptoms for the past many years.

    Until we can learn to do something about the male attitude, and start treating women with respect (as us men would like to be treated), society will continue on its downward spiral. Thank you for writing this blog; I no longer feel alone concerning my opinions on other males.

    • Sugarpuss September 24, 2013 at 7:13 PM #

      Boo-hoo.

      You don’t know what it means to have a “ruined life” till you’ve lived in this shithole world as a female, so please stop whining. Selfish prick.

      • Joseph September 24, 2013 at 8:06 PM #

        I personally do not see how such a comment I made warrants such a reaction, but of course, I am not one to judge another’s initial response as I don’t know what’s going through anyone else’s mind. I’m not whining, I am speaking my mind and supporting this blog and its general idea. I want to be supportive and to help people, but it seems as though that’s out of the question here. I am young, after all. I don’t know much but I really do try.

        I’m really sorry if my comment offended you, which clearly it did. I will stay out of this discussion now as I don’t want to trigger anything further.

        • theoreticalgrrrl September 25, 2013 at 12:07 AM #

          Joseph, there’s a lot you can do to help change society. Challenge the men you come across with these toxic attitudes. Be a good example for younger men. Coming to a feminist space and saying you feel bad is not enough, and to many women who are survivors of domestic violence and sexual abuse, it’s can be seen as “poor me” and putting the attention back on men. You have the ability to reach men that we don’t, because men generally don’t think a woman’s opinion is worth much.

        • Justin September 25, 2013 at 12:49 AM #

          Joseph, stay with us! Your comments, ideas and intellect should be expanded – not cut down.

          My first impression of you is that you seem to be a kind and thoughtful person. I for one would never discourage such a person from expressing themselves.

          Your thoughts are more valuable than you realize.

          Carry on.

          • Sugarpuss September 27, 2013 at 6:39 PM #

            Fuck off, Justin.

            92, have fun with your new male friends. I’m outta here.

            • Nereida Filomena September 29, 2013 at 12:44 PM #

              Hey Sugarpuss msg me on facebook my name is Nereida Filomena

  23. gracemargaret September 24, 2013 at 11:54 PM #

    Testosterone does not “cause” violent behavior http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208132241.htm

    Testosterone causes more lean muscle mass. More lean muscle mass means generally being able to successfully beat up people with less lean muscle mass.
    Also, suppressing emotions can cause a build up of anger and leads to violent outbursts. MANY men think it’s unmanly to express any feelings other than anger. It’s not that hard to see the outcome of this.
    You’re not a victim of your biology, if you are violent, take fucking responsibility for it and stop making excuses.

    Men don’t even have to try to analyze their behavior because we live in a male supremacist world where everything men feel and do is natural and the norm (and where male scientists use their biased views to confirm their belief in female “inferiority” ALL THE TIME). Even narcissistic and sociopathic behavior in men, when directed towards women at least, is considered guys just being guys, even the definition of a Real Man. But women’s natural, healthy rebellion against oppression and abuse is constantly pathologized, labelled as “crazy” and hysterical, even fascistic (“feminazI” anyone?).

    • CPB September 27, 2013 at 8:30 AM #

      Amazing how they confined that study to non-violent, innocuous communication in a desperate bid to convince the public that “the sexual hormone with the poor reputation” is not reprehensible.

      “A study at the Universities of Zurich and Royal Holloway London with more than 120 experimental subjects has shown that the sexual hormone with the poor reputation can encourage fair behaviors IF this serves to ensure one’s own status.”

      …and only ‘if’. How well do controlled environments reflect reality, anyway?

      “The study clearly demonstrates the influence of both social as well as biological factors on human behavior.”

      Exactly what I’ve been saying all along anyway, although it’s interesting that they totally ignore the biological aspect of their conclusion. Can’t imagine why! Carry on.

      PS Just .5mg in a single trial? The average body builder has something usually off the charts whereas the mildest cycle I’ve come across on forums in somewhere in the neighborhood of 1-1.5g/week for several months at a time. Call some of those guys in a few weeks time and see if they behave/converse exactly the same.

      • Lucas Prassas September 27, 2013 at 9:47 AM #

        Can you link to the full source for this, please? I always thought the study/related studies cited in gracemargaret’s post sounded like an unnecessarily polarized abuse of the fact that “correlation does not imply causation”, even though I disagree with most of what you say about biology (especially about verbal aggression and physical aggression typically being anything resembling a dichotomy, as well), but I see no reason to let my bias get in the way of having a better argument against something that I feel serves little to no purpose for anything other than apologizing for groups of people that I only comprise one constituent of, and perfunctorily hate even more than I perfunctorily hate the rest of humanity (with very limited individual exceptions).

  24. Rididill September 25, 2013 at 2:05 PM #

    Lucas I was going to reply to your comment but then it disappeared, so I guess ‘the author’ (aka Nine Deuce, u can always call her that u know) probably echoes my sentiments. In the beginning it was actually quite hilarious but now your nonsensical paranoid gibbering is getting LONG.

    • Justin September 25, 2013 at 3:13 PM #

      Suppressing emotions is unhealthy, that’s true. My position is that men must take responsibility for their actions despite biological differences.

      Men are expected to be strong and tough, and not show negative emotions. Indeed, they may choose to take out their emotions in the form of violence, and that’s obviously harmful.

      I applaud people when they criticize the negative aspects of masculinity as harmful; we need more of such criticism. But it is unhealthy to say that ALL men are all evil. That is not a statement that rational minded citizens will take seriously.

      Don’t forget that male strength is generally celebrated as positive in our society. You want a strong man to save you from a burning building, hostage situation or rescue you from a flood channel by helicopter. Positive male strength is considered a premium by mainstream society.

      My point is that it is good to criticize male violence, misogyny and their obsession with sports. Men should learn to take out emotions in constructive ways… However, I cannot accept demonizing ALL aspects of male toughness since we all benefit from it. You want men to be tough on the battlefield to protect your country. What would happen if the men at Normandy weren’t tough enough to fight the Nazis and liberate Europe?

      Male strength, when directed in positive channels is beneficial to society.

      • Justin September 25, 2013 at 3:22 PM #

        To clarify,

        Hating the negative aspects of masculinity is fine. But literally hating all men without knowing them personally is unjust.

        A hatred of literally all blacks or all Jews would be indefensible. When it comes to gender, we must follow suit with the same ethical standards of judging other people.

        Here’s the difference:

        As a practical matter, hating men may be more rational than hating women. But as an abstract concept, hating all men and hating all women are morally equal in their wrongness.

        • Nine Deuce September 25, 2013 at 3:23 PM #

          Incorrect.

          • Justin September 25, 2013 at 3:24 PM #

            Which post were you referring, the one at 3:13 or 3:22 ?

            • Nine Deuce September 25, 2013 at 3:30 PM #

              The one positing the moral equivalence of hating all men and hating all men.

        • Lucas Prassas September 25, 2013 at 3:30 PM #

          yeah, this is actual a pretty terrible one for you, man. “Morally equal”? Let’s not push it. It’s not NICE to hate anyone, but who even hates all men, anyway? S/he even put some substantial apologetics in this one, saying ALMOST all and contradicting the biological essential parts in places. Annd why would hating all blacks or Jews not be indefensible? or even specifying the race of a person you hate for no reason? I didn’t say it, before, but you ARE one of the more suspicious-looking ones, when you get lazy. No offense, though, because I think I’d rather be a hated suspect of many horrible things than actually be them.

          • Lucas Prassas September 25, 2013 at 3:37 PM #

            Clarification: the sheer rarity/possible non-existence of actual “man-hating”, besides the more flagrantly MRA-patented kind is a HUGE reason for my initial/still somewhat persistent suspicions, epsciley whn not wrded liek thszomg.

