Let’s look at the issue of female nudity. I imagine that most readers would have observed the naked female form, both in real real life and by way of advertising material and pornography. Indeed, the nude or partially nude images of many thousands of women and girls can be encountered in various forms of media. Most of these images were provided with consent, and often on the basis of financial compensation.
Readers would also likely be familiar with activist groups such as FEMEN, PETA and Pussy Riot, who routinely employ nude or partially nude females ostensibly to advance their political agendas. We might then add various events/memes such as #FreeTheNipple and #Slutwalk.
The Wikipedia entry for ‘Feminist views of Pornography‘ states that “pornography has been one of the most divisive issues in feminism”, and provides a general introduction to the issue.
As to whether the sale and/or public display of female nudity is empowering or oppressive, the answer seems to be “it depends”. Obviously it depends on who you ask. It also depends on the gender of the person asking the question, being viewed or doing the viewing. It depends on what is going through the viewers mind. And so on. The universal exception is material at the far end of the spectrum, particularly images of minors or those obtained surreptitiously and/or without consent.
Some feminists are on record as stating that women who make a living from selling nude photos of themselves and/or performing in pornographic films and/or working as prostitutes, are empowered. Many in this group identify themselves as ‘sex-positive feminists‘.
Many other feminists, however, argue that such behaviour is harmful to women, and that it promotes and/or facilitates violence against women. As a consequence many demand stricter censorship of pornography, whilst other feminists are both anti-pornography and anti-censorship.
(And yet even anti-pornography feminists manage to accommodate their proclivities via strategies such as creating a distinction between ‘pornography’ and female-friendly ‘erotica’.)
Many of these feminists have suggested that women involved in the sex industry do so as a result of earlier emotional damage inflicted by way, for example, of child abuse combined with economic and educational disadvantage.
The only area where the disparate tribes of feminism come close to speaking with one voice is when it comes to condemning men who view pornography or purchase sexual services from women. Such men are portrayed as misogynists partaking in a form of patriarchal oppression, or even violence against women.
As a consequence feminists in various jurisdictions have lobbied for changes to laws that would see the selling of sexual services by women decriminalised, whilst making the purchasing of sexual services by men a crime. But again, even with this issue there are some differences in feminist opinion.
Feminists tend to remain silent on this issue of women purchasing sexual services. Quelle surprise.
Stars’ wildest Met Gala afterparty looks (8 May 2024) Just after the boys at Yarra Valley Grammar School were vilified for a webpage that objectified girls, here are some young women doing it for themselves.
“Polska, who regularly posts videos of herself wearing low-cut dresses for her army of fans, explained: “My friend Tootatis and I were prevented from entering this restaurant because of our cleavage.”” -> Air-head
Mum, daughter forced out of supermarket for ‘inappropriate’ crop tops (16 June 2020) UK. I am sick to death of oft-repeated media items like this one. Wear what you like on the beach, but if you can’t bring yourself to cover your pallid flesh in other public places then use the home delivery services provided by most supermarkets.
“The situation she is in is undoubtedly traumatising. This is just like with rape”. Except there is nothing to indicate she was coerced into the performance, and of course there is no way she actually got off on it is there? Because … feminism + prudishness
No, the internet is not actually stealing kids’ innocence (25 July 2017) Religiously avoids mention of any factors dear to the feminist hive-mind. Mentions causality/correlation issue – lol – never mentioned by feminist researchers looking at, for eg. gender quotas in business, wage gap, etc.
“In terms of identifying causes, we should ask why the finger of blame is always pointed at the media rather than other likely causes (including violence against women, or problems linked to growing inequality or precarity)”
Gonzo: we need to talk about young men and porn (23 September 2016) Maddening gender bias in this article in pro-feminist discussion forum The Conversation. They admit the relationship between viewing pornography and violence against women is hotly disputed and call for a nuanced approach, which suggests some degree of objectivity on the issue. But all the while the author happily ignores the issue of girls viewing pornography, and the possible effects of that on both males and females.
