Why I Hate Men Part 1: I Admit It

5 Jul

That’s right, I’m admitting it. Tell all your MRA buddies that they’ve been vindicated, call Rush Limbaugh, make sure to let all the other feminists know I’m blowing their cover for them. Men are obnoxious, arrogant, entitled, violent, stinky, crass, loudmouthed, stupid, craven, bragadocious, thoughtless, unreflective, abusive, selfish, lowbrow, willfully ignorant assholes. Well, most of them.

You see, I don’t hate all men, just almost all of them; some of my best friends are men (snarf snarf). There are three or four that I love and consider to be fundamentally decent human beings, there are about seven that are big enough “faggots” that I like hanging out with them, and there are maybe ten that, though I’m sure they have no idea what “male privilege” means, I would equivocate before sending to a re-education camp if given the chance (if the camp conditions were harsh; if it was like summer camp I’d snap up the opportunity to send them for a week or two of re-humanization training and craft lessons).

But back to that bit about me hating men. I’m tired, tired, tired of people expecting me to defend myself against the accusation that I just hate men. It’s bullshit deluxe, and it’s the most transparent derailing tactic there is. I know that I’m raising spooky specters when I hint (I’m really subtle, right?) that there might be something wrong with male supremacy, with gender roles, with men violently abusing women, with men treating women like subhuman sex objects, with men being stupid violent alpha-male dicks towards each other, but it isn’t my job to reassure men that I still love all of them and give a shit what they think just because they’re uncomfortable confronting the possibility of the loss of a bit of their privilege.

And besides all of that, why shouldn’t I hate men? Men, being the default humans, get to decide how they want to act and how to define humanity and masculinity with fewer constrictions than women face. What they’ve opted to go with is pretty abysmal, and I don’t have to pretend to like it. I can already hear the whiny voice of some MRA saying, “Then why can’t I hate women? They choose to act as they do!” Women have to deal with enforced femininity, and while a lot of the behaviors femininity entails do indeed suck, they aren’t chosen as freely as men’s behaviors are. And now I hear the whiny voice of some dude who doesn’t adhere to the NFL Masculinity Guidelines claiming that he has to suffer the opprobrium and violence of those who do. Well, duh. But again, it’s men who are the problem, and it’s men who are responsible for men’s behavior.  Oh, shit, here comes that MRA again, claiming that women are gold digging sluts who won’t date men who aren’t rich. Who created the ideological world system in which a man’s worth is judged by his material possessions and in which wealth supersedes decency as the chief indicator of a man’s value? Pretty sure that was men (unless you want to try to tell me that women have been running the world and doing all of the important philosophizing and ideological treatise writing for the last few millennia).

I win. Men are assholes. It’s time we admitted it. And hence I bring you my new series on why I hate men.

What brought about the sudden urge to admit to the public that I hate men was a few hours spent waiting at the Delta terminal of La Guardia in the middle of the afternoon on a weekday. In case you aren’t aware, that particular terminal tends to be awash in suits at that time of day, and what is more representative of American middle-class maledom than your average suit hanging around waiting for a flight home from New York to Charlotte? I was already in a heinous mood when I arrived, having thought I was late and would miss my flight, then arriving and hearing it’d been delayed for like four hours, so I was in no state to suffer listening to the kinds of conversations these dudes have and to witness their bizarre masculinity rituals.

I sat down to wait for my flight and to attempt to read some terrifyingly boring book for one of my classes and was immediately enraged by the conversation going on to my left. A woman was sitting primly with her knees crossed and looking bored as her male companion sprawled out over three seats with his legs blocking the walkway between himself and the seats across from him (which he’d commandeered as his own personal luggage storage space) and talked incredibly loudly on his iPhone. He was a big, arrogant simian with a giant head, that shiny look that men who shave constantly seem to have, and a permanent smirk. I immediately wished he would have a premature stroke as I listened to him talk about the meeting he’d just left. He machine-gunned whoever was on the other end with the finer points of his performance at the meeting — at which he’d apparently showed everyone who was really the boss — before calling one of the other meeting attendees a “pussy.” His female companion finally got tired of being ignored and got up, saying, “I’m going to get some magazines.” And he replied, without looking at her, “Get me Sports Illustrated or Sports. Anything, I don’t care, as long as it’s sports,” and then returned to his conversation. No offer to pay for these magazines, no hint that he had grasped the fact that he was behaving like an unfathomable prick, nothing. Unbelievable.

This same asshole was in line behind me when I got on my flight. He sat down two rows behind my seat and continued his phone conversation, which at this point had turned to the topic of some recent NFL draft. He constantly referred to whatever team he was talking about as “us” and “we” and was apparently thrilled that “we” had scored this particular player. He affected his most derisive voice and said, “Pshhh. Yeah. I’d like to see Dallas try to fuck with us now. They’re going to get dominated.” Mind you, this was after he’d carried on the same loud conversation all the way down the aisle, bumping into everyone in sight as he obliviously made his way to his seat. And it went on for so long that the flight attendant had to tell him three times to turn his phone off so we could get the fuck on the road (in the sky, whatever).

Now, I know this is a fairly egregious example, but it’s not as if it’s not representative of the way the average male American behaves, and I could give you several milder examples of similar behavior that I witnessed on the same day. The airport terminal was a cacophony of affectedly gruff male voices talking about sports and business, and the “masculinity” of the whole thing was sickening. And there were very, very few women present to dilute the cesspool of aftershave and arrogance.  So, my foul mood and my unwilling captivity in the same room and plane with a bunch of suits caused me to come to the realization that the accusations my many MRA readers have leveled at me have some merit. I really do hate most men, because I hate what masculinity and maleness mean and the kinds of behaviors they produce.

I’ll be getting into the details of what that all means in  future posts.

To be continued…

1,306 Responses to “Why I Hate Men Part 1: I Admit It”

  1. berryblade July 6, 2009 at 3:56 AM #

    Oh. Oh yes, I am so keen for this.
    After hearing a bunch of fifteen year old boys on the train the other day, talking about their girlfriends sexuality/orgasms as if they were some cheap party trick and you know, not actually a sharing of intimacy or bonding or signs of human pleasure (unlike their ejaculate) anything like that I’m quite happy to admit that the huMAN race is fucking doomed.

    • Fed Up April 4, 2013 at 5:29 PM #

      This morning I went to. A middle-aged, white male was on his phone the entire time he was setting up his super large area that he held for himself for class. Everyone was trying to relax, mediate for the new few minutes before the class start and we all had to hear about his 401k and stock options.

      I finally had enough and told him to put the phone away–in a not so nice manner. He did but not without looking pissed off at me. Someone else in the class thanked me.

      During class same guy was growling at every pose. If the phone call was soo damm important then don’t come to yoga!

      • Monica April 20, 2014 at 7:01 PM #

        I never thought I would find myself seeking out any forum where men hatred was the topic, let alone commenting on it…. I want to say this just snook up on me, but in all honesty it hasn’t…… my life has been a tapestry of one stitch at a time, where men have woven their way into the fabric of my life and inch by inch eroded it away. I came to the table trusting, believing in the capacity of man to love and nurture, and respect as equally as a woman can, I no longer hold this an innate truth… I now know differently. I do not trust men… period. They have taught me not to, they have groomed me not to…. they have shown that past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior… and with this awareness now…. I have come to realize and accept †hat I hate men. I am not a lesbian, I love my female friends but not in any sexual way…. I have no desire to ever have sex w/a man again…. for the past 10 + yrs I have not been attracted or inclined to any physical attraction to a man, for underlying that need, comes foremost trust, and no man is trust worthy…. it isn’t in their DNA to be trust worthy…. men are incapable of truth, and their selfishness knows no bounds….

        • LeilaJane July 17, 2014 at 5:48 PM #

          Same here. A hundred percent feel the same. Bit by bit, my faith in humanity and the male sex has disintegrated to nothing. And unfortunately the faith that was once there left a bitter hole anger quickly filled. I cannot express so fully how much I loathe disgusting men. Everytime I look at a man or see a man I think about what disgusting things he probably does or thinks and how the world would be better without 99% of them.

      • Mel July 19, 2014 at 9:46 PM #

        Men are hurtful, manipulative, and have no sense of feeling. In their twisted heads, a woman is a stone which is unable to be broken, therefore they do whatever they please. They leave us with scars but have no intention of stitching them closed.

        From the beginning of my life I have had horrible experiences with men, so the sexism was already beginning to develop. In high school, I started getting bullied by both genders-predominately men. After switching schools the bullying stopped, but I fell in love twice, both instances ended in being left for another woman and having aforementioned woman flaunted before my eyes.

        I also met a boy online, who I thought was wonderful.Sadly, he showed me his true colors one night at his apartment, where he began reciting his ex-girlfriend’s journal entires to me, playing me songs that reminded him of her, detailing their sex life, driving me past her home, forcing me to type their anniversary date into his phone,

        Since this relationship, I have become convinced that all men are ex-obsessed morons with no intention of moving on or loving me. They are child molesting perverts, they are abusive idiots. I hate men, I hate men, I will always hate men.

        GIRL POWER

        • Parker September 25, 2014 at 7:50 PM #

          I’m sorry you dealt with that. I will tell you not all men are like that and from what you’re explaining the guy you were dating was mentally ill. If a woman or man does something like what you are explaining, it is WRONG. Why is what men do so much worse than what females do? I see many females that do the same of what you’re describing and even worse, what makes them better? Why don’t we focus our anger on the bad people of both male and female and not just one gender because discriminating against a entire gender because of the few men you met out of the billions and billions of people on this planet, is not a good or even to the slightest sense logical.

          Hopefully this is not taken as hate but I fear since I am communicated to the extreme feminist it will be, but all I push for is equality not superiority.

        • Alex Rayne July 13, 2015 at 7:14 PM #

          You are right. They look at kiddie porn. they drive you past their ex wife house. They talk about ex girlfriends as if that turns you on. Then when given the opportunity to perform, they crash. Crappy awful lovers. the percentage of men who are good lovers is about .05 out of 100. They think in their small minds they are some big jock. Some big male loverboy. No. They suck. The sex with them is lame.
          Hopeless losers the lot of them. Good riddance.

    • Incognito June 11, 2013 at 1:01 AM #

      I so agree;;;;

      I can report two experience i had that would be examples of the same crap :

      I wos on the metro one day and two teenage young boys were speaking in the following terms regarding one of their girlfriend : one who was going way for the weekend told the other that he should try his girlfriend because she was such a “bon coup” (i.e; real good at it you know).

      The other one is about another teenage boy who was telling me (and I am 60) that is was only fair that men had several women because you know dudes are entitled to have all the sex they want with as many partners they wish.

      I hope one day women just steer clear of these B…. ards …..

      No wonder, the world is so bad;…

  2. Shaun H July 6, 2009 at 5:27 AM #

    I think it would be awesome if women would just run the world. With no help from men of course. I’m beyond sick of hearing about it. I know you think you would do a better job. I’m not convinced, but I really don’t care, I’m 40 and have no kids so the effect on me will be minimal.

    Good luck.

    • Nine Deuce July 6, 2009 at 5:43 AM #

      Uh, OK.

      • AileenWuornos July 6, 2009 at 5:45 AM #

        haha, what the actual fuck?

      • Jo July 31, 2009 at 12:02 PM #

        Passive-aggressive sarcastic apathetic MRA troll FTW!

        (Or, as AileenWuornos so aptly put it, haha wtf?)

    • Misty August 14, 2009 at 4:12 AM #


      • Beth October 19, 2009 at 8:21 AM #

        OKAY. You know, i just don’t understand why men and women have to be as different as they are. I understand being different but for motherfucking sakes! I have been off and on with the love of my life for 4 years.. as turbulent, difficult, strange and confusing as it has been.. there are things he does that I end up blaming myself for! WHY? I am the type of female that doesn’t put up with ANY male shit what so ever but since I am in love with this guy really, I find myself making excuses for him.. its my fault.. its things I did before, so I’m paying for it now blah blah blah. Where does this end? Where does this go? I have never been so confused in my life, and I have no-one to relate to, all my friends have never had a love like I have with my guy. I want to make it work but, for one, he’s a free spirit and I’m beginning to think theres a part of him that is severely detached from me which drives me absolutely up the wall to no end! But then again, in true love, is there supposed to be a part of them you don’t know??? Ahh fuck, I don’t know, I’m in dire need of some kind of feedback. He treats me like a queen, he really does, yet I get so insanely jealous when we break up or are having an open relationship.. it just consumes me. He like I think alot of men, doesn’t tell me how he feels when he’s upset, he just holds it in or kind of tells me but not to the extent he wants to. WHY??? Why can’t men just say how they feel like we do?? They fucking bottle it up, and it makes US feel like they don’t give a fuuck, we get fucking pissed off, then before you know it we’re fighting about shit we weren’t even mad about in the beginning!!!!! Ahh.. advice?

        • James October 20, 2009 at 1:51 AM #

          Get him drunk.

        • mary January 31, 2014 at 7:30 AM #

          This is for Beth from 2009. I would like to tell you that I was mixed up with a guy like yours. The relationship went on for 15 years but II finally had the strength to end it and flat move away. He finally pissed me off so bad that it was truly over. Right now I’m happily single and live for myself , my 2 daughters ( had no boys)(and grandchildren (was blessed with only girls.) Yes I;m much older now, wiser, and don;t have to tell anyone I hate men…still do…but its very clear from my non involvement .

    • terry August 5, 2013 at 11:19 PM #

      Shut up and go away.

  3. xxradicalfeministxx July 6, 2009 at 5:53 AM #

    Hey, great work. I just got a blog today and your blog was the first thign that came up when I looked up radical feminism. Your post was beautiful and being a fellow man hater, I agree with everything you say. However, you using the word motherfucker troubled me a little. Why is here a need to degrade women and call them names? By calling men motherfuckers, you are not cussing the men, but their mothers. Shouldn’t father fucker be more appropriate?

    • Nine Deuce July 6, 2009 at 6:06 AM #

      I use that word not in a literal sense but colloquially. I feel like it’s lost the connection with its literal meaning, though I do see what you’re saying.

      • isme July 7, 2009 at 2:55 PM #

        “I feel like it’s lost the connection with its literal meaning,”

        Oh…can o’ worms there. More or less the same argument is used when calling something “gay” as an insult. Or, for that matter calling someone a “pussy” or saying he (only really applies to men) has one.

        Mind you, having sex with your own mother, in its literal meaning, is something abhorrent and wrong, while society has to pretend not to feel that way about homosexuals or vaginas.

      • Jo July 31, 2009 at 12:05 PM #

        But wouldn’t “motherfucker” be a statement of how awful the person is, and not their mother? I can’t hear any complicity in that word on the part of the mother — in my mind it’s the same as “mother-raper”.

        (This conversation actually got me thinking about this; oh Maude, the language geekery!)

        • Nanella August 1, 2009 at 6:03 PM #

          Precisely. Literally interpreted, it means “person who rapes mothers”.

          It’s telling that being called a mofo is a fraternal bonding term in gangsta culture.

          • James August 3, 2009 at 11:27 AM #

            …Only if you are under the misconception that “fuck” means “rape”, not “have sex with”.

            • Nanella August 6, 2009 at 6:03 AM #

              Well, hon, when I say, “Fuck you!”, I’m not wishing you a happy hump session with the person of your choosing. “Fuck” takes on more sinister connotations when used as an expletive.

              Your response did inspire me to delve into the etymological origins of “motherfucker”, which, according to some sources, may be literally interpreted as “a person who has incestuous relations with their mother”. I still say the most sensible interpretation is “mother raper”, but whatevs.

            • Becstar August 7, 2009 at 11:48 PM #

              Well given that fuck is a violent word and sex with violence is rape, yes, fuck does mean rape. Unless of course you’re still trying to convince yourself that its acceptable to be violent towards women.

              • isme August 9, 2009 at 12:16 PM #

                Fuck is an inherently violent word? It often is used that way yes, but not exclusively, surely.

                • Becstar August 10, 2009 at 12:15 AM #

                  I think so, absolutely. Anytime it is used outside of a sexual context it is used in a violent way. Then, of course, when it moves to sex people try to claim that it isn’t violent anymore (just as they like to claim that BDSM isn’t violent) but its impossible to remove the engrained violence in such a word. It’s not possible to fuck someone you see as an equal, which is why it usually refers to women being fucked.

                  • James August 10, 2009 at 1:32 AM #

                    Aren’t you forgetting the gays? They fuck each other all the time. Why can’t I fuck a woman if I’m allowed to fuck a man?

                    • Becstar August 10, 2009 at 8:18 AM #

                      The issue of sex between gay men is more than I can explain to a misogynist in a short comment. Like berryblade said, read “Intercourse” and then go and read about how masculinity effects men’s views on sex (with men or women). You don’t have any right to treat anyone as inferior or as sex objects which you are doing if you refer to sex as fucking.

                      If you are the kind of person who thinks it is acceptable to “fuck” women then why on earth are you on a radfem blog? Did you think you could impress us all by pretending to be a ‘feminist’ male? Pity for you that no one here is stupid enough to fall for that crap. As long as you are not willing to check your male privilege and as long as you think “fucking” women is acceptable you are not going to get the praise you are so obviously after.

                  • berryblade August 10, 2009 at 6:02 AM #

                    having just finished INTERCOURSE i can see how relevant this point is.

                    sadly/however the word fuck is fairly embedded in my vocabulary. i think james should go read that book too just quietly.

                    • Teresa August 16, 2009 at 8:03 PM #

                      I must agree; the word fuck is embedded in the vocabulary of many and has a different meaning for each intent in which i is delivered. It’s a happy verb, or an angry adverb, etc.

                      Keep your listening ears on!

                  • isme August 10, 2009 at 9:07 AM #

                    I don’t know about that. It seems to me that it only has that negative connotation because sex is inherently dirty, and we should all feel ashamed for our wicked thoughts, especially the women.

                    There isn’t (at least in english) a polite verb referring to the sexual act because of this.

                    Though, it could just be that I don’t live where you live, and the word is used slightly differently around here.

                • Teresa August 16, 2009 at 11:58 PM #

                  Fuck is an iconic English word. In its canonical transitive verb form, it simply refers to the act of sexual intercourse. By extension it may be used to profanely or negatively characterize anything that can be dismissed, disdained, defiled, or destroyed, and it is due to the convergence of these two weighty concepts (sex and destruction) that the term can carry such overloaded emphasis, although it is frequently used as a mere intensifier.
                  “Fuck” can be used as a noun, verb, adjective, adverb, pronoun, or interjection and can logically be used as virtually any word in a sentence (e.g. “Fuck the fucking fuckers”).
                  It hence has various metaphorical meanings.
                  The verb “to be fucked” can mean “to be cheated” (e.g. “I got fucked by a scam artist”).
                  As a noun “a fuck” or “a fucker” may describe a contemptible person. “A fuck” may mean an act of copulation.
                  As a verb, the word can be used as an interjection, and its participle is sometimes used as a strong emphatic. The verb to fuck may be used transitively or intransitively, and it appears in compounds, including fuck off, fuck up, and fuck with.
                  In less explicit usages (but still regarded as vulgar), fuck or fuck with can mean to mess around, or to deal with unfairly or harshly. In a phrase such as “don’t give a fuck”, the word is the equivalent of “damn”, in the sense of something having little value.
                  In “what the fuck”, it serves merely as an intensive.

              • Teresa August 16, 2009 at 6:39 PM #

                Fuck is not used exclusively with violent intent. Example: I absolutely adore a good fuck when I’m feeling overly excited in a sexual manner. I just want hard core sex, with little thought regarding personal emotions between myself and my partner.

                See? Isn’t that a nice way of using the word, Fuck? :-)

                • James August 16, 2009 at 7:26 PM #

                  Whatever turns you on, Teresa.

                • Teresa August 16, 2009 at 7:57 PM #

                  Hey! I was only providing an example for when the “F” word is not delivered with violent intentions behind the use of the word.

                  I thought it was a good example, as opposed to being condescending.

                  • James August 16, 2009 at 11:18 PM #

                    Hah, my mistake, sorry. The internet is so saturated with snark I’ve started to see it everywhere, I suppose. I agree with you.

                • Becstar August 16, 2009 at 10:57 PM #

                  Actually, no, it’s not a nice way of using the word. All it means is that you have acquired it in order to objectify your partner. You’re just getting in first so that you can objectify someone before they are able to objectify you. That’s not “nice” it’s either self-preservation or ruthlessness displayed through violence.

                  • Teresa August 16, 2009 at 11:38 PM #

                    Here’s what I think…

                    Sexual objectification is the objectification of a person, which occurs when a person is seen as a sexual object when their sexual attributes and physical attractiveness are separated from the rest of their personality and existence as an individual, and reduced to instruments of pleasure for another person. Such as when partners are role playing and wearing Super Hero costumes which lead to intense Super Hero sex totally devoid of emotion, but every bit as enjoyable as when you are enjoying the usual mind body connection associated with “love making”.
                    The concept of sexual objectification and, in particular, the objectification of women, is an important idea in feminist theory and psychological theories derived from feminism.

                    I believe there are many feminists who regard sexual objectification as objectionable with regards to the inequality of women. There are also those who have argued that sexual freedom for women has led to an increase of the sexual objectification of men.

                    Personally, I think this is more of a sexual philosphy discussion and even a sexual ethics which would be a great topic for further discussion and debate. Just not in this particular discussion as it is not “exactly” what the topic of focus regards.

                    I will continue to wear my Wonder Woman costume and enjoy the complete objectification of my partner who will be wearing his Batman costume.

                    TO THE BATCAVE!

              • Big Mobe (@Big_Mobe) August 9, 2013 at 6:51 PM #

                It is unacceptable to be violent towards anyone unless that someone posses an immediate threat to your well being.

    • Misty August 14, 2009 at 4:15 AM #

      ok we’re getting away from the real important issue here…. that all men suck butt!! they are horrible beings who deserve to be hated!!

      • Teresa August 16, 2009 at 8:04 PM #

        Yes…..you are correct, Misty. Apologies.

        Men suck.

    • Me June 10, 2015 at 2:11 AM #

      This is ridiculous

  4. Laurel July 6, 2009 at 10:07 AM #

    I believe it was Twisty who once typed, “93.7% of 21st century feminist time is wasted reassuring people that feminists don’t hate men.”

    Aiport Man an egregious example? Please. That guy was a minor annoyance. He was a common, everyday, run-of–the-mill example–which is exactly what makes living in a man’s world so maddening: the everydayness of it all.

    And, Ladies, you will notice that we have gained Shaun’s permission to take over the world. I know that’s all I was waiting for before I charge into battle yelling “ALL the money and all of the pussy!”

    • Shaun H July 7, 2009 at 9:05 PM #

      Glad to be of service.

  5. SargassoSea July 6, 2009 at 10:38 AM #

    Thanks, 9-2 for calling it like it is. And to the dudes who complain that they are crushed under the patriarchal boot-heel I say, they’re YOUR kind – take it up with THEM.

    As for ‘motherfucker’: only a dude would feel privileged/power deranged enough to fuck his mother. That’s the way I see it and that’s the way I use it. A lot.

  6. syndicalist702 July 6, 2009 at 12:44 PM #

    You know, I don’t care for men a whole helluva lot myself. I mean, there are certain ones (like grandpa) for whom I have a lot of respect, but that’s about it.

  7. bonobobabe July 6, 2009 at 2:13 PM #

    Yes! Let the man-hating begin!

    Men on flights–biggest pains in the ass. They try to nudge in front of you in line, they try to dominate the arm rest, and they are generally assholes. On one of my flights, I got to my seat and noticed that my rowmates were all women. Yes! That leg of my flight was the best one.

    • Teresa August 17, 2009 at 1:48 AM #

      Go Fembots!

      Does anyone remember the Fembots?

  8. Undercover Punk July 6, 2009 at 6:12 PM #


    In light of the undeniable historical persistence and severity with which men have oppressed and abused women (see, for example, statistics on rape and single motherhood; see also the laws and rules of evidence on “spousal rape”), the exceptionalism of a few males is hardly sufficient justification for remaining loyal to the entire gender. In fact, it would be IRRATIONAL for me, as a woman, to love men in general. It would be IRRATIONAL of me not to fear their unpredictable violence.

    It would be irrational of me not to separate myself from men’s continuous assault of unapologetic attempts to dominate everything feminine.

    92, TELL IT!!!!

    • Grace Margaret August 10, 2009 at 3:36 AM #

      The situation women have to face is that men are socialized (by other men) to despise women in the same way that white supremacists despise black people. Imagine if white supremacist were sexually attracted to black people. What a complete mess that would be. But it is a reality for us. We are supposed to have intimate relationships and raise children with people who see us as the “n” word, totally subhuman, dirty and contemptible.

  9. buttersisonlymyname July 6, 2009 at 6:46 PM #

    Have you ever been paintballing? It’s much worse; but highly amusing.

    I’ll be honest with you, the way you feel about men is the way I’m tempted to feel about white people, especially white men. I don’t want to say it because it sounds reverse racist, and I know all white people aren’t like this, but since you described the behaviour of privileged and arrogant men, I thought I might as well join in with something similar.

    There is also another kind of privilege that intersects with white and male privilege, but that people rarely talk about: extravertist privilege. It sounds trivial since it’s not on the agenda (possibly because the agenda is set by extraverts), but the amount of bullying, ignoring, rudeness, stares and condascension I’ve faced due to my ‘shyness’ and aspie-like tendencies is far worse than all the racism and sexism I’ve faced put together. And your story illustrates this bigotry even further.

    • progressive recess July 7, 2009 at 1:11 AM #

      I sometimes feel that way about white folk too.

    • isme July 7, 2009 at 3:06 PM #

      “I’ll be honest with you, the way you feel about men is the way I’m tempted to feel about white people, especially white men. I don’t want to say it because it sounds reverse racist, and I know all white people aren’t like this, but since you described the behaviour of privileged and arrogant men, I thought I might as well join in with something similar.”

      I thought this might come up. I agree with you. White people have a massive amount of privilege, and they run the world…in a different way that the patriarchies do, but still. I think it’s fair for people to hate white people as much as men.

      Likewise, anyone whom is a member of an organised religion of any size. They also run the world, overlapping strongly with the patriarchies. I think it’s fair to hate them.

      I’d also add Americans to that list, except that everyone hates them already ;)

    • Rachael July 8, 2009 at 7:55 AM #

      Your point about extravertism is an interesting one. I’ve never thought about it before. As someone who’s very open and talkative with people, I should try to be more careful and pick up on whether or not they’re really interested in talking to me.

      Thanks for this.

    • Kay July 12, 2009 at 1:39 AM #

      Sounds ‘almost racist’ – snort.

    • New_Here July 17, 2009 at 3:22 PM #

      Butters, I know what you mean about extrovert privilege. I’ve always been extremely shy. Most extroverts act as if we introverts don’t exist; they don’t even see us. Or they act like there’s something deeply wrong with us.

      Most extroverts are completely oblivious to introverts, let alone the fact we deserve to be treated like equals.

    • KLMC July 19, 2009 at 9:50 PM #

      Progressive recess, I agree with you completely. I’m white but realize that no one in this world is more priveleged than the white american male…this country can be racist but it’s wayyy more sexist.

    • Grace Margaret August 11, 2009 at 3:51 AM #

      I’ve been extremely shy my whole life, and yes, people treat you like total crap. I was not as aware of sexism growing up because I was treated inferior all the time and didn’t connect it to my gender at all.

      People treat shyness like it’s something that needs to be cured, that everyone must be an extrovert or there is something wrong with you. Also it is seen as a sign of being weak, and weakness is severely punished in a patriarchal society.

  10. karinova July 6, 2009 at 9:05 PM #

    The you-just-hate-men attack is so amateur hour. Frankly, it just proves so many of your points.

    I’d argue that it’s a combination of penis worship, fundamental misogyny and its kissing cousin, homophobia: the whole idea is that you’ll recoil in horror at being described that way, because that’s not a womanly way to feel, because EVERYBODY LOVES DICK, no matter what comes along with it. Only lesbians hate men, and you’re not a lesbian are you?? You’re a real woman, right? So of course you don’t want anyone to think you don’t worship at the altar of the Church of XY, right?!
    You’re supposed to run away screaming, “Ack, implied lesbianism– get it off me!!!” (Or perhaps, “Let me prove to you just how much I love men, you irresistible and intellectually superior stud”?)

    Meanwhile, it’s like, what if you do hate men?
    How does that invalidate your points (which is to say, how does that change reality)?
    Does the revelation of your supposed man-hate mean that women are suddenly earning the same as men? Or that porn is not a mostly male-driven pursuit that is harmful to all involved? That women and men aren’t cutting up their bodies etc. to please the insane demands of men? That women are assumed to be fair game for gropings and so on, simply by dint of being outdoors?

    Give me a fucking break.
    Bullshit Deluxe™ pour homme… the most indulgent bullshit available. By Davidoff.

    • Nine Deuce July 6, 2009 at 10:18 PM #

      This comment rules.

      • karinova July 6, 2009 at 11:09 PM #

        Something about this post just made me SNAP.

        I came back with another comment. It’s pending. Please feel free to fix my tags– sometimes I mess them up when I’m in a blind rage. Either that, or the WordPress tryckfelsnissen (typo elves) are after me.

        • Marianne July 22, 2009 at 8:29 AM #

          Obviously “Karinova” has never been the target of domestic abuse, rape, being paid .75 while a male coworker doing less work gets paid 1.00, or sexually harassed.

          “Everybody loves dick” does not make a woman love men, it simply means she likes to go to the store and buy a dildo to please herself.

          We really don’t need men, just sperm bank ’em and toss.

          • Orlando C July 23, 2009 at 12:07 AM #


            Marianne, either you are misreading the sarcasm in Karinova’s post, or your own sarcasm is layers too deep for me to understand.

            Gee, sarcasm. Helping folks communicate….

    • Rachelle Kebaili March 8, 2015 at 2:44 PM #

      Hahahaha!!!! Fucking Brilliant!

  11. karinova July 6, 2009 at 10:59 PM #

    Oh, and lest I seem obtuse:
    Obviously, the other reason you’re supposed to run screaming at the you-just-hate-men accusation is because you’re being lumped in with all the other indiscriminate, irrational haterists (racists et al). This is a distortion of hate that really pisses me off. Basically, it implies that there’s no good reason for any woman who’s not actively being gang raped to hate men.

    Hating a group just because of who they are, without regard to (indeed, despite) how they act, is ism and is foul. However, I submit that hating a group specifically because of how they act is perfectly fucking sensible. Hmm, to which category does institutionalized patriarchal misogyny (IPM) belong? And to which category does Deuce’s “misandry” belong? Hmm.

    Not to even mention, Deuce’s man-hate is somewhat exaggerated for effect, I’m sure. (Mine is, in that when pressed, I acknowledge that I just hate/resent most men. Probably 85%.) To be honest, I don’t even want to hate them. Men, as a group and as individuals, have done and continue to do some Very Bad Shit to women, and yet I doubt there are many women who truly do. So, yeah. We exaggerate. For effect.

    Whereas, despite constantly being played down by apparatchiks of the patriarchy, IPM is dead fucking serious. If you consume any popular media at all, you’re reminded of it daily: degrading portrayals; batterings, murders, sadistic sexual assaults. Epically awful imagery– one can’t even call them jokes– like the donkey punch, dirty sanchez, angry pirate, etc., which seem to exist only to remind us of how hated we are, and how we’re all just one lippy remark away from the inevitable rape/murder we so richly deserve. Okay, we get it! Message fucking received; 5×5. I’m hated, Deuce is hated, all of our mothers, and their mothers, and their mothers’ mothers since time out of freakin’ mind, have been hated. Eve is hated. (Yeah, I know what you’re going to say. Look, all she did was what the talking penis told her to do. Talk about damned if you do/don’t.)

    And yet, fools cannot imagine why anyone would ever hate men. They’re all clutching the pearls and like, “land sakes, why do you hate us so much?” I’m sorry, but that is my line.

    • Nanella July 8, 2009 at 3:06 AM #

      This comment is 50 kinds of awesome :-D I wanted to stand up and cheer when I got to the end: “I’m sorry, but that is my line.” HELLS YEAH!

    • Ash February 11, 2014 at 5:47 PM #

      You hate men because they hate you?

      • Sandy August 8, 2014 at 9:45 AM #

        Lame, isn’t it.

        • Sugarpuss August 8, 2014 at 9:23 PM #

          Ah, ableist language. Gotta love.

          What a shitty little troll.

  12. Liz July 6, 2009 at 11:05 PM #

    Nine Deuce. Seriously, you are the shit. I wish more feminists would admit to this instead of wasting their fucking time by placating teh menz.

  13. RenegadeEvolution July 7, 2009 at 2:36 AM #

    Kinda how I feel about people in general, actually…

    as for the MRA’s who say “why can’t we hate women”…it’s like dude, you DO, why do you think you are an MRA???

    Alas, I still like football.

  14. Chai Latte July 7, 2009 at 5:22 AM #

    I did a post like this awhile back, explaining why men can really suck.

    Yes, I do kind of hate men. I hate that they have power and I don’t, for reasons that are bullshit at best. And I’m not going to apologize and/or explain myself anymore. Thank you, 9-2, for being the awesome blogger that you are. Vindication is awesome!

  15. FiveByFive July 7, 2009 at 8:14 AM #

    I guess the question I’ll pose is: Can there ever exist an egalitarian society?

    As humans we tend to want to keep what we’ve achieved. So do men subjugate women because they’re men or because they’re human? And would it be the same if roles were reversed?

    • Nine Deuce July 7, 2009 at 5:40 PM #

      Nice try, but that isn’t what I’m pushing for.

    • syndicalist702 July 7, 2009 at 7:05 PM #

      …Enter the tired-ass “isn’t-that-just-the-way-it-is” argument. So what else are you going to say is impossible just because the cavemenz didn’t do it?


    • isme July 7, 2009 at 9:09 PM #

      Well…I wouldn’t say that equality between men and women is impossible, just that if it ever happened, people would, IMHO, find someone else to oppress.

      As to whether women would do things differently if the role was reversed, I’d say no…at most, there’d just be a different form of oppression centering on different things. If men and women would do things differently, than that’s an actual division between the sexes, not just a societal one, and you’d get actual reasons for one or the other being socially dominant.

      • Teresa August 17, 2009 at 1:59 AM #

        If human kind could only learn to cherish the old ways, living close to the natural order of things. We could all live together in harmony with our living Earth.

        It would be just like…..Paradise.

        • isme August 18, 2009 at 9:11 AM #

          “Natural order of things”?

          If you’re talking about living in harmony with the environment, well, I’d be interested in how you’re accessing the internet without the use of manufactured goods.

          If you’re talking about living in harmony with other people, then that’s not really “the old ways”…humans have fought amongst themselves more or less forever, ever since they banded together to avoid having to contend with the environment so much…one of the disadvantages of having evolved from a predatory species, I guess.

          • Teresa August 19, 2009 at 3:37 PM #

            It was a quote from Wonder Woman. Don’t take life so seriously. Sometimes, it’s best to take a step back and take in the world around you. I think our world today is moving so fast that we are not aware of what is immediately around us in our own environment and how life changes us and even warps our perspective, creating a slight imbalance in our inner core.

            “Cherish the old ways.” Try to remember, sometimes in life, things are not as complicated as we tend to make them. KISS.

            “Live in harmony with our living earth.” Learn to feel the world around you. The real living world we live in, that is. Trees, grass, ants, heathly earth alive with life going about its business in the soil beneath us. Have you ever seen the earth move beneath your feet?

            Try not to let the fight for equality and the constant battle against the man-chine with all of its egotistical, self serving, arrogant and narrow minded thinking; try not to let our struggles take from us the things in this world which should be most important to every human; life and quality of life on our living earth. KISS.

            Humans have been evolving for quite some time. I don’t think it was exactly trying to “avoid contending with the environment”, as much as humans have struggled to live within their environment, but in the least dangerous way possible as part of the need to survive. At one point, humans came close to no longer existing on earth. Fortunately, because early humans were resilient and had the ability to adapt to the environment and the new conditions as presented, we are still here and will hopefully continue to evolve further.

            I am surprised that a simple statement such as “live in harmony with our living earth”, was so easily twisted into something far too complicated.

            This is exactly the opposite of “Keep it simple stupid.”; KISS. Life is not that complicated, unless you choose to make it so, which will further complicate it for those around you. We all touch each others lives in one form or another.
            Let’s try to make sure our values are refleced in our actions, as well as in the choices we make for ourselves each day. Reflecting the best of what we have to offer each other, rather than so much complication and negativity towards our male counter parts will only serve to hold us back in what we endeavor. Each of us, including women, are accountable for the state of things in the world, such as they are today. Like it or not, women have always held great influence over man, though maybe not in the way we would prefer; as equal voices on the floor.

            If we continue to wield this influence in the right manner, our goal of true equality will come to fruition. In the mean time, forums and blogs such as this one, will allow us to verbally bitch slap the male of our species until they learn to stop thinking with their man-tool, as opposed to using the giant noodle in their heads as was its intended use either by design or evolution.

            Wow. I got off track a bit. Sorry. I am groggy and need coffee now, please.

      • terry August 6, 2013 at 12:54 AM #

        Be more imaginative. You’re basically saying there’s no way things could be different than they are. Or, the more things change, the more they stay the same. You’re entitled to your viewpoint, I don’t mean to demean it, only trying to encourage you away from what appears to me to be resignation. In my view, it is possible for things to get better, be truly egalitarian, and for all intents and purposes, for humans and nature to have a paradise on earth. No, I don’t have all the answers. That’s what we’re all here for.