      • Rididill September 26, 2013 at 8:00 AM #

        What would have happened if the men in Nazi Germany weren’t tough enough to kill the Jews and start a world war?

        • Lucas Prassas September 27, 2013 at 9:58 AM #

          Are you suggesting that women (collectively) aren’t TOUGH enough to start wars!? Why not just go with the vast majority of women not being completely incorrigible shit (compared to the vast majority of men, and generally a lot closer to being factual, IMO)? If you think training isn’t what 95% of what seperates a fighter from a huge asshole that thinks he/she is immune to having his/her skull shattered on the ground before he or she finished his or her first motherfucking taunt, please stop watching so much TV. Enough muscle mass is a pretty huge advantage, but only if it doesn’t slow you down (in which case it’s a disadvantage, a la most UFC heavyweights that aren’t tall and skinny as fuck).

          • Lucas Prassas September 27, 2013 at 10:04 AM #

            also, maybe the fact that men are much, much less likely to get raped to death (until the end of the war, at which point the killing part would be postponed indefinitely, I’m sure) by the masses, if they happen to be part of an army or culture that loses a war, is a factor??

          • Lucas Prassas September 27, 2013 at 10:11 AM #

            BTW, I specified collectively, because if you don’t think that there are individual women out there capable of topping pretty much any competitive ranking out there EXCEPT UFC (and equivalents), then you’re a lost cause.

          • Rididill September 27, 2013 at 10:18 AM #

            In reply to the Nazi Germany thing.

            Way to miss the point. I was responding to Justin’s assertion that because men defended us from the Nazis then masculinity is a-ok sometimes and something to be celebrated.

            Unfortunately i can’t remember the quote exactly or who said it but my point is this:

            who says we need men to protect us? without men, what would we need protection from?

            It’s a protection racket, is what it is.

            • Lucas Prassas September 27, 2013 at 2:52 PM #

              ok yeah nvm i see that now. still, that’s not necessarily a terribly unpopular type of assertion coming from people claiming to be feminists (typically armchair philosophers that consider themselves above application, like Justin, but not always), and the alignment of comments on this blog seem random (?), so I didn’t even know that was a reply to Justin, and didn’t scroll up further to check. Not that I would’ve been able to tell for sure anyway, but fuck this pretentious debate. I hope he doesn’t come back with another fucking. nevermind

              • Rididill September 27, 2013 at 3:27 PM #

                yeah I tried to reply to his post but for some reason it came up at the bottom not sure what happened there.

                Among radfems it is not a popular assertion. This is a radfem site.

                • Lucas Prassas September 27, 2013 at 3:56 PM #

                  yeah, i know, that’s why it surprised me; not that i fault, say, female kindasorta activists with no academic backgrounds in feminism or other sociological theories for perpetuating this, since at least they’re trying, and it’s not like almost all of society isn’t trying to prevent them from figuring that out.

                  • Lucas Prassas September 27, 2013 at 4:02 PM #

                    not male because they don’t have to deal with the consequences of being wrong about it, whether or not they think they’re feminists. i don’t a fuck what gender you are, i still almost certainly hate you. also academic background because the general populace needs it pretty fucking bad if they think I’M some kinda fuckin genius, equally regardless of how hardcore feminist/poorer choice of activist type/sane/sober they think they are.

              • Rididill September 27, 2013 at 3:29 PM #

                sorry if I am commenting twice again it keeps going funny. I tried to reply directly with that Nazi comment but for some reason it came up at the bottom.

                It is not a common assertion among radfems. This is a radfem site.

                Yeah the conversation has become pretty derailed, which obviously I have played a big part in. Sorry ND.

      • Horses Not Zebras October 30, 2013 at 12:28 AM #

        @Justin: No, I don’t want a man to save me from a hostage situation or be tough on the battlefield to protect my country. I want men to stop taking hostages and stop attacking other people’s countries in the first place. But they’re never going to stop. Know why? ‘Cause they’re men, and that’s what men do. (And, btw, women can pull other women from burning buildings and fly helicopters, too.)

    • Lucas Prassas September 25, 2013 at 3:23 PM #

      OH HELL I thought I could only see those because they were cached, and I never clear my history (or anything like it). LOL. for real, though, I know I’m even more dramatic than everyone else, but a large portion of the content on this site IS pretty suspicious/MRA-ish (even though I know I botched my arguments for that pretty hard) besides Nine Deuce’s, generally CPB’s, and some of the less trolly moderates/indirect dissenters. Also, unless you know any of the people on here, it’s not like ANY of it couldn’t technically be faked (for whatever reason). The demmian fiasco on Reddit was a real thing, and it was almost seamless, IMO, until close to the end. Proof ain’t gonna happen, but MRA behavior is practically defined by elaborate deceit, and it’s usually either utterly pathetic or unrecognizably innocuous-looking, which I think is ultimately one of the best arguments for this site NOT being a sham. thanks for the heads up, though; I thought most blogs required pre-approved access, so I tried to see how crazy I could get with my posts numerous times. lololol

      • Justin September 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM #

        What I’m saying is that as a de facto matter, it is understandable why people don’t like the male gender. Men have caused most of the harms in the world, and to dislike them for it is something that is at least rooted in facts and figures.

        But as an abstract concept, hating all men and hating all women are the same. That is because the blanket hatred of all members of a group is objectively wrong. Otherwise, why would racists be any different than a hatred of all males? The difference is not there.

        One cannot simply say “but men have caused so much damage, therefore hating all members of a group is acceptable.” The issue is not whether men have generally been harmful (they certainly do cause most violence and war). The issue is whether a Nazi’s hatred of all blacks and Jews is morally equal to hating all men.

        Using a right wing/left wing paradigm clarifier will not suffice. The left right issue is not a justification for hating all members of a group.

        Nine Deuce, you know where I have always stood. I know that men as a gender need reform. I just don’t believe in true and literal hatred of all members of a group.

        Why, in your opinion, do you disagree with my statement regarding the difference between practical vs abstract moral nature of hating entire groups?

        • Lucas Prassas September 25, 2013 at 4:05 PM #

          So you’re REALLY trying to seperate the “abstract” elements of hatred from its inherently socialized, omnifaceted, psychological causes and effects? Hating anyone is very hard to justify with rational argument, but we’re not debating the internal implications of hatred, since internal anything can’t do harm to anyone but the person harboring it, without some kind of outlet. In the case of bigotry, a white man’s outlet is most of society, whereas any woman’s “bigoted”, semantic equivalent is basically the thirty people on earth (yeah, I went there; most women don’t accept socially unsupported hatred; be real) that don’t mutter “pfft, silly cunt, trying to act equal and be superior at the same time” when a woman says she HATES all/almost all men, period (even though there isn’t necessarily even an attempt to present it as anything other than a factually unsupported sentiment). No matter how much seething, violent intent you choose to extrapolate, the very notion that men are getting randomly attacked, battered, raped, tortured, etc. because some KRRRRAAAZY biotches are going around doing this to them indiscriminately, or that the results of the most debaucherous misandry you can make up are remotely morally comparable to those of misogyny is quite frankly MRA-talk, and nothing more.

          • Lucas Prassas September 25, 2013 at 4:15 PM #

            Fuck it, a MAN’s outlet is all of society but lighter-skinned men. Whatever; I really hope you’re next argument isn’t as annoying.

        • isme September 25, 2013 at 8:21 PM #

          As an abstract, totally devoid of any question? What does it matter then?

          In anything like the real world, you cannot compare hatred of a minority by those in power to the hared of those in power by a minority.

          Unless you mean to say that the Nazi German hatred of “lesser” peoples is the same as those people’s hatred of those who fit the Aryan ideal. Amongst other things, the latter is a response to the former.

          • Justin September 25, 2013 at 8:56 PM #

            > “In anything like the real world, you cannot compare hatred of a minority by those in power to the hared of those in power by a minority.”