Gender hypocrisy in porn debate (25 September 2013) This article has interesting things to say about the real source of concern regarding men’s access to pornography, which differs from their publicly stated concerns. The same article was reproduced in the AVfM web site with readers comments (some quite funny)
Children accessing porn: Schools battle to deal with consequences (22 July 2016) Australia. Typical of media coverage of this issue, this article alternates between use the terms “children” and “boys” to suit the narrative. It ignores the involvement of girls except as victims of boys, and the affect that their exposure/involvement has on their attitudes/relationships with others.
One relatively recent phenomenon that I find curious is the declining popularity of going topless at the beach. This article about young women in France suggests that the trend is the result of a return to conservative and family values. The situation in Canada (BC) is discussed here. This article and this article suggest that women are now shunning topless bathing as a result of the availability of digital cameras, but this article says its because women are uncomfortable with men ogling them. I disagree with these explanations.
Alternatively, this article and this article blame the lessening popularity of topless bathing on womens insecurity regarding their bodies. Some cynics have even suggested that women are avoiding going topless as by doing so they ‘devalue the currency‘ (reduce their ability to use sexual leverage against men).
Feminists, in theory at least, should support toplessness with regards to their stated aim of gender equality. With the exception of Sweden they have, however, been generally subdued on the issue.
Sorry, but after reading the often contradictory messages in the above papers … well to the average guy like me the issue seems like a moveable feast of hypocrisy and nonsense. And when it comes to pro-feminist groups using nudity to get publicity advance their philosophical position, I’d go so far as to say it’s even a little infantile. As and when my BS meter stops buzzing so loudly I’ll revisit this post and endeavour to add more thoughtful comment and analysis.
‘Sunrise‘ is a popular Australian morning TV show. In an earlier post I discussed how team members of that show incensed feminists by standing up for themselves after a scathing article appeared in a pro-feminist web site.
Well a female member of the ‘Sunrise’ team, Natalie Barr, has now poked the feminist hornets nest again by writing an article in the Daily Telegraph newspaper highlighting the trend of women to blame men for problems they encountered in their lives – particularly at work. A related segment appeared on the ‘Sunrise’ show on the day the article was published (20 March 2014).
It is pleasing to note how many of the comments submitted by readers (both male and female alike) were supportive of what Nat had to say. Despite this it was still evident that further supportive comments never saw the light of day due to overly-enthusiastic vetting. I myself attempted to contribute about half a dozen comments to the online discussion, and I think the final score was two posted and four disappeared.
Of those opposed to what Natalie said, the typical responses were:
“well, that’s just your opinion” OR “so what if you have never experienced discrimination, you’re just one person”
“feminism isn’t about hating men” OR “standing up to discrimination isn’t the same as men-hating”
“how can you possibly say that there is no discrimination?” (Nat didn’t) OR “you can’t speak for all women” (she never said she did)
Those that sought to provide ‘proof’ that gender discrimination was commonplace (with of course women as victims) invariably relied upon that hoary old feminist chestnut, the male/female wage gap.
In another web site ‘Carli‘ described her disgust at those expressing support for Natalie Barr’s perspective in the following manner:
“… too many important issues being trivialised and too many bottom feeders feeling empowered … “
And here is a sampling of the other, predictably haughty & incensed, feminist response that followed:
http://thehoopla.com.au/hating-men-ms-barr/ (This includes a video showing a panel of feminists – including the obligatory mangina – to simulate the appearance of a balanced perspective – attacking Natalie’s position)
Several hundred comments were also added to the ‘Sunrise’ Facebook page (scroll to 19 March 2014), as well as many tweets to Nat Barr’s Twitter account.