    • Nanella July 8, 2009 at 5:01 AM #

      Patriarchy is a hierachal social paradigm. Egalitarianism is, by definition, diametrically opposed to hierarchal systems. There is simply no room for oppression of anyone when everyone is on equal footing.

      I would love to see the scientific evidence that validates this supposition: “As humans we tend to want to keep what we’ve achieved.” It’s more like patriarchy breeds entitlement, and entitled people are society’s equivalent of the spoiled rotten brat. SRB’s tend to throw temper tantrums when people threaten to take away their unearned toys.

  16. Jay Black July 7, 2009 at 7:12 PM #

    If masculinity is bad, why are most women attracted to it. I was a very efeminent male growing up, artist and all that, and no girl would give me the time of day, and it wasn’t something else about my personality or looks either, as I was actually always pretty popular. I’m an Apha male jerk now (with a bit of a wink and nudge so people don’t take it so seriously), but I had to learn to be one so that I could attract a good women, who I did and am now married to. Women seem to be confused internally about what they want to say the least….

    • Shaun H July 7, 2009 at 9:08 PM #

      Stop making sense.

    • isme July 7, 2009 at 9:11 PM #

      Oh…I see a biter argument forming here. You’d have societal influences, of course.

      Also…being masculine doesn’t (or at least shouldn’t) mean “being a wanker” any more than feminine does/should not mean “being a nice person”.

    • Faith July 7, 2009 at 10:01 PM #

      “Women seem to be confused internally about what they want to say the least….”


      A man telling women what we really want. How bloody original.

    • Chai Latte July 7, 2009 at 11:11 PM #

      Dude. Don’t tell us what we want. THIS IS PART OF THE PROBLEM. You are NOT LISTENING and you plainly don’t give a shit about our voices, or anything we might have to say. I suspect this was probably the case long before you ‘became an alpha male jerk’.

      Minus the alpha male part, of course–to my view, you’re just a garden-variety jerk.

      And dude? Not all of us are attracted to men, jerky or otherwise.

    • Nanella July 8, 2009 at 2:42 AM #

      What fucking bullshit. Look, Mr. Sensitivity, any man who would even consider metamorphosing into an “alpha male jerk” — and, yes, I believe you are being serious — to attract women has zero moral fiber to begin with. A genuinely decent guy would rather be alone for the rest of his life than sell himself out like that, IF he was stupid enough to believe his “artistic side” (LOLZ) was repelling women.

      So let’s establish point A) You were a wanker to begin with. Women possessing an iota of self-esteem smelled your assholishness a mile away and kept their distance. Point B) You’ve successfully undergone a (*giggles*) “transition”, which essentially means you decided to drop your Nice Guy(tm) facade, since it wasn’t getting you any pussy, and let your already-deeply-entrenched assholery shine through.

      Congratufuckinglations, you’ve learned that “bad boys” attract women…a certain kind of woman. A woman who has very little to no self-esteem. Yeah, that’s really something to be proud of.

      • Jay Black July 8, 2009 at 4:27 PM #

        I promise being too nice was my problem. In college (art school) I lifted weights. Then I focused on dressing better. It wasn’t until I could fearlously could approach women and deal with the rejection that happened most of the time, basically becoming dead inside to female opinion, that I began to date. This is essentially what an Alpha-male is. Someone who doesn’t “care” emotionally about other peoples judgements of them. It was very hard, I am and was a very sensitive artist (I do have depression, so maybe that was the main thing that turned women away), to make that transition, but I have a high IQ, studied the problem, read books, and adapted. By the way, my wife is very insecure. She was a late bloomer, but now at 30 looks 18. I am always trying to show her how great she is, but she was pretty beat down early in life, and hasn’t quiet shaken her insecurities (of course she has anxiety problems so maybe its too inherent to change). I realize many of you have been hurt by males, I have too, but the ones who hurt me always seemed to have the easist time with women. I believe the too sides need to continue our conversation, but now with the MRA movement, it is no longer a one sided debate. A middle ground will be reached. It is the way of the universe. Balance falls away and reasserts itself often.

        • isme July 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM #

          Balance asserts itself by falling away? What?

          And…how do MRAs stop it from being a one-sided debate? Is this a “what about the men?” argument? Do you mean advocates of men’s rights, or Men’s Rights Advocates, exclaimation mark and triumphal music?

          Yes, feminists may seem to hold almost a monopoly of complaints about gender inequalities (that being more or less the only perk to being of the undesirable side of an inequality), but bringing the level of complaints about Men’s Rights up to the same volume probably isn’t the best way to balance that out. I think possibly redressing the balance somewhere else (I’ve got a place in mind) might be the blatantly obviously correct thing to do.

          That said, I’m all for people actually advocating men’s rights, just not MRAs, in the same way I’m for the ethical treatment of animals and against PETA.

        • Charlie July 8, 2009 at 10:23 PM #

          PLEASE NOTE: This is a response to Jay Black from a man because I firmly believe that men need to hold each other accountable for our crap. For the women on this blog: feel free to read or skip as you like- I wouldn’t take up the bandwidth on this blog with this if I had another place to say this to him. That being said…

          @Jay Black

          First off, you’re right that sexism and its effects have significant negative impacts on men. And at the same time, the evidence is pretty clear that it’s not nearly as universal or as damaging as the effects that it has on women. A broken leg isn’t as bad as a broken spine- they both suck. But the EMTs will deal with the broken spine first because it’s a bigger injury. And if you’re the person with the broken spine, you really don’t want to hear the person with the broken leg complaining.

          I totally get what you’re saying about being “too nice” from personal experience. A lot of boys and men are taught that the only alternative to the alpha male is to be a “sensitive guy”. I don’t know if this was your experience, but when I was in that place, I didn’t set boundaries, speak up for myself, get angry, etc. and that definitely got in the way of my relationships.

          But unlike you, I changed that by stepping outside of the alpha male/wimp model. It’s entirely possible to claim your strength and your power without going so far that you shift into force/control. Some people phrase that as “power with/power over” but I prefer to think of it as power and force/control because when you’re powerful, you don’t need to force or control people. It’s a different way of moving through the world and I think it deserves a separate word. A powerful man wouldn’t need to “dominate the pussies” like the guy that 9-2 blogged about.

          If you’re truly dead inside to female opinion of you, then I’m sorry that you felt the need to cut part of yourself off. That is one of the costs of sexism for men and it grieves me to hear that. But what if you learned how to be a powerful man who cared what the women (and men) in his life thought of him without letting that rule him? What if you could be both strong and willing to be open to others? What if you stopped thinking of it as a dichotomy of alpha/sensitive and discovered what it means to be powerful without having to control?

          It’s true that the men who operate out of the alpha model often seem to attract women. There are a lot of theories about why that is. But I can tell you that there’s no shortage of women in the world who would love to connect with a man who can be confident, strong, and powerful while remaining open, sensitive and caring. You’ll almost certainly find that there’s much more joy in your life when you get off the alpha/wimp see-saw.

          For example, you say that you are “always trying to show [your wife] how great she is”. Right there, you’re saying that you’re trying to control her experience and it doesn’t surprise me to hear that it’s not working. What if you simply said to her “I think that you’re really great AND I understand that you don’t feel that way. How is that for you?” See what happens if you stop trying to control how she feels and spend a little time empathizing with and supporting her. When you try to convince her that her perception of herself is wrong, that is probably only reinforcing her beliefs about who she is. I get that your intentions are really good. I do- I’ve fallen into exactly the same trap more times than I can count and it’s usually because I want to help. But it’s not the way to do it because it’s coming from the place of “I know better than you,” which is an example of control.

          The idea that it’s an either/or usually reinforces the problems of sexism in the first place. Sure- there are times when life does offer an either/or. But when it comes to how we connect to other people, there’s often room for BOTH sides to have their space. You can be strong AND open to others. You can be sensitive AND maintain your position. It takes practice. AND it’s not nearly as hard as it sounds.

          We now return you to your regularly scheduled feminist blog. Thanks for your time.

          • syndicalist702 July 9, 2009 at 9:35 PM #

            “I firmly believe that men need to hold each other accountable for our crap.”

            Hear hear, bradah!

            I can’t seem to get this fool (the responder to my post) to understand that. Feel free to whoop up on him.

          • Teresa August 19, 2009 at 3:54 PM #

            I am in agreement with your post, Charlie. It’s a good deal about inner strength in each of us and our own actions and choices we make for ourselves. This is what attracks me to another person. I like people who are strong in their values and core beliefs, who’ve learned how to live according to their values, no matter the opinions of their peers who may find them to be weak for not going through life using the “pack” mentality, as most men seem to do in our world. (I know; the pack mentality is a separate subject matter for a completely different discussion in a totally different blog.) But, I hope my direction was easily understood. If not, I will certainly restate using better clarity of thought as I write.

        • Chai Latte July 9, 2009 at 1:36 AM #

          I stand by my original opinion, Jay–you’re no Alpha Male.

          Oh, sorry–you’re right! All I want is an asshole who doesn’t care about my ‘female opinions’ at all! thank you so much for clearing that up!

          I’ll say it one more time: you are the problem.

        • Nanella July 9, 2009 at 4:46 AM #

          You’re confusing “nice” with “no backbone”. Niceness and confidence/assertiveness are not mutually exclusive character traits. I believe what you meant to say is that you were too shy to approach women. This is one reason some men mistakenly assume that masculinity archetypes like the Bad Boy make good dating role models. What Bad Boys and Alpha Males have in common is that they exude confidence. What you’ve failed to realize is that people of all stripes and personality types, as long as they’ve got buckets of confidence, are going to get dates. Sensitive artistic types who have faith in their inherent worth as human beings and aren’t afraid to approach women are going to be romantically successful, too. Now that doesn’t mean that every woman approached by a confident man is going to be captivated by said man — the world simply doesn’t operate that way. Dating is supposed to operate on the principle that compatible personalities will find each other so long as they’re willing to tolerate the inevitable rejection that comes with a journey through Datingland.

          You didn’t have to “deaden” yourself to others’ judgments, you only had to believe in your intrinsic value enough to understand that not every man was made for every woman, and vice versa. Once you realize that we’re all, men and women alike, bumbling awkwardly through the dating thing, we’ve all suffered rejection, we’ve all been rejectors at some point, you see that it’s just the price you pay for playing the game and nothing to take personally, really. There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging how emotionally vulnerable this process makes you feel. The vulnerability makes you human. I’m sorry that you didn’t have someone to tell you this earlier in life when you needed to hear it. I’m sorry that you didn’t have someone to empathize with you and assure you that a very human experience was not a liability.

          Yes, your depression probably did repel women, and not because it made you a flawed, unwanted, undateable person. Depression manifests as negative personality characteristics, it makes you appear unapproachable; of course it was going to serve as a tremendous impediment to attracting women. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to treat the depression? It would probably make a lot of sense to seek treatment for it now.

          As for the MRA stuff…*sigh*. I don’t think you understand that this was never a “one-sided debate”. Feminists have always encountered opposition. History stands as testimony to the fact that being a member of an oppressed group means having to fight tooth-and-nail for full human status. It has never not been a struggle.

          • Jay Black July 9, 2009 at 1:54 PM #

            Thank you for the well reasoned last two counter arguements. I would like to clarify that my sensitive/Alpha sides are balanced, I’m all about trying to achieve balance, as the Alpha side is more of an act anyway, the sensitive side always remainning the core, I’d say I’m still far on the sensitve side of the spectrum. Also, when I stated that I was trying to show my wife how great she is, I meant in all the ways you suggested. I empathized with her, because we were so similiar, both late bloomers. I didn’t try to control her self image, just point out the positive. As for dead to female opinion, I don’t think you realize how much rejection some men go through. I had a strong self image, teachers, the popular kids even, and most adults found me “interesting” (I’m opinioinated), and I had several social circles ((potheads, jocks, trouble makers, rich kids; they sort of all made a super group for partying), my DnD group, artsy group, and outcasts) but it was female peers who tore down that image. To not let that amount of rejection affect you would mean your already dead inside and probably a sociopath. If I allowed female opinion to mean something significant to me I would of killed myself (instead of just dwelling on it.) And I was never, ever shy. I approached girls quite often (I’d approach anyone who interested me), refusing to ever completely quit (I was never a complete failure in getting dates, just follow up dates, that was the ego killer, because then they rejected me based on something), I have the inate quality of perseverence. (I even tried my hand in most sports despite my unathelticism) Body language alone often let me know girls were not interested in someone like me. I wasn’t a creep who couldn’t pick up on signals. Of course I read a book on body language in 7th grade that was a god send (Geeks aren’t good at that stuff). I refuse to accept your premise that most girls will be attracted to sensitve intellectuals, and the ones who might of been were too shy, or didn’t exist in my social circles, for me to have bumped into them. Hell, I went to art school, assuming girls who would dig me would show up there, but same story) Maybe I was just unlucky, but nerds didn’t date often, and scientists aren’t known for being “eligible bachelors”, even the ones at the top of their fields. I know my description of myself may seem somewhat unbelievably painted in a good light, and I didn’t mean to make this an autobiography, (although I do admit that I like talking about myself as I learn stuff about me from others in that way), and I have no way to prove it of course other than to allow you to contact people I grew up with, which I am actually willing to do (because thats how I role), but I am, was, and will always be an empathizer inspite of possibly having a mild case of aspergers (which is a personality type, not a psychological condition, I love my geeks), and I cannot help but note, that in my world, women controlled my education, my father, socially acceptable behaivor in general, and the social dynamics of peer groups, far more than the few alpha males who controlled their individual cliques. But enough of me: explain why men make up the majority of homeless, prison inmates, school dropouts, special ed. students, suicides, work related deaths, losers in child custody disputes, victims of violence, and earn far fewer college degrees than women. Where is the patriarchal power for them? How does physical strength oppress 51% of the population in a democracy run by the rule of law? How are womens evolutionary advantages (many) curtailed by our “patriarchal system”? I appreciate this dialouge and find it fascinating and important.

            • panoptical July 10, 2009 at 4:48 AM #

              This is a fairly long comment, so let me summarize:

              “Hi. I’m a NICE GUY but women don’t seem to get it. Oh, and by the way, I hereby demand that you explain this ‘feminism’ nonsense to me on my terms.”

              Allow me to respond:

              I have noticed that most men can only seem to understand arguments of the form “my dick is larger than yours.” So every time a woman complains about rape, a man has to validate himself by pointing out all those men in prison who are getting raped – which is clearly a much worse problem, because it’s happening not to women but to actual human beings. But this pathological inability to listen to others and this perverse drive towards one-upmanship is clearly not a personality defect, but instead a product of a sensitive individual who has been damaged by the fickle and capricious domination of women. I mean, men aren’t really egotistical scumbags – that’s just a front some men put up to get women to suck their dicks.

              Has it ever occurred to you that the mere fact that bad things happen to men doesn’t invalidate feminism or negate the oppression of women? In other words, that despite the evidence of centuries of patriarchal hegemony, the world does not, in fact, revolve around you?

            • Nanella July 11, 2009 at 4:19 AM #

              “I had a strong self image…but it was female peers who tore down that image. To not let that amount of rejection affect you would mean your already dead inside and probably a sociopath.”

              You admitted previously that guys bullied you, too, so this is not a single-sex phenomenon. If you were the target of an inordinate amount of criticism and general negative attention from your peers, there had to a be a reason why that was. I’m not insinuating that you deserved the bullying, but I am stating, positively, that there was something about your personality that chronically rubbed people the wrong way.

              You mentioned that you have Asperger’s and, you know what? That explains a whole hell of a lot. People with autism spectrum disorders have a far more challenging time relating to their peers, and you must know that male Aspies almost always present as cold, callous, supercilious…not the most endearing traits, and certainly not the sort of traits that are going to win over the lady folk.

              I cannot help but note, that in my world, women controlled my education, my father, socially acceptable behaivor in general, and the social dynamics of peer groups, far more than the few alpha males who controlled their individual cliques.

              But who sits on the school board? Which sex is most likely to be the school administrator? Nope, sorry, but the men are still overwhelmingly in charge of education in the U.S.

              “Socially acceptable behavior” in the U.S. has as its foundation in Judeo-Christian morality, and the Judeo-Christian religions were founded and controlled by governing bodies comprised of MEN. You want to blame someone for constrictive social codes, blame your own fucking sex.

              If your mother also worked outside of the home, I suppose your father did exactly 1/2 of the housework and childrearing, did he? Your mother was never expected to “sexually service” him when she wasn’t in the mood? Your mother had equal career and personal autonomy?

              I won’t presume to know what the power dynamics were like within your own little social circle growing up, but I do know that the jocks are, and have always been, the ruling elite in American public schools. And you know I’m not referring to the Title IX group.

              explain why men make up the majority of homeless

              Research has consistently shown that the homeless are largely mental illness sufferers and addicts who have fallen through the gaps in the social safety net. Thanks to the social construct of masculinity under patriarchy, men are encouraged to repress emotion and discouraged to seek assistance in dealing with emotional distress. You can give your sex a giant FUCKING THANKS, BROS! for making it more difficult for men to seek mental health treatment.

              prison inmates

              You’re making this too easy. The patriarchal construct of masculinity encourages male aggression, discourages male expression of emotion, and this toxic recipe creates a human ticking time bomb. Throw in the masculinity ritual of excessive alcohol consumption (how manly!) and drug use, the resultant lowered inhibitions, not to mention possible frontal lobe damage, and it’s only a matter of time before an emotionally disturbed young man goes off in somebody’s face.

              I’ve spent a fair amount of time working with at-risk youth, and I can tell you that every single one of those poor boys is a caricature of hypermasculinity.

              Psychopathy does occur far more frequently in the male population, and there are probably milder variants (would that ever explain things). Psychopathy has been studied to death and there is very little, if anything, that professionals can do to treat it. Psychopaths and narcissists are notoriously resistant to treatment by virtue of the very traits that define them.

              school dropouts

              Same thing, essentially. Rebellion is a stereotypically male-coded behavior in our society, so it’s more acceptable for boys to act out and act up. Greater expections for obedience are placed on girls.

              special ed. students

              I’m not so sure that there’s a statistically significant divide there; I’d need to see the evidence. I suppose perhaps you’re referring to the higher rates of autism in the male population, which, if so, how is that even relevant to your argument?


              Annnnnd we’re back to the subject of socially constructed masculinity and repression of emotion, which means fewer men seek treatment for mental health issues than women. Hell yeah, we’d love to change this dynamic. It would be great if masculinity would stop impeding men from becoming fully realized human beings. So help us overthrow patriarchy already! Why do you want to continue holding your sex back?

              work related deaths

              Women have been historically excluded from industrial labor positions or harrassed mercilessly if they dare get a job “on the line”. It’s not a female-friendly line of work.

              losers in child custody disputes

              Primary care-givers are always given top priority in custody disputes. Women have been traditionally stay-at-home-moms because that is their female-coded role under patriarchy. Women have been barred from participating equally in the work force, historically speaking, so they’re more likely to be the primary care-giver.

              victims of violence

              Now you’re just fucking with us, unless you’re including statistics for prison violence and military-related deaths, both being male-dominated institutions, I don’t have to tell you.

              earn far fewer college degrees than women

              If you look at the history of higher education you’ll see that your sex has benefitted from it far more and for far longer. I think there was a temporary spike in the percentage of female college graduates (ah, I found it, 57%….WOO! really big difference there, Jay). Wow, you’re panicking over a fucking margin of 7%? When men have traditionally comprised the majority of the collegiate student body? What do you want us to do, Jay, to ensure that the balance will always be a perfect 50:50 ratio, or else favor the MEN, LIKE IT HAS FOR CENTURIES? Do you not realize that there are more women than men in the world and that statistics for college enrollment may very well accurately reflect the gender ratio? Let’s not get started on how the male population is siphoned off into the military, or, rather, let’s. Because feminists are pretty much anti-war, which means more boys at home dreaming big dreams and pursuing careers instead of getting their heads blown off by order of YOUR sex.

              And you’re throwing a fucking tantrum when it’s the men who still are overwhelmingly in positions of power in academic institutions, when it’s men who dominate middle and upper management positions in corporations all over the world, when it’s men who still run the fucking government.

              Here’s a statistic for you: MRAs are the world’s most pathetic and entitled cry-babies.

              And I’m not even going to deign to address your junk science arguments.

              • Nine Deuce July 11, 2009 at 4:47 AM #

                What she said. (Thanks, Nanella, because that needed retort and I might not have had the strength).

          • Jay Black July 9, 2009 at 2:02 PM #

            BTW: My depression has been successfully treated since I was about 21/22. Thanks for your concern. Weed helped before that. Depression sucks, what a cruel trick of nature to make someone generally unhappy. However, it has the possiblity of allowing for empathetic insights otherwise unattainable. My favorite example if Lincoln.

        • panoptical July 9, 2009 at 7:42 AM #

          I swear, the next guy I hear whining pathetically about how “nice guys” can’t get women because women only want “bad boys” might just push me right over the edge. Do you even comprehend how arrogant (stupid, obnoxious, self-serving) it is to surmise that since there is nothing wrong with your looks, intellect, or personality, clearly your lack of romantic success must be due to some defect of women as a group?

          Seriously, dude. Weightlifting? Dressing better? Could it be that women didn’t like you because you were shallow and vapid? And if your spelling and grammar are any indication, you’re barely literate. High IQ? Give me a freakin’ break. I mean, seriously, you write like a god damned lolcat.

          You want us to believe that you used to be a nice guy? You weren’t, and here’s how I know: Every sentence that you write is literally dripping with the sense of entitlement that you have. You have as much as claimed that you are justified in being an asshole to women because you are entitled to have a woman and so whatever you may do toward that end is totally legit. This is not the jerk persona, either – this was the line of reasoning that led you to adopt the jerk persona in the first place. If you had had actual respect for other human beings you might have comprehended that perhaps men who are able to date successfully are not all alpha-male jerks and women are not all credulous idiots who can easily be fooled out of their pants by a jerk persona.

          If you had wanted to form a meaningful relationship with another human being, you would have wanted to relate to her not based on a false identity that you took on to get her in the sack, but on whatever characteristics you might possess that make you a good partner. If, on the other hand, what you wanted was to have women as fucktoys, emotional band-aids, and trophies to validate your sad existence, well then you would have had no problem with the “be someone you’re not while treating women like shit” approach.

          But you expect us to believe that even though you treated women, from day one, as objects to be acquired through any means necessary, you’re really a very nice guy. You know, internally.

          Yeah, fucking right. And I got a bridge to sell you.

          • breatheinspirit July 10, 2009 at 1:54 PM #

            “And if your spelling and grammar are any indication, you’re barely literate. High IQ? Give me a freakin’ break. I mean, seriously, you write like a god damned lolcat.”

            I’m not having a terrible amount of sympathy for Jay, but that was way the fuck out of line. How about sticking to the matter at hand instead of attacking the other person’s grammar and spelling?

            • Faith July 10, 2009 at 6:46 PM #

              Oops. “Breatheinspirit” would be me, Faith…

            • panoptical July 10, 2009 at 7:10 PM #

              Usually I’d agree with you, but he opened the door when he touted his own high IQ and flawless personality. He made his intellect a part of the matter at hand when he made the explicit claim that he’s intelligent and the implicit claim that the only intelligent thing to do if you want to get dates is to treat women like crap. Obviously neither of those claims are true.

          • Shaun H July 10, 2009 at 8:28 PM #

            “Do you even comprehend how arrogant (stupid, obnoxious, self-serving) it is to surmise that since there is nothing wrong with your looks, intellect, or personality, clearly your lack of romantic success must be due to some defect of women as a group?”

            Just for the record, back when it mattered I was in good shape, had a nice face, was reasonably intelligent and curious about the world around me.

            But I was shy, so I guess I was defective in the personality department.
            I guess then we’d have to go further back to determine why I was shy, could it be that the female of the species strikes the first, and most deeply felt, blow in the struggle in which we are so clearly engaged?

            This is my opinion borne of experience and no matter how eloquent and compelling your argument is, you simply cannot go back in time and change it.

            I’m willing to step back and watch women manage the world in a more overt manner and would love more than anything for my brothers to join me. I’m unwilling to take more than half the blame as a gender for what is wrong with the world.

            Clearly the idea of co-mingling between the genders has run its course.
            I’m with you, it needs to stop.

            Nothing good can come of it.

            • Nanella July 11, 2009 at 2:03 AM #

              “…Could it be that the female of the species strikes the first, and most deeply felt, blow in the struggle in which we are so clearly engaged?

              Ah, and at last all becomes clear: MRAs have mommy issues. Personally, I recommend therapy over bigotry.

            • terry August 5, 2013 at 11:42 PM #

              No, women do not/ did not strike the first blow. And you are an idiot for thinking this is a “struggle.” Pure man – us against them power game. That is why you suck. A good indicator of why you whine about how you’ve been hurt because you were shy. Maybe you just have a very unattractive personality. I can vouch for that right here and now. And also, shit, be the change you want to see in the world. Don’t expect others to have integrity if you yourself don’t. You were shy, and women went after loud obnoxious types or some such stupid story? I have no idea what you’re trying to say, I really don’t care to look up every stupid comment you make. All I can say is that you are pathetic. You won’t acknowledge your own shortcomings, you can’t see them. You have a distorted view of the world. So your stupid arguments make sense to you, but to not to me. And as for your stupid challenges for women to run the world, rest assured, it will be a much, much better place. Women are better at wielding power without abusing it then men are. That much is patently obvious. Look who in the family unit runs the system with equal caring for all, versus who has to be king of the shit pot.

          • Will July 12, 2009 at 6:31 AM #

            “And if your spelling and grammar are any indication, you’re barely literate. High IQ? Give me a freakin’ break. I mean, seriously, you write like a god damned lolcat.”

            That’s fucking hilarious!!!

            • Nine Deuce July 12, 2009 at 6:39 AM #

              I agree, panoptical, that was a good one. Will – you are, however, an asshole and I won’t publish any of your comments but this one since they’re all misogynistic bullshit.

              • terry August 6, 2013 at 12:41 AM #

                I have only to hear this. Typical man shit. He thinks its funny when someone else is “powned” whether or not its been well deserved. He just likes to see who is going to come out on top, and aligns himself with the winner whether or not that person deserves respect.

            • Teresa August 19, 2009 at 4:01 PM #

              Oh my gawd! Einstein was not the best writer either, but he “clearly” had a high I.Q.

              A truly intelligent person would easily overcome such triviality in a blog post.

              You could have nicely reminded the writer to consider using spelling and grammar check before posting comments if they wish to be taking more seriously by the readers.

              I’m just sayin…..

              Peace dude and dudettes!

              • Meg November 1, 2009 at 5:01 AM #

                I’m pretty sure Einstein lived before the time of spell-check. Had he lived in the modern day, I bet would’ve been intelligent enough to take the two seconds required to *use it*, especially if he was spouting off about how smart he was.

        • syndicalist702 July 9, 2009 at 10:00 PM #

          You sure that the women aren’t rejecting you because you’re stuck on stupid? You’re being corrected left-and-right, man, think about what you’re typing.

        • Becstar July 26, 2009 at 8:31 AM #

          Here’s a radical concept: you were after sex but were to insecure to approach anyone so you unleashed your inner misogynist in order to pick up a woman who is incredibly insecure (thanks to the patriarchy) who thinks her only worth lies in sex. The worse you treat her, the more she thinks she’s only worth sex and so the more sex you get. Congratulations on being an A-grade asshole.

        • karinova July 26, 2009 at 8:31 PM #

          “It wasn’t until I could fearlessly approach women and deal with the rejection that happened most of the time, basically becoming dead inside to female opinion, that I began to date. This is essentially what an alpha-male is. Someone who doesn’t “care” emotionally about other peoples judgements of them.”

          How does how you dress or how often you work out relate to being “too nice”? Don’t you see that dealing with the potential for rejection is what made you more attractive and dateable? It’s called self-confidence. (Or at least, the appearance of it.) Seeming self-confident— without being an asshole— is a near-guaranteed way to attract positive attention. On the other hand, very insecure people can be quite attractive… to other insecure people looking to feel better about themselves.

          Which is why I’d argue that “alpha-males” care very much about what other people think. Dickish alpha-male behavior is rooted in insecurity: by definition, they have to surround themselves with less-confident people. (The pinnacle of alpha-male-ism isn’t being good at knocking down challengers, it’s being good at making sure there are no challengers.) However, dickish behavior is normalized, to the point that— ironically enough— it’s generally perceived as a display of confidence. Which is why it can and does attract a (certain type of) woman. Consider: you yourself describe your wife as chronically insecure.

        • Teresa August 16, 2009 at 11:45 PM #

          I have to say; my husband and I were discussing the “balance” needed between men and women earlier today. We had a pretty involved discussion which has proved to be multifaceted in perspectives, feelings, great emotion, confusion, and values and ethics.

          It is obvious, both men and women are out of balance in today’s world and there is much growing to do on both sides before a new balance is created.

          For now, my husband and I choose the path of listening and truly hearing what each side has to offer the other.

        • Dana August 18, 2009 at 12:53 AM #

          Dude? You didn’t get dates because you were an “alpha male,” you got dates because you acted interested in women. I would rather date a guy who’s interested in me than tear my eyes out over a guy who acted interested for two seconds and then walked out, or a guy who never looks at me at all.

          It ain’t rocket science. There’s nothing “manly” about it. If women weren’t socialized to be so damn passive I bet you would have loved to have a woman come up and show interest in you.

          Just guessing… could be wrong.

      • Rachelle Kebaili March 8, 2015 at 2:52 PM #

        Hahahaha!!!!! Brilliant!!

    • isme July 10, 2009 at 2:05 PM #

      Let us assume, for sake of argument, that women tend to be attracted to “jerks”, and not to “nice guys”. Or even, lets say that all women are solely interested in bad men.

      Does it then follow that men should behave that way, because otherwise they won’t be attractive to women?

      Surely there is a correct way to act, regardless if it allows you to pick up or not.

      • Jay Black July 10, 2009 at 8:51 PM #

        Sorry about my grammer (I’m not proof reading). I’m a visual spatial thinker primarily, probably with a bit of Asperger’s. They tried to send me away to a special school for the gifted in elementary school (refused for various reasons), and I have had my intellect openly admired by most of my teachers and proffesors. (I won’t list academic achievments as much of that boils down to hard work, not intellect.) That doesn’t mean smart people don’t have bad ideas. I’m here to learn while sharing my own beliefs, because that is one of the best ways to learn about your own beliefs, and evolve them, that’s all. I truly believe that through thoughtful debate (arguing) both sides will learn something. Also, I was never a jerk to women per se, just indefferent if there is one word to describe the cool guy attitude. And I see that you are bothered about my ego or self-centerdness. I never denied that, and have hinted at it; “like to talk about myself”, “never ever been shy”. I admit what we all should admit. Anyone who doesn’t think they are self-centered is dillusional, and I would rather be self-centered, which is honestly the biological norm, than detached from reality. That does not invalidate my ability for empathy. That does not stop the emotional pain I experience when witnessing emotional of physical suffering in others. Anyways, please read “The Evolution of Desire” and “The War Against Boys”, because obviously most of you are not willing to take me seriously, so maybe a book by someone else will do a better job at explaining some of my views. As an end, because I think I am done here, (unless succussfully provoked back into the debate, darn that ego), many of you have been very dismissive and hostile, really pretty mean to me, which only entrenches me in my belief that women are not the sweet and inoncent gender they claim to be. P.S. Reading further down from my posts comments, I see some referring to this as a “Safe Place” to vent. I did not approach it as such, and did not now that. I believe we all need outlets for emotions and did not mean to intrude if the policy and practice of this blog is for venting, and I take back my statements about the hostility then as I realize its purpose. Bad things can be used for good ends, just like mens propensity for violence.

        • Nine Deuce July 10, 2009 at 8:58 PM #

          Oh, we’ve got us an MRA. Lucky us.

          • Nanella July 11, 2009 at 1:17 AM #

            Who non-ironically believes that pointing us in the direction of books based on pseudoscience and misogynistic propaganda lends credibility to his argument.

            • Nine Deuce July 11, 2009 at 1:19 AM #

              A really smart artist who is also really good looking.

        • Nanella July 11, 2009 at 1:35 AM #

          …Many of you have been very dismissive and hostile, really pretty mean to me, which only entrenches me in my belief that women are not the sweet and inoncent gender they claim to be.

          “Sweet and innocent” is not a compliment. It’s what men call wide-eyed passive fembots who eat a metric ton of shit a day and beg for more.

          Just in case I wasn’t clear, it’s an insult.

          • cp June 15, 2013 at 7:20 AM #

            “Sweet and Innocent” has never been the female claim to fame, making decisions managing households and instilling moral and ethical judgement in our kids (and the rest of society) has been. no matter what men do or say its the ladies that the world relies on.

        • Kay July 12, 2009 at 2:50 PM #

          Dude, just by leaving such long comments on someone elses blog you are acting entitled and you can’t even see it.
          Look, I think, as has been said before, you were pretending to be something you were not and women saw through it. When you dropped the act and were your asshole self then you atracted someone.

        • harmony July 14, 2009 at 7:43 AM #

          (other than one exception, the quotes are from jay black)

          “doesn’t mean smart people don’t have bad ideas. I’m here to learn while sharing my own beliefs […]”

          i don’t think jay is the bad guy that people here are interpreting him to be. i take his word for it that what he says in the above quote is true.

          “It wasn’t until I could fearlously could approach women and deal with the rejection that happened most of the time, basically becoming dead inside to female opinion, that I began to date. This is essentially what an Alpha-male is. Someone who doesn’t “care” emotionally about other peoples judgements of them.”

          see, this just isn’t my definition of alpha male. i think alpha males are scummy people. and incorporating alpha-male-ness into your personality, even a little bit, means incorporating scummy-ness into your personality. which is why a strategy like this fucking sucks:

          “I would like to clarify that my sensitive/Alpha sides are balanced, I’m all about trying to achieve balance, as the Alpha side is more of an act anyway, the sensitive side always remainning the core, I’d say I’m still far on the sensitve side of the spectrum.”

          why would you want to have any alphaness in you at all? bleh!! it also shows you didn’t understand the essence of what charlie said to you:

          “But unlike you, I changed that by stepping outside of the alpha male/wimp model. […] What if you stopped thinking of it as a dichotomy of alpha/sensitive and discovered what it means to be powerful without having to control?”

          but anyways, i think the main problem here is in how you’re defining an alpha male. you seem to think it’s a man who (in the heterosexual context) is unphased by romantic rejection from women. and so when you stopped being phased by such rejection, you seemed to think this made you alpha. but it doesn’t. some alpha males have this characteristic. others do not (and in fact get very hurt by such rejection… and then they cope with it by being abusive to a woman, or to a less alpha man, or by jacking off to misogynistic porn, or whatever).

          “Anyways, please read “The Evolution of Desire” and “The War Against Boys”, because obviously most of you are not willing to take me seriously, so maybe a book by someone else will do a better job at explaining some of my views. ”

          i haven’t read these particular books, but i’ve read other MRA stuff… and the analysis is always far inferior to stuff written about masculinity and the male plight from a feminist perspective.

          i recommend:

          “the will to change: men, masculinity, and love” by bell hooks

          “we real cool: black men and masculinity” by bell hooks (focuses on black men, but insights into masculinity in general)

          “the gender knot: unravelling our patriarchal legacy” allan g. johnson

          “boys will be men: raising our sons for courage, caring, and community” by paul kivel

          good luck :)

        • Lizzie July 24, 2009 at 3:11 AM #


          I went on a “I hate Males” rant tonight, ergo this website.

          You are brave for posting. For women there, I am a feminist. And forlorn and angry in many relationships. But, please, don’t rag on a man because of his honest thoughts and contributions. Listen.

        • Teresa August 19, 2009 at 4:21 PM #

          I hold no aggression towards you or your words, as they are intended to enlighten, as well as invite feedback in an attempt at further discussion on the subject.

          I too am curious as to the reason for the aggression, or hostile comments being sent your way.
          I don’t think aggression or hostility is the correct way to keep lines of communication open. If we are to better understand each other, and the needs of both men and women in order to live a more balanced life, then we will “ALL” need to learn how to communicate more appropriately.

          If women, and some men, would please try to keep this thought in mind; when we “choose” to communicate on any level and in any written or spoken discussion where millions of people have the ability to read our words, these words “YOU” choose to use “WILL” be a reflection on women and the struggles of women. Clearly you can each understand, the manner in which you choose to “represent” will inevitably reflect either positively or negatively on the minds of others, thereby holding the potential to mold the views and opinions of readers; men and women.

          I would hope that a slightly less aggressive and less hostile communication approach could be taken for this reason alone.

          If my reasoning on this issue is faulty, please enlighten me, as I am also in the position of “representing”. I would like to know I am not doing it poorly, if it can be helped.

        • truthvscompliance October 20, 2009 at 4:15 PM #

          I consider myself an egotist – not an egocentric. I actually DESPISE egocentrics because egocentrics really CANNOT see things through any other persons’ perspective, other than their own (in fact, they pretty much deny that other perspectives exist). I have NEVER met an egocentric that gave a damn about anyone elses concerns or had an ounce of empathy for anyone’s suffering – other than their own. I don’t believe that most people are egocentric and most of the time – when egocentrics make that claim, it’s only to justify the intrusion of themselves onto everyone else.

      • jenpet July 14, 2009 at 10:13 PM #

        “Surely there is a correct way to act, regardless if it allows you to pick up or not.”

        Absolutely. Be who you are. If you’re a man-hating feminist, be that. If you’re a feminist who adores men, be that. If you’re a chauvinistic pig, fine, be that. If you’re a woman who happens to like living under the thumb of a man, be that. Or whatever you want to be.

        i’m just sick of seeing people pretend to be what they aren’t. If the guy’s a jerk, i’d rather he act like a jerk in the first place then find out later, yanno?