            If you’re talking about the level of harm that is inflicted by one group upon the other, you’re spot on.

            However, as an issue of right and wrong, hatred of an entire group is wrong, regardless of whether they are a minority or in power.

            The actual harm that a minority suffers by a majority oppressor is certainly more conspicuous, palpable, and much broader in scope. Everybody knows that, and that was not my point.

            If you’re trying to say that men hurt women more than women hurt men, we’re not on the same page, since that is a fact which I have never denied.

            Hatred of an entire class is morally wrong and must be distinguished from levying criticism against a group of bad-doers who are worthy of criticism or reprimand.

            A minority hating a majority for specific harms is perhaps more understandable than a majority hating a minority, but hatred of an entire group is antithetical to our society’s values.

            The wrongfullness of the complete hatred of an entire group is not measured by the size of the group targeted by the hater. That would be the fallacy of confusing statistics about a targeted group (eg, men cause more violence) with the general principle to avoid broadform hatred (eg, the principle that one should never hate everybody in a group).

            In conclusion, hating all members of either gender is morally repugnant and morally equal.

            • Lucas Prassas September 25, 2013 at 9:22 PM #

              A moral opposition to the a hypothetical, amorphous concept of hatred is just as irrational as such hatred itself, IMO. Morality, without an applied context is, at best, a preponderant social pattern. Furthermore, equating it to actual suffering is dangerously close to the kind of obfuscation that people much more devious than MRAs thrive on.

              • Justin September 25, 2013 at 9:44 PM #

                > “Morality, without an applied context is, at best, a preponderant social pattern.””

                I certainly don’t agree with that. Morality is objective, not subjective.

                If morality were based upon popularity, we’d be committing the fallacy of appeal to popularity.

                • Lucas Prassas September 26, 2013 at 7:36 AM #

                  Objective morality has never existed without some kind of established context, even though it technically could, IMO. Utilitarian-style morality (the only kind that ultimately matters, though it is typically portrayed as antithetical to relative types of morality, which it almost never actually turns out to be, due to most sources of suffering being interrelated, admittedly) would probably still be touted exclusively by religion, had scientific inquiry failed to identify the objective reality of the relationship between belief and manifest adversity via observation of real events. Not that your attempt to define morality based on purely abstract implications was wrong, or what I mainly took issue with, but I am very disinclined to believe that such philosophies would have necessarily even come into existence, as an explanation non-barbarians seem to be comfortable with, had it not been for applied analyses of the detriments of conventionally accepted “good”.

                  • Lucas Prassas September 26, 2013 at 7:42 AM #

                    Also, even having a factually corroborated type of autonomous morality (which we don’t) still wouldn’t mean we should be the comparing its worst applications to its nebulous essence, because that’s still (EXTREMELY grating) politician-esque pretense.

                    • Justin September 26, 2013 at 1:28 PM #

                      Morality is objective. If it were subjective, it would be based upon popularity or personal opinion. For instance, whether a piece of art is beautiful is a subjective opinion. Whether it’s a particular color is objective.

                      The great danger that the political left takes when it declares morality to be subjective is that it is a self-destructive position.

                      If morality is subjective, than rape and domestic violence are morally acceptable if a majority of people in a particular culture believe it to be so. Subjectivism taken to the extreme could even insinuate that if one particular person believes such acts are defensible, than it is right FOR that particular person (morally).

                      I believe it hurts feminism to even hint that morality is subjectively based. Morality cannot be merely what one person thinks, otherwise how would you suppose to declare rape to be wrong? Remember, you can’t just say “I believe that it’s harmful.” Some men think it’s a man’s “right” to do what he wants to women. Is his subjective opinion on ethics equal to your opinion on that matter? If not, than why? Is it an indeed an objective question of ethics instead of subjective? Certainly.

                      Some say “it is wrong to tell others what is right and wrong.” Do you see the self-defeating contradiction in that statement?

                      My point is that feminism should not take that route when it comes to answering the question of how one arrives at determining what is truly right and wrong. It is a logical contradiction.

            • gracemargaret September 26, 2013 at 5:55 AM #

              “hating all members of either gender is morally repugnant and morally equal.”

              Being angry is not the same as hating. All I see here is women who are fed up and angry over the fact that we have to *constantly* fight and fight and fight and beat our heads against the wall in hopes that men will somehow understand that we are human beings. It’s exhausting and after a while you do start to wonder if there might be something seriously wrong with men, because they can’t seem to feel even the most basic form of human empathy for women.

              We have to fight for something so basic that you, as a man, never even have to think about.

            • Horses Not Zebras October 30, 2013 at 12:37 AM #

              @Justin: Hahaha! “Hatred of an entire group is antithetical to our society’s values.”

              Our society? You mean the society of men. Society IS men.

        • Horses Not Zebras October 30, 2013 at 12:33 AM #

          @Justin: Do you “hate” Neo-Nazis and white supremacist types? No? Because you think it would be wrong to hate, so you don’t hate anyone, right? Ok. But I’ll bet you can at least say that you want Neo-Nazis and white supremacists to stay far away from you, right?

          Well, I don’t “hate” men. I just want them to stay far away from me and all women.

      • Rididill September 26, 2013 at 8:05 AM #

        “I thought most blogs required pre-approved access”

        are you new to the internet by any chance?

        • Rididill September 26, 2013 at 8:11 AM #

          “Morality is objective, not subjective.”

          hahahahha no. Morality is about the most subjective thing there is, what are you on? And popularity? Weren’t you the one who was JUST going on about ‘our society’s values’ when talking about why hatred of an entire class was wrong, rather than giving any actual argument? Who the fuck cares about ‘our (patriarchal) society’?

          “A moral opposition to the a hypothetical, amorphous concept of hatred is just as irrational as such hatred itself, IMO”

          Most sensible thing you’ve said here Lucas.

          • Rididill September 26, 2013 at 3:10 PM #

            Well, my last comments came thru a little slowly so now there is more to answer to.

            Justin, you seem to be confusing universality with objectivity.

            Anything defined by humans is by definition subjective. Morality is a human construct. It cannot be objective.

            You also seem to be confusing subjective with relativist also.

            These are not the same thing. One can argue for a universal morality based on certain principles, but this is not objectivity. The objective world is a world that exists outside of human interpretation. If morality is objective, where does it come from? The rocks, the grass, the sky? God?

            • Lucas Prassas September 26, 2013 at 3:51 PM #

              I’d say morality probably CAN, and definitely should be held to a humanly attainable standard of approximate objectivity; however, even the epitome of established (relevant) science has yet to create an internally unequivocal OR universally applicable definition for it, especially in the abstract, so Justin’s carefully articulated neglect to address the necessity of external consistency in legitimately contesting this.

              • Lucas Prassas September 26, 2013 at 3:52 PM #

                **…this speaks for itself.

        • Lucas Prassas September 26, 2013 at 3:39 PM #

          sadly, no. I’ve always struggled with retaining remotely technical information.

          • Justin September 26, 2013 at 4:19 PM #

            My position is that subjective morality is relativism. They are really the same thing. If not, how are they different in your opinion?

            As for the source of morality, again it can’t be mere opinion. That would lead us down the dangerous path of justifying virtually any act.

            > “The objective world is a world that exists outside of human interpretation.”

            I mostly agree with that statement. But I would say that humans can discover objective truth about the universe by using the scientific method. Logic and the gift of human reason allow us to arrive at certain conclusions that cannot be refuted by rational minds. For instance, that oil floats on water, or that the earth revolves around the sun.

            That is to say, objective conclusions may be determined accurately by using observation, control groups, re-testing, considering all possible alternative explanations, and of course keeping the scientist’s mind open if greater evidence later emerges that disproves the original theory.