Again the message is oh so clear, “don’t you dare say anything that runs contrary to feminist dogma, or else we’ll get you!” Indeed the article in ‘The Hoopla’ includes the statement:
“… all that is wrong with Barr’s pretty unhelpful contribution to the feminist debate”
Poor choice of words, I reckon they probably meant to say ‘monologue’ rather than “debate”, because in a debate people are expected to put forward alternate views and engage in open discussion – with no points awarded for shaming. Kind of like hell for feminists.
Reading the comments that attacked Nat’s position on discrimination, it is clear that many of the contributors are either woefully ignorant or in a state of serious denial about the misandric aspects of contemporary feminism. They simply can’t, don’t or won’t recognise the gap between the warm fuzzy inclusive variety of feminism that exists only within their own well-coiffed heads, and the reality of what connected feminists are actually saying and doing.
As I discussed in another post within this blog, feminists often display a generous measure of spitefulness and intolerance towards those who don’t share their jaundiced view of the world. The degree of loathing demonstrated seems to depend in part on where people rank in the following list (with one being most loathed):
Female men’s rights activists
Male men’s rights activists
Female celebrities who openly refuse to be labelled as feminists (example: Salma Hayek)
Other women who openly refuse to be labelled as feminists (see this post and here)
I don’t recall having seen the term ‘gender traitor’ used within a men’s rights web site or forum. Nevertheless, when I googled that term, for some reason I half expected to bring up a list of sites towards the harsher fringes of the so-called ‘Manosphere’. Perhaps this is a hang-over from all those long years of gynocentric brain-washing that I’ve endured.
No, what I found instead was sites where the term ‘gender traitor’ was used by feminist women … sites such as these:
Interestingly also, when I review the search terms that people use to find my blog, I’ve noted several examples like “Erin Pizzey traitor” or “Karen Straughan traitor” (these being well-known men’s rights activists). And just recently an Australian journalist, Corrine Barraclough, was accused of being a traitor after calling for a gender-neutral approach to domestic violence.
This use of ‘gender traitor’ and other similar terms conflicts with this statement by a feminist writer: “Interesting that feminists do not have a derogatory word for women who are not active in their movement. Maybe men could just respect each other’s opinions and win minds with logic.”
Maybe that writer should google-search on the term ‘pick-me’, which is used to try to deride women who either support or are sympathetic to, one or more men’s rights issues.
Unbelievably, the term ‘simp‘ has even come to the attention of the US Dept of Homeland Security who state in a March 2024 report about the perceived dangers of the manosphere, that:
“A disconcerting trend has surfaced within the manosphere… where men proudly proclaim to “stop simping.” ‘Simp’ is sometimes used as a derogatory term to troll men who extend positive expression or behavior towards women, particularly kindness.” (Source)
Whilst browsing social media and the WWW, two other terms likely to be encountered are ‘White Knight’ and ‘Mangina’. These terms tend, however, to be used with more of a sense of bemusement or mild disgust, rather than white hot anger. It is important to note also, that neither term are used in a blanket sense, i.e. to refer to all men who don’t support the men’s rights agenda. And in fact, many within the men’s rights movement reject the use of the term ‘mangina’ entirely, seeing it as inherently misogynistic.
White Knights are mainly driven by a sense of chivalry, impulsively responding to the impromptu cultural cue of a ‘damsel in distress’. Often white knights are largely ignorant of the nature of both feminism and the men’s rights movement. The historical derivation of the concept of a White Knight is discussed in this blog post.
Here is a recent example of ‘White Knight’ behaviour. Whilst I respect Ian Chappell as a person, his suggestion that cricketer Chris Gayle be banned from playing is an absurdly ‘over-the-top’ response to a relatively benign misdemeanour.
Whereas ‘white knights’ can be ingenues in the context of the gender debate, manginas are active and informed. Manginas often consider themselves to be feminists. They are frequently wilfuly persistent in seeking out opportunities to compromise the efforts of those wishing to advance particular objectives of the men’s rights movement and/or counter aspects of feminist ideology.