        The fact of the matter is there are enough people in the world that you can choose who you want to interact with. Sure, fight for equality everywhere it can be had – but lets expect people to be people. That is, diverse, strange and not all the same.

      • Dana August 18, 2009 at 12:56 AM #

        I think jerks get more female attention because they’re on the prowl to victimize women, so in order to do that, they must “set the bait” by displaying interest in their targets. It doesn’t last forever. Either they drop her like a hot potato when they’re done with her or they hold on to her and it escalates into abuse.

        The stereotypical “nice guy” who complains about the “jerks” getting “all the women” is typically a guy who sits off in a corner trying to be invisible. How’s that going to get anyone’s attention?

        Admittedly, jerks have more confidence because the culture encourages them. Nice guys don’t have that advantage. Ditto for passive women getting encouragement versus assertive women not getting it.

        • Big Mobe (@Big_Mobe) August 9, 2013 at 7:02 PM #

          Its not just jerks. Iv seen plenty of nice guys get attention because they are crazy as hell and not afraid of anything or anyone. Its that “I don’t give a shit what others think” attitude that draws attention.

    • RedRobin October 3, 2014 at 11:47 PM #

      Ahh, the “very efeminent male”.

      How many times have you apologized to your magical wife for upsetting her when she’s come home and found you with your best friend’s cock in your mouth, I wonder, “efeminent” misogynist male?

      Serious question. Answer it.

      Gay men DO NOT get a pass her. You’re as womanhating as straight males are but…extra fabulous and magical so women be especially careful never to UPSET this demographic with your inconvenient whinging gay men can be misogynist too… remember, white gay affluent men are SUF-FER-ING… omg… and so much more than lesbians, especially lesbians of color… march in line now girls… tight asses, shut mouths… gay man better than you… repeat that… gay man better than woman…

      Get tossed and get off this site

  17. leis July 8, 2009 at 1:39 AM #

    Jay-what a total fail. You didn’t need to turn into a total dick, you just needed to start wearing Axe. We can’t resist assholes or dudes that wear Axe.

    • Chai Latte July 8, 2009 at 3:02 AM #

      OMGLOL….Leis, you just made me spray Coca-Cola all over my monitor!

  18. Nanella July 8, 2009 at 2:54 AM #

    I, for one, am eagerly awaiting Pfizer’s release of their lesbian conversion drug, Sapphocet. They’ve already reeled me in with their new ad campaign: “Say ‘goodbye’ to pole and ‘hello’ to hole!” I’ll probably have to sell my soul to afford a year’s supply, but it will be soooo worth it.

  19. Polly Styrene July 8, 2009 at 6:30 AM #

    You could say unclefucker instead. A la South Park.

  20. Gayle July 8, 2009 at 10:39 AM #

    Holy crap! This same jerk off seems to be at every airport terminal I’ve ever entered.

    What with obnoxious dudes and airports? Is there some sort of ratio between how much a man travels and how much of an asshole he is? Hmm.

  21. crankosaur July 8, 2009 at 4:56 PM #

    This post, and the accompanying comment thread, make me smile. I can say with a great deal of assurance that everything bad that has happened, at least in the historic era and that isn’t the result of natural disaster, is the fault of men. This includes when bad things happen to men and when women act like assholes: all because of systems of interaction imposed by men. Like you said, certain individual dudes can be okay, but they have to resist a lot of shit to be that way; exception, not the rule.

    • isme July 8, 2009 at 7:04 PM #


      I might have missed something somewheree, but it sounds like you are saying that when men do something bad it’s their own fault, but when women do something wrong it’s the fault of society.

      Or are you saying that as society has been male dominated more or less forever, all credit and blame for everything must be given to men, and women are irrelevant?


      • Nine Deuce July 8, 2009 at 7:08 PM #

        No, but I am saying that men face less constrictions on their behavior (due to their role as an oppressor, rather than oppressed, class) than women and thus have more responsibility for their oppressive behavior.

      • crankosaur July 9, 2009 at 3:40 PM #

        I see how you got that impression… When men do something bad, it’s because of societal systems put in place by men. When women do something bad, it’s for the same reason. As I told Mr. Crankosaur the other day, men are not inherently more gross than women, society just makes them more gross.

  22. Shaun H July 8, 2009 at 8:00 PM #

    Almost as many men as women are oppressed by the ruling elites.
    I submit that many miss this truth because the men are considered losers, therefore invisible.

    Oh well. I wish you the very best in your endeavors.


    • Nine Deuce July 8, 2009 at 8:03 PM #

      Are you saying they don’t ever turn around and take that out on women?

      • Shaun H July 8, 2009 at 8:34 PM #

        Only if you think avoiding women can be considered taking it out on women.

        • Nine Deuce July 9, 2009 at 2:10 AM #

          How about using degrading, violent porn? Studies show that men in lower social classes tend to go for more degrading porn.

          • Nanella July 9, 2009 at 3:17 AM #

            And domestic violence rates are higher in the lower socioeconomic brackets, too.

            Shaun, you’re talking apples and oranges here, as there can exist multiple forms of oppression, affecting different groups, within one society.

            • Orlando C July 12, 2009 at 12:48 AM #

              ND, Nanella-

              Are you planning to cite these studies of yours? Or is blatant classism just so axiomatic that it isn’t even worth bringing in evidence?

              • Nine Deuce July 12, 2009 at 12:53 AM #

                I already said I’m not sure about that claim.

              • Nanella July 12, 2009 at 9:55 PM #

                No one is obligated to provide linkage to placate your obnoxious demands, and I’m not about to whip out scientific data to support every single assertion I make. For one, I don’t retain every single piece of information I read in personal records. Secondly, I don’t have the time nor the inclination to scour the internet for said information. If you disbelieve anything I say here, trust me, it’s not going to hurt my feelings.

                That said, I can and will provide evidence if someone asks me to and if it’s readily available: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/intimate/victims.htm#income

                • Orlando C July 12, 2009 at 11:49 PM #


                  Thanks for the BJS link. The jump below $7500 a year is eye-opening, but I am inclined to doubt the drop at the high end. Lest we forget, it was second-wave feminism that pointed out the major problems in reporting bias for DV and sex abuse within the upper class.

                  And I am not sure what is obnoxious about asking that your claims be based on fact. If you are going to assert the positivist privilege of having “opinions based on science,” then you should have some science available.

                  While I am hardly trying to side with Shaun H, it is kind of striking that ND will pull out a study to slap him with, then immediately acknowledge it to be bullshit, and not even apologize. I appreciate your providing a link, but I don’t think I’m out of line to ask for one.

                  • Nine Deuce July 12, 2009 at 11:53 PM #

                    I didn’t acknowledge it to be bullshit, I said I wasn’t convinced that the numbers are lower for higher classes. I’m pretty sure violent porn use exists across the board, though I don’t doubt that it might increase with economic oppression. There has to be someone down the line to kick, and it’s usually women.

                  • Nanella July 13, 2009 at 12:34 AM #

                    The jump below $7500 a year is eye-opening, but I am inclined to doubt the drop at the high end. Lest we forget, it was second-wave feminism that pointed out the major problems in reporting bias for DV and sex abuse within the upper class.

                    The problem with that argument is that DV is underreported regardless of socioeconomic status. I think the figures should be much higher for every bracket.

                    And I am not sure what is obnoxious about asking that your claims be based on fact. If you are going to assert the positivist privilege of having “opinions based on science,” then you should have some science available.

                    You called me a classist. I don’t take kindly to unwarranted claims concerning my race/class/gender sensibilities.

                    I doubt it would kill you to politely request corroborative evidence, and if you’re refused, oh well. It’s not like we’re testifying in court here.

                    • Orlando C July 13, 2009 at 2:28 AM #

                      The absolute numbers are irrelevant to the claim you (both) made, which is that a given criminal behavior, and a behavior that you consider sociopathic, is disproportionately found in the lower class. And you didn’t state this as an opinion; ND said and you inferred that it was based on evidence. In the absence of evidence, yes, that’s classist. Absolutely. If I say that I read a study one time saying Jews are more likely to be child molestors, and I don’t want to be accused of anti-Semitism, it is on me to find that study. Yes?

                    • Nanella July 13, 2009 at 11:22 PM #

                      Okay, Orlando, you and I obviously have different definitions of “classism”. The studies cited in this discussion were relevant to the subject at hand and not targeted at economically disadvantaged men as a whole. We’re talking about random members of a social group doing bad things, NOT an entire group of people.

                      Did anyone here insinuate that ALL lower class men are wife beaters and sexual deviants? THAT would be classist. When somebody does advance that argument, you’re welcome to cry foul.

                    • Orlando C July 14, 2009 at 1:17 AM #

                      No, I agree completely. All you are saying, in equivalency, is that science has proven–offstage–that Jews are unusually likely to be child molesters. You aren’t saying that all Jews are child molesters. Why would anyone get upset?

                    • Nanella July 14, 2009 at 7:04 AM #

                      If we were having a discussion about ethnicity and pedophilia…but you know what? That would never happen because ethnicity is comprised of biologically inherited characteristics and things get really dicey whenever you start making assertions about biological predispositions and groups of people. It is generally agreed by scrupulous, non-prejudiced people that biology-as-destiny arguments are all-around crappy and ultimately untenable.

                      Socioeconomic status is not an immutable, biological characteristic and, therefore, can be examined objectively as a contributing factor in demographic-specific phenomena.

                      You have done a whopping good job of perverting the definition of “classism”, by the way.

                    • Orlando C July 14, 2009 at 6:09 PM #

                      Look, throughout the literature on DV, it is routinely pointed out that police and medical personnel systemically ignore evidence of DV in the middle and upper class, especially among whites, because of structural classism and racism. This is not exactly fringe stuff; it was, for instance, the subject of a JAMA special report (“Doctors Falter,” 1992). It is discussed in pretty much every article on DV I’ve ever read, usually in the context of the inherent reporting biases that muddy the waters here. And it is a very dangerous bias, since it directly endangers one set of women while reinforcing stereotypes about another set.

                      It is discouraging—especially on a feminist site—to see those nuances and established patterns of bias get swept aside in order to claim that the poor folks beat their women more often, full stop. But what I find especially discouraging, and kind of confusing, is your response afterwards. You make a claim which groups as conservative as the AMA have been describing as classist for two decades, and seem shocked that I’m taking umbrage at it.

                    • Nanella July 14, 2009 at 11:57 PM #

                      Look, throughout the literature on DV, it is routinely pointed out that police and medical personnel systemically ignore evidence of DV in the middle and upper class

                      I have not personally encountered this phenomenon “throughout the literature on DV” and you’ve provided exactly one study focusing exclusively on negligence within the medical community to support your argument. I’m sorry, I’m just not convinced that there is a statistically significant lapse in reporting for DV in the upper classes. I’m not arguing that the statistics 100% accurately reflect incidences of DV in U.S. households. I did acknowledge that DV is underreported, but that phenomenon is not exclusive to the upper socioeconomic classes. To reiterate, I firmly believe that the numbers should be higher in every bracket.

                      If you want to, you can read all about the DOJ’s methodology for collecting DV data; there’s a pdf file in there somewhere. The data is based on reported and non-reported incidents — it is derived from crime statistics and survey figures. If you want to persuade yourself that it’s unjustly biased against a specific group, you’re going to have to ferret out that information for yourself. The statistics reflect my personal experience within the socioeconomic strata of society; I’m satisfied that the numbers are indicative of real-life trends. I’m sorry but I can’t see what is classist about acknowledging that poverty and financial difficulties produce chronic psychological stress which, in turn, exacerbates existing mental illness and lowers stress threshold. Stress makes people wacky, it makes them act out, that’s a given.

                      It’s vitally important that the relationship between disadvantaged socioeconomic status and DV is clearly documented so that funding for prevention and treatment programs can be secured. Not having that funding in place would be plenty dangerous for those members of society who have been historically underserved and marginalized because they lack class privilege.

                      This sidebar is starting to smack of “who will look out for the rich white women?”. I don’t think I care very much for the turn this discussion is taking.

                    • Teresa August 19, 2009 at 4:31 PM #

                      Nice! I think you made your point well, Nanella.

                      This is not a court room and we’re not on the witness stand giving testimony. I think there is nothing wrong with asking for supporting data if it serves to educate others. Hell, if supporting documentation, or information linkage serves to educate just one person, then the request for said information is justified.

                      – Next

                      Does anyone wish to cross examine? If not, I will allow Nanella to step down.

          • Shaun H July 9, 2009 at 5:05 AM #

            I find it interesting that you bring class into the discussion. How is it relevant if you hate all men?

            In fact, the asshole in your essay certainly wasn’t part of the lower class or even the working class.

            Anyway, I don’t think my life has been easy. I’ve been an outcast my entire life. I couldn’t even begin to describe for you the emotional pain that has been inflicted upon me by girls and young women since grade school. And I don’t expect you to care.

            Didn’t mean to crash your party.
            Best of luck taking over the world, I mean that.


          • Faith July 9, 2009 at 12:58 PM #

            “Studies show that men in lower social classes tend to go for more degrading porn.”

            I’m personally not buying that. It could be true. But what I suspect is going on is that men in those brackets are more likely than higher income men to get busted using degrading porn and are more likely to admit to using degrading porn. Plus, I wonder if the studies might be intentionally slanted by folks who are biased against poor folks. My experience says that men use degrading porn regardless of their status.

            • Nine Deuce July 10, 2009 at 8:09 PM #

              I don’t know if I buy it either, but the idea that lower class men have it worse than women is a bit too much to take.

              • Faith July 10, 2009 at 8:33 PM #

                “but the idea that lower class men have it worse than women is a bit too much to take.”


        • Faith July 9, 2009 at 12:54 PM #

          “Only if you think avoiding women can be considered taking it out on women.”

          I’d be thrilled if more men avoided women. Instead they tend to “take it out” on us by harassing us, raping us, beating us, taking away our rights, and beating off to humiliating, degrading porn.

          • Shaun H July 10, 2009 at 7:11 PM #

            Let me get this straight. It’s not enough that men leave you alone, they must also not masturbate to porn?

            What do you care, as long as they don’t talk to, or look at you?

            • Nine Deuce July 10, 2009 at 7:23 PM #

              Read my porn series. Maybe start here.

              • Shaun H July 10, 2009 at 9:41 PM #

                That was a thought provoking essay with which I can find little, if any fault.

                Maybe technology will enable men to find a release without harming or bothering women.


                • Nanella July 11, 2009 at 4:54 AM #

                  WTF do you think men did before the advent of the printing press? Do you seriously think single men were running around with hard-ons 24/7 because they couldn’t masturbate?

                  • Shaun H July 12, 2009 at 5:29 PM #

                    Has everything with regard to male/female interaction NOT changed in the last hundred years?

                    Seriously, single men? What’s that a couple hundred years ago? Some 18 year old boy?

                    • Nanella July 12, 2009 at 10:14 PM #

                      Oh please. And since maternal mortality rates were significantly higher at the beginning of last century, that meant a far greater number of young male widowers. Who weren’t able to satisfy their sexual urges themselves because they didn’t have a Playboy lying around the house, apparently.

                      Let’s not forget that sexual morality was such at the time that premarital sex was prohibited. I suppose men who weren’t actively courting a woman, and even those who were courting a woman, had no choice but to endure agonizing hours looking at their stiffies and wishing there was something they could do about it.

            • Faith July 10, 2009 at 8:32 PM #

              “What do you care, as long as they don’t talk to, or look at you?”

              Oh, maybe because there are real women being really abused, humiliated, and degraded in porn. Maybe because I came really fucking close to becoming one of those women myself.

              Just for starters.

              • Shaun H July 10, 2009 at 9:47 PM #

                Okay. I don’t think it will be a good thing for society if a bunch of men are walking around, shamed into not looking at women, let alone dealing with them, while being unable to masturbate without any visual stimulation.

                Clearly I’m confused. What would you have men do, if not themselves?


                • Nine Deuce July 10, 2009 at 10:48 PM #

                  Nice false dilemma. How about men walk around and interact with women as if women were also human (i.e., not using them as masturbatory tools, not harassing them)?

                  • Shaun H July 10, 2009 at 11:33 PM #

                    And here I thought we were negotiating a separation.

                    Pretend for a minute that it isn’t a false dilemma. You can either like men the way they are, or you can be content with them leaving you alone.

                    Pretend that changing men is as off the table for you as changing women is off the table for men.

                    Maybe I read more into your essay than was really there. I was under the impression that you hate men. I extrapolated that to mean that you want nothing to do with them.


                    • Nine Deuce July 10, 2009 at 11:55 PM #

                      I hate masculinity. If you’d read what I wrote, you’d know that. I’m not advocating separatism, but rather a change in social paradigms that would make separatism unnecessary. As men are, I don’t like them. That’s why the ones I associate with tend not to fit this pattern of behavior. I choose to leave the rest be because I don’t want to deal with their bullshit. However, what would you recommend I do when one harasses me on the street? How do I leave him alone? If I could figure that out, I’d be stoked. What does the rape victim to to leave her rapist alone? And how is changing women off the table for men? For fuck’s sake, women’s entire lives are shaped by what men want out of them (beauty standards, porn, the expectation that women will defer to men’s opinions, etc.).

                • Faith July 11, 2009 at 5:32 PM #

                  “What would you have men do, if not themselves?”

                  Men do not need porn to masturbate. People have been masturbating without the aid of porn since people have been masturbating. It is quite possible to have a fulfilling masturbatory experience without any outside aid. I do it all the time.

                  • Shaun H July 11, 2009 at 11:26 PM #

                    What does your experience have to do with the male experience?

                    • Nine Deuce July 11, 2009 at 11:48 PM #

                      Right, you guys are so unimaginative that you can’t masturbate without porn. Do you really want to admit that? I think, oh, every man that ever lived before the advent of the internet might beg to differ.

                    • Shaun H July 12, 2009 at 12:46 AM #

                      “Right, you guys are so unimaginative that you can’t masturbate without porn. Do you really want to admit that? I think, oh, every man that ever lived before the advent of the internet might beg to differ.”

                      If you were right and I was wrong, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

                    • Faith July 12, 2009 at 2:01 PM #

                      “If you were right and I was wrong, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.”

                      That’s some utter brilliance right there.

                      “What does your experience have to do with the male experience?”

                      Men masturbate without porn all the time as well, Shaun. Men can not leave women alone -and- masturbate to porn too. As I have already stated, there are real women involved in porn. You can’t have it both ways.

                    • isme July 12, 2009 at 2:29 PM #

                      “What does your experience have to do with the male experience?”

                      That’s a fair question, actually. As much as I don’t personally believe that one gender cannot speak about the experiences of the other (at least to some extent), it does seem to be a position held by most people here.

                    • Faith July 12, 2009 at 5:29 PM #

                      “That’s a fair question, actually.”

                      So what are you saying exactly? That men do need porn to masturbate? Are all the dudes who lack access to porn refraining from masturbation? How about all the men who masturbate all the time in the shower? Do they all have tv sets or laptops hanging in their bathtubs?

                      The idea that anyone -needs- porn is completely and utterly absurd. There isn’t a soul on the face of the planet that -needs- porn of any variety.

                    • isme July 12, 2009 at 9:16 PM #

                      No, I merely meant about the idea that one gender can’t understand the other. If that is so, then feminism is something of a lost cause, surely.

                    • Nanella July 12, 2009 at 10:28 PM #

                      Do you have any idea how insulting that statement is to female recovering porn addicts? You’ve got a lot of nerve presuming that visual sexual stimuli is not equally influential on the female sex drive.

                      Sexual objectification of women is a culturally indoctrinated behavior; it’s just one aspect of male privilege.

                    • Shaun H July 13, 2009 at 12:14 AM #

                      “Do you have any idea how insulting that statement is to female recovering porn addicts? You’ve got a lot of nerve presuming that visual sexual stimuli is not equally influential on the female sex drive.”

                      Again, if it was EQUALLY influential, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

                      “Sexual objectification of women is a culturally indoctrinated behavior; it’s just one aspect of male privilege.”

                      I’m wondering how you reconcile this statement with the one that you made before it.

                      What if the images were artificial, would you still have a problem even though there would be no ‘victim’?

                    • Nine Deuce July 13, 2009 at 12:16 AM #

                      I don’t know about her, but I would. The reason being that it has been repeatedly proven that viewing degrading porn lowers men’s sense of empathy toward women, makes them more likely to disrespect physical and emotional boundaries, and makes it more likely that they’ll disbelieve rape victims and fall for rape myths (e.g., a short skirt equals asking for it). So, whether the porn is made with real women or not, it affects real women’s lives.

                      For fuck’s sake, man. How far do you have to go to defend your porn use?

                    • Teresa August 16, 2009 at 11:50 PM #

                      I think porn is objectification which carries very negative connotation directed completely at dehumanizing women.

                      I think men are clueless when it comes to why most women are offended by porn, or by the use of porn some men choose as their way of creating sexual desire for their partner. That is just sad all the way around.

                    • Nine Deuce August 16, 2009 at 11:58 PM #

                      I don’t think men are clueless as to why women object to porn, I think they pretend to be in order to protect their “right” to use it. I’ve got a 9-part (and counting) series on porn here if you’re interested.

                    • Teresa August 17, 2009 at 12:38 AM #

                      I’m so interested and secretly agree with your comment regarding men pretending to be clueless. I think some men know exactly what they are doing and could care less as they don’t hold women in high regard in general, as it is. I think there are some younger men who are still forming wrinkles on their brains and “now” is the time to make these young men more aware, before they too have little regard for women and what we think and feel, in general. The “good ole boy” day’s need to end now.

                    • Nanella July 13, 2009 at 1:18 AM #

                      Again, if it was EQUALLY influential, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

                      We’re having this discussion because of the deeply ingrained cultural mythos that surrounds male and female stereotypes.

                      I’m wondering how you reconcile this statement with the one that you made before it.

                      The capacity for visual stimulation is similar-to-indistinguishable in men and women, but the fact that pornography exists primarily to satiate the male sexual appetite has to do with patriarchal attitudes and values.

                      In other words, the ability to become aroused by visual stimuli is innate, sexually exploiting others for the purpose of indulging that mechanism is a choice. I sometimes get the urge to slap someone upside the head when they’re acting like a moron, but I choose not to indulge that urge. I am a recovering pornography addict and I choose not to use porn. I’ve relapsed several times in the past two years, but I am getting better at staying on the proverbial wagon.

                      You want to talk about porn and what it means to you and how unfathomable giving it up is, don’t think for one second that there aren’t women here who can’t empathize.

                      I’ve got more to say on this on this subject but it’s time for me to call it a day.

                    • Nanella July 14, 2009 at 1:17 AM #

                      What if the images were artificial, would you still have a problem even though there would be no ‘victim’?

                      It’s been my experience that rendered/graphic porn is even more rife with sexual violence.

                      Really and truly, porn in general is highly problematic if you look beyond the ethical conundrum of using it. There’s the novelty factor, which means the softcore stuff will eventually cease to provide the same thrill and you’ll become desensitized to the depiction of misogynistic sex as you graduate to looking at more and more hardcore/taboo forms of porn to achieve the same “high”. In pornography, taboo = violent/degrading sex acts.

                      That craving for novelty carries over into the bedroom. Ordinary sex doesn’t seem quite as fun or fulfilling after you’ve stuffed your head full of exotic sexual imagery. The extraordinary begins to seem mundane.

                      Porn creates an artificial state of heightened arousal that people become dependent on very quickly. It becomes altogether too easy to use porn as an escape mechanism, or as a drug to attain a sexual “high”, whenever you’re feeling bored or lonely or sad, etc.

                      Sometimes porn, itself, becomes too mundane and people need to up the ante, so to speak, they need to engage in more and more sexually thrilling activities to get the adrenalin and endorphins flowing, e.g., cybersex or webcamming.

                      Then there’s the “porn aesthetic”. If you’re masturbating to images of physically ideal women, that ideal is also going to become mundane to you. The average female body isn’t going to have the same appeal. There is a tremendous diversity in female anatomy that is not at all accurately represented in pornography.

                      I’m aware that some amateur, and a smaller % of professional, porn incorporates a variety of female body types, but the problem is that this is niche porn. The “big naturals” type of porn, or porn featuring women with large labia, e.g., is targeted exclusively at fetishists. You don’t get the opportunity to admire and appreciate the wide range of feminine beauty that exists unless you specifically go looking for it.

                      From my own experience, once I stopped using porn and was no longer being constantly exposed to images of muscle-bound hunks as masturbation material, the male physical ideal became less appealing to me. I was able to better appreciate the physique of the average Joe. And since I’m an average Jane, the ability to find guys in my own league of attractiveness hot makes dating a far more rewarding experience. Quitting porn has actually been beneficial in a multitude of ways.

                      The funny thing is, I never had the slightest interest in using it before curiosity got the better of me. I often use the analogy of smoking to explain how addictive porn can be. If you never pick up a cigarette, you never become dependent on nicotine, you never have to struggle with quitting. It’s the same with porn. If you’d never used it, you wouldn’t “need” it now. Once you’re hooked, you have two choices: suffer through withdrawl or deny that it’s a problem. Right now our society is at the same place in regards to porn that it used to be with smoking. Porn use is condoned as a healthy, natural, harmless activity by the general population. We’re a long ways away from universally acknowledging porn’s detrimental effects on individuals and society.

                    • julian July 16, 2009 at 6:08 PM #

                      I’m late to the party, but since Shaun rejected the anecdote of a woman masturbating without porn, I’ll provide my own.

                      There are three men in this house who do not (and have not) watched porn. We still (miraculously!) find ways to whack it.

                      Of course, we generally aren’t thinking about women when we’re doing it, so I suppose Shaun’s next comment will be that teh gayz are somehow biologically different from het dudes and therefore don’t require the same direct visual stimuli.

                      Or maybe I just have this thing called a memory, and no problem calling one forth to “see”/relive an *actual sexual encounter* that I was *actually there for*.

                      Crazy, right?!

                    • Dana August 18, 2009 at 1:18 AM #

                      You clearly have never read Fast Times At Ridgemont High. Unless Brad thought the toilet was sexually attractive, that is.

                      OK, OK, given, while the book was based on true accounts, who knows how much was exaggerated and where. But damn. Are you seriously trying to tell me men have to be looking at something to ejaculate?

                  • Shaun H July 18, 2009 at 7:22 AM #

                    Julian, thanks for the input, please don’t put words into my mouth.

                    Nanella, I think your responses hit the nail on the head, thanks for sharing.


                  • Teresa August 17, 2009 at 12:32 AM #

                    I’ve never needed porn to masturbate. As a woman, I use my minds eye and a battery powered tool. Fortunately for me, when my mind fails me, the tool does not. However, I am ashamed to admit, I’ve seen porn and it did have a sexual stimulus affect on my mind. How crappy is that to know!!!

    • isme July 8, 2009 at 9:01 PM #

      Ah, but not everyone is oppressed to the same amount.

      And, as ND says, it’s handy to have someone further down the ladder to kick. A particularly repellant example is the whole “gangsta” ideal, of being oppressed by The Man and how much it sucks, and oppressing women (using less than flattering terms) and how much fun it is. In between glorifying senseless violence and drug dealer and so on.

      • Shaun H July 9, 2009 at 4:57 AM #

        I’ve never been involved nor do I have any firsthand knowledge of the ‘gangsta’ ideal. All I know about it, I’ve learned from popular culture and then only as background noise because I’ve always found it repellent.
        So I can’t really speak to that with any semblance of intelligence.


    • harmony July 24, 2009 at 4:48 PM #

      quoting shaun: “Almost as many men as women are oppressed by the ruling elites.”

      ok, true. and… so what?

      it’s pretty clear the point you’re really trying to make is “and therefore sexism isn’t really a problem, just classism.”

      this is just stupid. i’m not saying you’re an overall stupid person, you may be quite smart in other ways, but this particular opinion is so fucking stupid it’s unbearable.

      both classism and sexism are problems. and don’t forget that many women and girls are oppressed on grounds of both sex and class (among other things!). do you think impoverished females have it easier than, or equally hard as, impoverished males?

      do you think impoverished males can’t and don’t beat, harass, rape, etc. impoverished females? they can also do these things to females of any class (i’m from a middle class background and was abused by my lower class ex-boyfriend — we lived together in a $200/month concrete basement with a flea infested mattress on the ground, so i mean for real lower class — who was also an ex-pimp and abused various lower class women by pimping them and beating them).

      and yeah, females can use their class privilege to oppress or degrade lower class males, but this doesn’t at all cancel out the fact that sexism, patriarchy, and misogyny are huge fucking problems.

      also, take a guess who these ruling elites are, virtually 100% of them: MEN!

      do you honestly not get all this? it seems like the simplest thing on earth to understand.

  23. Orlando C July 8, 2009 at 9:27 PM #

    You know, I hate men too. Everyone who’s ever assaulted me, or tried to rape me, has been male. In very round numbers, everyone whose abuse of political power has really chilled me to the bone has been male. I don’t know that this isn’t because women simply haven’t had a chance. I’m inclined to think that a lot of this just throws down to: who has the power. When I’ve had interactions with women who had a lot of power, in whatever little context the patriarchy allowed them to, they were usually assholes, too. But if you showed me the magic multivariate regression table from God, and it turns out men are inherently more likely to be jerks, I wouldn’t be altogether surprised.

    And there are other people I hate. I hate me some Republicans. I hate liberals, in a different way. I hate raisins, and everyone involved in the production of raisins. I hate American Idol. I hate people who say “in my humble opinion” and “I don’t have all the answers.”

    But I try not to get off on hating people, at least not in public. I understand the appeal. It soothes the ego. It makes the struggle less painful. It creates camaraderie; an inside joke; a shared straw man for entertainment. Fine. And hatred can be varnished up with a nice coat of irony, very modern, so it doesn’t need to be justified in any way. But as a public act, as a pronouncement, hatred is always going to be regressive. It is never actually going to be a useful part of any struggle I’m interested in.

    • Jay Black July 9, 2009 at 1:58 PM #

      Very insightful. Thank you for your statement.

    • syndicalist702 July 9, 2009 at 9:56 PM #

      Orlando – You make a good point, homie, but I long ago surmised that 9-2 likes to vent. This is her blog – her safe place. We may or may not choose to handle things in the same way she does, but the fact that she does so is her prerogative. Now, I don’t doubt for a second that entering her ideas in a public forum comes with, at least in part, the intention of connecting with other people somehow (I ain’t 9-2, so I couldn’t begin to tell you). At the same time, I feel like everyone has a reason for expressing themselves the way they do – even if we wouldn’t go about things the same way. As long as 9-2 ain’t expressing herself with a rifles and bombs, I figure how she handles her business is none of ours. I’ll agree with you though. Hate is as degrading to the hater as it is to the one being hated.

      One thing’s for sure. I’ve never got anywhere trying to influence and persuade my friends and coworkers to be fairer to women using 9-2’s style, so I’ve surmised that that style isn’t for me to use.

      I can see how 9-2’s writing can put people off, but if you know how shit works and can see around your privilege, it won’t bother you. Also, if you can see that 9-2 don’t owe any of us anything, you won’t have a problem.

      The only people coming up in here to start a flame war with folks are people who are like my friends and coworkers I was talking about – they only know what they want to about feminism, rather than what it’s really about. They need to read something and STFU. They need to stop buying all the misinformation that can be found in rags like Maxim.

      I’m off my soapbox, Deuce. Thanks. I know you don’t need me speaking for you.

      • Orlando C July 10, 2009 at 11:29 AM #

        S702, I keep seeing this word “safe space” on blogs, and I’m not at all sure what it means. I’ve read 9/2’s editorial policy, which welcomes civil criticism. In contrast, many of the articles on the blog, including this one, seem designed as provocations, and 9/2 is liberal about allowing commenters to post further provocations.

        So I am a little taken aback when I say “maybe X is not a great tactic” and your response is to tell me “I should’t have problem” or “be bothered” and that this is a safe space.

        It sounds a great deal like what you’re saying is that I shouldn’t post here in a way that’s critical of 9/2’s thesis. Even if, as you suggest, I’m saying something that you agree with. Is that what a safe space means, these days? A place where no one asks questions?

        And…on a different note…exactly what sort of privilege do I have vis-a-vis 9/2 in this forum?

  24. Jenn July 10, 2009 at 8:39 AM #

    Sign me up for some fuckin’ man-haterade. Do you know how intensely happy it makes me to see straight feminists that don’t wax poetics over their love of cock and maleness? There’s a disgusting unexamined amount of heterosexual priviledge in the ability of the straight cock-sucking fun-feminist to brush off accusations of man-hating. See, the thing is, I really can’t field those discussions of not hating men. Even if I liked men, which I don’t, nobody would believe me. Queer women are automatically shuffled off the good feminist board as soon as they express that they kiss girls, like it, and can do so–would rather do so–without the attention, permission, or enjoyment of the Cock In The Room.

    My life would improve immensely and immediately if every single man on the planet suddenly dropped dead. Even the men that, defying their horrendous upbringing in masculine woman-hatin’, I love. That’s a horrible thing to say, and I admit it. It’s really just earth-shattering to say that a little under half the population of your species is so twisted and poisoned by their own stupidity, greed, and love of violence that the other half of the species would lead better lives if they were not there. Honestly, does anyone really want to say that about humanity? It’s not like I take sick pleasure in the fact that the elimination of billions of people would make the existence of other billions of people bearable and finally free from fear, oppression, and hate.

    As I learn more about the people on this lump of dirt floating in a vacuum, I find that fully half of humanity has done shit in their lives that really truly deserves a banishment to some hell or a locked cell. And this is just taken as normal. Part of “growing up”, if you’re a dude, is treating women like shit. It’s stalking them, harassing them, raping them, assaulting them, insulting them, terrorizing them, and then clapping your buddies on the back when they do the same. I can’t think of a single man, off the top of my head–aside from a few I know who are painfully shy, disabled and thus excluded from woman hatin’, or flamming gay–who hasn’t done something really horrible to women. Several women. Often, repeatedly, and without shame.

    Really, the world would be a better place without (heterosexual) men. I hate men, as a group, and find it really fucking funny that my dislike of cock and previous painful nonconsensual encounters with men makes my hatred of them less rational. Shit, when you’re beaten and tired and you don’t even have things like federal rights and the ability to walk to street at night by yourself, not hating men is irrational. Hate men? Of course I hate fucking men. What other option do I have unless I’m down with some fucking spectacular victim-blaming?

    • Jenn July 11, 2009 at 4:50 AM #

      Haha. Cut and paste fail. Those are my notes on sushi recipes I was checking out. Sorry for that 9-2.

      • Nine Deuce July 11, 2009 at 4:57 AM #

        Fixed. I was wondering if that was some code I just didn’t get.

  25. Rachael July 11, 2009 at 1:44 AM #

    I love your writing. I really do.

    Ever since I got involved with feminism, I’ve been worried about my younger brother (age 20) and what impact this society will have on him. I wonder if he really understands that having sex with a drunk woman is rape. I wonder if he has enough respect for women to not watch stuff like Max Hardcore pornography. I wonder if, should he get a woman pregnant, he will own up to the responsibility that comes with being a father.

    I occasionally point things out to him that might make him more aware, such as a book I was reading where the main character spoke condescendingly to an abuse victim and then blamed her after her jealous husband came to beat him up. I give him “mini-lectures” on feminism because I know that just handing him a book by Andrea Dworkin will just make him think I’m crazy.

    I don’t want him to be the kind of man that’s hated by feminists. I want him to respect women and treat them as equals. This blog and others inspire me not to give up. As his sister (age 23), there’s not a whole lot I can do, because his friends and society will have a much greater impact.

    But I’m going to keep trying.

    • harmony July 24, 2009 at 4:33 PM #

      keep trying, rachael! my (male) friend/lover of 2 and 1/2 years grew up under the influence of a feminist older sister and he has often told me he wouldn’t be who he is if it hadn’t been for her. i’m so grateful to her! he might be a pretty shitty guy otherwise (in which case i simply wouldn’t be with him).

  26. Pharaoh Katt July 11, 2009 at 4:29 AM #

    There’s an MRA who hangs around Forest Chase (in my city) with a big sign on him saying “Stop Discrimination Against Men!”. What he doesn’t realise is that all his arguments are just sexist stereotypes (he actually said women don’t enjoy sex!).

    As with that guy on the plane, I think the world would be better off without certain people.

    I hate masculinity. If you’d read what I wrote, you’d know that. I’m not advocating separatism, but rather a change in social paradigms that would make separatism unnecessary. As men are, I don’t like them.
    This made a lot of sense. I agree so much!

    • berryblade July 13, 2009 at 5:16 AM #

      Hahha, PERTH’d on the internet. I thought they got rid of that guy? And the speakers steps in general? Whatever the case, I’ve come close to bottling that waste of oxygen a couple of times, but I bet some of the gogans there would have done it anyway.

      If they haven’t nuked Forrest Chase, it’s well past-due.

      And in true typical Perth fashion I see you know someone I know.

  27. Argive July 12, 2009 at 5:14 PM #

    ND’s excellent rant reminded me of an essay, written back in 2003 by a man named Kim du Toit, entitled “The Pussification Of The Western Male.” I am not sure how many people here have read this nonsense, but if you haven’t, I strongly recommend it. It is wonderful unintentional comedy, and provides an interesting window into sexist masculine culture.


    This essay caused quite a stir back when it was released. Du Toit was naive enough to publish it under his real name, which completely derailed his career.

    Some gem quotes:

    “There was a time when men put their signatures to a document, knowing full well that this single act would result in their execution if captured, and in the forfeiture of their property to the State. Their wives and children would be turned out by the soldiers, and their farms and businesses most probably given to someone who didn’t sign the document.”