            If a person walks in and says ‘morality is relative or subjective,’ I would play the Devil’s advocate and argue that rape, and murder are morally acceptable -because, gee, morals are relative and subjective to individual interpretation and some people don’t think its wrong to do those acts. At which point, the relativist would be left in the uncomfortable position of trying to explain why morals are still nothing more than mere subjective opinions that ethics have no higher source, but that somehow their view of ethics is correct, thus contradicting their very thesis.

            I believe that normal humans are born with an inherent understanding of right and wrong, at least in a basic sense. Children know that it is wrong to steal. One could argue that the idea that stealing is wrong is merely ‘cultural programming.’ I would take issue with such a theory because the human rational mind can make basic moral conclusions by our nature, except where the brain has been damaged or did not develop properly (eg, mental illness).

            If we cannot make objective conclusions, than how can we diagnose mental illness? Who is to say what is normal? The psychopath would be in a morally equal position to diagnose the rest of the world as insane, and himself as normal. Again, we have natural tools at our disposal – like human reason.

            We can abstractly declare that objective truths exist outside of human interpretation, but as a practical matter, we humans certainly have the ability to determine truth by observation and human reason.

            • Lucas Prassas September 26, 2013 at 4:48 PM #

              You’re the one trying to turn subjectivity and objectivity into a dichotomy, not me. Many beliefs are influenced to some degree by observations that tend to be interpersonally consistent, and vice versa. That alone doesn’t confirm the scientific validity of those beliefs.

              • Lucas Prassas September 26, 2013 at 4:49 PM #

                Nor does it attest to the complete independence of thought from reason, I should add.

                • Rididill September 27, 2013 at 10:10 AM #

                  “As for the source of morality, again it can’t be mere opinion. That would lead us down the dangerous path of justifying virtually any act.”

                  Where something would lead us has very little to do with whether it is true or not. If this is the basis by which you judge facts, I understand why you are confused by the concept of objectivity as you basically decide what is true according to the moral conclusions you would like to draw. That is what you are saying here – that morality must be objective because the alternative would be too morally abhorrent to you. Which is of course, ridiculously subjective.

                  One can say that morality is subjective without agreeing that one’s personal morality has to accept other moralities. Relativism implies you have to respect it when someone has a different opinion than you. I don’t think saying morality is subjective means you have to respect someone else’s morality, particularly when it includes rape and murder.

                  It is simply not possible for morality to come from anything other than humans.

                  children know it is wrong to steal? That is ridiculously untrue. And what about societies that don’t have private property?

                  “If we cannot make objective conclusions, than how can we diagnose mental illness?”

                  We can’t. Duh.

                  If the human brain is so good at naturally being moral, then why does the world look as it does? This is clearly bullshit.

                  Besides, I don’t see what ‘human reason’ has to do with objectivity. With empiricism we can get closer to objectivity. Science is about empiricism more than it is about reason, though of course they are linked. But pure reason has nothing to do with science.

                  Lucas can you give an example of a scientific methodology that would get us closer to an objective morality?

  25. Rididill September 27, 2013 at 10:11 AM #

    “As for the source of morality, again it can’t be mere opinion. That would lead us down the dangerous path of justifying virtually any act.”

    Where something would lead us has very little to do with whether it is true or not. If this is the basis by which you judge facts, I understand why you are confused by the concept of objectivity as you basically decide what is true according to the moral conclusions you would like to draw. That is what you are saying here – that morality must be objective because the alternative would be too morally abhorrent to you. Which is of course, ridiculously subjective.

    One can say that morality is subjective without agreeing that one’s personal morality has to accept other moralities. Relativism implies you have to respect it when someone has a different opinion than you. I don’t think saying morality is subjective means you have to respect someone else’s morality, particularly when it includes rape and murder.

    It is simply not possible for morality to come from anything other than humans.

    children know it is wrong to steal? That is ridiculously untrue. And what about societies that don’t have private property?

    “If we cannot make objective conclusions, than how can we diagnose mental illness?”

    We can’t. Duh.

    If the human brain is so good at naturally being moral, then why does the world look as it does? This is clearly bullshit.

    Besides, I don’t see what ‘human reason’ has to do with objectivity. With empiricism we can get closer to objectivity. Science is about empiricism more than it is about reason, though of course they are linked. But pure reason has nothing to do with science.

    Lucas can you give an example of a scientific methodology that would get us closer to an objective morality?

    • Justin September 27, 2013 at 3:39 PM #

      A person who believes that morals are subjective or relative, will likely believe that their version of ethics is correct.

      I have never met a person who believes that morality is subjective and believes that their own moral views are incorrect.

      In any event, it seems that what relativists/subjectivists are saying about morality is this: “Morality is subjective/relative to our culture, but it’s just plain wrong to rape and kill. That’s crossing the line”
      – What such a statement is really saying is that there is a line to be drawn (murder is wrong since “everyone agrees.”) And that prior to arriving at that line, all else is open to opinion, in which nobody’s opinion is more valid than the next.

      The problem is how does one draw such a line? Who is to say that the “line” should be drawn at rape? Maybe the line should be drawn where one rapes more than 10 people. Or perhaps the “line” should be drawn at 500 people.

      If morality is subjective/relative, you can’t draw such a line ANYWHERE.

      Morals are either objective or they are not.

      What I am opposed to is when people indicate that morality is nothing more than society’s opinions, and then turn around and say: “domestic violence is wrong!” But not everyone in society believes that. Not all societies ban it.

      Here’s my question to you: Regarding the domestic violence debate (whether it’s right or wrong to beat one’s wife) Which side is right?

      You? …. Why exactly?

    • Lucas Prassas September 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM #

      ugh ok i should really quit now, but goddammit this is like a fucking addiction. also, i have no real education, but I guess trying to experimentally prove a reductionist concept of a universal/near-universal detriment (not necessarily predisposed) to the quantitative definitions of living standards (and yes, with demographical considerations, because I’m fucking sorry, but all of the whites/men in a country yielding statistically favorable results does not mean the rest of the population would even look like an acceptably stereotypical first-world nation, on paper, with them removed from the equation) would be a considerable improvement on this particular issue, because he, a cut above the typical pseudo-moralistic, academic, “authority” attempted to almost directly justify initiative violence (the least equivocal component of an ecumenically undesirable principle/”morality”/whatever), by placing it on the same level as… literally nothing, and saying that the meaningless concept he equated it to was bad (as if that concept was the problem, and not all the one-sided suffering it causes); since the prevailing pedagogical interpretations would probably classify HIM as a “fringe misandrist” (using pretentious corporate euphemisms, of course), I think that’s about as close to objectivity as it’s reasonable to expect, at least until the current, de facto world government/sociopolitical paradigm is COMPLETELY eradicated (which it hasn’t been since, like, the dawn of humanity), and a funded alternative has an actual chance of happening. argh fuck i told you i can’t do it i’m a moron at science ytf do i keep trying so hard!!??

      • Lucas Prassas September 27, 2013 at 3:45 PM #

        **:… standards WE CURRENTLY USE.

        • Lucas Prassas September 27, 2013 at 3:47 PM #

          also correlatively, not experimentally, since that would be secondary analysis, AFAIK.

          • Justin September 27, 2013 at 4:32 PM #

            My understanding of the divide between Marxism and western capitalism is as follows. The left sees the world as an oppressive society. Whereas non-Marxists generally feel content with the way things are.

            Both sides of the aisle will admit that injustices occur in our society, here-and-there as incidents. (eg, an employer refuses to pay his employees their wages) The division seems to be centered on whether society’s way of functioning is oppressive, systematically.

            The Marxist would likely argue that the very nature of our society is in need of serious liberation, rather than saying that the courts can hammer out specific acts of injustice on a case by case basis. Marxists are unlikely to be impressed with such an approach, as would be taken by our established western school of thought.