This is the way one fellow explained the difference between the two:
“A white knight is a man who will mindlessly defend a woman even when she is in the wrong, particularly if he does it out a misguided hope of impressing women with his honor. White knights are not necessarily feminists; they may be traditionalists as well. Women, not just feminists, will manipulate white knights into attacking other men for their own ends (or even just amusement).
A mangina is a man who has embraced the misandry of radical feminism and uses it to denigrate and smear other men in a pathetic attempt to make himself look better by comparison or to specifically curry the favor of feminist women.
A white knight will attack you physically, a mangina will just accuse you of being an exemplar of toxic masculinity. A white knight may be a very masculine man, a mangina never is.” (Source)
Change Makers, Indoctrination for Australian men seeking help in becoming a suitably compliant puppy in the workplace (December 2022) And no, there’s no equivalent training available for women
Male feminist, Jason Dion Bews, assaults female reporter then women cover his escape into the crowd (24 January 2017) Canada. Will this practice, feminists employing male muscle to fight their fights, become more common? If they get caught, meh, disavow & blame toxic masculinity!
The gendered nature of trolling, by Cory Zanoni (7 October 2016) An example of a mangina in action, employed by a web site widely-recognised for the degree of gender bias which it practices (example).
‘Fembot’ is a term used to describe a robot with the outward appearance of a female human, the Wikipedia entry for which can be found here.
Some time ago I saw a peculiar documentary in which one of the people being interviewed was a guy who had a life-size plastic girlfriend. He referred to women as either “organics” or “synthetics”. He preferred synthetics. Well, OK, whatever floats your boat I guess. But this guy’s girlfriend has nothing on what’s just around the corner, as discussed in this article.
One would imagine though, that only a small percentage of men (or women) would be content with a robot as a partner. Fembots are thus unlikely to completely replace the need for human companionship. What they will do however, possibly in conjunction with virtual reality technology, is increasingly provide a fuss-free outlet for the human libido.
I wonder how the emergence and growing popularity of fembots might alter the status quo with regards to various aspects of the gender debate? To what extent, for example, will fembots alter or replace conventional dating/marriage, facilitate a MGTOW lifestyle, or undermine the so-called ‘pussy cartel‘?
I suspect that most feminists would consider a world in which fembots were plentiful as a paradise for misogynists. Indeed, the Wiki definition linked above includes reference to the term ‘misogyny’. The entry for the term ‘dildo‘ neglects to mention the term ‘misandry’ … yet another double standard. (More on that perspective here)
And as sure as god made little green apples there is already a feminist push-back involving calls for bans or controls on the development, production and sale of fembots (refer examples here, here, and here).
One particular strategy being pursuing is to create an association between fembots and pedophilia. They are doing so by, for example, creating the impression that a surge in the sale of child-like sex robots is underway:
[Allow me to digress for a moment … Artificial intelligence (AI) may or may not not pose a significant danger to humankind (example). It’s just that, within that broader context, the relative significance of some nexus between humanoids and how men treat women amounts to little more than navel lint-picking. Ditto for manufactured debates as to whether robots should be accorded rights or protections in relation to, for example, sexual functions. Indeed such debates and attendant policy responses, whether they be genuine or simply disguised attempts to control male sexuality, could be exploited by machines with AI to move against humans. Think this is science fiction? Well, we will see soon enough.]
Back now to the gender debate … Ever heard the observation that less attractive women tend to have the best personalities? The idea is that physically unattractive people tend to work harder at developing other appealing attributes. Many women overtly use their sexuality to attract mates and subsequently extract various advantages. Their sexuality is like a strong perfume that covers all manner of odious traits like bad manners, selfishness, and dishonesty.
Now imagine a world where men had an alternative and readily available outlet to satisfy their sexual needs. One that lacked some of the attributes of human company, but had none of the negative features (e.g. the threat of false accusations, financial abuse, paternity fraud, domestic violence, etc).