    Love the nostalgia for a time period that no reasonable person wants to return to.

    “But in the twentieth century, women became more and more involved in the body politic, and in industry, and in the media—and mostly, this has not been a good thing.”

    At least he’s honest.

    “But most of all, I do this website because I love being a man. Amongst other things, I talk about guns, self-defense, politics, beautiful women, sports, warfare, hunting, and power tools—all the things that being a man entails. All this stuff gives me pleasure.”

    You know what, Mr. du Toit? I am a man. And I will say this: Fuck you. Stop telling me what being a man entails. You are part of the problem. Pull your head out of your ass.

    “Well, I’m not going to quit. Fuck that. One of the characteristics of the non-pussified man (and this should strike fear into the hearts of women and girly-men everywhere) is that he never quits just because the odds seem overwhelming. Omaha Beach, guys.”

    I am positively quaking in my Birkenstocks.

    “Women, even liberal women, swooned over George Bush in a naval aviator’s uniform. Donald Trump still gets access to some of the most beautiful pussy available, despite looking like a medieval gargoyle. Donald Rumsfeld, if he wanted to, could fuck 90% of all women over 50 if he wanted to, and a goodly portion of younger ones too.”

    There are no words for how indescribably wrong this passage is.

    • Nine Deuce July 12, 2009 at 5:50 PM #

      That guy’s hilarious. I bet he’s an amateur MMA fighter.

      • syndicalist702 July 13, 2009 at 9:49 PM #

        Kim Du Toit is a psychotic gun-toting fascist who thinks he’s gawd’s gift to the earth. Total douchebag.

    • harmony July 25, 2009 at 6:33 AM #

      lol! thanks, argive, for sharing this treasure.

  28. Val July 14, 2009 at 1:16 AM #

    Hello All-
    I am new here. Love your stuff!

    The reason I hate men is because they compartmentalize. I am part mortified and part jealous of that ability.
    Do I want to be able to commit genocide? NO.
    Do I want to be able to turn off my emotions like a light switch? YES.

    Is this nature VS nurture? I don’t know. All I know is that when I read the paper, it’s men that do most of the damage. I don’t want to be like that, but it would be nice to just flip a switch in my brain and not remember every gory detail of some horrible crime I’ve read about or experienced.

    Men just seem to be able to walk between the raindrops in that regard. Nice. Fuckers!

    • harmony July 25, 2009 at 7:03 AM #

      i’m actually very much like that (compartmentalized, often very unemotional). but compassion, ethics, and activism are still among the most important things in my life. i care about people and animals (am a vegan). you can still care, be good to others, etc., even if you can easily flip a switch in your brain and forget the gory details of a crime, etc.

      actually, people who look into brain differences between males and females (which i’m confident are mostly if not totally caused by nurture, not nature), it is males who are more emotional. surprise!

  29. harmony July 14, 2009 at 6:47 AM #

    i know alotta men who hate men. well, not people with penises, but macho masculine men, like the guys at this airport. men who hate masculinity usually make great friends.

    “Women have to deal with enforced femininity, and while a lot of the behaviors femininity entails do indeed suck, they aren’t chosen as freely as men’s behaviors are. ”

    i’d really like it if you could explain this further in a future post for this series.

    • Shaun H July 18, 2009 at 7:26 AM #

      That’s kinda my point. But it’s lost on the haters.
      The men that also hate men happen to be invisible to the haters.

      What’s truly fucked up is that the Alpha-males could not give two shits about the issue.

      Then we are told that it’s our responsibility as a gender to reign in the most macho among us. If that were possible, it would have been done before those kids got out of middle school.


      • Nanella July 21, 2009 at 5:20 AM #

        Shaun, you are not, sorry to say, exempt from the pool of men being hated on here. You’ve taken one anecdote about a man who outwardly embodies everything wrong with masculinity and sanctimoniously separated yourself into an imaginary opposing group of good guys (or “beta males”) who are miraculously free of patriarchal influence. You were raised in a patriarchal society, you haven’t escaped the conditioning (barging onto a feminist blog to bleat about how you’ve been mistreated TOO is pretty damn “alpha male” in its self-important disregard for the subject at hand). (And then there’s your championing of critically unexamined and heinously sexist male/female stereotypes. Alpha males, and alpha male wannabes, are alllll about the stereotypes, Shaun. They eat them for breakfast with their testosterone-and-egg yolk power shakes.)

        Here’s a news flash: There is no alpha male/beta male social dichotomy (except in the minds of narcissistic asshole-dripping-with-money-and-hawt-babes wannabes). There are varying degrees of macho jerkness, with a very small portion of the male population being enlightened enough to recognize and reject their own patriarchal conditioning. You’re not quite there yet — not even close — but if you continue educating yourself and make an honest effort to rip the patriarchy out by the roots, you’ll get there eventually. You can start by checking your privilege: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/

        Good luck (I seriously mean that).

        • Shaun H August 24, 2009 at 11:58 PM #

          “Shaun, you are not, sorry to say, exempt from the pool of men being hated on here. You’ve taken one anecdote about a man who outwardly embodies everything wrong with masculinity and sanctimoniously separated yourself into an imaginary opposing group of good guys (or “beta males”) who are miraculously free of patriarchal influence. You were raised in a patriarchal society, you haven’t escaped the conditioning (barging onto a feminist blog to bleat about how you’ve been mistreated TOO is pretty damn “alpha male” in its self-important disregard for the subject at hand). (And then there’s your championing of critically unexamined and heinously sexist male/female stereotypes. Alpha males, and alpha male wannabes, are alllll about the stereotypes, Shaun. They eat them for breakfast with their testosterone-and-egg yolk power shakes.)”

          Oh I don’t know about that. I was raised by women. Women that had a very similar world-view as that which is prevalent on this blog.

          • Becstar August 25, 2009 at 3:44 AM #

            What the hell is it today with men claiming they can’t possibly have been conditioned by the patriarchy because they were raised by/around women? One woman, or even several, are not going to be able to cancel out every aspect of society that reinforces the patriarchy (porn, advertising, business, education…the list goes on).

            • James August 25, 2009 at 3:38 PM #

              Your problem, Becstar, is that you’re taking a structuralist model (the Patriarchy) & then trying to cram us into it. Believe it or not, that’s a kind of treatment that people object to. You don’t know anything about our upbringing, you are simply presuming things. It isn’t appreciated, please try asking how we were raised.

              Who knows, perhaps your model could feature a flaw.

              • Becstar August 25, 2009 at 11:15 PM #

                You can’t honestly be that thick – did you actually read what I wrote? I’m not the one forcing you into the patriarchy, the patriarchy already exists everywhere and simply by being alive people are a part of it. It doesn’t matter how you were raised, as long as you have been out in the world you have been influenced by the patriarchy and gained from the privilege that it gives men. Being raised a feminist woman, no matter how radical, does not change that, and quite frankly every single time you post you are proving your ignorance as to how power structures actually work.

                • James August 26, 2009 at 3:00 AM #

                  You can’t honestly be that thick – did you actually read what I wrote?

                  Yes, although I doubt you read much of what I did.

                  I’m not the one forcing you into the patriarchy, the patriarchy already exists everywhere and simply by being alive people are a part of it.

                  The Patriarchy was a “model” designed to help us understand the world by a thinker who should have stuck to selling soap.

                  It doesn’t matter how you were raised, as long as you have been out in the world you have been influenced by the patriarchy and gained from the privilege that it gives men.

                  So you know more about my upbringing than I do. Do you ever stop to think that you might be presumptuous instead of well informed?

                  Being raised a feminist woman, no matter how radical, does not change that, and quite frankly every single time you post you are proving your ignorance as to how power structures actually work.

                  I’m not going to apologise for my refusal to accept your lovely structuralist model. At some point you’re going to have to realise that they don’t work, have never worked & never will work as a means for understanding the totality of human existence. Which is sort of the problem I have with the gender binary, really: you can set down a normative rule & expect it to work. I’m increasingly coming to realise that you’re doing much the same, just with the parameters set a little differently.

                  • Becstar August 26, 2009 at 3:57 AM #

                    I am so sick of poststructualists who think they are so clever and alternative for following Foucault and company. You do realise that poststructuralism itself is inherently a metanarrative of its very own don’t you? It can never work because that is its inherent flaw – you cannot have a theory that espouses that all theory is bad without being an enormous hypocrite.

                    • James August 26, 2009 at 3:30 PM #

                      Unless you or anyone else was raised in a basement with no interaction with the outside world, it is irrelevant as to who raised you or how.

                      No, it is not. Certain figures are far more influential than others in people’s development. If some over-arching “society as a whole” was as over-bearing as you seem to think it is then cultures would be incapable of change.

                      We were all raised in a heavily patriarchal society. There is no getting around that fact.

                      I think that’s a very reductionistic way of approaching the world.

                      By coming in contact with that patriarchal society, we have all absorbed the messages of this society to one degree or another. Do you watch TV? Do you – or have you ever – attended school? Do you have a job where you interact with other people? Have you ever used porn? Do you perhaps go to church or follow any male-dominated religion? If you’ve done any of these things, you have been exposed to patriarchal society.

                      Yes, & at many stages staged a systematic rejection of its claims. I’ve been exposed to all sorts of ideas in my time, it’s vital to distinguish between exposure & acceptance.

                      In short, unless you were raised in a hole in the ground, you have come in contact with patriarchal programming. Unless you are some super-human (and from reading your comments, I’m guessing you’re not), you have been conditioned by that programming to some degree or another. Each and every one of us has.

                      The only question for any of us is how much we have been affected and in what ways have we been affected.

                      No, I don’t think I’ve been programmed. That suggests some guiding sentience was giving me instructions, which isn’t how culture works.

                      I am so sick of poststructualists who think they are so clever and alternative for following Foucault and company.

                      This isn’t about me, & it most certainly isn’t about Foucault. It’s about your attempt to rely upon models to understand humanity, & how that’s wrong.

                      You do realise that poststructuralism itself is inherently a metanarrative of its very own don’t you?

                      I have never called myself a post-structuralist.

                      It can never work because that is its inherent flaw – you cannot have a theory that espouses that all theory is bad without being an enormous hypocrite.

                      “No universal laws” is a universal law, etc, etc. Yes, I know. I still don’t like structuralism.

                  • Valerie M August 26, 2009 at 8:15 PM #

                    Gawd James, you just keep going from feminist blog to feminist blog making the same crappy arguments no matter how many times we debunk, answer, and generally shoot them down.

                    Aren’t you bored yet? We are.

                    • James August 26, 2009 at 8:54 PM #

                      One of my main arguments is that feminists rely too much on ad hominems. :P

                    • Meg November 1, 2009 at 5:19 AM #

                      Are you implying that Valerie’s post is an ad hominem? ‘Cause it’s not. Saying “James is boring because his arguments are wrong”, which is what Valerie said, is entirely different from saying “James’ arguments are wrong because he is boring”, which would be an ad hominem. Implication arrows: the order matters!

              • Faith August 26, 2009 at 2:07 PM #

                “It isn’t appreciated, please try asking how we were raised.”

                Unless you or anyone else was raised in a basement with no interaction with the outside world, it is irrelevant as to who raised you or how. We were all raised in a heavily patriarchal society. There is no getting around that fact. By coming in contact with that patriarchal society, we have all absorbed the messages of this society to one degree or another. Do you watch TV? Do you – or have you ever – attended school? Do you have a job where you interact with other people? Have you ever used porn? Do you perhaps go to church or follow any male-dominated religion? If you’ve done any of these things, you have been exposed to patriarchal society.

                In short, unless you were raised in a hole in the ground, you have come in contact with patriarchal programming. Unless you are some super-human (and from reading your comments, I’m guessing you’re not), you have been conditioned by that programming to some degree or another. Each and every one of us has.

                The only question for any of us is how much we have been affected and in what ways have we been affected.

                • Faith August 26, 2009 at 8:13 PM #

                  “No, it is not. Certain figures are far more influential than others in people’s development.”


                  Saying that it was irrelevant was a poor choice of phrasing. What I meant by that is simply that the people who raise us are not the only ones who have an effect on us and on our conditioning. I stand quite firmly by everything else that I said.

        • Sandy August 8, 2014 at 11:41 AM #

          If he is not free of patriarchal influence then neither are you. Are you willing to list the faults in your character that are a result of patriarchal conditioning that you have no doubt received. Have you ripped the patriarchy out of the roots of your own self?

      • harmony July 25, 2009 at 6:48 AM #

        yes, to help reign in those hyper-macho men … and the hypo-macho men, too. it seems like you think this is an unfair expectation. do you? and why? we’re not saying it’s easy.

        the reason why those uber-jerks rule in middle school is cuz almost all the other guys look up to them. there’s the few that get picked on, put the majority do not get picked on … the fear of getting picked on, mixed with the twisted admiration for them, keeps them in line… kissing their ass. but these uber-jerks would be nothing without the majority of guys patting them on the back and clamoring to be buddies — and also immitating them, and sometimes being mini-jerks. and the same goes at any other age, pretty much…

    • harmony July 25, 2009 at 6:55 AM #

      “Women have to deal with enforced femininity, and while a lot of the behaviors femininity entails do indeed suck, they aren’t chosen as freely as men’s behaviors are. ”

      i do hope you get more into this in a future blog entry. this is something i don’t currently agree with but i want to see where you’re coming from on it. the way i see it, gender socialization is more rigidly and brutally enforced for males than for females. (i’m talking here about a contemporary “western” societal context.) however, that masculine gender socialization that is enforced on boys soon cycles back to fuck women up real bad.

  30. chuck July 15, 2009 at 12:30 AM #

    I’m a man and I’ve nothing in common with hardly anyone, I guess cause I am fucked/stranded in the middle of nowhere and actively avoid all the ignorant assholes (of both sexes) around me I find this post and responses alarming. But I’m not surprised just further bummed out, I wish a plague would kill off most of the population or the earth flood and flip on its axis and drown everyone. – Chuck, a very masculine loner

  31. Anonyman July 18, 2009 at 2:07 AM #

    I’m not going to try to defend men at all to anyone.
    You make a lot of good points on just about everything you’ve said.
    But it is very sad to see, with all the bullshit, hatred and murderous fucktards in the world, another living soul with hatred towards anyone in their heart.
    But I must admit as a man, that 90% of the men on this planet are dipshits, probably myself included…

    • Nanella July 21, 2009 at 5:28 AM #

      Admitting your dipshitedness is the first step. Kudos.

    • harmony July 25, 2009 at 6:27 AM #

      lol @ anonyman’s comment. wow, i like this guy.

    • harmony July 25, 2009 at 6:56 AM #

      omg, click on anonyman’s website too (by clicking on his name). a self-esteem booster that was much needed on my end :)

      • Meg November 1, 2009 at 5:23 AM #

        Judging from the URL, I expected a puppy’s face followed by some more text: “you are! Yes, you are! Good boy! Who’s a good boy, you are yes you are!” I don’t know whether I’m disappointed or not.

  32. Satsuma July 18, 2009 at 11:21 PM #

    Good stuff women. Keep up the good male hating commentary! Just what I needed for a boost on a fine summer day.
    I loved the jerk in the airport story.

  33. m Andrea July 19, 2009 at 9:39 PM #

    You might enjoy my all time favorite quote, which is by TheBewilderness:

    This is a cheap transparent trick to change the subject from the behavior of men, to the feelings of women. Every time you hear the term hate used in this fashion it is always a cheapass way to change the subject. Serious people do not like to be manipulated in the style of political operatives.

    Men rape women.
    Why do you hate men.

    Porn hurts women.
    Why do you hate sex.

    Do you see the shift from the behavior of the perp to the feelings of the victim? You can see it any time you like on the cable news networks, where that crap passes for discussion.
    It does not pass here.

    END quote. Isn’t that fabulous? She thinks it sounds too rude. Of course I love it. lol

    Analyzing men as a class becomes hating men. Wanting to end the oppression of females becomes hating men. Being angry at men because they oppress women becomes hating men for no reason. Saying men as a class oppress those they claim to love becomes hating some random reader’s husband and gosh she is personally offended.

    • James August 3, 2009 at 11:40 AM #

      Well in this instance ND encounters a man, dislikes his behaviour, then extrapolates without providing any evidence for her assertion that “it’s not as if it’s not representative of the way the average male American behaves”.

      Now leaving aside the fact that what she might hate is America, rather than men, this still constitutes the standard bigot’s approach to writing: attack a single person effectively, then smear your success out onto everyone who is somehow linked to them. Turn a single loathsome example into an ambassador. I’ve seen it done dozens of time by many, many idiots & I am genuinely disappointed to see it done here. Perhaps this is some kind of parody post?

      Regardless, it’s a damn shame. We aren’t going to get anywhere with this sort of prejudice reinforcing tripe.

      • Nine Deuce August 3, 2009 at 11:37 PM #

        I expect you to read what I said, James. This guy is an example of our culture’s idea of masculinity, and I stated quite plainly that it’s masculinity, not men specifically, that I hate. For someone who hates the gender binary so much, you should have picked that up, seeing as I said it, like, five times.

        • James August 4, 2009 at 12:05 AM #

          …Before saying you hated “Maleness”. Now it’s perfectly possible that I’m getting myself worked up into a lather over semantics here, but isn’t maleness supposed to refer to a penis & masculinity to a cultural construct?

          • Nine Deuce August 4, 2009 at 2:20 AM #

            No, it refers to masculinity as it is socially defined. Now please, I’m on vacation. I’ll finish this series when I’m back.

            • James August 4, 2009 at 2:34 AM #

              Enjoy yourself.

  34. Grace Margaret July 23, 2009 at 6:46 PM #

    If more men were this cool, the world would be a better place. I’m sure he’s going to get shit for writing this:

    Losing my religion for equality
    Jimmy Carter
    July 15, 2009

    Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God.

    I HAVE been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention’s leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be “subservient” to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.

    This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women’s equal rights across the world for centuries.

    At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.

    The impact of these religious beliefs touches every aspect of our lives. They help explain why in many countries boys are educated before girls; why girls are told when and whom they must marry; and why many face enormous and unacceptable risks in pregnancy and childbirth because their basic health needs are not met.

    In some Islamic nations, women are restricted in their movements, punished for permitting the exposure of an arm or ankle, deprived of education, prohibited from driving a car or competing with men for a job. If a woman is raped, she is often most severely punished as the guilty party in the crime.

    The same discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in the West. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories, but its impact is felt every day. It is not women and girls alone who suffer. It damages all of us. The evidence shows that investing in women and girls delivers major benefits for society. An educated woman has healthier children. She is more likely to send them to school. She earns more and invests what she earns in her family.

    It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population. We need to challenge these self-serving and outdated attitudes and practices – as we are seeing in Iran where women are at the forefront of the battle for democracy and freedom.

    I understand, however, why many political leaders can be reluctant about stepping into this minefield. Religion, and tradition, are powerful and sensitive areas to challenge. But my fellow Elders and I, who come from many faiths and backgrounds, no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy – and we are deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it.

    The Elders are an independent group of eminent global leaders, brought together by former South African president Nelson Mandela, who offer their influence and experience to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity. We have decided to draw particular attention to the responsibility of religious and traditional leaders in ensuring equality and human rights and have recently published a statement that declares: “The justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable.”

    We are calling on all leaders to challenge and change the harmful teachings and practices, no matter how ingrained, which justify discrimination against women. We ask, in particular, that leaders of all religions have the courage to acknowledge and emphasise the positive messages of dignity and equality that all the world’s major faiths share.

    The carefully selected verses found in the Holy Scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place – and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence – than eternal truths. Similar biblical excerpts could be found to support the approval of slavery and the timid acquiescence to oppressive rulers.

    I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same Scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn’t until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.

    The truth is that male religious leaders have had – and still have – an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions – all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.


    Jimmy Carter was president of the United States from 1977 to 1981.

  35. Turel August 2, 2009 at 7:52 AM #

    :( I’m sad now….apparently I’m an ass because I’m male. T.T and here I thought we were all about equality for everyone.

  36. James August 3, 2009 at 11:51 AM #

    & sorry for the excessive swearing, that wasn’t productive. Wasn’t a “put you in your place” thing, it was a knee-jerk anti-bigot response thing.

    • Nine Deuce August 3, 2009 at 11:38 PM #

      I’m not going to be called a bigot. It’s perfectly acceptable for someone to dislike the generalized behaviors of a group of oppressive people. Bigotry is groundless. There’s a difference.

      • James August 4, 2009 at 12:10 AM #

        Like any bigot is going to call their own hate-group a groundless source of opprobrium. You’ve used anecdotal data to stage a generalised extrapolation. That’s a classic bigot technique & it is deeply unimpressive.

        I’m not going to start liken you to a National Socialist or a Republican or anything inflammatory like that, but I really think that this approach is inadvisable. If you are going to attack a section of the population this sizable (& yes, I’d like a better world, but the one we’re dealing with has close to 100% of the c. 50% who are born male as some sort of masculine) then you should come packing data. Not mere prejudice.

        It’s risky territory, not “I met this complete asshole in the airport” stuff.

        • Nine Deuce August 4, 2009 at 2:19 AM #

          It was an anecdote meant to illustrate several of the main points of the following posts. This is a series, and I’ll thank you not to tell me how to start it off or continue it. Please, seriously, wait until I’ve laid out my case before you tell me I’ve done it improperly.

      • Turel October 8, 2009 at 6:57 AM #

        posting this because i feel my post may have helped contribute to the name calling.

        o-o..my comment was made more as a joke, and to let off a little personal steam. kinda felt like my gender was being attacked but it’s cool. ^_^ everyone has opinions to express, and i respect people who tell it like they see it rather than sugar coating it.

        so yes, 9-2 isn’t a biggot. she just has negative personal views based on past experiances.

        and also sorry that i make crappy jokes.

        if my previous comment had no effect then disregard this post.

  37. Teresa August 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM #

    It is truly a sad reality when in todays world women must endure the splatter of bullshit that spews forth so effortlessly from “The Man” as well as his corporate female/she-male counterpart, “The Wanna-Be Man”. Yes, I am referring to the corporate business woman female counter-part to “The Man”; “The Wanna-Be Man”. I was raised to be a team player and to be loyal to the team captain, or leader of whatever team I am associated, yet, I find more and more that I am quite often the only female “team player” who is playing by the rules and whose values reflect loyalty, integrity and a desire to be successful while at the same time, helping to make my fellow teammates and team leader shine more brightly in the eyes of “The Man” who employs our professional service.

    I am of the opinion most women are still working tirelessly at defining their roles in todays world. Sadly, just as in the case of “The Man’s” actions, we must equally endure the “counter female” who in support of her male counter part, chooses to stand in support of their male leader when decisions are made which are strategic in streamlining the “type” of people who will be chosen for success in “The Man’s” world of business and the team for which he is playing alongside. These female counter-parts seem to rear their ugly bestial faces in times when women most need to stand strong beside each other in support of our united struggle to be accepted on our own terms for who we are as human beings capable to performing on the same level as any male. Yet, it is other females who continuously seem to be the greatest perpetuator’s in supporting the actions, spoken or otherwise, of “The Man” in the battle to keep women in a place where we will be of no threat to their male dominated roles, fragile egos, selfishness, and greed of unimaginable heights. As for “The Wanna-Be Man”, who seems to think they’re being “team players” when they support their business leaders, ” this very support of “The Man’s” actions merely serves to perpetuate the condemnation of females to subservient positions in the corporate world, which will, once again, need to be overcome. Well, I say to all of you “Wanna-Be Men” out there who are fucking your own kind; GET A FUCKING CLUE!

    *This current generation of corporate business women who are trying so desperately to “fit in” with “The Man”; believe the way it was for them is the way it’s got to be for all females who wish to play a more productive role in the world of business today and in the future. Well, this is just not true. Too many women strive to attain more than what they are allowed to become in this still male dominated world. The majority of women are allowed charity leadership roles from their business leader,”The Man”. I tell you now, it will not be until this whole generation of business men, and women, have lain down and died will the weight of their oppression be off our backs!

    Sadly, women are quite often the worst enemy of women. “The Man” is merely the puppet master sending clear messages, which serve to hold women back from too much advancement in the business world as well as in life for some.
    Women are continuously redefining their vision of what role they will play in their own futures. Now is the time for women to stand together sharing in a united goal with personal and professional values are in alignment by all, or this struggle will continue to serve as a distraction for human kind, preventing us all from focusing on what matters most; quality and balance of life for all on our living planet earth.

    *I twisted a memorable quote from the movie, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, which I felt suited the nature of what I most wanted to communicate, though a bit on the dramatic side, if I do say so myself.


  38. Ali August 15, 2009 at 6:58 AM #

    Hi there,
    I found your site by googling “I hate men”…I was just having one of those days where I just said.. argh I can’t stand men….and I am so glad I found you! I am totally straight (unfortunately) but right now I want to date you :)
    I completely wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying. I felt like I was reading my own journal when I read your blog.
    Like you I don’t hate all men but yea I hate almost all of them…. and I feel like it’s become really the battle of sexes now…

  39. Teresa August 17, 2009 at 12:41 AM #

    I totally forgot; I would very much enjoy reading your 9-part (and counting) series on porn.
    I’m very opinionated on this subject and enjoy a psychological, socialogical, ethical, as well as philosophical discussion on the subject of porn.

    Thanks for the offer, Nine Deuce!

    • Nine Deuce August 17, 2009 at 12:53 AM #

      Here’s part 8, which deals with men’s supposition that they have a right to use porn. If you go over to the right and use the search box, you can type in “porn part 1” or whichever of the 9 you’d like to see as they are all titled porn part __ plus a subtitle.

  40. Jonah August 22, 2009 at 2:17 AM #

    “I’m not going to be called a bigot. It’s perfectly acceptable for someone to dislike the generalized behaviors of a group of oppressive people. Bigotry is groundless. There’s a difference.”

    I understand what you’re saying (and frankly, I wouldn’t be callous enough to call any member of an oppressed group a bigot for their reaction to the oppression), but this makes me uneasy.

    After all, I am a man, a radical feminist, and a homosexual. I’m often tempted to hate heterosexuals (you may or may not be one, but statistically it’s likely I guess), but I try not to. After all, heterosexuals are the ones oppressing me, and the vast majority of heterosexuals, especially men, degrade and offend me on a regular basis. We could go into a surreal Olympics of Oppression here, deciding who has it worse, homosexuals or women (I’d probably concede it’s the latter), but either way, the situations are similar.

    I try not to hate heterosexuals because it doesn’t accomplish much. There are plenty of straights who are kind to me and supportive and I love them for that. I certainly make blanket statements that heterosexual culture sucks, that heteronormative assumption sucks, etc. However, I don’t hate heterosexuals FOR BEING heterosexuals.

    I guess I’m just saying that it would probably be more productive to focus your anger (which is definitely righteous) towards the actual cause of the oppression, which is not men or masculinity itself, but instead certain (read: the fucking huge majority of) men (unless somehow I’ve misread your stance and you actually believe that masculinity inherently leads to oppression, in which case I guess I just disagree).

    Does that make any sense? I love your blog and I’m definitely going to be reading more. Have a nice day!

    *Sorry for so many parentheses, I’m a terrible writer.*

    • Nine Deuce August 22, 2009 at 2:31 AM #

      I think that masculinity, as in the cultural idea of what it means to be gendered male, is the problem because it’s defined by aggression and privilege. That doesn’t mean I hate everyone with a penis, but that I hate the idea of what “manhood” is supposed to consist of because it hurts women (and it also hurts men). I don’t walk around hating every dude I see, but I’m wary of them and I assume they’re assholes until I see otherwise, because 99% of the time they are. But I’ll get further into all that in the rest of the series.

      Welcome aboard. (And worry not about parentheses – I’m a big fan myself).

      • James August 23, 2009 at 12:43 AM #

        I don’t walk around hating every dude I see, but I’m wary of them and I assume they’re assholes until I see otherwise, because 99% of the time they are.

        …Ok firstly that’s fucking crazy. 49% of the people you meet are assholes? Which planet are you located, exactly? Secondly: that’s the definition of prejudice. You make a negative assumption based upon an anecdotally compiled grudge.

        • Nine Deuce August 23, 2009 at 2:17 AM #

          I hate everyone, James. It’s probably got more to do with my countercultural elitism.

        • isme August 23, 2009 at 8:15 AM #

          “49% of the people you meet are assholes? Which planet are you located, exactly?”

          Yeah, where exactly is it where 51% of the population isn’t?

    • James August 23, 2009 at 1:00 AM #

      Hey there Jonah!

      Idk if this is to do with me being bi rather than gay, but personally I don’t feel oppressed at all. Sorry to feel that you do, though. As for me being “callous enough to call any member of an oppressed group a bigot for their reaction to the oppression”, there’s a quote I’d like to share with you:

      “For our declaration of independence, we should have the skin of a white man for parchment, his skull for an inkwell, his blood for ink, and a bayonet for a pen!”

      That was Boisrond-Tonnerre, aide to revolutionary Haitian, Dessalines. Both Dessalines & Boisrond-Tonnerre had been horribly oppressed, as all black Haitians had been, but both of them were still murderous bigots. ND is obviously nowhere near their league (either in bigotry or badassery), but I hope that that historical quotation goes to demonstrate how being a victim of oppression & being bigoted are far from mutually exclusive.

      (In this instance, however, there was a happy ending: rather than embarking upon full-scale genocide upon reaching power Dessalines decided that white Haitians who had fought for independence had thus rendered themselves black, which is an atypical definition but as sound as any. Whether B-T agreed with it, I honestly don’t know. I certainly doubt that he did at the time of that quote’s origin.)

      • Becstar August 23, 2009 at 3:22 AM #

        You keep saying things like that but all I hear is excuses for your behaviour. You cannot be a bigot against people who have been oppressing you for hundreds of years. You, on the other hand, keep proving how ignorant you are about how power and oppression actually works. Too many people, yourself included, like to align themselves with an oppressed group to try to prove how “progressive” they are to the outside word. All you are actually proving to those who are oppressed is how engrained that power actually is by not only refusing to recognise that their is a power imbalance but also by shifting blame to the oppressed group. Take a look at yourself for the true bigotry.

        • isme August 23, 2009 at 8:29 AM #

          “You cannot be a bigot against people who have been oppressing you for hundreds of years.”

          Well, no, because the human lifespan doesn’t run for hundreds of years.

          Seriously, though, when people start talking about other people’s oppression as if it was their own, it becomes a bit of a slippery slope.

          The oppression of women by men has been going on for thousands of years, yes, and has, and is, spectactularly horrific at times (as opposed to “normal”, common or garden prejudice), but the men of today (or, for that matter, any other time) are only responsible for their own actions, and to some extent those of their contemporaries.

          Personally, I’d say that it would certainly be possible for someone who had been oppressed to be a bigot (hell, look at the Middle East…every atrocity committed against *them* is fully justified by all the atrocities committed against *us*, forever).

          That’s not to say I’m calling ND a bigot, or even that I think it’s relevant. Not having ever met her, all she is to me is black text on a white background, and ideas which are right or wrong regardless of who or what she is.

        • James August 23, 2009 at 11:17 AM #

          Becstar, I don’t really deem this to be a response to my comment, as such. You have said “You cannot be a bigot against people who have been oppressing you for hundreds of years”, but that seems to be an assertion rather than an argument, because you have provided seemingly no reasoning. I would say that it is entirely possible, as well as probable & unhelpful. Unless you are in a position where that hatred can drive you through a successful revolution (& radical feminism has yet to find it’s analogue to anti-colonialism’s Haiti) it generally just generates rancour & prevents people getting anywhere. Think Nation of Islam era Malcolm X (post-NoI X was an entirely different story, a true hero were there ever one).

          As for your ad hominem regarding my motivation, well I don’t really need to respond to that, but I shall. I don’t want to impress everyone by by astounding progressiveness, & if I did I’d probably be posting elsewhere. I can think of far better locations for an ego rubdown & if you have an ounce of empathy (& have read this post’s title) you’ll probably be able to see why. Politically I’ve been all over the place these few last years, but the lodestone is opposition to bigotry (with the anti-racism, internationalism, egalitarianism, socialism & all else that adherence to such a doctrine implies being constants too).

          I think that elimination of the inaccurate cultural trope of there being a gender binary is a matter of highest priority. Unfortunately many feminists seem to be treating it with reverence rather than the contempt it deserves, albeit inadvertantly. The outcome is sexism, pure & simple: an environment where I can claim that a post entitled “Why I Hate Men” is sexist & be accused of bigotry is one where the world has been put upon its head.

          I am not blaming you & Nine for any social ills (I don’t really know where you got that impression), I’m just saying that this post is pretty damn bigoted. Its a piece of prejudice, pure & simple.

          • Becstar August 23, 2009 at 11:01 PM #

            Why thankyou so much for not blaming you. Being a girl and all I really needed male validation. And of course, if a MAN says a woman is bigoted then he must be right! This patriarchy business is obviously all for our own good anyway, right?

            • James August 24, 2009 at 1:13 AM #

              That’s a mixture of a strawman & an ad hominem. I tried to present a case for why I think that this post is a bigoted one (not that Nine is a bigot), & now you’ve responded by saying that I just think I’m right because I’m male.

              If that was the case then I wouldn’t have bothered making an argument. Speaking of which, you’ve just typed out some views which I don’t believe in to try & discredit the ones which I do. That isn’t really a rebuttal.

              • Becstar August 24, 2009 at 8:17 AM #

                There’s no point rebutting the argument of someone who is convinced they are right simply because they have been brought up to believe that as a male they are always right when compared to women. It hasn’t even crossed your mind that your position is based on your privilege and that just because you claim to be supporting feminism does not mean you are incapable of being a misogynist. Until you recognise this any argument you produce is worthless.

                • James August 24, 2009 at 8:58 AM #

                  To be less snarky & concise:

                  -I’ve actually been considering this whole “privilege” thing a lot lately. I’m very divided over whether stressing it is a bad or good thing, but I certainly have given it some thought.

                  -I’ve never stated I’m “supporting feminism”, I certainly do not support radical feminism, on the grounds that I think it generally reinforces the gender binary (see: the post we’re replying to).

                  -Neither do I assume that there are no misogynist feminists. It just so happens that I find misogyny preposterous. That sort of comes hand in glove with disagreeing with the binary.

                  -Above all in matters of gender I am opposed to prejudice & presumption. I think that that’s the source of a huge amount of ill (that’s a woman, she’ll get pregnant if I hire her; that’s a man, he won’t understand feelings). That’s what I think should be eliminated from out culture, & right now I’d say you are being part of the problem rather than the solution. You are dismissing me on the basis of which side of the imaginary line I fall down on, rather than dismissing the binary on the basis of it being bullshit.

                  I don’t know nearly enough about you to estimate whether that’s due to oppression of some kind you’ve suffered or not, but that’s not really my point. You are acting like a right little binarist.

                  -Speaking of ignorance, you know fuck all about my background. Don’t imagine your lovely structuralist model acts as a substitute for asking me how I was raised, please. I certainly was not raised to believe that men are always correct over women. Otherwise I’d be hanging with my thief of a father in Spain, living merrily off of cash drained offshore from the joint account (& the children’s building societies, & the mortgages run up on our properties until they were much worse than worthless, & the stolen jewels/champagne, & the…), rather than having stuck around being dirt poor here with my mother for five miserable years.

                  & that’s your literal dirt poor, you understand. At some point bedrooms without a roof, dust every-fucking-where. No hot water for several months so baths involved boiling twenty kettles, etc, etc, etc… All the while I could have been sunning myself laughing at that mad bitch back in Britain with her deranged conspiracy theories & faulty grasp of finances.

                  But instead I accepted that he was an embezzling bastard, my mother was the entirely blameless victim of theft on a truly vast scale, & so I stuck around with me mother & little sister, both of whom (believe it or not) are both females & feminine & argue with me all the fucking time rather than ceding to my almighty, cock-based authority as they surely should do what with my bountiful, fathomless privilege. Instead they force me on a regular basis to accept that they’re right & I’m just fucking wrong. & they aren’t even feminists! Unbelievable, huh?

                  It’s almost as if structuralism doesn’t work when you try & apply it to the micro, or something wild like that.

                  -Almighty fucksticks, you truly are fond of them ad hominems, aren’t you? As it happens attacking me doesn’t dismiss any of my points, as much as you may want it to & as self-righteous as you may feel while laying into my defects.

                  • RedRobin October 3, 2014 at 11:55 PM #

                    James… fuck off

          • isme August 24, 2009 at 9:10 AM #

            “I think that elimination of the inaccurate cultural trope of there being a gender binary is a matter of highest priority. Unfortunately many feminists seem to be treating it with reverence rather than the contempt it deserves, albeit inadvertantly. ”

            I agree with you on that…sort of.

            However, eliminating the gender binary is harder than simply ignoring it, and what you see as the reverence of it is probably due to people drawing attention to it, often not in the best way, though there is some overlap.

            Mind you, I sympathise with those who don’t see it being eliminated, at least not in our lifetimes, and have thus accepted is as a constant, even if I don’t neccesarily agree with them.

  41. roesmoker August 26, 2009 at 2:10 AM #

    Right on! I really do hate men, as defined by the patriarchy, and most males act out that role to a greater or lesser degree. Some of that is self-defense because they hate me, and all women. I also hate sex, as the patriarchy has defined it. Any and all time spent protesting that “no, we really love men/cock” could be better spent bringing about the feminist revolution.

    I know there is another way to experience sex that is not violent, hateful or fetishizing dominance, but I don’t know exactly what it is yet, nor how to get to it when starting from the entrenched mindset of the patriarchy.