            When a leftist feels that they are oppressed by a society-wide apparatus of injustice, a superfluous set of complaints and arguments are generally emitted thereafter.

            The Marxist is a rather disgruntled character, never satisfied with western ideals of self determination, private accumulations of assets, or business.

            The Marxist is a believer that equality should be society’s highest virtue (or at least one the most important virtues). The error that the Marxist commits is the assumption that equality will bring justice and happiness.

  26. Sugarpuss September 27, 2013 at 6:31 PM #

    Justin & Lucas, doing what men do best; taking over. There really is no space, anywhere, online or off, that’s just for women.

    I’m sick of these selfish bastards. I hope you all fucking DIE.

    • Justin September 27, 2013 at 6:51 PM #

      In other words, the Marxist is very proud of himself/herself for having been among the few who have awoken to some sort of boogey-man.

      An idea’s value must be measured by its practical abilities.

    • Rididill September 28, 2013 at 12:06 PM #

      My god. Sugarpuss you are so right. I’m so sorry I encouraged them.

      Justin, you seem to be incapable of reading what I wrote. And why the fuck are you talking about Marxism? NO ONE CARES ABOUT MARXISM. THIS IS A RADICAL FEMINIST SITE. Are you stupid or deliberately obtuse? Don’t answer, these were rhetorical questions.

      Lucas, that was totally incomprehensible with a bunch of pretentious words thrown in.

      The radical feminist lesson here (which has immeasurable practical value) is that engaging with men is a complete waste of time and energy, and only serves to divert us from more important issues.

    • Hecate September 28, 2013 at 7:39 PM #

      Yep, that’s what controlling types excel at – denying anyone space to breathe. It’s only truly enlightened folk who seem to understand the concept of ‘live and let live.’ And I don’t even like the word ‘let,’ as it implies an authority that doesn’t exist in the first place.

      I’ve known women who are controllers though. Mostly in the form of my relatives, unfortunately. My sister always talks about what she’ll ‘allow’ others to get away with, as though she were some sort of moral authority. I honestly get along better with my sisters here ;)

    • Melanie Hamilton September 28, 2013 at 9:46 PM #

      Yeah, chica!! If they’re so superior, why do they even care what we poor little weaklings think? What a bunch of ass clowns. I hate ‘em too!

    • Nereida Filomena September 29, 2013 at 12:15 PM #

      I too hope they die painful deaths, They are male entitled scumbags.

  27. Melanie Hamilton September 28, 2013 at 9:42 PM #

    Bless you for stating so well all that I’ve been thinking for YEARS! I live in the COMMON-wealth of Kentucky where in the last couple of months the state legislature has come under tremendous fire for the mishandling of sexual harassment complaints. The hit just keep on coming as the scandal is exposed with more vigor. One old fart representative (Arnold) from some freakass little town finally got the message and resigned thinking, I guess, the mess would just go away. It hasn’t and it won’t. It would all be hilarious if it weren’t really happening. It’s like watching the Keystone Kops in action. The Good Ole Boy Network is alive and well in this land of idiocy (KY has, after all, sent two egregious ass wipes to the senate – Mitch McConnell and Rand(om) Paul).

    I’ve always wondered why men feel they have to dominate. WTF!!! Why? Why does every single interaction have to be a contest? I’ve had it up to the top of my skull with these morons. I’ve gotten so I ignore them across the board and/or treat them in a very offhand manner. I truly understand where you’re coming from. I need to get to the point where I can despise masculine behavior as you mentioned you have. Right now I’m still in the state of feeling profound hatred for men in general. Politicians and jocks are at the top of my list at present. I think politicians are doomed to stay there.

  28. Lucas Prassas October 1, 2013 at 2:23 AM #

    austin pls answer properly i’m not here to bother you. i’ve been an asshole to you quite consistently, and i meant what i said.

    • emilybites October 4, 2013 at 8:02 AM #

      I wish Lucas and Justin would fuck off.

      Guys, if you have created a wall of text under a blog post completely off-topic, you should just swap emails and have a private chat. I didn’t even read a third of the incomprehensible shit you wrote. Here are half a dozen women, asking you to fuck off out of their space. Can you even do that?

      If not, ND, would you consider banning these two, please? For ejaculating all over the thread and NEVER. SHUTTING. UP.

  29. andemilybites October 4, 2013 at 8:03 AM #

    I wish Lucas and Justin would fuck off.

    Guys, if you have created a wall of text under a blog post completely off-topic, you should just swap emails and have a private chat. I didn’t even read a third of the incomprehensible shit you wrote. Here are half a dozen women, asking you to fuck off out of their space. Can you even do that?

    If not, ND, would you consider banning these two, please? For ejaculating all over the thread and NEVER. SHUTTING. UP.

  30. redbluegreen4066 October 6, 2013 at 6:24 PM #

    I’ve thought this for a very long time, but this is the first time I’ve read a blog post about it. There have been some studies done (don’t know the link off the top of my head) on the connection between power and lack of empathy which you may find interesting.

  31. Sugarpuss December 4, 2013 at 8:53 PM #

    Guess what dickbag is on the cover of Rolling Stone?

    Was in-line at the convenience store, glanced over at the magazine stand… lo and behold… I saw woman-hater Eminem staring back at me. Some shithead behind me saw it too and ran over to grab a copy. He seemed so fascinated and intrigued.

    So, if the “bad men” are just a minority and “most men” are “good”, then how come Eminem is still rich, famous and ADMIRED???

    All men hate women. They prove it with their actions. But, don’t forget; it’s not permissible for us to hate them back in return. That type of behavior will earn any woman a “man-hating bitch” label. Such is the hypocrisy of men.

    • gracemargaret December 6, 2013 at 7:54 PM #

      Eminem is an artist and a “lyrical genius,” but Miley Cyrus is the devil incarnate. Hatred and violence against women doesn’t hurt your career (hello Terrence Howard, Mel Gibson, Charlie Sheen, R. Kelly) but an adult female showing some skin and dancing sexay makes the entire country lose their shit and wonder “where did we go wrong as a society??”

      • Sugarpuss December 8, 2013 at 1:41 PM #

        Miley Cyrus is acting like a FunFem (sorta like you). Nothing good can come from yet another female “showing a little skin”. That is exactly what men want! Sure, they may point a judgmental finger with one hand, but they are jacking off with the other. Like many girls Miley’s age, she thinks she’s being “rebellious” or “edgy” by exposing herself for pervy male entertainment. She also gives off nothing but attitude when older women (like Sinead O’Connor) try to give her some very sensible advice. I have no sympathy for that handmaiden in training.

        • nereidafilomena December 10, 2013 at 4:35 PM #

          I really did not appreciate Sinead saying she is ‘prostituted’ by the music industry. She has more choice than a prostituted woman. She is not a poverty class sex trafficking victim. Those are the only women who are prostituted. Certainly not a millionaire.

          • Sugarpuss December 11, 2013 at 12:40 AM #

            Women of every class can be prostituted, whether you believe it or not. A wise Radfem once said “a gilded cage is still a cage”. I tend to agree with that. For any female-bodied person, money is of little value. Freedom cannot be bought.

            • Rididill December 15, 2013 at 7:00 AM #

              wellll…. some freedom can be bought. Like freedom from hunger, homelessness, even freedom from violence to some degree (violence that comes from the outside world, rather than violence which comes from inviting men into your home). And it is freedom from having to trade your physical body for survival. It is true that a gilded cage is still a cage, but that does not mean that money is of little value. It can’t solve everything by any means, but let’s not pretend it does nothing.

              • Sugarpuss December 15, 2013 at 10:43 AM #

                I don’t need to be schooled on what it’s like to be a low-income female…since I AM ONE. So go FUCK yourself! I’m just not so damn self-pitying that I can’t see how other women might suffer in different ways from me. I may be poor, but I’m not a young, vulnerable girl in the spotlight around a bunch of pervy assholes.

