The Darling Effect

I watched a BBC segment about sexism against men. The panel featured several feminists and non-feminists, including Milo Yiannopolous. It is an amazing thing to watch.

Despite the segment being about men and their issues, the feminists refused to allow any of the men to speak. They frequently interrupted the men, dismissing the men’s opinions about their own experiences while telling the men what it was they were actually experiencing. Of course, the feminists also followed this with a large helping of “women have it worse.”

What I found hilarious was the general condescending tone most of the feminists used. They came across as if they were doing men a favor by even listening to them. Sargon of Akkad has a fantastic take down of the round table, and he repeatedly makes the same point. Continue reading

The Shaming of a “Feminazi”

Jessica Valenti wrote another article about why feminists do not hate men but if they did it would not matter. I am not going to link to it. That is not only because I have no desire to fall for her click bait, but also because I found something funnier.

Rush Limbaugh coined the term “feminazi” years ago during one of his (I assume) drug-fueled rants. It is not a term I favor as it fails to properly convey the idiocy, ineptitude, and perpetual victim mentality of modern feminism. However, I must give Limbaugh some credit (and yes, I just spat for having even written those words): it actually does not take much to make feminists sounds like Nazis.

Some wonderful men’s rights activist got the idea to run Valenti’s “I don’t hate men but I really do” article through a Firefox add-on and replaced every mention of “men” with “Jew” and feminist with “Aryan.” The result: Continue reading

Thank you for stating the obvious

Originally posted on September 30, 2013

A University of Toronto research team found that activists who aggressively promote their agenda prompt others to hold negative opinions about them:

Why don’t people behave in more environmentally friendly ways? New research presents one uncomfortable answer: They don’t want to be associated with environmentalists.

That’s the conclusion of troubling new research from Canada, which similarly finds support for feminist goals is hampered by a dislike of feminists.

Participants held strongly negative stereotypes about such activists, and those feelings reduced their willingness “to adopt the behaviors that these activities promoted,” reports a research team led by University of Toronto psychologist Nadia Bashir. This surprisingly cruel caricaturing, the researchers conclude, plays “a key role in creating resistance to social change.”

Did we really need a battery of studies to tell us this? Is it not obvious that the more hostile and militant the group, the more likely people will want nothing to do with them? Continue reading

A little bit of funny

I stumbled on this video a few minutes ago while looking up web comics to read. It is a spectacular take down of the complaints some feminists make about the gaming community.

I think this tactic would have been the better choice for the Penny Arcade guys to have taken rather than the “Team Dickwolves” shirts, although I did find that tactic funny as well.

Looking through the pinhole

One of the major issues between feminists and non-feminists is the feminist perspective. Feminists tend to view things through their ideological worldview, resulting in a limited understanding of social problems. This results in conflict with non-feminists because those people do not view the world the same way, and feminists tend not to be inclined to consider the other side’s positions.

This dynamic is particularly apparent when it comes to men’s issues. As John Anderson asked, “Why is it when something affects women it’s viewed as a societal issue requiring societal solutions, but when something negatively affects men it’s viewed as a personal failure requiring each individual man to correct his behaviour?”

HeatherN of The Good Men Project offered an answer:

In the fifth episode of the new Starz series Da Vinci’s Demons, we find out out that da Vinci’s love interest, Lucrezia, is being forced to spy on the Renaissance man. She very explicitly states that she is not acting of her own free will, and that she has no choice but to follow her orders. It so happens that the person to whom she says this is also under very explicit orders regarding what he’s supposed to do to da Vinci. However, he disregards his orders and decides on his own course of action.

There are many other examples of this type of scenario, particularly in our entertainment and media. A woman is forced into a situation in which she has no choice but to do what she’s told, while a man is forced in a very similar situation but entertains more freedom of choice. Think of just about every arranged marriage depicted on television, ever. The point I’m trying to make is that it’s patriarchy which denies women’s agency and decision making abilities. Patriarchal systems assume women are docile and unable to do things for themselves and therefore they are more susceptible to outside influence. Patriarchal systems place pressure on men to always be in control of their lives and assume that when something negative happens to a man, it’s his fault. That is all part of patriarchy.

Continue reading