  42. Grace Margaret August 26, 2009 at 3:37 AM #

    I think (and correct me if I’m wrong) that Nine Deuce is saying if anything a feminist says is going to be construed as “man-hating”, then why not embrace it and not waste time constantly trying to explain how it’s the system and the men who perpetuate it that are the problem.

    I don’t hate all men, but I’m SOOO SICK of the everyday, socially acceptable hatred and nastiness directed at women in general, and feminists in particular when we have the nerve to complain about it. You could say the most innocent thing, like women should get equal pay for equal work, and get accused of just being an angry ‘man-hater’.

    Calling ND a ‘bigot’ misses the point entirely. Why not direct that energy toward your fellow men and take them to task for their nastiness toward women and their definition of manhood as being someone who is superior to women and treats women contemptuously?

  43. Anj September 24, 2009 at 10:12 PM #

    men are assholes. they can’t seem to keep their dick in their pants for a long time.
    bloody fuckers.

    thank you for creating this article.
    i am feeling soo relaxed after a long time unloading my hatred for bloody male sex.

  44. Echo September 25, 2009 at 2:12 AM #

    Don’t you think even all our life’s individual subjective experiences never can be fully objectively interpreted until you try out both sides? So, never. My mother was a strong person, had equal function in my family and had equal job as my father, but was payed more.

  45. Imaginary September 26, 2009 at 3:36 AM #

    Thank fucking walrus! I love this post. Geez, I have tried for a long time to like or at least tolerate men but I can’t. I simply can’t. I have never met a man that had any clue what they were talking about; even the potentially smart ones were diminished by the fact that they still viewed girls talking about men as useless fucks as sexist and evil as men talking about girls the same way. Because they like to think that men face all the oppression and bullshit now a days and that male privilege doesn’t exist. FUUUCK! I hate them. Anyway, it’s more sensible to be anti-men until you met one that’s not shit; you don’t trust a giant knife being hurdled at your head because of the off chance that it might be plastic.

  46. Elsie September 29, 2009 at 3:36 AM #

    I grew up with men. My mother had 4 brothers so she wasn’t all that feminine. I never felt comfortable as a woman, and once in my twenties I had to start trying to figure it out. But now coming up on 30, I’ve realized I don’t enjoy male company either. I’ve never been treated with such disrespect than by men when i started dating at around 25. For no reason.

    Other than having children, I have absolutely no use for them. Oh and maybe moving heavy objects. It’s sad, but they bring it on themselves. They lie, they cheat and think only about themselves.

  47. Hannah September 29, 2009 at 10:14 PM #

    Thank you for this. I thought I was the only one.

  48. Jess October 20, 2009 at 3:40 AM #

    What a splendid forum.

    …And men can go to hell!

  49. Imaginary October 24, 2009 at 2:53 PM #

    PLLEEEEEASE UPDATE THIS SERIES!!! I’m feeling very angsty and man-hatey lately. You’re wonderful 9-2, by the way.

  50. Carrie December 1, 2009 at 10:36 AM #

    I’m so glad I found this. Here I am, sitting at my computer because I can’t sleep. I’m sick of how women are treated as second class citizens, and I don’t understand why men aren’t aware of how hurtful they are to women. They make cheap jokes about how women are sex objects, and then there are women who promote that image through the media.

    There’s no hope if we sit around and wait for men to understand all of this discrimination, yet there is also no hope if women keep encouraging such behavior. Societal influences suck…

  51. Brian December 1, 2009 at 4:27 PM #

    WHY??? et cetera

    Men and women are more or less identical, except we get told different things and people react to us differently. Why do women talk about their feelings and why don’t men? Because women get told to talk about their feelings and get shunned if they don’t, and men get told not to talk about their feelings and get hit with sticks if they do.

  52. Robyn December 2, 2009 at 4:12 AM #

    It’s not the individuals I hate: it’s what they’ve collectively bought into. Lip service: we respect women. Reality… um, I really don’t even want to discuss it: it only serves to validate their behaviour.
    And yet, and yet… if there *is* a male out there that doesn’t buy into the whole obnoxious, arrogant, entitled, violent, stinky, crass, loud-mouthed, stupid, craven, bragadocious, thoughtless, un-reflective, abusive, selfish, lowbrow, wilfully ignorant asshole way of being, he’s either gay or thought of as gay (not that there’s anything *wrong* with that!) … — and this is the kicker –: by *women*!
    Why the fuck *is* that? Are roles so entrenched that we *expect* men to behave this way, even though we deplore the behaviour? Mixed messages.

  53. Unapologetic December 10, 2009 at 10:52 PM #

    Found your site by googling “I hate men” and have been lurking in the shadows ever since. But I can no longer resist commenting, if only to say how right you are and how pissed off I am that so few people get it. Feminists do take a lot of crap for being man-haters–and we waste precious time and energy defending ourselves against those charges. But so what if we do hate men sometimes? Excuse me if I have trouble exhibiting tolerance in a world where I cannot walk home at night (modestly dressed, not that it should matter) without being stalked by a man who “just wants my number.” In a world where me screaming, “Fuck off, asshole,” elicits nothing more than bemused smiles from passers by.

    Because, you know, I should be flattered that some random asshole finds me attractive enough to harass. Because women were put on this earth for the sole purpose of eliciting hard-ons from manly, manly men. And don’t you dare express dissatisfaction with this situation, lest you be accused of being a bitter man-hating dyke. Well, I’m ready to confess. I hate this system and the men who propagate it, whether by design or out of willful ignorance and complacency.

    Great blog, 9D. Hope you get a chance to update this series sometime soon.

  54. Bekah December 19, 2009 at 3:00 AM #


  55. Grace December 20, 2009 at 2:27 AM #

    I’ve been on another forum (non-feminist related) and the men seemed cool for the most part. But when someone brought up feminism the reaction was surreal. The hate toward women showed it’s ugly face. And also the ridiculous “men too” argument. “Men are discrimintated against too” so women can’t complain about anything. It was an atheist forum and they pay a lot of lip service to mysogyny in religion, but, like using the plight of women to justify going to war in Afghanistan and then not giving a shit about whether women in those countries have any rights once the country is “liberated”, these assholes use religious-based misogyny just as an excuse to bash religion. Talking about the rights of women in oppressively theocratic foreign countries, whom they’ll never ever meet or try to fuck, is easy.

  56. James December 21, 2009 at 2:26 PM #

    The pseudo-feminist argument in favour of the Afghanistan occupation is fantastic: instead of those women-oppressing Taliban scumbags, we should support…Women-oppressing warlord scumbags.

    A huge leap forwards.

  57. Miss Andrist December 21, 2009 at 7:28 PM #

    I am a feminism evangelist. (For a self-described militant radical feminist who is also a PvP gamer, this should come as no surprise.) Last night, I introduced yet another woman – a fellow gamer – to what feminism actually is. Here is a summary:

    me: I am a militant radical feminist.
    her: But men have -some- uses!
    me: All PEOPLE have different talents and abilities and human potential; no trait is exclusive by sex.
    her: Everyone in my office, including the managers, are women, and they hire and promote based on looks, too.
    me: Women can be sexist without sexism becoming women’s fault, or women becoming responsible for sexism. Women can engage in sexist behaviors without making sexism any less wrong or oppressive to women, or making men benefit from sexism any less.
    her: …It’s really hard to see feminism as being wrong, the way YOU describe it.
    me: That’s because feminism is about enforcing the human dignity of non-males and eliminating inequality based on sex.
    her: Then why is it always described as so bad?
    me: Because we were all conditioned by the same patriarchal society. You’ll note your immediate response to my feminism was about men? The patriarchy insists than anything that isn’t ABOUT MEN must be AGAINST MEN. Feminism is not about men. It’s about women. So you are conditioned by society to respond as if it has anything to do with men, because the patriarchal society is only about men, and can’t be about anybody else.

    Maybe non-males are easier to pitch feminism to because we have an intrinsic sense of our own oppression and its injustice, of our own human worth and how it is infringed upon in every tiny and monstrous way. Males do not live with constant incursions calling their humanity into question, for one thing. Males are also taught from birth that everything is about themselves. Non-males are also taught that everything is about someone else (males). Non-males are conditioned to consider the thoughts and ideas of others; males are conditioned to presume the value and importance of their own thoughts and ideas. That’s why males barge into feminist blogs and try to set the wayward wimminz, who should be LISTENING, straight. Never having learned to second-guess the correctness of their ideas, just shutting non-females up is in my experience too often impossible.

  58. polly styrene December 21, 2009 at 8:11 PM #

    The pseudo-feminist argument in favour of the Afghanistan occupation is fantastic: instead of those women-oppressing Taliban scumbags, we should support…Women-oppressing warlord scumbags.

    It’s certainly an interesting one. Even more interesting when you think that women’s rights in Iraq have taken a huge leap backwards since the latest bit of warmongering. Oh and the USof Az didn’t give a shit about the position of women in Aghanistan when the ‘evil empire’ invaded and they armed the Taliban. Oh and remind me why we’re not at war with Saudi Arabia and China again?

  59. Nine Deuce December 22, 2009 at 12:58 AM #

    CC – I think there might be some miscommunication because I disabled comment threading. I don’t think Meg was talking to you, but rather that the posts are out of order.

  60. OutsideLookingOver December 23, 2009 at 1:46 AM #

    Your post pretty much sums up what *I* hate the most about men and masculinity. If anything I hate it even more than you do, but for the oddest reason in the world, perhaps: physically, I “belong” to that group. Well, let’s say it’s assumed that I belong. The behaviour is *expected*. And yet, I have always known there is something fundamentally wrong with it, have never subscribed to it, could never play that game and so have always been on the outside looking over at it. The more I look at it, the more my initial take on masculinity is confirmed and the less I want to have to do with it.
    Sad to say, all I’ve achieved it putting myself into this odd grey-area socially. Since I don’t/can’t “play the game” heterosexual men and women see me as “weird”. Gay men see me as a wannabe gay… “not a chance, mate”. Gay women feel sorry for me, because they see inside me – all women communicate at such an incredibly wonderful level and pick up on things no man will ever see – and realise what is going on and how bleak my plight is.
    I’ve been on oestrogen and anti-androgens for five years now but know one thing to be incontrovertible fact: no born male can ever “become” female. There is just too much missing.
    However, this journey has given me an opportunity to understand how to listen properly (with your whole head and eyes and heart), how to see the value of a smile (mine) and to offer it often, what body-boundaries mean and how to respect those of others, and how to count to twenty-five before saying anything back.
    I feel as on-the-outside as ever, but it doesn’t much matter anymore. There is always art.

  61. Josie December 31, 2009 at 6:17 AM #

    If i draw from personal experience. Men win when it comes to winning the ‘biggest a**hole’ race. What i dont get is they claim women aren’t human, they should take a look at themselves. I know in my heart men must feel inferior to women…because they have a greater need to disparage us women.

  62. jashutson13 January 16, 2010 at 12:47 AM #

    I hate it when men call a women a slut when she doesn’t give in to him. It also not always sexual with a man either. I was reading a blog on why men hate women and another thing they addressed was how stupid women where. I decided to read the comments posted( mostly by men). Then I came on here and read the comments, and the comments (made by women) on here is far more intelligent than the comments that those men where making. It just goes to show that women don’t have to do a bunch of name calling to get there point across.

  63. OutsideLookingOver January 16, 2010 at 2:11 AM #

    Not an excuse, but testosterone at certain levels appears to have a deleterious effect on the intellect. That’s a liability. Words failing them, “real” men resort to profanity and then fisticuffs.
    It’s all rather sad.

  64. James January 16, 2010 at 2:18 AM #

    Other studies using placebos indicate a psychsomatic effect may be at play, OLO.

  65. isme January 16, 2010 at 1:19 PM #

    “It just goes to show that women don’t have to do a bunch of name calling to get there point across.”

    It seems odd, but as was mentioned somewhere on this blog, you don’t seem to hear of female trolls.

  66. James January 16, 2010 at 6:13 PM #

    I know at least one in person: she’s both overtly female & a skilled troll.

  67. yeahwesaidit January 23, 2010 at 3:57 AM #

    Nicely said. I hate them too.

    I wouldn’t kill anyone or anything-I just have no respect for 90% of the behavior of 90% of men. For 53 years I tried to be nice. My mother was in the Civil Rights movement and the Feminist movement of the 60s and 70s and she and the others were constantly ridiculed. She always said and I always said, ‘We don’t hate men, we just want freedom for all human beings.’

    But the other day I was telling this guy about how the behavior of some other guy drove me to the exhilarating conclusion that I genuinely was through with dealing with men, especially now that I don’t have the enormous sex drive I once had, and it’s so much easier now to stay out of harm’s way, and he said, “You just hate men.”

    “No I don’t,” I said, and then I stopped and admitted it: “Yeah, I just hate men.”

    We bumped fists on that one.

    I felt no apology, and none was demanded. It felt good to tell the truth and not be nice. I can understand how a lot of black people hate white people. (I mean I hope nobody kills me for being white or anything, but I can understand when a black person feels a certain kind of disgust for a white person considering the history and the privileges and the often twisted, ignorant assumptions.)

    Deep, deep riveting hate is no good for any of us, but when I say I hate men, it’s not like its something eating me up inside — it’s just an honest, free response. Of course I would save one if he was drowning or something and I had the strength and the means. I just wouldn’t want to subject myself to his more than likely critical, dominating, selfish, insulting ways once I dragged him back on land.

    I was married for many years to the love of my life and have wonderful children but you know now that I’ve been alone for 14 years I am the happiest and most free human being on the planet and have no desire ever to live with a man again in my life. That means I don’t have to take another obnoxious, unconscious, compensating, condescending insult from another man for as long as I live. That in itself is bliss!

    Unfortunately, people say I still look kind of “young and attractive” according to ridiculous and prevailing ideas — and I still get cat calls or comments about my ass that aren’t always said in the most loving way. But other than that I am home free baby! Home free!

    [It doesn’t bother me if men are friendly and make remarks like “you have a beautiful ass” in a funny or polite way- I’m talking about when they’re hostile and disrespectful, and say things like “I’m gonna fuck you up your ass and then you’re gonna suck my dick.” Just wanted to illustrate what I’m talking about lest some dick head male gets on here and thinks I’m just “being too sensitive” when men “express themselves.” I don’t go around harassing males (and didn’t even when I was a horn dog (horn bitch) in heat) and I don’t appreciate when they go around harassing females, especially me.]

    Hate is not a fun or desirable sensation but it’s honest as shit.

  68. yeahwesaidit January 23, 2010 at 10:40 AM #

    I fucking hate porn, I hate men, I hate lip stick, I hate fucking high heels, and being in a fucking harness. I hate verbal game playing and banter and dick contests, and little boys that pour gasoline on ducks and light them on fire, and teens that raped my sister, and husbands that stabbed me in the back, and guys who criticize Monique for not shaving on the day or her award, and comments about how young women look like ripe fruit but it only lasts for a season, and snuff, and men who stone women adulterers to death, and families who burn up daughter in laws, and doctors who fuck up women, and lawyers that make condescending remarks, and sneaky deals, and spouses who leave wives when they are sick, and arrogant ass kissing, politicking co-workers, and arrogant little boys who are rude to adult women…I fucking hate them all.

  69. Grace January 26, 2010 at 3:47 AM #

    Yes, it’s all about men’s desire to create offspring to carry on their genes, silly women! It’s funny how that desire seems to dissipate once that baby is born…wouldn’t the desire to take care of your offspring and see them grow up to be healthy and happy be just as strong, if not more so?

    Wouldn’t it make sense for men to be ‘hardwired’ for being responsible fathers too?

  70. Andrew January 26, 2010 at 4:51 PM #

    I agree with that article to the extent that a man’s use of porn is not a reflection of how he feels about his partner. I also think that porn engages men on a subliminal, subconscious level as well.

    That, however, does not mean that porn can not have detrimental effects on a relationship, as opposed to his “daily life”, which the article states only occurs at a rate of 5%. It also doesn’t mean that men are powerless against it. I have huge problems with personal vices which, though they require a choice, are conceptualized as “diseases” or “addictions” that people are powerless to stop. This includes drugs, alcohol, smoking, etc. I don’t think porn is different.

  71. Rian January 27, 2010 at 5:59 PM #

    And that led to sexy outfits and a little experimentation in the bedroom.

    “Sexy outfits” for her, no doubt. What a lovely sales pitch for commodified sexuality. Yay, consumerism! Barf

  72. Leela January 31, 2010 at 11:05 PM #

    Thank you for this!

    I’ve read so much female-bashing misogynistic crap on the web that I’m glad to see it get flipped.

    And might I add that you’re much more intelligent / correct than the aforementioned misogynists.

    I’m sick of trying to tell men that “feminists” don’t hate men. They can go find the fucking dictionary and figure out the definition if they want. It’s about equality. No matter what the (male-dominated) media machine tells them. And yet some of them insist on acting like parrots, echoing back whatever they hear on the all-knowing, all-powerful television.

    And I get what you’re saying. You not talking about ALL men. Just the fucking retarded misogynists who think women aren’t human.

    I work in a male-dominated industry and I’m so fucking sick of all the sexist jokes. And I’m SICK of them saying, “Aww you don’t have a sense of humor!” When I don’t find the same old sexist joke (that I’ve been hearing since I was born) funny.

    Everyone now-a-days wants to be cute, sarcastic and satirical. Too bad they don’t fucking understand humor. Satire doesn’t mean reinforcing the status quo.

    I’d also like to add that I’m sick of the lady-douchebags who sit there killing themselves trying to follow all the rules set forth by the powerful man on what women “should be.” Dieting…dressing…having emotions…all based on what would be most pleasing to men. And then those lady-douches insist that they’re not “feminists.” Of course those brainwashed idiots aren’t feminists, they’re too busy being sheep.

    Again, thanks for this article. I’m sure you get tons of hate mail from idiot men everywhere. Stay strong!

  73. Roxie February 1, 2010 at 3:57 AM #

    You know, I was just thinking about this post and it reminded me of WHY I broke up with a b/f several years ago.

    He asked me what my dream was. I said it was to make a magazine that focused on REAL issues that women face, at the time I likened it to the “anti-cosmo”. And he asked me “what about men’s issues?” I replied, “YOU can make that magazine.”

    He then went on to liken my dream to the separatism employed by the Nazis (he’s British) against Jews & homosexuals. He went on to say–I will never forget THIS as long as I live–that my magazine & idea would be “the last nail in the coffin of freedom”

    Dudes, man.
    In hindsight, best reason to break up ever.

  74. Grace February 1, 2010 at 7:12 AM #

    I know, I hear that all the time. Whenever you bring up empowering women, “well, what about men?” That’s considered ‘equality’, if women can complain about something, it’s only fair that men can complain too. Blech.

    You have to decode Male Supremacist Speak, ‘freedom’ means being able to have power over women. ‘Equality’ means keeping the status quo. And women who fight against discrimination, oppression, abuse,
    torture, and/or murder of their fellow females are ‘Nazis’.

  75. isme February 1, 2010 at 1:44 PM #

    Not to mention, how few of the legitimate issues they generally choose to bring up in response.

    There are actual concerns over the rights of men (and, for that matter, any group you care to name) that MRAs should be dealing with, that are totally ignored in favour of batshit insanity.

  76. OutsideLookingOver February 1, 2010 at 9:03 PM #

    But when you weigh those mens-rights issues with the rights-of-women issues, there’s really no comparison. Men have nothing to whinge about. There is strong evidence to suggest that these problems are so ingrained as to actually be quasi-accepted by both genders. Susan Maushart addressed this in “Wifework”.
    Men have to truly buy into equality in every sense of the word. Colour me cynical, but there are too many misogynistic bastards bred out there by phallocrats for that to happen overnight.
    And then, there’s the whole role thing. Which century *is* this, anyway?

  77. GXB February 2, 2010 at 9:35 AM #

    I like to think the 21st century can become the first in which current forms of misogyny have no place (US-centric here). After all, women being able to vote in the US didn’t happen until 1920 (except Wyoming got there in 1869, or 1890 as a state, says Wikipedia), but we definitely think of the 20th century as one in which women had suffrage. If you see what I’m saying, this late at night.

  78. isme February 2, 2010 at 10:52 AM #

    “But when you weigh those mens-rights issues with the rights-of-women issues, there’s really no comparison. Men have nothing to whinge about.”

    I don’t agree there. No matter how much greater the issues confronting one group are, it doesn’t make the issues confronting another to be irrelevant. Mind you, MRAs don’t seem to like the “less important but still relevant” label, or else have a very distorted scale.

    I agree about the ingrained acceptance of the problems though.

  79. OutsideLookingOver February 3, 2010 at 8:50 AM #

    Perhaps it’s because I’m in a profession with predominantly female colleagues (nursing) that I can’t appreciate men’s rights as an issue, but…

    I see female patients in post-anaesthesia recovery: these women have been suffering with severe, debilitating lower abdominal pain for… far too long – because that is what women *do*! they put up with the pain because women don’t complain. That’s my experience in recovery: women as a rule complain a third as much as men. These women *finally* go in to seek medical help because they simply can’t *stand it anymore. They undergo a laparoscopy (the surgeon actually looks around in the belly with a keyhole surgery device). So many times the surgeon *sees* nothing abnormal … I’m tending to their needs (breathing, pain relief, etc) as they wake up after the operation and they receive the news that “there is nothing wrong”!!! and these poor women dissolve into tears because … because … why??? Because the bloody surgeon can’t *see* anything, they think telling the patient there is nothing wrong is the *right* thing to do? Do they think that it would be a *relief*???
    My main role is to support those women, to reassure them that they are not crazy (I don’t put it that way, obviously, but that’s the gist of their concern) and that there *is* an answer out there. I can’t cure, but I can reassure, and do my best to give hope and strength to them.

    If males were afflicted with this condition (not endometriosis… the medicos don’t seem to have a name for it, but I see it a LOT) the research would be fast and furious and the cure would have been found *ages* ago… but because it afflicts women, well, regardless of the fact that surgeons have to scratch their heads telling the patient in their rooms they couldn’t see anything and then what, prescribe pain meds? nothing much seems to be happening. Well, I don’t read much evidence of anything.

    Stack that against men’s rights: sorry, the male-biased weight of focus on even something like healthcare tells me that on a very basic level, equality… isn’t. Men’s rights vs what?

  80. nayo February 3, 2010 at 10:16 AM #


    Your voice is sanity, truth, the way it is. Reading your words is grounding me to the earth right now. Lately it has been difficult relating to other humans, especially in regards to the patriarchal construct we are born into. It annoys me all the time and I can’t turn off my awareness. Wouldn’t want to. Just mentioning patriarchy results in a request for definition of said word. Sigh. Grateful that you take the time to express your viewpoint. You are so eloquent and gifted with the written word. Coming here, I feel connected to other people. You give me a sense of hope and so do many of your commenters. Your influence is needed and appreciated. Keep on keeping on.

    In Seattle…

  81. James February 4, 2010 at 10:37 AM #

    Sure OLO – men’s diseases matter far more than women’s in our society. That’s why the prostate cancer campaign is so much bigger than the breast cancer campaign, right?

  82. Portia February 5, 2010 at 12:52 AM #

    James – you should keep your mouth shut about things you clearly know little about.

    The respective levels of impact on humans of prostate cancer and breast cancer are such that they are not comparable in the way you have tried to.

    The ‘campaign’ face of breast cancer is overwhelmingly directed by corporations making profit. Unbiased, neutral information in this ‘campaign’ is very hard to find. Even deeming these ‘campagins’ as something of a pointer to the state of diseases “mattering” as you so vaguely put it, is ridiculous.

  83. James February 5, 2010 at 1:09 AM #

    Portia – I’d appreciate it if you were a little more courteous.

    I was responding to this passage:

    “but because it afflicts women, well, regardless of the fact that surgeons have to scratch their heads telling the patient in their rooms they couldn’t see anything and then what, prescribe pain meds”

    You may claim that the breast cancer campaign is an astroturf staged by corporations, but the contributions made by individuals (both in term of money & “awareness” efforts/activities) clearly demonstrate that women are hardly deemed worthless, nor are conditions which they specifically encounter inevitable disregarded.

    Indeed, I’d say that by comparing the campaigns’ relative successes you’d observe quite the reverse.

    Finally: everything is perfectly “comporable” to anything else. Me stubbing my toe in comparison to the Holocaust is insignificant, for example, because it didn’t involve massive amounts of death. That is a comparison. It irks me that so many people mistake the very function of a comparison, & attempt to conflate it with the entirely distinct equation.

  84. Portia February 5, 2010 at 3:36 AM #

    You were comparing the two cancers with the intention to equate and still are. Compare to your heart’s content, the two diseases are not analogous.

    Read about the effects of breast cancer on humans and the effects of prostate cancer on humans and then draw conclusions rather than basing your entire arguement on the fact that the less well publicised cancer is found in men only and the better predominantly in women.

    If you can’t be bothered to read, then don’t comment.

    The fact that breast cancer as a tool for marketting consumer products has made it on the corporate agenda does not offset the rest of women’s healthcare taking a back seat in the assignation of priorities in public health throughout the world. Expand your horizons.

  85. Valerie M February 5, 2010 at 8:48 AM #

    James, I’d appreciate it if you would fuck off now and never comment on this or any feminist blog again. Or read them.

    It would solve both problems – we wouldn’t have to see your clueless drivel and you could stop worrying about our level of courtesy.

    • RedRobin October 3, 2014 at 11:56 PM #

      100% agreed… poor thing’s lost in testicle babble

      Shoot him

  86. OutsideLookingOver February 5, 2010 at 10:47 AM #

    “I was responding to this passage:

    You may claim that the breast cancer campaign is an astroturf staged by corporations, but the contributions made by individuals (both in term of money & ‘awareness’ efforts/activities) clearly demonstrate that women are hardly deemed worthless, nor are conditions which they specifically encounter inevitable disregarded.”

    How is that a response to what I was talking about? You’re talking about campaigns and comparing one disease against another: I’m talking about a exclusively female medical condition for which there *is* no diagnosis because the male-dominated medical society that came up with the concept of “female hysteria” have basically labelled this too — something they don’t understand — as “all-in-the-mind”.

    I’m a male nurse seeing this happening all too often to mostly younger women, and I’m appalled / incensed / AND doing something about it!

    This *IS* an example of “doesn’t-afflict-men, can’t-be-physically verified, must-be-all-in-the-mind”.

    It’s so easy for doctors to say: “look, we saw nothing wrong in there, you really don’t have anything wrong with you…” and then look for a psychological etiology for the pain, as if all other causes have been ruled out with a laparoscopy.

    I never see a male patient subjected to this sort of humiliation. With males, it’s always: “if there’s smoke, there must be a fire”.


    I’ve been doing this for too many years … I’m in the trenches seeing this.

    So the whole male rights thing looks pretty bland and inconsequential from where I’m sitting. Men’s rights? They already have the weight of the medical community on their side.

    I’m frankly embarrassed to be one.

  87. Laurelin February 5, 2010 at 2:24 PM #

    Portia- marry me?

  88. isme February 5, 2010 at 3:18 PM #

    Firstly, men can get breast cancer as well (I heard a cousin suggest the more manly sounding “chest cancer”).

    Secondly, the comparison of two ailments isn’t really all that useful in exploring the health system as a whole.

    However, I would like to appropriate for my own ends. To clarify, when I say I recognise the important of men’s rights advocates (not Men’s Rights Advocates), I mean in the same way that I recognise the important of people that work to cure less widespread and less debilitating illnesses. They should, of course, receive a lesser priority, often much lesser, but they are still worthwhile.

  89. Grace February 5, 2010 at 5:16 PM #

    The woman’s movement has helped get information about breast cancer out to the public through tireless activism. Also men like boobies, they don’t want us to lose them (see the “Save The Boobies” and “Save The Ta-Ta’s” campaigns.)

    It’s a fact that research studies on heart disease for many, many years were only conducted on men. Most people thought heart attacks were a men’s health issue, but according to the American Heart Association, “coronary heart disease, which causes heart attack, is the single leading cause of death for American women. Many women believe that cancer is more of a threat, but they’re wrong. Nearly twice as many women in the United States die of heart disease, stroke and other cardiovascular diseases as from all forms of cancer, including breast cancer.”

    Most people are still unaware of the fact that coronary heart disease is the #1 killer of women in the U.S.
    Also from the AHA:
    “Women and their healthcare providers do not know the biggest healthcare threat to women is heart disease. A 2006 survey conducted by the American Heart Association found that 43 percent of women are unaware that heart disease is the leading cause of death among women.

    Although women of color and of low socioeconomic status are disproportionately affected by heart disease — the death rate was 28 percent higher for black women than for white women in 2005 — only 31 percent of black women and 29 percent of Hispanic women knew that heart disease was their greatest health risk, compared to 68 percent among white women.

    “Among primary care physicians, only 8 percent knew that more womean than men die each year from CVD.

    “Many women do not recognize the warning signs or symptoms of heart disease and stroke, which may be more subtle than those exhibited by men.

    “Lack of awareness often results in less aggressive and sophisticated diagnosis and treatment by women’s health care providers, with worse outcomes.”

  90. lizor February 5, 2010 at 7:18 PM #

    Jess –

    Those articles telling us that male’s porn use is perfectly healthy and no threat to their partners – and in fact if we’d just lighten up and pornify ourselves a bit, we’d have a very nice time of it are SO FUCKING TIRESOME, aren’t they?

    “Often, one partner has a porn interest, and the other thinks that’s a problem,” says Russell Stambaugh, PhD, … “It rarely is”.

    I cannot tell you how sick I am of hearing this shit from “experts”.

    I bet that if women started having orgasms through some sort of online activity while their partners were elsewhere, a lot fewer “experts” would be telling us how harmless beating off to/with strangers is.

    A recent Slate article about Tiger Woods’ screwing around states: “Excessive sexual appetite was only clearly pathologized when it showed up in women.”

    Of course it was.

    Yes, shoot me indeed.

  91. desert harpy February 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM #

    What gives these asshole “experts” the right to tell women what is a problem in their relationships and what isn’t?

    “Often, one partner has a porn interest, and the other thinks that’s a problem,” says Russell Stambaugh, PhD, … “It rarely is”.

    Well now. It’s a problem if I leave his sorry ass over it, isn’t it? For him at least. At that point, my problem has been solved.

  92. yeahwesaidit February 13, 2010 at 2:46 PM #

    Edited Version for Posting with corrected typos and added sentences (Disregard the other one posted)
    Outsidelooking over:

    Thank you for writing in this blog. I was made violently ill by an antibiotic that triggered a 12 year illness that no one understood-finally today class action suits regarding this drug are beginning. When I first became sick and nearly died and went from 117 lbs to 77 lbs and was in crippling, non-stop pain with poisonous toxicity I was labeled deluded; my family and husband gradually came to believe the doctors; I was supporting my husband who was in school and could no longer work. No one in my family would help me get to an appropriate clinic to get help for my toxic condition, nearly fatal non-specific inflammatory bowel disease, undiagnosed anterior prolapsed uterus, rectocele and many other problems I later was able to diagnose after losing my family, my home, my savings, my reputation and credibility, my marriage, my career and my trust in human beings’ “innate ability for compassion.” Many of the ill people (95% of them women) that I later met who had similar environmental illnesses, drug- reaction-triggered chronic illnesses, and other serious conditions died because their families bought into “its all in your mind concept.” Like me, many of them became so chemically injured and sensitive they had to live outdoors in tents, under trees or in cars. I used to have to live in my car with my own make shift toilet in there because I became allergic to the plethora of chemicals in the majority of most built environments. I had been a registered architect and exposed to many toxic building materials, pesticides etc. but the anti-biotic did me in. I had no legal recourse at the time and no support of any kind except from other sick people who also lost all of their money and their families. It was a miracle I survived.

    I encountered many arrogant doctors and people who wanted to cover their asses. I think male patients who had environmental illness were also patronized and invalidated by doctors as well but not to the extreme level that I was, or that many of the other women were. All but one of the patients I watched die unnecessarily were women.
    I later learned that my health clinic was banned from making any diagnosis of chemical injury because they were advised by lawyers who had worked for chemical companies and drug companies not to do this. Apparently they were also incompetent because they could not diagnose my rectocele, horrifically painful inverted prolapsed uterus, fibroid mass the size of a peach that was superimposed on the uterus in ultra sounds, inflammatory bowel disease and a host of other things that were finally diagnosed years later when it was too late to avert some of the permanent damage.

    Thank you for writing into this blog. We need more men in the world to stand up with women and expose what is wrong. It is a blessing that you are a nurse. We need more male doctors and nurses who understand that women do not have psychosomatic illnesses except in the rarest of cases, if at all. Much of psychology today is superstition and witch doctor nonsense. Our society has swallowed all this lock, stock and barrel and people, like my friends are dying because of it.

    Men and women who had Gulf War Syndrome from drugs given them during the Gulf War were often given Prozac and told to shut up. But this is one form of environmental illness that at least was slightly recognized as legitimate probably because the majority of people who had it were men. They still were treated badly, just not as badly as women.

    I’m sure there are some men out there who went through horror, but I am speaking in general. You said you were embarrassed to be male but don’t be. You should be proud for speaking out. I do know what you feel . I often feel embarrassed, given the history, to be a white American in a country that performed medical experiments on black people, enslaved them like animals, extracted millions of hours of free labor that has never been compensated and still labels blacks as “spontaneous, disorganized, dangerous, lazy” and a host of other projected-shadow stereotypes. The truly psychosomatic illness is largely in the delusional portion of white males that arrogantly think they have an objective grip on reality while they create or allow the demise of others.

  93. OutsideLookingOver February 14, 2010 at 11:22 AM #

    @ YeahWeSaidIt:

    Thank you for your eloquent post… my heart goes out to you. Your plight is worse than most of what I’ve seen in my practice, but *any* woman going through this MUST be heard.
    If enough women stand firm that the pain and trauma they are silently suffering is real and needs dealing with, perhaps *other*, more influential medical people – doctors and researchers – will take notice and delve into solving these problems.

    I’m in an awkward position: I would love to do follow-up on my patients to see what if any solutions in terms of definitive treatment were arrived at, or whether it was all “here, take these (pain) pills” – but it could be misconstrued as *stalking* if I did. But only follow-up would make perfectly clear *if* a solution was ever forth-coming (non-surgical, in the absence of an visual pathology) for these women, or if they all ended up in some form of pain management / psychological management treatment scheme.

  94. yeahwesaidit February 16, 2010 at 7:19 PM #


    About following up (on especially female patients) and methods that work or don’t work:

    I am writing a book, currently entitled The Crying Spring (after Rachel Carson’s The Silent Spring).
    It is about environmental illnesses, current world environmental pollution, its effect on reproductive organs & womens’ bodies (and about prescription-drug reaction illnesses etc. especially prevalent with women). And I would be interested to start some kind of follow up care research organization that women especially could report to and that would protect doctors and nurses from being in a sensitive “stalker” position. Many main stream doctors do not even want to know what treatment or surgery eventually helped you (if any) because the treatments often challenge traditional medicine, but some doctors are genuinely interested. Perhaps there could be an organization. In my case, surgery helped some and cutting edge peptide treatments by a brilliant (but often persecuted doctor) finally helped me after 12 years of search around the world. A lot of doctors won’t want to hear this, not to mention the pharmaceutical companies; in the meantime many people suffering illnesses similar to mine continue to suffer due to lack of knowledge (which is squelched due to the way the AMA goes after doctors who pursue progressive methods, environmental medicine and scientific research that doesn’t fit in with the AMA and the pharmaceutical companies’ agendas. (I used to think that people who talk like me were naive, paranoid “conspiracy theorists” until I started doing some research on my own.) A lot of “alternative medicine” is just as useless as a lot of traditional medicine but the peptide research originally begun by the Rockefeller Center and advanced in Oxford England is solid science and able to bring alleviation and even cure to a number of diseases and pain conditions that are supposedly “incurable.” Due to monetary investments and drug interests the Rockefeller Center has not yet wanted or been able to push some of these wave- of-the-future-modalities — but some predict they will be in hospitals of the future (I guess once the pharmaceutical companies figure out another way to make money and start phasing out some of the more useless and dangerous drugs currently making up a percentage of their arsenal). Or perhaps the entire health care system gets overthrown and rebuilt.

    But the predominantly male model of western science and western medicine, while accomplishing some great things, has also created some real monsters, and women and children are often taking the most hits. This is because many of these chemicals are especially harsh on the reproductive and female organs; in other words chemicals and pollution destroy the bearers of life or the life-bearing capacities quicker than they destroy the average male system. But eventually they destroy the male as well. The gap is not that huge. Chemically injured people are called the “canaries in the coal mind” who warn the coal miners of growing toxic conditions when they die. The chemically sensitive (a vast majority of whom are female) are the new canaries and the current polluted world is the coal mine. In other words the growing number of environmentally ill people are the harbingers of what’s to come. (For everyone, male, female, child, or adult). Like most Feminist issues this is a Human issue. What’s bad for one is bad for all, sooner or later.

    The other difficulty in getting treatment to people who are suffering right now is the economic one. Many of these other treatments are not covered by insurance companies. Since the majority of the world’s poor are women and children who are underpaid or not paid at all for their work, these treatments are beyond their reach. But they are also beyond the reach of many males who do not have the financial means either. Minorities are, as usual, hit especially hard as well. Information about environmental and prescription drug reaction illness is not easily accessible to the public at large and most people who get ill do not initially even know what MCS or chemical injury even is. It’s sort of the chemical companies and pharmaceutical companies’ dirty little secret. Since most of the sufferers are “hysterical” and “crazy” women, who cares?

  95. OutsideLookingOver February 16, 2010 at 10:24 PM #

    “Since most of the sufferers are “hysterical” and “crazy” women, who cares?”
    This sums up perfectly my impression of why nothing is being done about these unexplained but highly debilitating conditions women suffer with.