                • Rididill December 15, 2013 at 12:51 PM #

                  What the fuck is your problem? I say that money can help some things and you tell me to go fuck myself? I’m not trying to ‘school’ you on what it’s like to be a low income female, I’m not saying rich women can’t suffer in other ways. I just disagree with what you said about money being of ‘little value’. What is there in that that deserves you telling me to go fuck myself exactly?

                  • Sugarpuss December 15, 2013 at 2:53 PM #

                    I told you to fuck off for, what should be, a very obvious reason. Telling somebody like me how bad things are for poor women is a direct slap in my face.

                    AND….

                    I’m saying NO WOMAN, ANYWHERE, at ANY time, can buy themselves out of a misogynist world. A woman’s money is worth about 1/18 of a man’s. So, by that standard, Miley Cyruss is not a millionaire. In fact, her fucking low-life, hillbilly, one-hit-wonder dad probably gets most of that money. I can’t fucking stand her attitude, but that doesn’t change the fact that she is also a victim of patriarchy.

                    • nereidafilomena December 15, 2013 at 7:40 PM #

                      I have noticed famous women’s abusive family members have almost complete control on their money. However a rich woman can get a good human rights lawyer to defend herself and once she gets the right to her money can live anonymously. Sex trade victims who live in the many states where being prostituted is a crime would need a ton of money to ever get those records expunged. Rich women can still be horrifically abused. I think it is AWESOME you are against intersectionality because it is a bullshit 3rd wave concept that tries to obscure the reality of global female oppression. But I believe RF should be allies of sex trade survivors. If you never heard of Jacqueline S Homan yet she has a wordpress blog called godless feminist and while she is an interectional feminist she offers very solid critique and personal experience of being trafficked on what it takes to stop anyone from being treated like her. She has been in poverty ever since she escaped trafficking and has authored non fiction books too you can help her out by buying. She has a house from a man she married, they collected scrap metal together and he left it for her. What she needs is the ability to have medical care, clothing, food and basic human dignity. She also has lots of friends of facebook and will gladly add you if you are on there. She is also on twitter. She shares some EXCELLENT statuses I keep telling her she needs to post to her blog.

                      http://godlessfeminist.wordpress.com/

                      http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/without-apology-jacqueline-s-homan/1114891180?ean=9780981567952

                    • Rididill December 21, 2013 at 4:55 AM #

                      Right. and I was supposed to magically know your socioeconomic status somehow…?

                      Saying I disagree with you about the difference money makes is not the same thing as telling you what it’s like to be a low income woman. I am a middle class woman and I know for a fact that having money has made my life a LOT easier.

                      So stop trying to ‘SCHOOL’ me on what it’s like to be a middle class woman, and how about you get off your fucking high horse and quit the misogynist insults?

                      It doesn’t guarantee freedom from male violence, it doesn’t exempt you from patriarchy. But once you’ve realized the reality of patriarchy, it’s a hell of a lot easier to actually act on that if you have enough money to live independently, or have sufficient education to GET enough money to live independently. You can EVEN, as Nereidafilomena says, use that money to help other women.

                      Sure having money won’t protect you from growing up being raped every night by your male relatives, that’s just luck. But, it’s one less constraint on escaping.

                    • Rididill December 21, 2013 at 4:56 AM #

                      Right. and I was supposed to magically know your socioeconomic status somehow…?

                      Saying I disagree with you about the difference money makes is not the same thing as telling you what it’s like to be a low income woman. I am a middle class woman and I know for a fact that having money has made my life a LOT easier.

                      So stop trying to ‘SCHOOL’ me on what it’s like to be a middle class woman, and how about you get off your fucking high horse and quit the misogynist insults?

                      It doesn’t guarantee freedom from male violence, it doesn’t exempt you from patriarchy. But once you’ve realized the reality of patriarchy, it’s a hell of a lot easier to actually act on that if you have enough money to live independently, or have sufficient education to GET enough money to live independently. You can EVEN, as Nereidafilomena says, use that money to help other women.

                      Sure having money won’t protect you from growing up being raped every night by your male relatives, that’s just luck. But, it’s one less constraint on escaping.

                    • Sugarpuss December 22, 2013 at 2:55 PM #

                      Okay, clearly, Riddick has been smoking a bowl. Misogynist insults? Really? You’re accusing ME of that?

                      Get back to when you stop hallucinating. Go take a ride in that Caddy. Get some fresh air in those lungs.

                    • Sugarpuss December 22, 2013 at 2:59 PM #

                      I like how a middle class gal is trying to, simultaneously, shit on me and convince me of her privilege.

                      O-o

                      Fucking crazy much?

                    • Sugarpuss December 22, 2013 at 3:26 PM #

                      I wonder if Rid is disrespecting me because she thinks I’m not poor enough? Do I need to be living in a cardboard box & pissing in a mason jar to qualify?

                      Asshat breezes in here about every six months and acts like she owns the fucking place. I smell a ding-dong cloaked in nylon.

                • nereidafilomena December 15, 2013 at 7:50 PM #

                  I have had some disagreements with RFs that make me want to say that but someone told me we should not some words bc they are sexist and even though women do not have the institutionalized power to oppress like men do so it is totally different when a man says a slur, (its always a threat) than when a woman does it we still should try our best not to say them. Being fucked is a form of male violence. At the same time I do not support liberal political correctness. I believe the concept of white privilege is totally idiotic when applied to women and have been called racist for that but the reality is that our patriarchal roles are fuckholes and breeders and fuckholes have no privilege to oppress the other ones. That is some really insidious intersectionality politics creeping into RF, and its goal is to draw attention away from global female oppression.

                • nereidafilomena December 15, 2013 at 9:06 PM #

                  \The term “fuck you” is not an insult for nothing, men know why – it’s the worst thing you can do to a human being. It is in itself an extremely physically invasive act, very often painful, generally at the beginning before the pain may be cut off by the genital arousal; causes all sorts of tears, bruises, swelling, discomfort, STDs, vaginal infections, urinary infections, genital warts, HIV and death. Not to forget the additional sado-gynecological interventions/ costs of PIV-maintenance, and all the secondary physical mutiliation and financial costs that go with our duty to make ourselves look decorative for male sexual consumption – such as hair removal, make-up, starvation or forced feeding, torturous limb deforming or cutting up, etc.’

                  http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

              • nereidafilomena December 15, 2013 at 7:11 PM #

                Yup that is not why I would go as far to use the word prostituted only sex trade workers are prostitued. Women of ALL classes under patriarchy, of every race anything are still oppressed on the basis of being female and ALL men no matter how disprivileged he may be in some ways still have male privilege.

                It does matter that he has it because he is still getting better treatment than a woman in the same situation and will never have to deal with the bio terrorism of forced pregnancy ever that even rich women deal with and RFs do believe our oppression is due to the abuse of our biology by men.

                Miley has tons of money and could use to it give direct help to women less fortunate, use her famousnes fto bring attention or serious women’s issues like victim blaming, advocating for the Nordic Model of sex trafficking, the harm of gender identity laws, reproductive coercion and tal shows due to her famousness would likely let her talk and spread awareness to lots of Stockholomed women.

                She could even choose to leave that industry with the money she’s made and be much more free of men than poverty class sex trafficking victims ever have the hope to be.

                This why I believe in advocating for the Nordic Model bc in 46 states survivors of the sex trade are considered criminals by the state and no matter what they do, if they go to university they cannot get a decent job and hope to survive even the sex trafficking orgs will not hire them, somewhere they should be getting genuine help.

                We need women have a quality of life that allows them to ponder radicalism but a lot of leftie activism is toxic and should be avoided.

                • nereidafilomena December 15, 2013 at 7:28 PM #

                  ON sex sex trafficking rather.

