Why Do People Hate Feminism?

Sargon of Akkad has an excellent video series on the reasons why people take issue with feminism. He presents a thorough explanation of the problems within feminism as an ideology and with its adherents. Some feminists may object to Sargon’s tone, however, he comes across as fair. He does not paint all feminists as the Borg. He acknowledges that different feminists think different things. Yet he also notes that the voices we hear tend to come from the authoritarian, anti-male element of the movement.

This is an ongoing series, so as Sargon uploads videos I will add them to this page. Continue reading

Advertisements

When #MeToo becomes #NotYou

As is true with most feminist-driven hashtags, it was only a matter of time before the #Metoo hashtag became an attack on men. The hashtag gained prominence after actress Alyssa Milano tweeted using it. The hashtag went viral, although given how political Twitter has become, it is possible that those running Twitter simply boosted the hashtag to the top of the list.

Regardless of that, the hashtag prompted numerous women to write about their experiences of harassment and sexual violence. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. What makes it peculiar is that this comes in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein fall-out. One would think the focus would center on the people Weinstein and other powerful Hollywood moguls abused. Instead, the focus shifted to talking about random instances of butt-grabbing and cat-calling.

As the hashtag became more popular, the feminists moved in and quickly shifted the focus to men. According to those feminists, men need to listen and believe and change their ways because of the “proof” the #MeToo provided of how much sexual violence women face.

Men were told to they needed to challenge their own sexist, abusive behavior, regardless of whether they have ever acted in such a way. They were encouraged to tweet #IDidThat and #HimThough in solidarity to women — and only women — who faced sexual violence.

Men were reminded that “It Was You” and told, after so many articles encouraging men to use solidarity hashtags, that hashtags were not good enough. Continue reading

Jody Allard reveals feminism’s true abusive colors

Jody Allard is back. For those who do not recall, Allard wrote an article in 2016 titled My teen boys are blind to rape culture. Allard argued in the article that despite all her efforts as a good feminist single mother, her two teenage sons are riddled with misogyny. Instead of taking heed of Allard’s demands that they check their privilege, stop their internalized misogyny, and challenge their friends who deal in “rape culture”, the boys laughed her off.

Any reasonable parent would look at that response and reflect on their own behavior. They would ask themselves why this approach did not work. They would ask why their children reject the very foundation of their parent’s identity and political beliefs.

Allard, however, is not a reasonable parent. She is a narcissistic, passive-aggressive, sociopathic ideologue, and so she does what anyone so mentally deranged would do: blame and publicly humiliate her sons. Again. For the fourth time. Here is the title of her most recent article:

I’m Done Pretending Men Are Safe (Even My Sons)

Think of what type of person you must be to write something so vicious about your own sons. Think about how warped your mind must be to in one breath say that your sons are good and in the next accuse them of being rapists. Because that is what Allard did. You need not take my word for it. Take Allard’s: Continue reading

Why the left became ban happy

I suppose one could argue about generalizations. Yes, not all people on the left want to censor the opposing side. However, it does appear that most of the current voices attempting to censor are on the left. It also appears that while those speaking may represent a small group of people, a significant portion of the left as a group does not seem to have a problem with the attempted censorship.

We are seeing the attitude appear in every sphere, from the news to entertainment. Look at the situation with Cassie Jaye and her film The Red Pill. Feminists have successfully blocked its showing at several theaters, despite that most, if any, of those objecting to the film have never watched it. They are blocking not based on its content, but based on their feelings about what they assume the film discusses.

We can see this within the comic book industry, where several covers were pulled or replaced because of complaints from the left. This has happened in the video game industry, which led in part to Gamergate. The most recent instance occurred a few days ago at E3. This attitude has even made its way into the news, an outlet that is supposed to be unbiased, yet proves highly partisan.

So I think it is worth asking what is going on with modern liberalism that makes its adherents so inclined to this behavior. Continue reading

How not to conduct an interview

One of the first rules of journalism is to know about your subject before interviewing them. No journalist wants to appear ignorant of the basic facts about a person, particularly when that information is easily acquired.

Another important rule is to respect the subject. Obviously this will not apply to everyone. Sometimes a journalist may need to be confrontational. In most cases, however, there is no need to badger the subject. Respect garners better interviews than disrespect.

Those two basic rules escaped the hosts of an Australian morning talk show: Continue reading

Phallic Affect, or Why Men’s Rights Activists Have Feelings

Youtuber TL;DR released a video recently concerning an intriguing paper called Phallic Affect, or Why Men’s Rights Activists Have Feelings. A one Jonathan A. Allan wrote the paper. Allan is the Canada research chair in Queer Theory and Associate Professor in Gender and Women’s Studies and English and Creative Writing at Brandon University. He is the author of works such as Virgin Envy: The Cultural (In)Significance of the Hymen and Reading from Behind: A Cultural Analysis of the Anus. He is also the vice-president of the American Men’s Studies Association.

Given such stellar credentials, it is not surprising that a substantial portion of Allan’s work focuses on criticizing masculinity as bad or toxic. In his paper Phallic Affect, Allan argues that men’s rights activists have co-oped the language of feminists in regards to the personal is political. Feminists contend that a woman’s feelings on a matter are important and validate her concerns, even if the evidence suggests her concerns are unwarranted. This usually manifests as “the personal is political” or “listen and believe” or “feels equal reals”.

Allan, however, does not think the men’s rights movement has any legitimate grievances. Continue reading

Feminist proves MRAs have a point by trying to disprove that point: Part 2

This is a continuation of my previous post about Suzzanah Weiss’s article in which she explains where men’s rights activists go wrong in their arguments by ironically proving their arguments. Here we go:

2. Fathers Are as Important as Mothers

Another common men’s rights issue is child custody and, more generally, men’s ability to play as active a role in the family as women do.

Feminists totally agree with this as well. Everyone should have a choice regarding what role they play in the family, and their a/gender shouldn’t factor into that.

That is an interesting position given that feminists either ignore or oppose efforts to increase father’s roles in their children’s lives. For example, the National Organization for Women opposes shared parenting laws, claiming that they give abusive men access to their victims.

Feminist organizations pushed for government-funded family programs that often exclude fathers as potential beneficiaries. Family courts routinely grant custody to mothers, even in cases in which the fathers are the primary caregivers. Child support laws appear gender neutral, yet they are applied primarily to fathers. Noncustodial fathers often receive limited contact with their children, which is subject to change at the mother’s request. Yet rather than supporting fathers in their attempt to address this bias, feminists claim that the bias is a myth concocted by bitter men and sexist men’s rights activists.

In fact, having more equal households benefits people of all a/genders. In relationships between men and women, for example, women whose male partners are helping out around the house are more able to prioritize their careers.

That has nothing to do with recognizing the roles fathers play in their children’s lives. Rather, it prioritizes women’s desires over fathers’ importance. It also assumes that men do nothing in their homes or that want they do matters less than what women do.

But men’s smaller role in the household is also not evidence that they’re oppressed.

The argument about oppression does not come from men’s role in the household, but how they are treated when it comes to custody issues. Men are held financially responsible, yet treated as physically negligible regardless of the clear importance to their children’s lives. When both parents agree to a particular arrangement, say that the father will work and the mother will stay home with the children, this equal decision is flipped on men during separations or divorces and used against them. Now they can be shut out of their children’s lives, lose a significant among of their pay check, and face mounting legal bills because of the “sacrifices” the woman made to stay at home. Continue reading