    You have provided a very well-informed explanation for what I observe but feel powerless to intervene, for a number of reasons. Your suggestion for an organisation to manage patient follow-ups is an excellent one. Providing feedback to caregivers and to doctors with the intent of exciting a sense of responsibility and quality assurance could be one of the objectives of this organisation, so that care at its inception is optimised.

    The public health-care system here in Oz (Australia) is, from personal experience, a fair bit better than that in the States, but it is spotty. You would think that since we are all really frail humans that will require health care at some point, we would place greater focus on optimised health care rather than feeding some already over-fed film-actor or sports-figure. That would require a reality check: one that would end up paying nurses and teachers what they’re really worth and actors and sports figures what they are really worth, based on each individual’s contributions.

    Okay, that’s unrealistic, I’ll admit it. But part of the problem is an “I don’t care” culture. Under-paid, over-worked people cease to care, at some point. Doctors don’t care, particularly the mercenary ones. Men don’t care: it doesn’t affect them as much – if it did, believe me, they *would* care! And so, women continue to suffer.

  96. yeahwesaidit February 17, 2010 at 9:25 PM #

    To OusideLookingOver and Everyone else:

    The health care system in Oz Australia is a tad better than the one in the US because the health care system in every country is better than the one in the US which is no more than a panderer to profit motivated insurance corporations, pharmaceutical companies, and mechanical experimenters. (I have lived and worked all over the world – in Africa, Asia/Europe and always received better care abroad than here (and either for free or for a few bucks). There are some high end items and advancements in which the US excels but when you take the entire system as a whole, on a point for point basis, it is relatively poor. Especially if you compare it to France, Switzerland, Germany, probably Australia etc. Even if the US did have the top health care in the world in terms of treatments (as some try to suggest) it would still be a shameful system, in my opinion, because only people who can afford it have access, whereas in most countries healthcare, for better or worse, is available to all. There are a few exceptions but most countries at least provide something no matter how poor you are.

    Further, America is western capitalism gone to its most extreme point. Free enterprise is great but in America enterprise is not free. In many other countries any street peddler or grower can sell her goods on the street, no matter how poor she is, without paying money or getting a license but in America the shopkeepers make sure no one poorer than them can sell anything on the street, and the giant convenience store corporations make sure the small shopkeeper cannot stay in business very long either. The result is an aesthetically ugly and dead landscape catering to parking lots where people who never walk, drive, and fall into states of greater and greater inactivity and poor health.

    Only half in jest I say: Both America and Australia were predominantly founded by criminals. (The ones that got caught were sent to Australia, and the ones that got away went off to America.) This is in the history books. Euro-Americans slaughtered the Native Americans and brought slaves to do all the work; Euro-Australians slaughtered the indigenous Australians and did God knows what else. But my point is that a huge percent of Americans descend from criminals who didn’t get caught and now these criminals run Wall street, the banks, the health care system, the porn industry and Hollywood, the nuclear industry, the military-industrial complex, and–ha ha — even the prison-industrial complex where profit is made on locking people up for DWB (driving while black), and a host of other “unacceptable activities” like selling or growing herbs, performing midwife services and so on.

    There are a couple of top female gangsters in with the banksters and arms dealers, but for the most part 99% of the top dogs are men (of Euro-American-get-away-with-it-criminal-intent-descent). To them crime is the unquestioned social order itself, something totally normal, the very fabric of society, even touted as “man’s greatest achievement.” Emphasis on the *man.*

    This is a great part of why the health care system is mechanistic, cold, impersonal, based on competitiveness and profit, and geared primarily to the elite — or at least those with a little bit of money. Who still earn the biggest salaries as a whole? Euro-American males.

  97. AliceP. February 18, 2010 at 8:56 PM #

    I just found this blog and it’s wonderful! Re: The “condition” that doctors can’t find. For fifteen years I had lap after lap. I would end up in the emergency room in abject agony about seven times a year. The doctors could find “nothing” I was accused of medication seeking since it usually took a huge dose of morphine and gravol to even touch the pain. Finally a stellar visiting Russian FEMALE surgeon insisted they go in with both an endo doc, and a gastro doc. After fifteen years, they did find endometriosis on my bowel, adhesions and a fallopian tube that was both attached to and twisted around my bowel.

    Why could they not find this before that much pain had dealt out? WHY did I and many other women like me have to endure the snarky young male interns with their “pain scale” questions. I literally at one point said I would swallow arsenic if I never had to go through it again and got the all knowing snark look from the frat boy across the room from me.

    The medical profession does NOT listen to women. They do not listen to our pain, they condescend to us, especially if we are god forbid “older women” *gasp!*

    It’s not just physical issues either. When your child has any problems what so ever the first they still do is blame the mother.

    Victim of abuse? It’s your fault for not leaving despite all evidence of trauma bonding, and the fact that abuse victims are beat down so badly psychologically in ever way. And despite all evidence that abusers usually run through and control all your money. It’s the wimmins fault up to and including the point of death they imply with their smirks and put downs.

    I’m sick of it too. I despise men. Their porn, their psychopathic bent when it comes to women, the fact that we still have to do every job ten times better than they do and still do not get either the equal pay or the recognition for it. The fact that we are only valuable to this patriarchal society if we “look” the way we are told we should and are happy to get the attention just for that. A big fat fuck you to every man who claims to be for equality but, who sits silent for this because it benefits him and because he’s not “man enough” to stand up to his “friends” or co workers.

    After all I’ve seen *and I work in what is politely called a domestic violence shelter* I do not like men at all, they are guilty until they prove themselves innocent for me. Too many of them contribute to the world the way it is either directly or indirectly and secretly are thrilled it’s this way.

  98. OutsideLookingOver February 18, 2010 at 10:15 PM #

    I completely agree with not only your perception, AliceP, about men who do nothing are just as guilty as men who are the perpetrators – that is *why* I am speaking up at work about this! – but also with your impression of men in general. I sit and listen to men complain about their wives/girlfriends/whoever in the changing room at work and when I try to explain what I understand might motivate a certain female behaviour, I get the “wtf, are you a f**king pansy??” and that sort of attitude.

    Like I care.

    I hate maleness more than most women even on this thread: it is a deep-seated, profound hatred of instinctual behaviour, of monochromic reactions, of pure selfishness… all classic male attributes. I hate it so much that I took female hormones in the naive thinking that I might diminish that instinct. False. Constant vigilance, close attention to how my colleagues behave and emulating *that* behaviour and changing my thinking about what is important – brick-by-brick – is finally having a small but significant effect. Oh, and obliterating the libido has helped a bit too, so I’ve continued with the hormones.

    So now, when I look at the medical issues (and more importantly, the apathy and prejudice) women face *without* the maleness blinders, I can appreciate just how horribly they are being treated.

    The worst part: women put up with it! I talk with great passion to my colleagues about this and they all look at me as if to say: “poor man, you can’t understand, this is our lot, this is what being a woman is about…”.
    I am probably projecting, here. They might be thinking something completely different. But their passivity, the hunched shoulders, the whimsical smiles: please tell me how I am to interpret this.
    I haven’t studied trauma bonding or very much psychology at all, but I truly feel that women need to feel empowered to say “you say there is nothing wrong, doctor? How do you explain pain that has doubled me over for the past three years? Is there the possibility that perhaps you haven’t made the correct diagnosis not just of me but of all those other women you and those of your profession have conveniently labelled as ‘hysterical’?”

    In recovery, after the idiot surgeon smugly walks away, leaving a distraught, confused patient behind him (or HER) I spend the next while – however long I can keep her in recovery – reassuring my patient that 1) she *does* have a medical condition that the surgeon just hasn’t been able to identify visually / laparoscopically and 2) to walk away from those who say there is nothing wrong when it is clear there is and find another opinion, to look at alternative medicine… to keep looking… and most importantly 3) do not give up hope. I look in her eyes, I touch her arm… and the tears and the thank yous makes coming to work harder but ever so much more important, because I’m the only one who takes the time and who cares enough. The others are too entrenched in believing medical science and believing the doctors must be right or perhaps more to the truth, apathetic – “suck it up, girlfriend!” – to give what nursing is really about: caring.

    Men cannot see who they are – lack of self-awareness – and so are what they are. Unfortunately, a man can never be a woman, not really. To compensate for this, a man should be listening, learning, paying close attention because of his deficits.
    I hate being male for exactly those reasons, and am doing everything to eradicate it from my person, but it is a bit like tearing shreds off oneself. The only thing that keeps me going is that I can do good – and I think, *am* doing good – for those that I so boundlessly admire: by caring… this makes life worth living.

  99. yeahwesaidit March 3, 2010 at 1:31 PM #

    Here I am back again. Thanks to ‘deuce I have a place to vent after I encounter the inevitable jerk who will say or do some nasty shit — sooner or later–no matter how peacefully and independently I walk my carved out path. (And its creative let me tell you, the way I carve my path out — but even then — once in a while — oh well — you have to encounter the world– and in that world are those block head haters who don’t call it hating: they call it male logic, or rightness, while hysterically spewing their twisted venom.) They refuse to hear anything as it is said, or read anything as it is actually written. And then always, they will end their emotionally frenzied rant with this sentence: We need to stop being emotional about these issues. This is always directed at the female (or me) — the one who has just laid out a logical set of suggestions, theories or ideas. If I had said I was a male, or this or that, my ideas would be agreed with — indeed one attacker screamed out the name of an author everyone should read (the very author I had just been reading and making my case on) but because I had been identified (not as one of them), he attacked everything I had written. When I was patient enough to point out that this was the very author that inspired my piece and that we were perhaps in more agreement than he realized there was no recognition of misunderstanding; he simply snuffed this fact out of his brain and went on with his rant.

    Even the dumbest guy who can barely put a sentence together feels this smug superiority about his own “knowledge.” (No offense is meant towards people who can’t read through no fault of their own: some of the smartest people I’ve known in my life have been completely illiterate due to life circumstances beyond their control and a greedy class system that doesn’t give a shit about education for anyone except their own darling rich ass brats.)

    What I am talking about is people who think they know it all because they read three pages of a book and can punch the 2 key on a laptop. [“I am going 2 prov y u r wrong.”] Or there are the new brand of ‘journalists’ who can’t stop repeating the obnoxious and over used expression “Having said that, bla bla bla.” These “literates” think they have a deep, uncanny ability to see many angles of a question, while coughing up the same old shit all of us know already–as if they were running for office and wanted to give ear to multiple viewpoints.

    I’m usually not an elitist snob but I’ve just been attacked by a mindless blockhead so I’m regressing. Just had to have a place to vent a little. I feel better now. Thanks ‘deuce for the site.

  100. jacky boy March 19, 2010 at 12:21 AM #

    Ive heard comments about how women are being surpressed by men, etc. But men are surpressed by men too. I dont know where the rules of “manliness” are being taught at, but theyre doing a poor job of doing it.

    For example, some of my guy friends are great men for the most part. They work hard, religious, values, etc etc. But they have such warped views of “getting women”. At a parties and such, theyll be overly aggressive and dominant in order to peak a girls intrest, and are clueless that the girl is uncomfortable. They were taught, somewhere down the line, most likely through tv, music, etc. that thats how you mack on girls. Girls are obviously being surpressed more in this case, but its not hard to see that my friends are hurting themselves too. They fight their own good nature, because thats what they think works to get girls.

    I heard someone on this site mention that “men being surpressed by men. THEY should fix their own problems” but, thats stupid. We all are humans, and we need to work together on this shit for it to stop.
    Another classic example is of the douche frat guy who looks a girl up and down and think “id f*** the s*** outta her”. Then a man walks in, and that same guy looks him up and down and thinks “id f***ing beat the s*** outta him.” Thats bullshit. I guess what im saying is, sure, its mostly men doing it. But its not most men who are doing it. The obnoxious ones stand out more. men and women are victims together in this shit. I dont know where exactly these values (or lack of) are coming from, (rap? rock? reality tv? poor male role models?) but yeah. We shouldnt widen the rift between the sexes. Which is what alot of people are doing here.

  101. OutsideLookingOver March 19, 2010 at 1:20 AM #

    Jacky Boy:
    “I don’t know where exactly these values (or lack of) are coming from, (rap? rock? reality tv? poor male role models?) but yeah. We shouldn’t widen the rift between the sexes. Which is what a lot of people are doing here.”

    The rift exists, JackyBoy. It’s not being created by this site – it’s being *identified* by this site. Huge difference.

    If you had had a careful read of what Miss Andrist and others have said instead of being in such a hurry to comment, your question of where (these lack of) values “come from” would be answered and you might have spared yourself a bit of embarrassment.
    Perhaps. Keep forgetting: entitlement obliterates the sense that one *should* be embarrassed.

    “Man is the only animal that blushes – or needs to.”
    Mark Twain

  102. Grace March 19, 2010 at 7:13 AM #

    Jacky boy is right in a way. I think peer pressure can eventually turn even good-natured men into jerks. Don’t underestimate the bullying men put other men through if they don’t go along with misogynistic, sexist attitudes. Not to excuse it at all, but it’s very common for men to threaten and intimidate other men who don’t fit in to gender stereotypes.

    Yes, ideally we should all work together, but I think it’s up to men to take responsibility for their actions and start taking other men to task for their behavior. The last thing women need is more guilt tripping for male behavior. Man up and do something about it, don’t expect us to do everything.

  103. isme March 19, 2010 at 1:41 PM #

    You know, this blog has changed me. Before reading ND’s and other’s comments, I’d never have thought someone pointing out the fact that men are also harmed by the patriarchy could be so infuriating.

  104. Miss Andrist March 19, 2010 at 3:04 PM #

    Jacky Boy,

    Lucky you. You got me to respond. I might be flattering myself, but I’d like to think that of all the people who enjoy the privilege of commenting Nine Deuce’s work, I am the least sympathetic to men and their worthless whiny infantile bullshit. Lucky you.

    “Ive heard comments about how women are being surpressed by men, etc.”

    I think you mean OPPRESSED.

    If you’re trying to demonstrate how incredibly unfamiliar you are with what we’re talking about, you’re off to a smashing good start. I’m surprised Nine Duece permitted your comment, frankly, but since she saw fit to do so, I’ll handle your crash course in women’s human rights. This will not be a soft landing, but if you pay attention, I’ll be happy to straighten you right the fuck out.

    “But men are surpressed by men too.”

    Oppressed. Right. Guess what? WE KNOW. Nobody here denies that men are victims of the patriarchy, too. We just have more important shit to care about. For example, like our own oppression.Which, by the way, is far more severe and far more harmful in every possible way.

    Newsflash: this is a feminist dialogue, meaning we’re talking about WOMEN.

    I’ll make this simple. Feminism is ABOUT WOMEN. You know, like civil rights is about non-whites? Males invariably interpret this to mean that feminism is against men. It’s not. It doesn’t have a goddamn thing to do with men, except insofar as men are the people doing this shit to us, and since the patriarchy has told you that the world is supposed to be all about you and you’re used to the world being all about you, you’ve got your dick tied in a knot and you probably aren’t even aware that you just barged in here and demanded that we drop what we’re doing and devote our women’s energy to men’s fucking bullshit again some more. Like we haven’t given men enough of our time and energy already? Ha ha. Well, tough titty, kitty.

    Barging in and trying to inject men’s concerns into feminist dialogue is known as “derailing,” and it’s an invocation of your male privilege.

    Strictly for your benefit, Jacky, so you will NEVER make the mistake again:

    I will fight for the rights of men when men need me to.

    That said, go pick up a copy of John Stoltenberg’s “Refusing to Be a Man.” He documents everything you’re talking about, and he will cover the ills men do to one another. Read it cover to cover, then read it again. Then come back here and tell us what we should be doing, that we’re not.

    “I dont know where the rules of “manliness” are being taught at, but theyre doing a poor job of doing it.”

    For one thing, unless you’re talking about concepts like the equality of non-males and related topics, I earnestly could not give two shits less about whatever it is they’re supposedly failing to teach Teh Menz.

    Perhaps you should contact whoever it is that you think is failing to teach whatever it is you think males should learn, and tell them to step it up. Because you are barking up the wrong tree. Maybe their dads should have raised them better? A purported lack of manliness in men is not my fucking problem and I again could not possibly care less.

    “For example, some of my”


    Guess what? Your personal experience does not invalidate anything anybody says here. Your personal experience is irrefutable, and thus inadmissible; it is not subject to argument, so the argument has no room for it. Did you expect you could just crap out your personal experience and the discussion would just be settled? Your unbelievable fucking conceit is either your male privilege again, or narcissism.

    Now, I’m willing to bet any one of us can present OUR personal experiences as if such a thing could counter YOUR personal experiences. And we’re vastly more eloquent.

    Your personal experience does not alter the argument in any measurable way, so can it. Argue on the merits, or put a fucking sock in it.


    ” guy friends are great men for the most part.”

    Yannow, Jacky, patriarchal behaviors are pretty well documented and one of them happens to be men’s propensity to defend other men against women. And that’s exactly what you did there.

    “They work hard, religious, values, etc etc.”

    Religion is patriarchy and economics are patriarchy. So if the great-guy-ness of your buddies depends on their ability to integrate and succeed in the patriarchal world that dehumanizes women and ruins our fucking lives every moment of every day, you have misfired so badly that you would have been better off just skipping the great-guy part.

    “But they have such warped views of “getting women”.”

    Jacky, first off, you need to check your damn self. You can get tickets, you can get a cup of coffee, you can get a new car. You cannot get a woman. Ever. Period. And I sincerely doubt you can tell me why.

    “At a parties and such, theyll be overly aggressive and dominant in order to peak a girls intrest, and are clueless that the girl is uncomfortable.”

    (peak = pique, intrest = interest)

    Sounds familiar. Barging into a roomful of women, shooting off your mouth, talking shit and flagrantly displaying your privileged ignorance? Where else do we see this behavior?

    “They were taught, somewhere down the line, most likely through tv, music, etc. that thats how you mack on girls.”

    So? I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone but the females in question. And –

    “Girls are obviously being surpressed more in this case, but its not hard to see that my friends are hurting themselves too.”

    – So? Jacky, I’m going to spell it out for you. So the idiots make fools of themselves. What about the girls who are being harassed? What about when the harassment becomes unwelcome touching, groping, fondling by a d00d who refuses to interpret her signals? What about when the assault turns into rape? Nothing your buds endure will EVER be as bad as what they are doing to these females. How is their refusal to acknowledge the reactions of these non-males OUR fault? It’s not. And thus, how is it a problem WE can solve? It’s not. Their inadequacies are not our responsibility, Jacky.

    “They fight their own good nature, because thats what they think works to get girls.”

    So they’re stupid, whatever. This is still not our problem. So here’s one for you, Jacky.

    Why are you telling US this?

    When these men rape some woman, do you expect us to cut them slack? Cos, we won’t. Do you expect us to say, “Oh gee, it’s not as bad because Jacky’s friends really are nice guys,” because, we won’t.

    Do you think we can do anything about these idiots?

    Because, we can’t.

    The patriarchy teaches men that women have absolutely nothing of value to say – and you, by failing to read a goddamn thing anybody wrote here, demonstrated what a misogynistic gynophobe you are. Go tell these fucking males, because you have a peen. They will listen to you. They will not listen to us. Men never have, and they won’t unless you make them.

    “I heard someone on this site mention that “men being surpressed by men. THEY should fix their own problems” but, thats stupid. We all are humans, and we need to work together on this shit for it to stop.”

    Jesus. Harold. Christ. Statements like this are why I need to invent a device that allows me to punch people in the face over standard TCP/IP.

    Jacky? Men, thanks to the patriarchy, refuse to permit women to be human beings. Men infringe on our human right to speak, and our right to be heard. EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD, ALL DAY, EVERY DAY. Yeah, we’re all human beings. But guess the fuck what? Men oppress women. Women cannot un-oppress ourselves, genius. It’s like racism – ONLY white people could un-oppress black people, get it?

    “Another classic example is of the douche frat guy who looks a girl up and down and think “id f*** the s*** outta her”. Then a man walks in, and that same guy looks him up and down and thinks “id f***ing beat the s*** outta him.””

    Hmm. Yet more shit men do to women, followed by yet more shit men do to men. Women aren’t doing any of that, jackass, so how the fuck do you get off trying to assign us responsibility for stopping it?

    “Thats bullshit.”

    Mmhmm. So knock it the fuck off, already? That’s my advice.

    “I guess what im saying is, sure, its mostly men doing it.”

    HA HA HA HA. Pop quiz, Jacky: what exactly are women doing that men MOSTLY do it?

    Men rape. Men hit. Men make war, men make pollution, men make laws that make these things legal but men can never make them okay. In order for women to stop doing these things, women would have to be doing them in the first place, and we’re not.

    ” But its not most men who are doing it.”

    Right. Jacky, since you are clearly ignorant of the entire body of feminist literature, I will take a moment of my valuable time to educate you. We have a saying, and it goes like this:

    “Men rape.”
    *followed by*
    “Not all men rape, but all rapists are men.”

    Do you know what that saying means, Jacky? It means MEN RAPE. It means victims can be of any sex or gender, but it’s MEN doing the raping. Hell, men won’t even admit to what rape IS.

    WE KNOW. Do you actually think you know better than we do who’s doing this to us? That we aren’t acutely aware that “not all men” do this shit?

    If you are NOT doing this, Jacky, WHY AREN’T YOU STOPPING THEM? Why the fuck are you in here telling us which way the wind blows? Do you really think our little conversation on this little blog is more critical, or we are more wrong, than all your doodly friends and all the girls they’re harassing? CLEARLY, YOU DO.

    I personally believe that complacency makes you guilty of collusion, Jacky. YOU LET THEM. We don’t have the power to stop this shit, but YOU DO. When you fail to stop this shit, fail to even try, you HELP THEM.

    “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal.”
    — Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1967)

    And that is why I have not a single drop of sympathy for either you or them. I only care about us, and protecting us and myself from the very real threat of harm. How is that surprising?

    Here’s some things to think about. PLEASE don’t answer these questions, they are strictly rhetorical, just consider. Have you ever gotten a woman to have sex with you through physical force or subtle manipulation? Have any of your pals, through physical force or subtle manipulation, ever gotten a woman to have sex with you? Have you or your homeboys ever lied to a woman to get her to consent, intimidated her out of refusing, interpreted a woman’s silence as consent, cajoled a woman until she had sex with you, ever kissed or touched a girl who didn’t want to be kissed or touched. Think of all the women you know. One in four women will have been raped at least once in her lifetime. Now think of all the d00ds you know. If every raped woman were only raped once, and every rapist rapes a dozen women, one out of sixty men rapist. Which ones are your “friends?” Whose side are you REALLY on?

    ” The obnoxious ones stand out more. men and women are victims together in this shit.”

    Hardly. Victims, yes. Together, anything but.

    “I dont know where exactly these values (or lack of) are coming from, (rap? rock? reality tv? poor male role models?)”

    Oh, please. Surely you’ve heard of the Inquisition, men burning women alive. Men have been using the weapons of rape and violence against women to terrorize women into submission since written history at least. Women are not responsible for men’s monstrosity. Men are responsible. But like most privileged, entitled asshats, you are just determined to shift the responsibility for men’s actions onto women even just a little. Whatever.

    “but yeah. We shouldnt widen the rift between the sexes. Which is what alot of people are doing here.”

    You’re right, all the rapes of women by men, the murders of women by men, all the enslavement of women by men doesn’t widen the rift – but us TALKING HONESTLY ABOUT IT!! OMG WTH!! I can’t help but notice you’re not condemning the violent hatred of women or even fucknozzles like Rush Limbaugh, so I can only presume you’re okay with what men say about women. Google misogyny, maybe spend 10 minutes perusing urban dictionary, then come back here and tell us WE are the problem.

    Frankly, Jacky, we have spent AT LEAST six thousand years coddling and nurturing teh menz and we’re still getting raped to death and beaten to death by teh menz. I really don’t think focusing on men’s bullshit is going to help this generation any more than it helped any of the generations that preceded us.


    You are aware that you, through your behavior, are proof incarnate of this blog post – right?

    -Miss Andrist
    Lover of Men

  105. Grace March 19, 2010 at 6:28 PM #

    Miss Andrist and Isme,

    I feel a bit sheepish for trying to see an upside to jacky’s post. I think it’s just an example of how women (me included) have been so browbeaten that we feel we have to be super nice to the men who say they want men and women to work together, like if they’re not bashing us we should feel grateful for some small morsel of humanity.

    Jacky, I would take Miss Andrist’s advice and read Jon Stoltenberg’s book. Also a book by a Jack Holland called Misogyny: The World’s Oldest Prejudice. Stoltenberg and Holland are men who have stepped up to the plate and taken their fellow men to task for man’s inhumanity to woman. Men who act like grown ups, not sniveling, whining little boys.

  106. roesmoker March 21, 2010 at 9:15 PM #


    We know. Men are hurt by the patriarchy too. Because part of the masculine function is to kill and oppress all creatures weaker than the male, every living being on this planet suffers under the patriarchy. Just because every single post on this blog doesn’t talk about it doesn’t mean we are unaware of this fact. But we are being killed. We can’t be responsible for taking care of men when women are dying. Men need to do it for themselves.

    Whether you mean to or not, you are derailing the conversation. I’m not saying that you should shut up about it, but this is not the place. Feel free to start your own blog to rally feminist men.

  107. jacky March 22, 2010 at 9:59 PM #

    Derailing? barging in and demanding? People, this is AN INTERNET SITE. I didnt ask anything Andrist. I left a comment on an fucking public internet blog. I didnt blow up fem-headquarters here. De-railing? is your train that sensitive that a 3 paragraph comment knocks your train off its tracks?

    First off, Andrist said ,
    “I personally believe that complacency makes you guilty of collusion, Jacky. YOU LET THEM. We don’t have the power to stop this shit, but YOU DO. When you fail to stop this shit, fail to even try, you HELP THEM.”

    If you are NOT doing this, Jacky, WHY AREN’T YOU STOPPING THEM? Why the fuck are you in here telling us which way the wind blows? Do you really think our little conversation on this little blog is more critical, or we are more wrong, than all your doodly friends and all the girls they’re harassing? CLEARLY, YOU DO.


    CLEARLY? clearly. How are you gonna invent what I did at the end of my story, then say “CLEARLY” in bold. like, I high fived my doodley buddy. How are you gonna assume how I live my life, and say “CLEARLY HE DOES THIS”? Andrist, I did stop them. I specifically stopped my friend that night. I pulled his ass of that girl. Then I told him what the fuck was up. I DO try and stop this shit. This really pissed me off and I wanted to call you out on your generalizations of male behaviors.
    God, dont go to law school.

    Secondly, you keep saying “its not my problem” wrong. its actually not MY problem that women are treated like shit. Cause mens problems dont compare at all. I never tried to compare them in my comment too. I just said that they existed. Of course womens issues are a million times worse than men. But I am a man, and I havent experienced it. So, I wrote about what I know better than you (gasp!). What its all like from a males perspective. Now you mentioned you dont give a shit. haha, okay true. My mistake people, I just thought that this was close enough topic. My comment has relevance to sexism. I know theyre different, but damn… use your fucking imaginations its not that far off. Plus, so many of these comments are the same. Andrist, you could prolly write the jist of them all in like 8 separate comments. But not mine!

    “It’s like racism – ONLY white people could un-oppress black people, get it?”

    I get it. but i cant even name a white activist. All white people did was bitch about shit slightly less and less for like a hundred years.

    Its not fair for women, but saying men should rise up and fix themselves is retarded. Im a realist. This isnt elf world. Theyre not gonna. It sucks and Im sorry. Im sure you have a shitty enough opinion about men to believe this. Blacks, women, jews, Native Americans, Mayans,etc pretty much everyone has been oppressed, and white men never really did stuff ever to help. When has anyone given anyone else more power? never. its human, or fuck, i guess male nature.

    So what do you want Andrist? do you want me to fix stuff with a wave of my magic dick? i cant. My appeal doesnt even cross racial lines. Shits not that simple. So yes, i guess “assigned” with my awesome powers of persuasion, the aid of wimmenz to aid me in my nobel quest.

  108. OutsideLO March 23, 2010 at 3:35 AM #

    Men oppress women. Men who don’t but who condone / sanction / support a social system that does are just as guilty as the rapist, the abuser, the guy who allows his gender to get him into a position over a similarly qualified woman. Abdicating one’s resposibilities doesn’t absolve. Crap on all you want, mate… as soon as you said ” Its not fair for women, but saying men should rise up and fix themselves is retarded.” you were abdicating. 
    And pretty much giving Miss Andrist valid reasons to thin out masculinity as she sees fit. I for one support her. 

    D00d, you are doing your level best to give men a worse name they already have…nice work!

  109. Miss Andrist March 23, 2010 at 9:25 AM #


    Check your privilege, I can’t do it for you. Stop being a pathetic male crying about your achy little peepee and learn to stop making a fool of yourself; I will stop ridiculing you when you stop deserving it.

    Miss Andrist

  110. Grace March 23, 2010 at 9:25 AM #


    You said that these guys you know are ‘basically good guys’ who have a warped view of getting women, that they don’t see when a woman is getting uncomfortable at his aggressive advances. Why come to a feminist site and rail against women who might see things differently, who wouldn’t see someone as a basically good guy if they do the shit you described?

    There have been quite a few white people in history who’ve fought against slavery and racism. The women’s suffrage movement in the U.S. actually grew out of the early abolitionist movement. And there have been men who have stood up and fought against misogyny and the oppression of women, too. Do you think Frederick Douglass, John Stuart Mill, James Mott, Henry Blackwell, or William Lloyd Garrison were ‘retarded’ men?

    If even one-tenth of the energy you spent spewing your anger at the posters here was directed at your good guy friends, maybe you’d make some progress. If you think it’s a lost cause, why even come here? What did you hope to accomplish?

  111. jacky March 23, 2010 at 9:37 PM #

    I was never angry until I got called names, had my shit spun every which way, and had 2 better comments blocked for no reason. It hurt me and my pee pee’s feelings…
    I only told one story of a friend, btw. He stuck out because he was more severe, and it “woke me up” to it.
    I know everyone has different standards for “good guys” and everyone’s opinion of “good” is different. Honestly, I dont have much credibility anymore, but I said he was good. Andrist said stories are infallible. I only said “hes good, despite x” you have to take my word for this. Can it be possible for someone to be good overall, and have a distorted view on flirting? (Cause his shitty flirting never gets attracts, and no, he wouldnt rape) if yes, than you have no choice to believe me.

    Dammit, and im sorry, I meant to put this passage in quotes …saying “men should rise up and fix themselves” is retarded. (Like somone was musing) What I meant is, thats wishful thinking for any fast paced scale that men are gonna do shit alone. The best women can hope for is as little feet dragging as possible for equal rights. Again, this is not right. But its prolly the way its gonna happen. So, when I said “we should do something”. I didnt assign responsibilities. (I also just suggested, not assigned) I said we because, you’re ALREADY fighting for your rights (like on this site). But there are some guys fighting too, hence the “we”. I didnt mean to call Ol’ Frederich “retarded” either.

    I dont think its hopeless. My overall point was, like in the way, way begining, Is that working together is good, and its the only way itll work. Because not every man IS hopeless, or wrong, because some of us hate it too. Causing rifts between sexes though…

    like the generalizations, the spun opinions, the assumptions, and even some hypocrisy, that are on this site.

    is bad. because its detrimental to the cause, and SHIT WILL GO SLOWER.

  112. Alina May 14, 2010 at 4:15 PM #


    I red all of this post and I have been in similar situations many many times actually in situations much worse where you could cut the sexism spoken by those men was so thick and fat you could of cut it through with a knife…..

    Why didnt you tell him to shut up as you was in the plane though??I do stuff like that alot and afterwards I am quite happy about you can tell from their reaction they well did not expect it.

    Sure the situation can blow out of proportion but in that plane I think it would of been safe for you to tell him to shut his piehole…..surely that also makes a point for us women that we dont take everything and that we stand up for ourselfs.

  113. Sophie May 26, 2010 at 3:04 AM #

    Duuuuudette! Just replying to a wicked comment upstream.

    That dude who commented about having his butterfly moment by becoming a douchebag Alpha male? Total “Nice Guy ™ and I was really pleased to see many commenters shrewdly pointed that out.

    So impressed by this post. Masculinity and gender roles are a plague upon us all.

  114. menaretrash May 26, 2010 at 5:21 PM #

    U dunno how badly I hate men…. I have no mercy on them, I and I WILL make sure they know is AND feel it hurts (just like they hurt me since I was a kid). Pay back is a betch. They’re a waste of genetic material and hope eventually society will just go without them (hehehe, think: a skeleton in a museum will be the only place where Humans (this doesn’t include “males”) will be able to see them! :]]]] I heard Y chromosome is disappearing from human genome…. good.

  115. menaretrash May 26, 2010 at 5:25 PM #

    PS: hehehe… since Y chromosome is gradually disappearing from human genome…. does it mean we should freeze some men now for future people to at least know what they looked like LOL? like a frozen mammoth lol. bye-bye males!!!

  116. James May 27, 2010 at 2:36 AM #

    No, that’s obvious nonsense.

  117. OutsideLookingOver May 27, 2010 at 3:59 AM #

    “I heard Y chromosome is disappearing from human genome…. good.”
    Best news I’ve had all day. I’d be delighted to somehow expunge it from my system as well.

  118. Alina May 27, 2010 at 5:24 PM #

    @James whats obvious nonsense?

    Also I checked out your website…..

    I got 2 questions are you from England?

    And what do you think about viewing porn in a relationship?

  119. James May 28, 2010 at 4:16 AM #

    How the hell could the Y chromosome disappear from the human genome?

    In repsonse to your questions:


    I think that’s common.

  120. isme May 28, 2010 at 7:14 AM #

    The Y chromosome could, theoretically disappear, but I saw some males the other day on the train, so I don’t think it has yet.

  121. GraceMargaret May 28, 2010 at 10:46 AM #

    This might help:
    The Y chromosome apparently has shrunk over time and lost over 1000 genes and is now down to 78.

  122. Imaginary June 15, 2010 at 9:52 AM #

    I have to say that this post probably saved my life a few months back. I was getting ready to kill myself, but I had to pass the time until my parents went to sleep, and I stumbled across this page. WHOO! ND for the win!

  123. sarah June 16, 2010 at 12:51 AM #

    I loved this blog. I HATE MEN TOO. They are Selfish Self-centered pigs, with my father in law being the prime example. I hate him w/ a passion. He treats his wife like shit, disrespects her all the time and expects her to do everything for him. He expects a parade everytime u see his nasty crancky face…she has to cook clean and pick up after him like an f—ing baby,,,He once embarressed me infront of other guests, because I didnt clean up after his son,,,he could go back to the cave he came from,,,I couldn’t at first believe he was talking to me like that but put him in his f,,,ing place…He is a control frick, he demanded like an f—ing baby for his name to be passed on,,I can’t stand his uneducated worthless and ignorant face,,,We as women allow these low lives to keep treating us like crap,,,enough is enough..

  124. Miss Andrist June 16, 2010 at 2:08 PM #


    You were doing fine until the patriarchy sneaked in with “We as women allow -” because that’s a great big fat wad of patriarchy-approved d00dshit (and what’s worse than d00dshit?) We don’t “allow” jack fucking squat, they do it to us and refuse to allow us to speak or be heard such as to get them to stop. And women who fail to run screaming from males probably do so because we are decent human beings who can’t bring ourselves to abandon OTHER human beings to their tender mercies.

    ^_^ Just clarifying. I hate when the patriarchy finds ways to make us responsible in some teensy tiny way for the shit men do to us.

  125. truthvscompliance June 16, 2010 at 3:57 PM #

    Yeah we don’t “allow” men to behave like egocentric penis wrinkles – they insist on it.

  126. James June 16, 2010 at 4:26 PM #

    Now now. I, for one, find penis wrinkles rather fetching.

    • RedRobin October 4, 2014 at 12:08 AM #

      We’re sure you do. Now move to the Castro, suck the first convenient anonymous cock, and start policing what women’s bodies should look like and what size we should be as if you know even the slightest fuck about it. Patriarchy makes it easy, even for gay men. Announce your white gay maleness and funding for your little frock atelier would be complete.

      Meanwhile that lesbian Mexican-American woman’s dream of running her own smaller, more relevant business continues unfunded.

  127. GraceMargaret June 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM #

    I’m very glad you decided to stay up late and happened upon this blog. I know how you feel. Nine Deuce truly rocks, this blog helps me keep my sanity.

    Sarah, I have witness this crap myself with older female relatives growing up. I don’t think you meant to blame women for ‘letting’ men being assholes. But what would happen if you or your mother-in-law decided not to clean up after the men anymore? Just let the shit pile up and let them whine and complain all they want? Maybe I’m wrong, but I get the feeling from your description of your father-in-law that he would probably retaliate in a scary way.

    When I was sixteen I stayed w/ my older cousin and her husband for two weeks for summer vacation. Not only did my cousin work two waitressing jobs but she was also the only one responsible for all the housework and childcare. Her husband went out w/ his friends when he wasn’t working at his one job, and the grandparents took care of the kids while she was at work.

    And to top it all off, he actually screamed at her in front of me after doing an actual WHITE GLOVE TEST to see if she dusted properly. I could not believe my eyes. And he was actually really fun and nice to be around at family gatherings, I never suspected that this was what happened behind closed doors.

    That was when I decided that I would NEVER get married or have kids. There was no way I’d get caught up in that shit. And the social pressure in my family and ethnic community to get married is incredibly strong, so I know that if I don’t get married soon I’ll be branded a spinster loser and people will wonder what’s ‘wrong’ with me. But at this point I could care less. It’s not worth it. They can call me all the names they want, snicker at me behind by back/in front of my face. I will not be a fucking slave to anyone.