                  • nereidafilomena December 15, 2013 at 7:30 PM #

                    How did I even manage to type that twice? You get the point though.

            • nereidafilomena December 15, 2013 at 6:58 PM #

              I agree. I would prefer to use a term other than prostituted though like exploited, so I don’t minimize women who are gang raped everyday so they pimps can get money.

              • Sugarpuss December 17, 2013 at 8:38 PM #

                This is what I’m saying:

                I grew up in an economically disadvantaged household. I’m talking below working class. It’s really nobody’s fucking business, and I hate to bring it up on here, but my mother often traded sexual favors for food or money. She was raped a couple of times. So, when I say I DON’T NEED TO BE TOLD WHAT LIFE IS LIKE FOR POOR WOMEN, YOU CAN TAKE IT TO THE FUCKING BANK.

                As for upper middle class females, when I was 16, at an inpatient adolescent behavioral health center, I met a girl who was a child model. She was living with an adopted family because her agent (AKA her father) and her brother would gang rape her every fucking night. That girl was so messed up, she took up to 6 showers a day. She was even afraid to get out of bed at night to use the bathroom because, when she lived with her crap family, her dad & brother would wake up and start messing with her.

                While some women may be in worse situations than others because of race, class or whatever, there is NO ESCAPE from The P. All women are prostituted, in many different ways. And I’m telling you MONEY IS WORTHLESS to a woman. Men are the source of it; and what master gives, he can take away. Miley isn’t exactly sitting pretty. She has to expose herself regularly to earn her keep. A lot of women get confused and think it’s a “privilege” to be desired by shithead pervert males. It is not…and I sure as hell wouldn’t trade my simple little life for her’s. All of that money would evaporate in a millisecond if she stopped doing what she does and, say, converted to Radical Feminism. She plays the role, like so many women do. They know what will happen if they stop acting and start getting real; instant death.

                • nereidafilomena December 18, 2013 at 7:25 PM #

                  I agree saying a female under patriarchy is privileged in any way is being ignorant of female reality under patriarchy and used to divide women. Its actually very misogynist. Intersectionality is liberal male loving poison and its not RF at all. Horrific things have always happened to all women regardless of their social class. Class, race etc only matters for men.

                  • gracemargaret December 20, 2013 at 11:34 PM #

                    nereidafilomena,
                    Sexist white males frequently use intersectionality to divide women, saying the feminist movement is just a bunch of white, middle-class women, therefore it’s not to be taken seriously. But their only goal is to dismiss and trash the entire feminist movement, they couldn’t care less about any solutions for inclusiveness of women of color and working class/poor women in the feminist movement.

                    But that doesn’t mean intersectionality itself isn’t important. If women of color keep telling you that they feel marginalized within the feminist movement, we really really NEED to take that seriously and do everything possible to change that.

                    • Sugarpuss December 22, 2013 at 2:48 PM #

                      I can’t speak for nereidafilomena, but I think only a complete fucking idiot doesn’t recognize the unique challenges facing WoC (black women in particular, who are at the absolute bottom of the privilege ladder, as far as I’m concerned). Not sure where that strawman argument came from.

  32. Sugarpuss December 8, 2013 at 11:07 PM #

    Just when I thought men couldn’t sink any lower… http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/tech/innovation/microsoft-smart-bra/

    And this is also a perfect example of how nerdy men are the biggest misogynists of all. Scope the comments for all the usual filth. I really wish all men were dead. That would make my fucking day.

  33. Sugarpuss December 9, 2013 at 5:14 PM #

    92, you forgot to approve my other comment!

  34. Sugarpuss December 15, 2013 at 11:08 AM #

    And here is yet another example of how it is impossible for me to find a place to socialize without being forced to deal with some shithead male throwing his weight around.

    So, I’ve been posting on a forum that is comprised of mostly female people. There are a few token males (of course) who lurch about, but I’ve been lucky enough to avoid contact with them until now. Apparently, something I said offended one of the whiny little bastards, and he felt the need to comment about it on my profile. He accused me of being (Har Har!) “sexist”! And this is coming from someone whose forum signature reads “If you don’t like what I say, don’t read it. I wont censor myself for anybody”.

    This is male hypocrisy at it’s finest. This is what makes me so fucking angry I can’t see straight.

    • theoreticalgrrrl December 20, 2013 at 11:44 PM #

      Just tell him you don’t believe in political correctness and won’t censor yourself for anybody. (I hate the term “political correctness” because men use it all the time as a euphemism for misogynistic, hateful shit. I’d love to see it turned around on them for once.)

      • Sugarpuss December 22, 2013 at 2:36 PM #

        Oh, I love doing that. Turning men’s shit right back on them. I sent him a private message, basically reminding him of his signature, and how I wont censor myself either. He replied, and let me know that he “didn’t mind” me “being sexist” (if he did “mind”, then what, I wonder?), but he was just “chipping in”. I didn’t bother to respond. I just deleted his message and blocked his ass.

        Situations like this are difficult to handle. It can get sticky really fast because, at any time, a dude can invoke his male privilege and send a hoard of handmaidens to attack and/or speak with the mod to get the “evil feminazi” banned. It’s like walking a tightrope, really. I’ve been kicked out of more forums than I care to count, because I failed to bow to the resident rooster.

        • gracemargaret December 22, 2013 at 8:57 PM #

          Once when a co-worker tried to dismiss something I was saying as “political correctness,” I asked, wide-eyed and innocent, “what does “politically correct” mean? I don’t know what that means.” I was waiting patiently and he just stood there speechless, his face started turning red. He had no answer.

          It was awesome. :)

          • Sugarpuss December 23, 2013 at 1:36 PM #

            I’m a loose cannon with a two-inch fuse, so that type of passive-aggressiveness is difficult for me. That’s why I isolate myself from society; I just can’t deal with the crap. Better to not interact with the scumbags at all, or I’ll end up earning myself a cot in the county jail. :)

            At the forum I mentioned, the sad-sack who was complaining about how hard it is to be a man infuriated me even more than the previously discussed asshat. It is taking an internal strength of She-Ra proportions to prevent myself from sending him a private message encased in a fireball of Radical Rage. It’s probably only a matter of time before I blow up….

  35. Sugarpuss December 15, 2013 at 12:50 PM #

    I have a tumblr where I’ve been posting screencaps that I’ve collected. It’s called The Shit Men Say. Every time some dude runs his mouth about this blog or how bad & wrong women are for hating on men, I’m going to post a link to it.

  36. Sugarpuss December 17, 2013 at 8:49 PM #

    I’ll be FUCKED!!!!

    Just saw a fucking dude complaining about how hard it is to be a man because……*drumroll*….. he’s not allowed to shave his legs, carry a purse, or wear long hair without being laughed at. *cricket chirp*

    What is this shit? Can these damn assclowns be for real?! Will somebody please drop a greasy iron skillet on my fucking head? I really can’t take this shit much longer. It’s just….I have no fucking words.

  37. Sugarpuss December 18, 2013 at 12:20 PM #

    Goddamn mush-mouthed Brits! I’m struggling to transcribe a horrible bit of audio in which the speaker sounds like fucking Jamie Oliver with a cock in his mouth.