  128. OutsideLookingOver June 17, 2010 at 4:42 AM #

    June 16, 2010 at 4:26 PM

    Now now. I, for one, find penis wrinkles rather fetching.”

    Strange place for you to be advertising for that sort of thing, James. But I guess the word “inappropriate” holds relatively little meaning for you.

  129. James June 17, 2010 at 12:20 PM #

    We should be selective in what terms are used as insults, that is all.

  130. Miss Andrist June 17, 2010 at 3:05 PM #


    You and Andrew alike. Did it not occur to you that we’re choosing to use male genitalia as insulting by matter of deliberate choice? I sure as shit do. After a lifetime of hearing “pussy,” “cunt,” “twat,” et cetera ad infinitum and knowing that I will have to explain why it’s not fucking okay to say “Dallas Cowgirls” by way of insult, I make up phrases like “shut up and take it like a woman,” “stop being such a whiny little boy about it,” and “you cry like a man” – for good fucking reason. Same goes for “penis wrinkle,” “dickfoot,” and “fucknozzle.” Did it ever occur to you that we LIVE on the losing end of the language divide?

    I’ll start defending the rights of men when men need me to. Until then, I do not have time or energy or interest. Like I told Andrew, where the fuck do you get off trying to enforce some kind of bullshit fairness rule that only serves to silence and restrain us? We don’t enjoy any fairness from men at any point, and you have the entire rest of the world to take it out on us. (Fuck, dude, you have the privilege of barging onto a feminist blog and using your REAL NAME. Must be nice.) I have to say, though, the implication that shit rolls sideways, let alone uphill, is fucking hilarious.

    -Miss Andrist

  131. James June 17, 2010 at 7:03 PM #

    Yes, of course that occurs to me. I get where you are coming from.

    Do you really want to start emulating those you despise, though? Seems a tad self-loathing to me, no? Personally I am in no way opposed to dick wrinkles. This aligns me with the rest of the deviants from gender norms, and thus would see me frowned upon by a fair number of reactionaries.

    The same reactionaries yr. struggle is largely against, as it happens.

  132. sarah June 27, 2010 at 1:12 PM #

    Hi GraceMargaret:
    Thanks for your comments, my ethnic background also places strong pressure on women to get married and start a family. But as a mom, I urge you into re-evaluating if u really don’t waant kids. There is no other feeling of love like the on eu feel for ur kids. Trust me, I don’t love or like too many ppl. But u will feel a genuine love from both sides, something an asshole of a man can never give you…

  133. joy June 27, 2010 at 7:49 PM #

    GraceMargaret, no.

    Read some articles about pregnancy and childbirth on factcheckme’s blog (if you read this, I hope it’s okay, fcm) if you want to know the truth about “having kids.”

    For one thing, it can physically kill you.
    For another, even if you survive, it ruins your body forever, and not only in a P2K-compliance way.

    Here’s an example. I was only pregnant for 3.5 months, a year ago, and I still can’t walk right — my arches flattened and now my feet hurt all the time. And the pregnancy damaged my pelvic nerves, so my vagina is just a numb tube of muscle. I can’t feel a damn thing in there.
    If you want, I can go on, and start bringing in other women’s experiences too.

    If you think you don’t wanna have kids, you don’t wanna have kids, and nobody should force or pressure you.

    In terms of love: You can also get unconditional love from a cat, dog, mouse, reptile (I think), horse, monkey, domestic pig, goat … or from the right kind of female friends.

    sarah, pregnancy isn’t all about baby bumps, the made-up “satisfied glow”, cute clothes, and instant maternal bonds. Some people should never be mothers. Some people resent their children. Some people get postpartum depression. Some people just don’t want kids.
    Good job coming onto a feminist blog and spouting the same old shit to women who are trying to have solidarity away from the patriarchy.

    Also, good luck getting pregnant without the help of “some asshole of a man.” I hear that’s tricky.

  134. Andrew June 28, 2010 at 2:02 AM #

    Miss Andrist,

    The reason I brought up “fairness” was because this whole blog seems be aimed at curing (or at least discussing) injustices, especially the kinds women face. Injustice is really nothing more than people being treated unfairly; i.e., if it were just, it would be fair, and visa versa.

    If the rule you intend to espouse is not one of fairness, but one of “we are going to do whatever the fuck we want so get over it,” then I fully support it. It’s a rule I have been playing by for some time now and I would encourage you to try it. The only problem with it is that if one is the weaker party in a certain scenario, as women oft are, that rule tends to work against them.

    When I posted earlier, I only wanted to point out that it’s hard to sympathize with those who complain about injustices when they have no actual interest in doing justice (read: treating people fairly) themselves.

    If you want to continue arguing that jokes about male genital mutilation (which actually does occur) is still fair by way of your self declared (and convenient) lack of privilege, I feel obligated to point out that privilege cuts many different ways, not just between women and men. In fact, the supposition of a gender dichotomy arguably reinforces the privileges you claim to resent. How does this hierarchy of privilege even actually work? Do black women get to make jokes about white women? Do disabled women get one up on the black women? Are gay women allowed to target disabled women? Where do bisexuals fit in? How gay does a man have to be before he is less privileged than a white woman? How ugly does someone have to be before they trump all of them? I would like to see how these privileges, or the lack thereof, add up; that way I know who is allowed to target who, and on what basis, before calling them out for being hypocrites.

    In short, pretending that privileges can somehow be ranked, whereupon insults will be justly issued in accordance with those rankings, is laughable. If you are going to argue for fair treatment then you have to treat others the way you expect to be treated. If you aren’t, then you have to be prepared to accept the consequence of not always be on the right side of the power differential. Anything else is unprincipled. It’s really that simple.

  135. berryblade June 29, 2010 at 12:04 AM #


    You lack of ability to grasp concepts/”get it” never ceases to amaze me.

    Get a grip hey.

  136. OutsideLookingOver June 29, 2010 at 5:48 AM #


    You are the prime example of how male entitlement blinds, and blinds completely. You won’t ever “get it”, as BerryBlade put it.
    I would feel sorry for you, but for the fact that your state and that of your brethren put women in such an awful place. There’s no excuse for non-enlightenment: you are blind by choice. And that choice is called bigotry.

  137. tdboydsings July 15, 2010 at 11:08 AM #

    Love your blog. My immediate supervisor is a male and has kept me from moving up or learning what the boss has given me to do. So far he’s conivingly covered his tracks as he sets me up to fail. His passive agressivness leads me to believe he is truly an ass hole.

  138. LoseMyMind July 23, 2010 at 8:31 AM #

    So glad I found this post. You all will get a kick out of this story. Yesterday I’m walking in the park looking for this open mic place I was supposed to perform at. I was having trouble finding it because the park is so big. I end up seeing a lady that I know and at first I didn’t recognize her, but heard her calling my name. Once she took her sunglasses off I recognized her and then said hello. We were sort of far off from each other and she’s kind of soft spoken so when I heard her faintly say, “this is where we work out.” I said, “oh you’re working out?” to make sure I heard her correctly. She was with her husband and a group of people. After I repeated what she said to me, this asshole guy out of no where says, “well yeah…that’s what it looks like doesn’t it?” in this smart alack tone. I didn’t know the man, never saw him in my life and he talks to me that way. So I look at her and her husband like, “who the f&*k is this?” They then proceeded to tell me that he is their trainer. So then he says, “yeah, I’m the trainer that’s why I’m talking so cocky.” Meanwhile, I’m thinking to myself that ‘cocky’ just doesn’t describe it for me. Asshole to the highest order is much closer but still barely scratches the surface. So then he comes up to shake my hand, which I was being nice by shaking his hand and then he proceeds to say, “no baby give me a real hand shake like a business deal.” What a f&*king bastard! I couldn’t believe him and everyone was just sitting there as though his behavior is perfectly normal. Now, if a woman had acted like that she would’ve gotten scolded by everyone around…both her female counterparts and other males. But a man can just be a complete asshole without cause to another woman that he’s never even met before and no one so much as flinches. INCREDIBLE!!! This example right here is all too often the norm in my life and is one of the quad druple drillions of reasons why I personally am on the threshold of hating men myself.

  139. Edith July 25, 2010 at 11:02 AM #

    Okay. I’m 13. And one might say that it’s too early to determine officially wether or not i hate men-most anyway. But i agree with everything said. I feel like women are always in the sub role. And i don’t understand how some of them take being there. I’ll die before a man suppresses me.

  140. kristina August 8, 2010 at 11:15 PM #

    meh..I’m admittedly a man-hater, but a test I took online…a real one…not fake, said I’m egalitarian… POO….guess I’m not a man hater after all…oh well…

  141. nightwisp August 14, 2010 at 7:17 AM #

    Not too many 22-year old, curvy, blue-eyed blonde girls hate men. Wonder why? ;)
    You have a great venting place here, and I hate men, too. Not all of them, of course.
    Men place a value on females by virtue of the female’s looks and youth. Even fat, ugly men judge women by their looks, and sexual attractiveness. And, no, even after they get to know a homely women the guys will still disrespect her, and hate her.
    It’s all about youth and beauty to get a guy’s respect, attention, and, yes, even love.
    Thats why cosmetics are still a billion dollar business. Women want to look good for themselves? Bullshit! Without a man’s approval women still do not go anywhere in this world. Not far, anyway.

  142. GraceMargaret August 14, 2010 at 10:55 PM #

    “Not too many 22-year old, curvy, blue-eyed blonde girls hate men.”
    Can you back up this statement?

    I think women who are considered sexually desirable get the worst as far as hatred and violence from men. They’re status symbols to their masculinity, so when they get rejected by a curvy 22-year-old blue-eyed blonde, look out. They’ll hold a grudge and take it out on every woman they meet for the rest of their lives.

    I was the geeky girl growing up and guys were really nice to me for the most part, and even acted like protective big brothers. I was sexually non-threatening and cool ‘for a girl’.

    Once I started, shall we say, ‘blossoming’, boy did that change! That’s when I started to understand why so many women seemed to dislike and distrust men.

  143. Rian August 15, 2010 at 9:45 AM #

    Not too many 22-year old, curvy, blue-eyed blonde girls hate men. Wonder why?

    They usually can’t afford to.

    It’s all about youth and beauty to get a guy’s respect, attention, and, yes, even love.

    Youth and beauty inspire neither respect nor love. They inspire covetousness, a desire to possess, to mark, like a dog at a fire hydrant.

  144. kristina August 15, 2010 at 1:56 PM #

    GraceMargaret- It’s not even about our point of view as women(in society), so whether or not these beautiful women hate men is not really the point…the point is the “power” these women are perceived to have and whether or not they recognize it for what it really is…not “real” power…Sure there are beautiful women who don’t fall victim to societal thinking of power tripping on their own cursed beauty, but it doesn’t mean they don’t receive benefits from it. They may feel bad about said benefits, they may be feminists trying to abolish these benefits, but only when they reject men, do they feel the hatred of the “ugly” woman.
    I’m not saying I disagree with you or that you can’t be a “true” feminist if you are “beautiful”…it just may be harder to see the benefits you receive as a beautiful woman as compared to those that aren’t considered “beautiful” by male standards.. I’m sorry I’m playing a little bit of devil’s advocate here, and I’m completely sure you get it or you wouldn’t be here…just pointing out how beautiful women fall victim to the patriarchy which was the real point to the comment you were objecting to…sorry…carry on…

  145. joy August 15, 2010 at 6:59 PM #

    “Youth and beauty inspire neither respect nor love. They inspire covetousness, a desire to possess, to mark, like a dog at a fire hydrant.”

    Rian, I want to calligraph this and put it on my fucking wall.

  146. J August 18, 2010 at 2:41 PM #

    I just stumbled upon this … and wow. I wish we’d had the guts to be this honest in my fem theory courses.

    I have to say, it helps that you obviously have a real affinity/knack for language. This was a fantastic breakdown. Go you.

  147. Yahhh August 24, 2010 at 5:17 AM #

    I once had an argument with an MRA. He was ranting how most women are [insert list of bad qualities]. It was actually identical to your list for men actually. Third sentence of the post.

    I then asked him if his sister fit that list. He said his sister was the rare exception, and his female friends were nothing like that, but “most other women are”.

    Funny, my sister is awesome, and so is my mother, I told him. What are the odds? We two happen to have been born related to the only women on the planet who don’t fit that list? Wow, what are the odds? We should play the lottary! [end sarcasm]

    You see my sarcasm to him there, but it pointed that it might be his perception of women that’s the culprit. Because he’s perfectly capable of seeing how good all the women he’s related to are. Yet all the women he doesn’t know (the mystical “women” out there) seem to fit his bad list?

    Now, if you ask any guy on the planet, what his sister,mom or female friends are like… They’ll all tell you they’re awesome (“unlike other women”).

    Isn’t that impossible? I pointed out? How is that every guy has an awesome sister, but he also thinks most other woman are [insert your list of bad qualities]. If everyone’s mother and sister are great and not [list of bad qualities], then how can the statement most women are [list of bad qualities] -> how can this statement be true? It can’t. Its impossible. All women are someone’s friend, sister, mother or neighbour. So can the statement “most women are” be true then? It can’t.

    The further irony is that… He was perfectly capable of criticizing women’s claims. He said that women who claimed “most men are [list of bad qualities]” – (in his words) generalizing and purposefully distorting their perception to fit “most men” into their stereotype.

    Isn’t that odd? He is able to see it in women who make such generalized claims, but he can’t see it in himself. He’s doing the exact same thing… That he accuses women of doing. He was able to go at length in giving me examples to back up his misogyny… And how women have mistreated him, and all kinds of “stats” that with his MRA worldview. He could go on for hours and spout thousands of “arguments” to “back up” his misogyny… Yet he couldn’t see past the fact that it simply didn’t add up. None of the women he’s closely related to fits that list, yet “most women are [list of bad qualities]”.

    The human psyche is amazing in how it allows one to reaffirm their own bias and beliefs, and find “evidence”… for their own worldview.

  148. isme August 24, 2010 at 11:49 PM #

    “Now, if you ask any guy on the planet, what his sister,mom or female friends are like… They’ll all tell you they’re awesome (“unlike other women”).”

    Not in my experience, MRAs don’t seem to mind villifying their female relatives as far as I’ve seen. Admittedly, though, I’ve rarely seen them confronted on this point.

  149. Rian August 25, 2010 at 3:30 PM #

    Not in my experience, MRAs don’t seem to mind villifying their female relatives as far as I’ve seen

    That is my experience as well. I’ve found that what a man says about “his” women depends largely on his audience.

  150. Yahhh August 25, 2010 at 4:53 PM #

    I’ve been debating MRAs for years now. And most MRAs (just like most feminists) will claim their sister/mother is awesome… They might criticize relatives like “mother in law, cousin” or “brother’s wife”… I.e. women they have no close connection to.

    I don’t wanna be all magic-bulletey, but most misogyny comes out of having no close relations to women. To believe that “most women are [list of bad qualities”, you literally need to have lived a life where you only have superficial relations with women, and never got to meet any on a deeper, meaningful level. Most develop misoginy by seeing women as object, that they never actually meet as persons.

    Usually their sister/mother or a childhood female friend is the only one they’ve known on a deep level, so they’re able to see those women as they are.

  151. polly August 26, 2010 at 1:08 AM #

    There was a dude over here called Raoul Moat who was an MRA incarnate. He killed his ex’s new b/f and shot her, raped and beat up every woman he was ever involved with and then finally shot himself in a field when the police caught up with him after he went on the run.

    Strangely his brother blames their MOTHER for Moat’s actions. And says she should be ‘burnt at the stake’.


  152. polly August 26, 2010 at 1:13 AM #

    Not too many 22-year old, curvy, blue-eyed blonde girls hate men

    Simply a misogynist statement. When I was young enough to receive constant unwanted male attention (and you don’t need to be curvy, blonde, blue eyed, just young mostly) I fucking hated it. I was still a dyke when I was 17 that’s why.

  153. Andrew August 26, 2010 at 9:43 AM #

    I agree with Yahhh. The type of men who will go the furthest in vilifying women as women are typically men who know nothing about them.

  154. Rian August 26, 2010 at 3:25 PM #

    I don’t wanna be all magic-bulletey, but most misogyny comes out of having no close relations to women.

    As most MRAs have such good relationships with their mothers and sisters according to you, this would seem to be demonstrably false. If a man needs to know a woman well before he decides he doesn’t hate her, that’s still misogyny.

  155. kristina August 26, 2010 at 3:46 PM #

    Isn’t that odd? He is able to see it in women who make such generalized claims, but he can’t see it in himself. He’s doing the exact same thing… That he accuses women of doing. He was able to go at length in giving me examples to back up his misogyny… And how women have mistreated him, and all kinds of “stats” that with his MRA worldview. He could go on for hours and spout thousands of “arguments” to “back up” his misogyny… Yet he couldn’t see past the fact that it simply didn’t add up. None of the women he’s closely related to fits that list, yet “most women are [list of bad qualities]“.

    I as a feminist certainly wouldn’t claim that my father is the exception to the rule… He didn’t go out of his way to make my life miserable (like MRA’s believe about women and thus proving their narcissism), but he didn’t bring anything at all to the table that I can remember. I can accept that he and other men aren’t purposely out there to hurt me, but in their self-gratification lost the ability to see and react to reality, a realm that I am very much a part of…so it’s less lack of action than it is a lack of action in reality. MRA’s base their claims in their perception (subjective) of what is moral (subjective), thus providing no basis in reality. Feminists base their claims on their perception (subjective) of events (fact). MRA’s do tend to use statistics, but I would venture to say that social roles inhibit the ability to live in a subjective morality as we are socialized to accept different things as moral based on our gender roles. Sense the circular reasoning? Yes, that is exactly the point.. those of us adhering to gender roles are not basing our views in an objective reality.

  156. polly August 27, 2010 at 2:02 AM #

    I think you are both confusing cause and effect. If you are misogynist, you are unlikely to have many female friends for the obvious reason that you’re not usually friends with people you hate. However Raoul Moat had a mother and a succession of girlfriends who he beat up and raped (ie did have close relations with women) and was still misogynist. It’s very rare to find a man who was brought up in an all male environment after all.

  157. Miss Andrist August 27, 2010 at 5:25 AM #


    “Not too many 22-year old, curvy, blue-eyed blonde girls hate men. Wonder why? ;)”

    I did. Still do. Guess I don’t count.
    Oh, wait. My eyes aren’t blue. My bad.

    Your misogynistic list of characteristics redeem a non-male to men (appeal as a masturbation puppet) describes me without error. Men still hate me as efficiently as humanly possible. They do just as much horrible shit to me, individually and as a whole, as they do to women who fail to meet men’s standard of sexual utility. The infinite repertoire of benevolent and malicious misogyny to which I am subjected may differ from the experiences of the women you imagine you’re talking to, but the differences are strictly superficial.

    If men were actually sex-crazed, feral beasts, I’d either have power over them (I don’t) or be in extra, disproportionate, particular danger from them (I’m not.) Hell, if men were even a fraction as consistent in their definitions of women’s sexual utility as you suggest such as to provide a standard before they withhold basic human rights from us for failing to adhere to their demands, we’d at least be free of the fucking moving target, right? And that’s not the case.

    Rian is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. My physical characteristics have never won me any man’s respect, admiration, or anything remotely resembling love. I’ve been lusted after, men have gotten into fights over who owns me, I modelled (in addition to other shit) and men hated that I am painfully, brilliantly intelligent, articulate, educated, self-sufficient, self-aware. It runs exactly contrary to their expectation for how I should be according to my appearance (somewhere between doll and waif?) and how I am in reality (it’s like hugging a porcupine.)

    Just in case you still thought you were right – as a web dev I get a lot of my jobs without clients having any idea what I look like. I am hired strictly because I am a brainiac with impressive chops; I can remote in so it’s long after I’m hired, if ever, that people who hire me find out what I look like.

    Chew on that.

    -Miss Andrist
    Lover of Men

    • Sandy August 8, 2014 at 3:04 PM #

      Brilliantly Intelligent, and you’re a mere web dev? How’s that work?

  158. kristina August 27, 2010 at 3:25 PM #

    Polly, I’m talking deeper than cause and effect…I’m talking psychology, which may get me shot around here… but, I find truth in it and I haven’t turned into a misogynist yet…*gulp* I can argue cause and effect to a man all I want, it will not point out the inconsistencies in his thought process (the thing he holds so dear, as if it was the standard). I find the best way to point out inconsistencies is to be able to pick up on the subtle cues that a knowledge of psychology gives. One word can change the entire sentence in logical terms.
    Take for instance: All men are deadbeat fathers (illogical since not all men are fathers) vs.
    Men are deadbeat fathers. One word changed the entire semantics of the argument, and one could argue that the word “all” in the first instance was a Freudian slip.

  159. Linda August 27, 2010 at 7:57 PM #

    I’m not sure if I hate men or just don’t understand them. I’ve never met a guy that I can say was a “really good man”. Not ever. Dating and my one marriage have been disappointing experiences. Feminism enlightened us but never provided solutions or strategies to the problem of patriarchy.
    I honestly would love to meet a man to love and be loved by. But alas I’m an educated woman with professional goals. It seems that the more driven I am professionally and intellectually, the less attractive I am to men. Or maybe it’s my short hair and the fact that it’s not blonde. Or maybe it’s simply because I’m not 22 anymore. Whatever the reason, it is disappointing I have to admit. But I keep living my life and creating my own future. And I have to say that my life without a male partner is not so bad. In fact, I sometimes get the feeling that I’m happier than most of the married people I know. Go figure.

  160. kristina August 27, 2010 at 10:16 PM #

    Linda, I’m not going to bullshit you and say you’ll find a good man one day sweetie… ughhh… One thing I’ve learned from dating and marriage that I try to pass on to all my non-feminist friends (which has cost me a friend recently) is to NEVER give up on YOU work on yourself until you are in a happy place without men…love yourself, and NEVER compromise your values for anyone (which also means giving in to pressure around you and failing yourself). If you find a man who finds this attractive, Great…if not, it doesn’t really matter does it, as long as you are truly happy.
    I may not be happy all the time in my marriage, but it has come a long way through hard work to not be miserable….and most of this was because I didn’t know myself, I hadn’t fully matured into the ideals I have today. I would have had a much easier time if I had time to know me and love me.
    I think that is the mistake a lot of marriages make…compromise before you get into marriage leads to growth apart because you’re not being true to yourself (given that it is not an abusive relationship…otherwise all bets are off.)

  161. Linda August 29, 2010 at 1:03 PM #

    On choosing to be single:
    Sometimes I think it’s because I can’t stand men. At other times I think it’s just because I can’t really be bothered with putting the effort required for a relationship with one. I’ve witnessed it over and over again…my female friends, my sister, my mom giving way more than they apparently get in their relationships with the men in their lives. So Kristina, you’re right. There are no promises of meeting a good man. But I also have to say that not meeting him has been an invaluable gift. I’ve come to realize that the moment that we are born female we are socialized into a world of lies. Lies about what is important in life. Lies about what we should value about ourselves. All of the stuff that I imagined my life was supposed to be about is not what actually happened. Instead, my life is way better than I could have ever imagined. Instead of my sexuality defining who I am, in terms of a relationship and raising children, I am privileged to define myself in terms of my intelligence and ambition and a great career. Although I do admire women, like my mom, who can devote their lives to their families and be happy, somehow I still feel like the lucky one.

  162. kristina August 29, 2010 at 6:14 PM #

    Linda, the important part is that you don’t invalidate women like your mom, it’s a very tempting thing to do when your eyes are focused on a goal, and the thought behind your goal is empathy for suffering. It’s not to say that women one day won’t choose to be a mother, but once everybody has been “enlightened” on every facet of every division of people, it truly will be a choice.

  163. Linda August 31, 2010 at 8:14 AM #

    Kristina, I think you misunderstood me. I was not invalidating women like my mom. I was saying that I feel lucky to be who I am. Those are two very different things.

  164. kristina August 31, 2010 at 8:42 AM #

    Oh no, Linda…I didn’t misunderstand at all…I wasn’t particularly talking about what you were doing, I completely agree with your point of view…All I was saying is we shouldn’t discount the experiences of other women…we can examine, but logically if we’re not in that place we can’t say they are doing it all wrong, not to mention the same argument could be applied to the disagreeing party…. *sigh* it has nothing to do with you linda, it’s obvious you admire other women who make different choices because you recognize what is good for another may not be good for you, but it doesn’t make them any less human… better?

  165. Martin September 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM #

    You may hate men, but I love women! In fact, I love every single human being! I never wanted to join the arguing and fighting between the two sides, and I don’t really mind what you say, either =).
    I just hate people hating each other for whatever reasons or misunderstandings. It makes me feel sad, and sometimes even disappointed; I don’t know why, though!

    Anyway it’s better if everyone stopped hating each other so that people would have more enjoyable time together. Keeping up the hate will just make everyone sadder.

    Lighten up, people!

  166. sc September 4, 2010 at 9:57 AM #

    Might seem an odd question but I am genuinely intrigued: as a man (and I’m only 22, so I’ve hopefully a long time ahead of me) what could I hypothetically do to help fix this?

    The problem seems to me to exist in the bizarre space of social expectation. Though this was effectively put in place by “men” (and I’m not entirely sold on placing the blame on what is merely a signifier of so-called “gender”) it has taken on quite a life of its own. Now I know you know this. I know you know that everybody is a victim of the shaping effect society has; men and women alike. The fact is, I don’t think as many men as one might imagine feel privileged or misguidedly expect that they should be so. What can be done, though, to educate those who do? There are women who enforce male superiority just as much, too. “We” need to work together as humanity in general to modify entrenched social prototypes. I think “hating” somebody based on an unchangeable sign that they’re born with (their gender!) is a bit backward and is likely to confuse – I would probably have taken offence to something like this had I read it when I was in my teens, and felt that there was a definite gender divide that I should adhere to. Sure, men are historically accountable. That’s fine. But I’m not. A lot of men aren’t. A lot of people just want to live, and live happily, and live equally. But that means living together, too. And it’s really not easy.

    What do we all do?

  167. berryblade September 4, 2010 at 11:32 PM #


    Yeah, that’s real nice of you to tell womyn that maybe we should just suck it up, play nice & everything will be okay. Hah hah, pull the other one.


    “Sure, men are historically accountable. That’s fine. But I’m not. A lot of men aren’t. A lot of people just want to live, and live happily, and live equally. But that means living together, too. And it’s really not easy.”

    Actually, yes, yes you are.

  168. Martin September 5, 2010 at 1:03 AM #

    That’s not what I meant at all! I just find it sad to see people reduced to hating each other because of their race, gender or appearance. I didn’t address what I said only to women, either =(. It was supposed to be for both sides – feminists, sovinists and just neutral groups.

    Don’t get me wrong! I’m not against feminists – or sovinists – I just think that hating each other is bad. We should be hating what makes unequality.

    If this post makes people even more annoyed, which I sincerely hope it doesn’t, then feel free to tell me why. I really, really didn’t want to offend anyone with my first post. Please consider my points, even if they seem stupid!
    Thank you for listening.

    • Nine Deuce September 5, 2010 at 2:17 AM #

      It’s called a chauvinist. What, are you Canadian?

  169. Martin September 5, 2010 at 3:25 AM #

    Ah, sorry about that. Chauvinist, I mean.

    To answer your question, no I am not Canadian. I am Finnish and English is not my native language.

  170. kristina September 5, 2010 at 8:07 AM #

    Martin…this is not a site of hate spewing, it’s a site that holds men accountable for their actions…if you don’t like it, you better check yourself…maybe you’re one of these men. How would you suggest everyone just get along? Have you read this blog and REALLY REALLY thought about what’s being said…TRYING not to take offense??? Try seeing it from the side it’s presented (female perspective) and take yourself outside of the equation…stop comparing these things to what you may or may not do…it’s preventing you from listening…try seeing it from women’s side first…then tell me where you see hate.

  171. polly September 5, 2010 at 9:42 AM #

    Polly, I’m talking deeper than cause and effect…I’m talking psychology

    Eh? Two completely different things. One is a causal relationship (can apply in any kind of science, including social sciences) and one is a branch of science or pseudo science depending which side of the fence you’re sitting. Either way it is not possible for psychology to be “deeper” than something it is not remotely similar to as a concept.

    Moving on. Martin.

    The problem seems to me to exist in the bizarre space of social expectation. Though this was effectively put in place by “men” (and I’m not entirely sold on placing the blame on what is merely a signifier of so-called “gender”) it has taken on quite a life of its own.

    Ah, the old ‘this hurts me more than it hurts you’ argument. Look Martin, if men don’t want to behave like knobs, the solution is really simple, they should stop behaving like knobs. There are plenty of social expectations that anybody female is subject to, around ‘femininity’ that personally I resolutely ignore. And you know what people – roughly 99.9999% of whom are male – feel compelled to express their disapproval, often in abusive and threatening ways. Is anybody making them do it? No, they’re knobs.

    However if you want a more complicated explanation, you may find the concept of ‘false consciousness’ helpful. Do google it.

  172. Andrew September 5, 2010 at 10:23 AM #


    Nine Deuce’s writing, as well as the posts by the female commenters here, all contain statements that easily fall within the contemporary understanding of irrational hate. For example, the other day someone posted a link regarding the historical decay of Y chromosome (which would need to exist if women were to birth men). She was delighted about the prospect of a world without men. Also, ND’s snarky little Canadian remark above was not only rude, but possibly offensive as well. Imagine if someone said to you: “What are you, a woman?” after you had made an error.

    If we replaced “men” with blacks, gays or some other “minority” group, it would be denounced by any public commentator as simple hate speech. The reason you refuse to acknowledge this is because you have bought into the idea that men are: (1) a monolith (2) with inherent privilege (3) who exercise it broadly and without fail to the disadvantage of less privileged groups.

    This simply isn’t true, and as a result discussing “men” in any meaningful sense around this blog is just as intellectually bankrupt as the idea that all women are this or that. It’s one thing to recognize privilege at a practical level and protest the harm that may flow from its exercise. It’s another to pretend that everything with a penis operates the same way.

    As for Martin saying that we should all just get along, that is exactly the point of all civil rights movements, at least in theory. He didn’t say we should freeze the status of women and simply stop discussing feminist issues, that feminism was dead, etc. More likely, he was probably just confused, rightly, about how he was supposed to take an argument for equal rights seriously when it comes in the form of anti-male, Glenn Beck style hyperbole.

    In short, this brand of radical feminism (and probably many others) isn’t really about shedding privilege as much as it seeks to assume it for itself. That’s fine, but you should be honest that that is what’s happening. Just because your behavior (or hate) flows from a supposed millennia (or 3) of broad, group-wide mistreatment, does not make it any less misguided or privileged.

    • Nine Deuce September 5, 2010 at 10:15 PM #

      Men are not a minority, nor are they an oppressed group, Andrew. As for “the posts by the female commenters here” evincing “irrational hatred,” have you read the male commenters’ posts? I assure you, I delete 99% of them, and yet the ones I let by still evince irrational hatred. And how do you figure that the “hatred” you see coming from women is “irrational”? Try being female for a few weeks and then decide whether hating men is irrational. I’d say not hating men is irrational, if one defines irrationality similarly to the way we define insanity: repeating the same action and expecting different results.

  173. Martin September 5, 2010 at 12:00 PM #

    I have tried to read it without taking offense. The reason I can somewhat succeed in it is because I don’t think it very much describes me! To further understand my own actions – and believe me I pondered what you said for a very, very long time – I re-read an old topic about psychological defense mechanisms. That is the main reason I didn’t comment on whether I agree with what is being said or not, and instead only commented on how it was being expressed!

    My post will probably seem less like blathering if I just quote what was written in the said topic:

    “The ego, or sense of self, is remarkably fragile and requires protection. This is so regularly observed that it has become an undeniable truism in psychology. This protection is provided by the so-called “defense mechanisms,” the aim of which is to shield the ego against any truths or facts which might threaten to overwhelm it—in other words, the defense mechanisms serve to protect the integrity of the ego. They are adaptive.

    All of us employ defense mechanisms, but we are usually blind to our own defenses, although not to those of others.

    Defense mechanisms distort both inner and outer reality, but that distortion is the price we pay for needing the protection they offer. Although all of them distort reality to some degree, the distortion runs a wide gamut from so-called “psychotic defenses,” which totally distort reality, through the annoying “immature defenses” characteristic of the various personality disorders (like narcissism, for example), then the “neurotic defenses,” which are annoying more to the sufferer from them than to anyone else—these are often called “hang-ups,”–and finally the so-called “mature defenses,” which are the mark of a relatively secure and developed sense of self which requires relatively less protection.

    A psychotic defense might involve, for example, complete withdrawl from reality into some kind of fantasy world in which inner conflicts are projected outward as if they were really not inner conflicts, but part of reality:

    “Aliens are sending out signals through my computer which keep me from having sex.”

    An immature defense is one which transmits ones sense of shame and anxiety to those around him, and so usually annoys others. Examples:

    1. Immediate denial—refusal to even acknowledge painful realities.
    2. Projection—attributing unacceptable ideas or impulses to others.
    3. Idealization—seeing oneself or others as godlike or all-powerful.
    4. Devaluation-deprecating others.

    A neurotic defense is one that works from the inside out, and may not even be noticed by others. For example:

    1. Rationalization–inventing a plausible but incorrect reason for why one is not troubled.
    2. Intellectualization—covering up feelings with facts and details.
    3. Repression—involuntary forgetting of something unpleasant.
    4. Control—trying to manipulate outside events so as to avoid anxiety.

    A mature defense protects the ego from the most fearsome aspects of reality without substantially distorting it. For example:

    1. Supression—consciously putting something disturbing out of ones mind. This is not denial, but rather waiting until the right time to deal with the problem.
    2. Humor—joking about difficult matters, so-called “gallows humor,” for example.
    3. Anticipation—realistic planning for the inevitabilities of human life.

    Now I say that no one is responsible for the defense mechanisms that he or she uses. They are an indicator of the relative maturity or immaturity of the personality structure, which, as I have argued earlier on this forum, is unchosen and comes upon one as if by fate. A major goal in much psychotherapy is to help the client to use more mature mechanisms, and possibly to become somewhat aware of which ones he or she is using.

    Instead of bad-mouthing or flaming someone with whom you disagree, how about instead trying to point out what that person’s words suggest about the various defenses that person is using? This could help all of us. A partial list of defense mechanisms can be found here:


    This article suggests that no matter how many times I read what is said, being the subject of criticizing myself I’ll be blind and prejudiced to it no matter what. Perhaps for the same reason everyone who agrees with the text will be blind and prejudiced to whatever I say or imply.

    We are probably both explaining each other’s behaviour by assuming the opposite misunderstands the other. I am sincerely convinced I don’t misunderstand anything, but I still acknowledge that I could be and probably am misunderstanding something.

    What you are asking of me is quite similar to asking yourself to understand racism. I’m not saying feminism is similar to racism though! So please try not to take offense I just couldn’t come up with any other example. So, again, I am NOT in any way implying that feminism is anything similar to racism. But to illuminate:

    There is a very small minority of foreigners in Finland, yet every 7 out of 8 violence crimes you see are committed by black people. You may have gotten threatened yourself and every time by a person with a foreign background. Then you happen to overhear a few gangsta rappers in the next table proudly talking about robbing some old woman/man and their friends are cheering for him. After that you decide you’ve had enough and come to the conclusion that – because you know some good people with foreign background – although not all foreigners are criminals, all criminals are foreigners. And that is the moment when you become a racist. I could go on with a theory on how you become more racist but it would be a bit off the topic.

    Anyway, if I now asked you to understand a racist’s point of view, could you? Perhaps. Would you agree with him? I doubt it. Neither would I!

    In short we can’t help but misunderstand each other, but at least we can be kind to each other. I do sincerely hope we could understand each other someday.

    By the way in my example the said person wouldn’t really be hating foreigners, he would be hating gangsta culture. The person just wouldn’t know that.

    I hope this helped understand my point of view, although I imagine it’s a bit confusing and maybe even a little off topic! But I hope it’s not totally incomprehensible. If you think whatever I say is because I am misunderstanding something or I can’t consider your point of view and I think that whatever you say is because you misunderstand something or can’t consider my point of view it’s not really going anywhere. That’s why we should stop with the flaming and try to discuss and make the opposite side understand our points of views.
    I apologize for any spelling mistakes.

    The rest is blathering

    Like in war your own side is always correct. I’m one of the few Finnish people who doesn’t see eye-to-eye with Finnish war efforts in wwI and wwII. Finland was under Soviet Union’s reign, then it became independent when Soviet Union was in civil war. Then in world war Soviet Union tried to regain those lost regions of theirs, in other words Finland, but in the end only got a few parts for themselves. Then later on Finland attacked Soviet Union in hopes of regaining their lost regions. In other words Soviet Union attacked finland to reclaim their lands, Finland attacked Soviet Union to reclaim their lands. Yet everyone in Finland thinks Finland did the right thing. I don’t take a stance on either side. I just don’t agree with wars in general.

  174. Rian September 5, 2010 at 12:19 PM #

    Might seem an odd question but I am genuinely intrigued: as a man (and I’m only 22, so I’ve hopefully a long time ahead of me) what could I hypothetically do to help fix this?

    Answer: Leave women alone. Also encourage everyone with whom you come in contact to leave women alone. Don’t look at women. Don’t talk to or about women. Don’t even think about women. Now you’ll say that’s impossible, and to some extent you are correct, but we’re talking about thoughts and behavior in general here.