    /random rant

  38. amanda January 12, 2014 at 3:07 AM #

    Nine. Deuce-I’m a huge fan of yours, and love your straightforward, raw, and non apologetic writing style. Thank you for exposing the evil that men do..its never ending. When the try and talk to people about men and murder statistics, their lame response is something like “well women murder too!” women are so brainwashed by the patriarchy.that they’ll defend men until the end of time. I am appalled about Germany’s fucking bestiality brothels!! It made me cry to think of those poor animals and what they must be going though!! I have German ancestry, and an fucking disgusted by my own people. This horrible reality is made because men are so goddamned sick and perverted and can’t keep their disgusting dicks in their pants. They are essentially payiing some fucker to rape an animal!!! And all for money…Once again men prove how degenerate they really are. I’m so glad I am a lesbian, and somewhat of a separatist. I am into female supremacy as well. Isn’t it obvious why? *laughing* How can people think that men are inherently good? I agree with your theory that men do have a choice to hurt people, but. I also think testosterone is a big factor in their psychotic behavior. So many people are in denial about how shitty guys really are. They want to think positively, but the truth is in their face. I read the daily news everyday, and is a pure horror show. I live in NYC, so I want to know what I am up against. I never invite guys into my apartment, never date them, and I always keep my distance. Good way to live if I do say so myself! I am a radical feminist lesbian, and I am proud of it! I have way less stress in my life now that I don’t go out of my way to interact with males. Much love to all of my sisters, and never doubt your feelings! Always be true to yourselves!!

    • Justin January 16, 2014 at 1:35 AM #

      The MRAs claim that in the past couple decades women have gained too much power or they claim that men have lost rights. But one commenter I read said that the MRAs’ grievances are suspect in light of the boom in pornography in the last 15 years. That was a good point.

      How can there be “too much female power” or “too much respect for women” if porn has boomed?? That’s the point she was making.

      Furthermore, my own feminist beliefs are not a product of “a liberal/feminist college education” since I instinctively viewed women and girls as better than boys since elementary school. My own understanding that men cause most of the world’s problems was obvious to me early on as I had assumed it would be obvious to most people.

      So what happens along the way? Well, society programs us to worship malehood and ignore the negative aspects of males. Both men and women are taught to bow to male authority. Feminism needs to focus on resisting that indoctrination.

    • Sugarpuss January 29, 2014 at 7:08 PM #

      Wow, bestiality brothels? I’ve never heard of them. How in the FUCK can that even be legal?!

      And with that in mind, I would like to offer the following bit, straight from some fucking ignorant handmaiden’s mouth:

      I’m surprised most men aren’t gay, because of how women behave

      This same piece of shit had previously commented on how she wouldn’t mind “fucking” another woman. A lot of these handmaidens are really into the creepy bisexual-cause-its-trendy thing; they love to objectify women in the same way that men do.

      I’ve been spending a bit of time in virtual worlds, semi-passively observing & interacting with the unwashed masses. All I can say is that I’m really disgusted by what I’ve seen and heard. Complete blindness to misogyny, yet utter willingness to fall all over one’s self to point out perceived “wrongs” committed against men. In fact, in a virtual nightclub, the “disgraceful” situation of “not enough clothing for male avatars” was discussed in-depth, whilst a song about raping a 13 year old girl played in the background.

      I hate this world. And I hate men.

  39. mapaxn January 18, 2014 at 6:56 PM #

    Hi Nine Deuce,

    Have you ever researched epigenetics? It’s the study of how human experience affects us on a molecular level in our DNA. If you google “Ghost in your genes” on youtube, there’s a documentary about how traumatic experiences makes genes switch off and on. These genetic changes can last for generations. There’s also emerging studies that show that child abuse causes mutations in DNA that has lasting consequences over a lifetime.

    https://www.genome.gov/27554258

    I think that the more epigenetics is studied, the more we’ll see how oppression affects people on a physical level, and how far gone we are as a species.

    I, too, think gender is a bunch of bullshit. It’s a social construct, and a destructive one at that. It destroys the capacity for genuine, organic identity in individuals; and the capacity for empathy and personal connection on a social level. I postulate that epigenetics can bridge the argument between agency and essentialism – we are living in a profoundly damaged global community, and that damage was caused by male supremacy. Century after century of the abuse, trafficking, rape, and murder of women is bound to have social consequences that are deleterious to global society as a whole. Even to this day, women who wish to discontinue the cycle of abuse are murdered – at least three per day in America. No doubt more elsewhere in the world.

    I think people really should sit down and think long and hard about how this is affecting our society. I’m tired of hearing criticism of women’s choices when our choices are limited to how well we are able to continue surviving and existing. We have been stripped of almost all our humanity, to deny us the last instinct – self preservation – is beyond a cruel and unusual punishment that the Constitution would not allow.

    I don’t know if humanity can be saved, because the extent to which we have been permanently damaged has not been studied – and certainly not from a feminist angle which would be helpful in instituting policies to preserve what’s left of women’s rights. If people had the slightest understanding of how women’s rights help society as a whole, there would be riots in the streets for the latest legislative rape of women via unborn fetuses. Now, in Texas, a woman won’t be taken off life support even if she has a living will if there is a fetus inside her. The IRS is going to audit rape victims who have abortions.

    What I do know for sure, is that we are living a collective nightmare. Only in recent years has this nightmare come to light – like a punch in the face after the normalization of verbal abuse. Patriarchy isn’t just a political concept, it is a horror story beyond all horror stories to have ever existed. We, as a species, have been completely and profoundly damaged by it – most people don’t even know when they are perpetrators or enablers of abuse, or to the extent of consequences that behavior holds for us all.

    How to end the nightmare? Since most people are unwilling to hold men accountable for their behavior, or at the very least quit enabling their abusive behavior – I don’t have much hope.

    • gracemargaret January 21, 2014 at 1:48 PM #

      Excellent points, mapaxn.

    • Hecate January 25, 2014 at 10:34 AM #

      The epigenetics question is very concerning to me too. But I think people are scared to really find the answers as to how oppression damages on a physical level. Part of that may be our denial of the mind-body connection.

      The other issue is our fear of the word ‘victim.’ No one wants to be seen as a victim and obviously abusers don’t want them labeled as such. If there are no victims, there can be no crimes, clearly. But we desperately need to research what happens to victims of trauma. Otherwise healing can never take place.

    • Sugarpuss January 29, 2014 at 7:20 PM #

      How to end the nightmare? Since most people are unwilling to hold men accountable for their behavior, or at the very least quit enabling their abusive behavior – I don’t have much hope.

      I saw a poster that read: “Men don’t rape, people rape. Let’s focus on the problem and stop fighting each other”

      Because focusing on the problem means ignoring the bloody obvious. Women are no longer allowed to even name the perps. We have to play this game and pretend that female-bodied people are doing the same shit men are doing. All in the name of “humanism”.

  40. Sugarpuss January 29, 2014 at 8:54 PM #

    Humanism is the belief that Radical Feminism isn’t humanist if it isn’t “inclusive” of men because women aren’t really human.

    Quote me elsewhere! :D

  41. Eva February 2, 2014 at 2:34 PM #

    What I hate more than anything is when men see this evidence of how women have been/still are raped and beaten horrifically and SO much more than men , and how most rapists are men themselves – they come out and say “B-but men get raped TOOOOOO!”

    • Sugarpuss February 4, 2014 at 5:29 AM #

      Oh gawd yes. I’m so fucking sick of that shit.

      And, in other news,I had a convo with a haindmaiden, which produced this lovely gem:

      Sexist jokes don’t bother me because I’m secure in my womanhood

      Because…. I AM insecure for calling some shithead out on his BS, apparently….in the land of puuuuuure imagination!

      Nobody says this to ANY other group besides women. Nobody says “that jewish dude must be really insecure because he called out some bigot on his antisemitism” or “that gay guy must be really insecure because he called out some homophobe on his bigotry”.

      Only women are expected to eat the shit sandwiches that our oppressors serve to us…and SMILE.

  42. Redpeach March 15, 2014 at 7:30 AM #

    Excellent reading for the third time.
    Thank you.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. More like a-DICK-tion. Get it?! | Rage Against the Man-chine - October 3, 2013

    […] do so, even if correcting them isn’t a mega-fun fuckfest and requires that men exercise some self-control and empathy for the sake of others. Men possess free will. Let’s not get carried away with all this “addiction” […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 439 other followers