    Of course people have female relatives, friends, mates, co-workers, etc., with whom they must interact and here you must be extra careful not to revert to gendered expectations. However, if you’ve been training yourself not to think about women or talk to/about women or look at women, you may find that it is easier to treat these women as fellow human beings.

  175. lizor September 5, 2010 at 3:04 PM #

    @ Martin and sc,

    Go over to Youtube and search “Robert Jensen”, and click on the “Feminism and Masculinity” video.

    WATCH it. THINK about it. That ought to clear up a little bit of your confusion.

    And please don’t come here with the expectation that we all have the time to educate you when you can’t be bothered to do your own research.

  176. kristina September 5, 2010 at 11:07 PM #

    I don’t know about hate andrew…I’ve seen much more radical sites than this…and this to me is a breath of fresh air….TRUST ME!!!

  177. Andrew September 5, 2010 at 11:30 PM #

    Who is and isn’t a minority is irrelevant when we are talking about the logic of making arguments based on stereotypes. What’s important is whether or not the reason we are going to hate someone is legitimate, i.e., actually causing the offensive conduct. That’s lacking here.

    I am sure the male comments that don’t get through, to put it lightly, suck. I also know that a lot of the ones that do get through suck as well. Hating those posters for their thoughts, beliefs, or supposed actions would not be irrational. What is irrational, however, is hating someone based on a stereotype he carries by way of his membership in a particular group.

    The fact that women are oppressed does not excuse them from making reasonable arguments. There are some men who, for whatever reason, do not treat women in the way you find offensive. As a result, hating these men along with the others is irrational, as there is no reason to hate them.

    You may want to hate masculinity in general, or particular attitudes or behaviors that a lot of men adopt. You may find it useful to assume that the men you meet are like ones you hate, barring evidence to the contrary. It’s even permissible to qualify “men” with “some,” “most,” or “many” when describing your hatred of them. What muddies any meaningful conversation though, is assuming that one must act in a certain way as a result of their sex.

    Unless you think it’s acceptable to treat women poorly based on the assumption that they are all “emotional and weak,” I don’t see why treating men poorly based on the assumption they are de facto misogynists is any more legitimate. If this is really about getting beyond the sexual dichotomy and treating humans like humans, then sex must not be used as a proxy for anything, and individuals must be judged by their actions, as opposed to their traits.

    • Nine Deuce September 6, 2010 at 5:30 PM #

      You’re being an unwarrantedly smug asshole, Andrew. Get off this thread.

  178. kristina September 5, 2010 at 11:32 PM #

    So martin…you’re not even going to try to understand women??? Just be nice? If I try to act towards a man in a manner he finds acceptable of his guy friends or acquaintances to treat him, I’d be kicked in the teeth…. If I understand his interaction with men is some sort of pissing contest that I as a woman am not allowed to engage in, I may have a better chance of survival.
    I DO try to understand men…and not just by typical stereotypes…I understand men desire loving relationships, acceptance of their body, have insecurities, body issues, etc… and that each man is different…There’s no magic formula to make a man happy…it’s all to be taken on a case by case basis in which I must get to know each man as a human being and his likes and dislikes…simply playing nice doesn’t work… my definition of nice might not be another person’s definition, and in recognizing this I’m treating them with respect….and not just as men, that other group I try to be nice to.
    You don’t need to tell me the psychology of compartmentalization…you are doing it when you separate yourself from those “other guys” who’s actions you don’t have to answer for…should you suffer consequences??? Depends, do you find examining your motives and understanding how women feel on an individual basis consequences??? If so, maybe you’re on the right track..

  179. Rian September 6, 2010 at 12:17 PM #


    Nine Deuce’s writing, as well as the posts by the female commenters here, all contain statements that easily fall within the contemporary understanding of irrational hate.

    Kindly tell me which of my posts here contains a statement that constitutes irrational hate.

    If we replaced “men” with blacks, gays or some other “minority” group, it would be denounced by any public commentator as simple hate speech.

    Yet you’d be hard-pressed to find a public commentator to denounce it as hate speech if we replaced “men” with “women.”

    The reason you refuse to acknowledge this is because you have bought into the idea that men are: (1) a monolith (2) with inherent privilege (3) who exercise it broadly and without fail to the disadvantage of less privileged groups.

    Since you addressed this specifically to kristina, I’m going to assume that she is the “you” in this statement, and I cannot fathom how you could possibly reach that conclusion from her comments.

    It’s one thing to recognize privilege at a practical level and protest the harm that may flow from its exercise. It’s another to pretend that everything with a penis operates the same way.

    Seriously, did you not read the second paragraph of the original post?

    In short, this brand of radical feminism (and probably many others) isn’t really about shedding privilege as much as it seeks to assume it for itself.

    Your proof? ND’s style and the words of “female commenters”? First, you accuse all people here (strike that, only the female people) of having an irrational hate of all men. Then you invent ulterior motives for whole movements from the comments of a few people. Huh.

  180. GraceMargaret September 6, 2010 at 6:41 PM #

    Andrew, I haven’t seen anyone advocating treating men poorly in this thread. I see women who are sick and tired of always having to be on guard because none of us can’t tell if the men we meet are going to be a real threat to our safety and well-being. This isn’t irrational or hateful, it’s pure self-preservation. In the U.S. battering by men is the single major cause of injury to women, more than muggings, rapes, and auto accidents combined, and 42% of murdered women are killed by their intimate partners. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, a woman is raped every 2 minutes. And the perpretators are usually acquaintances or someone close to the victim.

    When we meet a man we have to worry about his potentional for violence, something that a man never has to even think about from a woman. You can characterize that very rational fear as hatred if you like, but we women have to do what we need to in order to survive.

    And if we do actually trust the men in our lives and they then abuse us we are asked to evaluate *our* behavior, as if we should expect the average man to assualt us if given half the chance. How many times do we have to hear about a woman being raked over the coals after going through the traumatic experience of being raped or beaten before we are allowed to be a little wary of men. At least the KKK wore uniforms that were recognizable, we don’t get that kind of forewarning.

  181. Andrew September 6, 2010 at 7:56 PM #


    Your warning is fair, and I feel like I’ve made my point. The reason I chose to say something was because SC and Martin both raised legitimate points and they were subjected to nothing more than a “check your privilege at the door and read the post again” kind of attitude. The reason men like this feel like they need to ask questions (I’m assuming) is because they feel like they are already doing the “right thing” but still can’t be in the good graces of radical feminists as a result of their manhood.

    What I am saying is that it can’t be the simple fact we (men) have a penis that’s the problem. There are a great many males out there in want of privilege and a great many females who enjoy more privileges than some men. There are many general aspects of “manhood” that you have time and again correctly critiqued, but treating men like a monolith who rise and fall by the same errors is a terrible overgeneralization. You are better than that and I’ve seen it.

    If I came off as smug I apologize, but stereotyping is something I feel like we are all better than, at least when seriously discussing the problems surrounding masculine culture. Rad-fem can easily make its point without resorting to broad over-generalizations.

    • Nine Deuce September 6, 2010 at 8:01 PM #

      The problem isn’t the penis, it’s the privilege attached to the penis.

    • !ur fired May 17, 2013 at 8:52 PM #

      These are very pathetic men n women. They violate women. Its time for us women to put them in fear of us. These men are like little school boys bragging. And they have nothing to brag about. They are that pathetic for men. Nothing to brag about. More on the pathetic little man syndrome about sex. Due to his inferiority problems. Men are more pathetic to me now. 50 year old men acting as if they all that. So, pathetic. Even 20 year old men acting as if they are all that in sex. When they are not. They need to get over themselves thinking they know everything about sex, when they don’t. They know how to violate women. Not how to love them. They are a pathetic excuse for men. Thats all they are. Bragging little school boys. Where @ woman like men knows they were all pathetic as men to me. All of them. N the women know it. Which is even worse. They know how pathetic a bragging man is when he has nothing to brag about..

  182. kristina September 6, 2010 at 10:20 PM #

    “The reason men like this feel like they need to ask questions (I’m assuming) is because they feel like they are already doing the “right thing” but still can’t be in the good graces of radical feminists as a result of their manhood.”

    The “right thing” is what we’re asking men to examine, just because they feel it’s “right” doesn’t mean they aren’t above sexism, and the arguments I’ve seen that are all too common are I’m not one of THOSE guys…true you may not rape and batter women, but what do women want? In order to know that you have to listen which is a lot less talking, and a hell of a lot less explaining why women just hate men…if we hated you, we’d have you dead by now…don’t you think there would be a lot more murders if women hated men? If I irrationally hated somebody why would my rationality suddenly kick in at the prospect of jail-time? I suspect it wouldn’t…ND engages men here, I haven’t seen that a lot in radical feminist spaces, she obviously thinks men are worthy of a debate, of the benefit of the doubt, and overall the hope that men can change… if she hated you, no comments of men would come through, even rational debatable ones.

  183. Hecate September 7, 2010 at 1:30 AM #

    I agree 100% with Kristina. Self preservation is surely the most rational of human behaviors. It’s amazing that men react so violently to such basic self defense on the part of women. So you’re angry that we don’t trust you eh? Can you blame us?!

    You can take the most radical feminist in the history of the universe, and you’ll find that she has not perpetrated anywhere near the kind of violence your average ‘Joe’ is responsible for on a daily basis. Valerie Solanas comes to mind as one rad fem who shot someone, but in fact did not succeed in killing him. But she’s the only one I know of who even attempted such a thing. Women can go on about ‘hating’ men until they are blue in the face, but they rarely act on it. Men never admit that they hate women, and act on it every second of the day, in the most punitive and sadistic ways imaginable. And there are plenty of stats out there to back that statement.

  184. Eryna September 7, 2010 at 4:07 AM #

    After all these years there is nothing for frustrating than dealing with men and their issues. I’m reminded of how men would snicker at me on the job. After 14 years as a Stationary Engineer and a veteran of the friggin Navy this Snot-Bag kid out of college thinks I got the job because of Affirmative Action, the balls on that little jerk-I put him on bilge duty for a week . I’ve had to deal with the unsolicited rudeness and general “bitch-ass-ness” of men and my nerves are completely shot. I have no desire to own and operate my very own penis or arm wrestle or write ERYNA in freshly fallen snow so could somebody tell me just what the hell is their problem? There are times when I just feel like they need to be put in Time-Out with a fabulous selection of cone-shaped selection of head. Friggin Pricks!

  185. Martin September 7, 2010 at 9:48 AM #

    Sorry for not being able to post for a couple of days, I’ll just catch up by responding to everything in one post!

    Sorry for not replying earlier. I googled what you asked me to and ended up in a wikipedia article. It was an interesting read. =)

    @ lizor
    Thank you for the video!

    “So martin…you’re not even going to try to understand women??? Just be nice? If I try to act towards a man in a manner he finds acceptable of his guy friends or acquaintances to treat him, I’d be kicked in the teeth…. If I understand his interaction with men is some sort of pissing contest that I as a woman am not allowed to engage in, I may have a better chance of survival.
    I DO try to understand men…and not just by typical stereotypes…I understand men desire loving relationships, acceptance of their body, have insecurities, body issues, etc… and that each man is different…There’s no magic formula to make a man happy…it’s all to be taken on a case by case basis in which I must get to know each man as a human being and his likes and dislikes…simply playing nice doesn’t work… my definition of nice might not be another person’s definition, and in recognizing this I’m treating them with respect….and not just as men, that other group I try to be nice to.
    You don’t need to tell me the psychology of compartmentalization…you are doing it when you separate yourself from those “other guys” who’s actions you don’t have to answer for…should you suffer consequences??? Depends, do you find examining your motives and understanding how women feel on an individual basis consequences??? If so, maybe you’re on the right track..”

    I generally get along with people despite their gender!

    From reading your posts I understand you are a sweet and kind person who genuinely strives for equality. I also know that not all comments are from the same person or from some kind of mystical “opposition’s representative” and that I, or anyone else for that matter, should not just lump together all the comments into one big object and then complain against it as if it were one. Any opinion posted is the opinion of that poster, it does not necessarily represent the whole of the ideal, group or community. I am also not ignoring for example Nine Deuce’s statement “some of my best friends are men (snarf snarf).”, or the fact that it has been mentioned more than once that this topic is not about hate spewing.

    Concerning this subject I am unable to agree with the points. I really can try to understand what is being said, and to some extent I believe I am capable of. But like I mentioned before, I can’t agree with it. I can not rationally imagine being a woman and thinking of being, say, judged by my the way I look by some. I can think I understand what it is, but I really don’t. That is because I am not judged by my looks. Just like I have not been, say, battered by a black person so I can’t accept racism. I can only comprehend why someone becomes a racist, but I would not agree with them. (I already mentioned this before, but I only took racism as an example because of the lack for any better example and I am NOT in any way comparing feminism to racism.)

    For the same reason if there is a point I subconciously reject because of a psychological defense mechanism and due to a high amount of flaming and criticism directed at myself, I would be unable to comprehend the point or accept it. If the flaming was on a little lower level, perhaps people would indeed comprehend and process the points and problems they needed to! I am not, however, saying that being nice will miraculously transfer everything into a fairy tale, I am talking of some sort of partial understanding. At least the criticized – women and men – would not oppose to everything said here so strongly, and maybe then everyone could calmly analyze what the other side is saying and decide if what is being said makes sense or not without the need to justify their own actions by thinking of a greater unjust on behalf of the other.

    The whole mutual flaming serves to create a mentality of “We and You”, or in this case “We vs You”, rather than “women and men” or just “I and you”, which is required to properly analyze faults and fixes. Even if a valid point is represented it will most likely be ignored if it is represented in an offensive manner. Well not necessarily ignored, but people just don’t wish to hear whatever is being said because of their natural defense mechanism which nobody can help! Furthermore, to protect our ego, our sense of self, we come up with errors from the “opposition”, after which all of us are reluctant to accept any criticism about ourselves and are only eager to find and accept errors – truths or fallacies – about the other.

  186. kristina September 7, 2010 at 4:08 PM #

    “Furthermore, to protect our ego, our sense of self, we come up with errors from the “opposition”, after which all of us are reluctant to accept any criticism about ourselves and are only eager to find and accept errors – truths or fallacies – about the other.”

    I have to say, that I can accept my errors when they are pointed out…as I may not always see them. I take criticism as a growth, not an attack…while I may not agree on someone’s criticism I do realize that they have feelings, and theirs are important too…so hey…maybe I need to look into that is my general thought process… I don’t have to agree with someone’s criticism to change, I just have to be willing to look into the reasons WHY they are criticizing, and honestly listen to them, and that takes a LOT of humility because of our natural responses…in order for me to actually act like an equal I have to take on the attitude of I’m not important…something I had a lot of practice with growing up, in a verbally abusive family. I think if everyone was humble, it would be easy to see how we are equals in a real sense, not just a pseudo tit for tat sense.

  187. OutsideLookingOver September 7, 2010 at 6:22 PM #

    Coming from this gender-dysphoric male who has finally got the “A-HA” on just what male entitlement means, how insidious it is, and mostly how blinding to insight, your remarks appear reasonable and to be expected, Martin… from someone lacking the ability to perceive and process crucial information.

    My suggestion: try to read this from another perspective than your own. This reads easier than it is to do. Here’s what you do… imagine that you instinctively fear a whole gender: one that you are meant to trust, but that can destroy you so completely without even thinking about it or seeing anything wrong about it.
    That is the reality of womankind. I know you can’t accept that – by your own words – and so I feel sorry for your limitation. But I don’t feel sorry for you or any other man (including myself). What these women are telling you is the unvarnished truth. Do them the courtesy by listening with an open mind instead of looking for ways to pick apart what they are saying. Consider, just for 10 minutes, that what they are saying is not just their perspective: it is their *reality*. Reality cannot be argued away with a “not me, *I* don’t do that”…

    Look, I work with women: I’m a nurse. I make a practice to look in the eyes of my patients to find the truth, and in the eyes of my colleagues to find out what they *mean*. We XYs have no clue as to how women think, so we dismiss it as irrational. Everything is measured by *our* unit of measure: if it doesn’t make sense to us, it doesn’t make sense, full-stop.
    Looking into the eyes of my colleagues I read fear and distrust. I became circumspect: was I being threatening, was my body English domineering? I’ve been told by former partners I look too submissive. I don’t know. But I tried to speak more softly, change my tone, my language… still that look persisted. Then I realised: this is an innate distrust. I don’t see this in their eyes when women talk to each other. It wasn’t until it became clear to *some* of my co-workers that I was much less male than I looked that the look started to melt away… some.

    Let me put it another way. I had a drink problem. I couldn’t identify it, or see how I was different when I drank. My partner (I hate the term “wife” with all its Susan Maushart connotations) says she has seen a huge change in me since I quit drinking, and says she has fallen in love all over again in that person she originally knew. Martin, I *still* don’t see the change she does! Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist: it means I can’t perceive it.

    There are things we are going to be blind to – we haven’t the receptor sites to process this information – but we MUST accept the existence of these truths. Women aren’t making it up.

  188. isme September 8, 2010 at 12:57 AM #

    Martin…I would say you are right about much of what you have said.

    However, that doesn’t prevent you from being wrong.

    Yes, you are right, things would work out better if everyone was more civil to each other.

    But that’s totally missing the point that you are saying that as a man on a blog dedicated to women victimised by men, telling the women to stop feeling angry about being victimised. That really doesn’t help. It’s also a tad patronising and smacks of privilege, that you feel the need to inform everyone of the blatantly obvious to begin with.

    Yeah, ok, you don’t like being flamed by women. But, this does appear to be a blog dedicated to women airing rather more serious complaints about men, and adding your own rather petty issues again smacks of privilege. What sort of response did you really expect?

    Ok, I get that you see yourself as a nice guy, and possibly aren’t too afraid of what being a nice guy actually entails, as opposed to an insufferable NICE GUY!!!!. One of the more useful tricks for that (well, life in general, I guess), IMHO, is determining when nobody needs to know what you think, something any number of people might want to develop further, and something I’d like to think I’m getting the hang of.

  189. kristina September 9, 2010 at 10:13 AM #

    That was actually a very well done response isme… I LOVE IT!!!

  190. Lillie September 11, 2010 at 5:52 PM #

    Martin: your sentiments are nice and all, but the real problem – the one thing all this boils down to – is not who gets their precious feelings hurt and whether it’s worse to call a man a chauvinist pig or a woman a stupid cow. The problem is as follows.

    Women who hate men sometimes gather together, talk amongst themselves about their feelings of hatred, and then go out of their way to avoid men.

    Men who hate women sometimes gather together, talk amongst themselves about their feelings of hatred, and then go out of their way to do something like this.


    (I cannot emphasise the words TRIGGER WARNING enough.)

  191. GraceMargaret September 12, 2010 at 1:21 PM #

    And what gets women to the point where we say we ‘hate’ men is hearing stories like this over and over, in varying degrees of gruesomeness, all our lives.

    Like I said before, it’s more a matter of self-preservation than actual hatred. I just don’t get why men are so hell bent on causing us physical/mental/emotional harm, why it’s part of their very definition of manhood.

    • Justin June 6, 2013 at 6:27 PM #

      Harming women usually comes from men being insecure about themselves. I know it sounds cliché, but it’s really true. Men define themselves as the polar opposite of a woman. If women are kind and gentle, men assume that they must be rough and tumble. This simple point is the primary (although not exclusive) reason for violence on earth. Men usually cause the violence, then blame women for everything.

      Remember, the male ego is extremely fragile. Just look at the way macho men act, it proves that deep inside is fragility.

      Masculinity (and I’m not defending this) is often viewed as “”assumed to be absent, unless proven to exist.”” ….The burden of proof is on men, and society shouldn’t construct it that way. Hence, men feel the need to prove they are macho by doing things (eg, taking actions and doing certain behaviors). I’m not a women, but I assume that women don’t feel a need to prove they’re women.

      This might sound odd, but I believe that most of us men know how much stronger women are than us. Seriously. A man can react to this in two basic ways: (1) Accept and embrace it, or (2) try to fight it – usually this second approach causes stupid macho behavior to attenuate their feelings of inferiority.

      The male ego is NO excuse for abusive or violent behavior. What needs to change is that men need to understand that (a) they have no burden of proving they’re so great, and (b) that they aren’t proving their male gender identity by beating or degrading women. This can only occur by a societal change of attitude. Education is the key for this change to ultimately come about, and then real progress can begin to happen.

  192. Lillie September 14, 2010 at 2:26 AM #

    GraceMargaret: “Like I said before, it’s more a matter of self-preservation than actual hatred.”

    Yes, I think so too. There’s also a big difference between hating men for the vile things they do, and hating women for, well, having vaginas.

    And like I already said, I just can’t wrap my head around the fact that women’s hatred of men usually manifests itself as separatism, and men’s hatred of women more often than not manifests itself as an active determination to do harm.

    Here’s some more about the aforementioned case, by the way, in case anyone’s looking to raise their blood pressure with futile rage (trigger warning still applies):


    The comments to this story are astounding, and not in a good way. The sex-positives seem much more concerned about the bad publicity this is giving to the BDSM community than about the victim’s welfare. Incredible.

  193. GraceMargaret September 14, 2010 at 1:43 PM #

    Yes, ‘sex-positive’ feminists meaning those who have a problem with the exploitation of women are just a bunch of prudish biddies. No political analysis allowed. All roads always seem to lead to women being sex products, we just get to ‘choose’ it now. Get naked and violence and abuse is suddenly sex. Thanks Jezebel. Wouldn’t it be just as accurate to call them violence-positive feminists?

    I remember watching a talk show years ago where a black male comedian being interviewed was asked if he was into bondage or S&M, and he said no, it reminded him of slavery too much. I wonder how many non-white people are into the BDSM scene, it seems like a predominantly white middle and upper class phenomena.

  194. isme September 14, 2010 at 6:50 PM #

    “and men’s hatred of women more often than not manifests itself as an active determination to do harm”

    I’m not sure about that…that hatred is the cause, I mean. IMHO, which I’ll admit isn’t really based on anything, most abuse of women by men isn’t due to hatred, but merely the same sort of thinking that has kids kicking apart ants’ nests when bored or frustrated. If women don’t rate as people the same way ants don’t (or somehow don’t have grounds to complain), kicking them apart makes sense.

    I’d imagine if their was actual hatred of women (besides that directed at those uppity ones that point out that being kicked apart is actually not that great), there’d not be the staggeringly massive denial of the abuse caused by men. Again, not particularly based on anything, though.

  195. Fede September 14, 2010 at 8:46 PM #

    Andrew sez: “I feel like I’ve made my point”

    I sez: The only point you’ve made is that the central arguments of radical feminism are true. This you have done by exemplifying perfectly the kind of behaviour that makes any rational human being hate the majority of men in the world, not for being male but for taking their privilege over women for granted.

  196. OutsideLookingOver September 15, 2010 at 1:32 AM #

    Andrew sez: “I feel like I’ve made my point”

    Fede sez: “The only point you’ve made is that the central arguments of radical feminism are true. This you have done by exemplifying perfectly the kind of behaviour that makes any rational human being hate the majority of men in the world, not for being male but for taking their privilege over women for granted.”

    To *admit* / acknowledge / realise-the-implications-of such a thing as a male entitlement privilege would make any *sensible* human realise just how patently ridiculous the whole “why can’t we just all get along” nonsense is.

    On the basis of that, I doubt these typical blokey-blokes have actually read anything that has been written by any of the women.

    Which *is* just typical.

    C’mon, guys, you can do better than defensive. Start with actually READING what the women have written. With your “ears”, not your “mouth”. You might find the education worth the effort. I did.

  197. Lillie September 15, 2010 at 8:09 AM #

    isme: I don’t know… internalised misogyny is still misogyny, and hatred doesn’t have to be conscious and active to function as hatred. I mean, a mass delusion that makes so many men treat women as worthless the same way that callous kids would treat ants’ nests as worthless is only possible in a world that systematically hates women. If a man partakes of that hatred, I don’t really care to what extent he consciously acknowledges it.

    I’d also argue that for a lot of kids, kicking apart ants’ nests is a convenient release for anger, even if they don’t actively hate the ants in it. The same way women are, for a lot of men, convenient punching bags and scapegoats for everything that is wrong under the sun – which, again, is only possible in a world that systematically hates women. The distinctions between conscious hatred, internalised hatred and transference are psychologically interesting, but as a feminist I’m no longer very interested in all that… one could spend all one’s time thinking about the ultimate causes of misogyny and always find another ultimate cause behind every cause, but the effects of it would remain the same. And the effects are effects of hatred, as far as I can see.

  198. Andrew September 15, 2010 at 8:25 AM #


    I sez that’s reasonable.

  199. Fede September 15, 2010 at 1:04 PM #


    Do you, now? If what I said strikes you as reasonable, what is your problem with any of the arguments any of the women here have made? Or the arguments that OutsideLookingOver has made? None of these women, nor OutsideLO have been stereotyping men, and it is offensive of you to imply it.

    Not one person here has suggested that the problem is the penis, and yet you have the gall to object to other people’s arguments with the pointless “it can’t be the simple fact we (men) have a penis that’s the problem”. Objecting to strawfeminism is inappropriate defensiveness.

    That men do exhibit the kind of behaviour described in Nine Deuce’s brilliant piece is an observation, see? It is not a generalisation to say that generally, men act that way. It is the simple truth. It would be a generalisation to say that all men act that way all the time, because there are exceptions to the rule – something that *everyone* here has been careful to point out again and again! OutsideLO is one exception to the rule; sadly, you yourself are not.

    You are making the whole thing about *you* instead of about the legitimate negative observations about men that were made. You are taking them personally when all you had to do was count yourself out if you are not guilty of those behaviours examined. By failing to see the bigger picture, you proved to be yet another self-absorbed man.

    Martin did the same thing, by the way.

    And still there is hope for you both. Do try harder. Come on, join uuuuuus! ;)

  200. kristina September 15, 2010 at 2:04 PM #

    Fede…I totally LOOOVE you… lol!

  201. isme September 15, 2010 at 4:52 PM #

    “one could spend all one’s time thinking about the ultimate causes of misogyny and always find another ultimate cause behind every cause, but the effects of it would remain the same”

    Oh, yes, absolutely, the why is mostly only academic. It’s just such a bizarre thing that I’m struggling to understand.

  202. skeptifem September 16, 2010 at 12:40 AM #

    Damn, this blog is good. Posts like this make me feel less alone when the assy behavior of others erodes my hope in humanity. The problem is that even if you explained what was wrong with the behavior they probably wouldn’t even understand what was being said. I flipped out on some dude at a restaurant who was doing his best job of trying to comedically explain women (on a date with A WOMAN, mind you) and fucked up my dinner. I told him so and he was genuinely confused about how what he said was sexist.

    I think all of us “pussies” should take over wyoming to escape the crowds of masculinity worshipers. Almost no one lives there, and the ones who do would be scared out of their minds if a bunch of queer types immigrated there together.

  203. William September 16, 2010 at 3:26 AM #

    Please don’t stereotype me because of my gender. I am simply a person who strives for peace and respect among all people. I am an individual who happens to have a penis. Make assumptions about my character, not my genetics.

  204. Andrew September 16, 2010 at 10:05 AM #


    There is a difference between assuming that all men share certain behavior qualities and pointing out that some behavior is more prominent in men. You avoid this error by qualifying what would otherwise be over-broad statements, which is why I agreed that what you “sed” earlier was reasonable.

    If you’d like one example of the irrationality I was referring to, look at SC’s first post. SC asserted that, despite being a man, there was no reason to hate him. He tried to “count himself out,” as you put it. This was not good enough, however, as Berryblade rejected this idea since he was a man, thus assuming that he must be part of the problem

    I am not going to comb this thread for more examples, but they are there. The problem arises where ND or the female commenters here aren’t careful to point out what behavior they really find objectionable, and instead use “men” as a proxy for all of the social ills that purportedly flow from masculinity and its supposed privilege.

    You are correct that this thread isn’t about me, but it’s not about men either. It’s about acting on beliefs of male supremacy, gender roles, domestic abuse, being treated like subhuman sex objects, and overly aggressive behavior. Oh, and some dude who was acting like a jerk. The problem is that not one of these behaviors applies to all men, or even strictly to males as a sex. Despite that, it is treated by the commenters here like it does. That is the epitome of unfairness.

    To be fair, my issue isn’t with the post. I trust ND to know the difference between broad over-generalizations and useful terms for purpose of discussion. I don’ trust every commenter here as much though, and when I see male commenters here berated simply for the fact that they are male, even when they are trying to conform to the ideal male archetype espoused here, it goes too far and damages the credibility of the whole radical feminist critique.

  205. GraceMargaret September 16, 2010 at 11:33 AM #

    When guys come here whining about how men are being treated unfairly by women or are victims of ‘reverse sexism’ it’s actually quite hilarious. Just a little taste of the news this week:

    “Mallick: A ‘bloodslide’ of honour killing”:

    “Battered spouse” defense allowed in beheading trial: http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article181295.ece

    Officials: Schoolgirls, teachers sick from poison gas:

    Female genital mutilation persists despite ban:

  206. skeptifem September 16, 2010 at 12:25 PM #

    you whiners are assholes. It is dangerous for women to assume men are nice. Let that sink in for a minute. DANGER. It isn’t a lofty academic exercise to people who live with it every day.

  207. kristina September 16, 2010 at 1:31 PM #

    Andrew..I completely understand where you are coming from..BUT you are coming in with the assumption that that is what we’re doing…painting this brush over every man… we know some men do some men don’t, but when men come in here saying we’re making assumptions it seems blatantly obvious that they are doing the same thing. We’ve already said a MILLION times if you don’t do this we’re not talking about you… Why defend something you don’t do? You are either making the assumption that we think EVERY man does this…or you are defending your privilege to do that thing… There are assumptions being made by men who come in here saying well I don’t do that… If we discuss the behaviors themselves it takes away the responsibility that needs to be held by a group, it may be an easier situation to face but it’s also easier to throw your hands in the air and say..oh well!!!

  208. Fede September 16, 2010 at 2:04 PM #


    I have read the thread. Not one male commenter has been berated for being male. Note that OutsideLO, syndicalist702, and Charlie have not had any trouble here.

    ‘Counting oneself out’, as I have referred to it, does not mean coming here and demanding to be trusted because you yourself can attest to the fact that you personally are innocent of those behaviours associated with masculinity. Counting oneself out entails proving with your actual demeanour that you are an exception to the rule. The first step to doing that is to show that your are capable of listening.

    Yes, it sucks for you to have to work that hard to be trusted, but the experiences these women have had that have led them to rationally be somewhat reserved about men suck infinitely more, brother!

    The issue of this discourse is not that some people such as airport guy act like arseholes and just happen to be male while doing so. The problem discussed here is that some people feel it is their right to act with arseholerish entitlement on the strength of being male. That is why it is important not to try to derail the discussion into one about individuals.

    When I attend public meetings where the agenda is racial discrimination, I don’t have any right to come over all defensive when someone points out, for example, that “whites treat people of colour like they are dogs”. I hope I have never treated anyone like that, but that does not mean that their complaint is not valid. And I am not entitled to be trusted implicitly for being an individual whom that POC does not know yet. If I want to get to know them in any meaningful, positive way, I had fucking well better shut the fuck up and accept that they are perfectly justified in making that assertion, because on the whole, whites do treat people of colour like they are dogs.

    Understand! Peace be onto you, my friend.

  209. lizor September 16, 2010 at 2:14 PM #

    Funny how the “good guys” who are so offended by imaginary personal slights can never figure out that maybe, just maybe, they could try to DO SOMETHING about rampant misogyny and violence against women other than coming to feminist blogs and trying to stop women from talking factually about women hating culture and behaviour.

  210. Andrew September 16, 2010 at 2:30 PM #

    Kristina (& Fede),

    We can very well agree that the broad brush painting is inadvertent, and most commenters here are generalizing for the sake of expediency. This is fair. But maybe the reason it feels different is because a lot of commenters here hold attitudes like yours, which is: “If we discuss the behaviors themselves it takes away the responsibility that needs to be held by a group.”

    I don’t believe in group responsibility. It seems nice to picture myself as a crusader for the rights of the disadvantaged, shunning my privilege or using it as a force for “good.” But what if I don’t want to? What if I am content to just leave the world alone, not harming, nor be harmed? Am I still a willing participant in your degradation because of my sex? Your attitude may not stem from an obvious overgeneralization, but it still seems vastly unfair to me for how far it extends responsibility to otherwise innocent actors, i.e., males who don’t opt-in to female subjugation.


    I agree that it might not always be helpful to complain about technicalities when obvious victims are making various points. I just thought the treatment of males as males was seeming more unfair than usual, and I spoke up. There might be very good reasons for victims to distrust individuals who belong to groups that oppress them. Where we are discussing policies, however, we should approach situations like rational actors who, presumably, take ideals like fairness for everyone into account.

    In short, just because victims have good reasons for hating their oppressors, it does not make them excellent arbiters of policy choices. As a result, when someone says “Men are X, so we should do Y,” their logic probably fails since men are not all likely “X.”

    Anyway, again, I feel like I’ve been allowed to make my point. Out of respect for everyone else I won’t comment anymore on this issue.

  211. Fede September 16, 2010 at 2:38 PM #

    Exactly, GraceMargaret.

    The idea of ‘reverse sexism’ is as (oxy)moronic as that of ‘reverse racism’. With unlevel playing fields, it is not possible for the underdog to oppress those in power.

    The insistence by those blind to their own privilege that everyone must act as if the playing fields were level would be laughable if it wasn’t so exasperating.

  212. Fede September 16, 2010 at 2:58 PM #

    Hi, Kristina! Thanks for your kind words earlier, hehe.

    And you bring up an important point: the responsibility that needs to be held by a group. Quite right!

    Not in the sense, of course, that every individual man should be punished for what other men have done; but in the sense that patriarchal society has granted human status to men and not to women – whether the individual man wanted that or not.

    For men to act as if this is not the case, and to require of others that they become equally willfully blind to the slant of the playing field is not the way to deal with that, at least not if we have a dream about the sexes beginning to get along better.

  213. OutsideLookingOver September 16, 2010 at 3:41 PM #

    I’ve noticed something fairly interesting. Neither Andrew or Martin or any of the other blokes seem to want to address my points with me directly. There are several possible reasons for that:
    1. they know they cannot directly confront my points with a countering point that has any weight
    2. I’m transsexual, so I’m dismissed as beneath contempt and not worth talking to. This is my life experience… it is easier to be gay than transsexual. So be it: gotta just pull the big-girl knickers on and get on with it.
    3. I’m genetically male, and so they don’t want to talk to *me* because of my gender, because I can’t be persuaded. HUGELY insulting, but not to me: to women. Because, they don’t realise they are invoking a classic male-privilege dynamic: “with my superior intelligence I will persuade you that I am right.” This is a form of male privilege that I find the most insidious and yet very, very common. Andrew hides his feeble points in superfluous verbiage which he hopes – through sheer volume of words – his points will attain some sort of validity. Which is so bogus… and you really think these women are going to fall for this? And can’t you see just how *this* very behaviour put you smack-dab in the middle of the ranks of those males you claim you’re not part of?

    It’s like I said: when you *have* the privilege, you can’t *see* the privilege for what it is. And you won’t *see* when you unwittingly take advantage of that privilege.
    Nope, can’t persuade me, bud. I see right through it.

  214. kristina September 16, 2010 at 6:21 PM #

    Andrew said:
    “I don’t believe in group responsibility. It seems nice to picture myself as a crusader for the rights of the disadvantaged, shunning my privilege or using it as a force for “good.” But what if I don’t want to? What if I am content to just leave the world alone, not harming, nor be harmed? Am I still a willing participant in your degradation because of my sex?”

    If people didn’t take responsibility as a group, nothing would be accomplished FOR the group. If you don’t want to, that is your decision, but it smacks of “privilege”…it’s saying that YOU are more important than group men AND group women. Are you still a willing participant??? I can’t make that assertion on the individual level that you presented that you are “willing”, but if we’re talking about the “greater good”…like I assert, then I’d have to say yes, and not that it makes you a bad person in an individual perception (like yours and others close to you who are able to see your good qualities), but when considering the “good” of others it can make your perception of what is good problematic.

  215. Bluecat September 16, 2010 at 7:00 PM #

    What if I am content to just leave the world alone, not harming, nor be harmed? Am I still a willing participant in your degradation because of my sex?

    “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” -Edmund Burke

  216. Fede September 16, 2010 at 7:09 PM #

    What is meant by group responsibility is that you do not operate in a vacuum, Andrew, William, Martin, etc. Say it with me: *I do not operate in a vacuum!*

    It is hugely naive of you to think you do. You belong to a group that holds privilege over women. You are born into that group. The *only* positive thing you can do about that is to be an ally to women and work hard not to intentionally or unintentionally abuse the power you have.

    Andrew sez: “shunning my privilege or using it as a force for “good.” But what if I don’t want to?”
    I sez: Then you are an enemy to women and cannot expect to be treated as anything but.

    Nothing a man does in the company of women is politically neutral. You can’t just pretend there is no power differential between you and the women you encounter. There is, whether you like it or not. What you do with it is what makes you either an oppressor or an ally. But you cannot be neutral here, because you wield a power that women don’t have.

    Ignoring patriarchy does not make it go away.

  217. Fede September 16, 2010 at 8:00 PM #

    Andrew, you addressed me so I will answer a couple of points, even if you are in fact serious this time about not commenting any more on this issue.

    First off, I can see that logic is not your strong suit. No arguments have been put forward of the form “Men are X, so we should do Y.”

    You imply that we are discussing policy. This is your contention alone. Just like you would have us believe that “this thread isn’t about me, but it’s not about men either.” You are wrong on both counts. We are not in fact discussing polic