To some extent, and I know it seems a bit of a stretch at this stage, all women would find themselves on more of a level playing-field with regards to physical attractiveness. Heterosexual men would be more inclined to place greater value on non-sexual attributes of women, just as in the case of homosexual guys [in their dealings with women] do now. Women who had little to offer other than sex appeal might well find themselves somewhat devalued in the dating marketplace, if not shunned entirely by many men.
Such a situation could in fact be quite liberating and a win/win for many women, given that pressure for sex would be somewhat reduced. Just as women (well, those who valued male company at least) would have a heightened incentive to be the best person they could be, so too men might be freer to engage and express themselves in a non-sexual sense.
AI influencer has thousands of followers on social media (26 July 2023) Instead of simply photoshopping models’ faces to meet unrealistic beauty standards, creating fake models might erase the need for models altogether. ROFL
The scariest part is dating AI will obliterate people’s ability to conflict resolve with a real human – or even love a real human.
The AI will learn how to never upset you and will infinitely appease in order to serve its purpose of you not cancelling your paid subscription. $$ https://t.co/iJQJsh8tSM
“Ms Roper cited research from the Australian Institute of Criminology, which concluded there was no evidence these products prevented child sexual abuse. Instead, they present a risk of escalation and may actually increase the likelihood of child sexual abuse, she said.” And so that research demonstrates such evidence? (To be reviewed assuming I can find the results of the study. This is the only related study I can see at the moment.)
My fake conversation with a sex robot (16 June 2018) The left crowd of the mainstream media try to get their heads around the fembot phenomenon in yet another version of the never-ending “Where have all the good men gone?” story theme.
Sex robots spark rise of men who will only sleep with dolls (28 November 2017) Note the conversation steered away from WHY men might prefer fembots, with implication that it’s due only to some unspecified male moral and/or mental failing.
Toothpaste? Check. Soap? Check. Vibrator? Check (14 December 2016) Another article demonstrating the prevailing mindset of celebrating/idealising female sexuality versus demonising male sexuality.
An article in ‘Salon’ about male sex toys (11 April 2016) Female author seems oblivious to the fact that men might want such devices as an alternative to a female partner, rather than as an add-on
Sexbots: Why women should panic (16 September 2015) Another great article from Milo Y – he really nails the subject. And > 1,000 readers comments already
According to Wikipedia, “Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.”
Thus feminism has many tribes holding contrary views on a number of significant issues, as portrayed in the chart below. Further details regarding different forms of feminism can be found here.
The vast majority of feminists active in both social media and in lobbying government for policy change are at home on the right hand side of this chart. This group includes Jessica Valenti (pictured right) and Anita Sarkissian. These feminists are by far the most problematic in the context of the sorts of issues discussed in this blog.
Nevertheless, the feminist hierarchy has no qualms about claiming to be the font of wisdom with regards to what (all) women want and how they should live their lives. Indeed the feminist’s sense of superiority knows no bounds, and they believe themselves to be equally well-qualified to lecture on how men think, and should live their lives.
When challenged in public debate, feminists are often quick to state that feminism is not about hating men. When confronted with hate-filled statements by prominent feminist spokespersons they then shift to the NAFALT (‘not all feminists are like that’) strategy. Yet how often does one hear feminists directly engaging with, and you know … actually rebuking, these alleged outliers within their movement? Umm, rarely? never?
As various posts in this blog demonstrate, although feminists nominate equality as their primary goal they vigorously pursue policies which create or maintain inequality, even going so far as to obstruct the efforts of others seeking to foster equality. Feminists compound their duplicity by using all available means to stifle and silence those holding opposing views, rather than engaging in open and positive dialogue.
There can be little scope for mutual respect and co-operation given that the bulk of feminists choose to position the male half of the population on a spectrum the ends of which are marked by indifference and loathing.
“Aw, come on ladies! Fuck this “equality” bullshit. I don’t want equality. I want some fucking LIBERATION! … Equality with men implies men are the standard. Fuck that bullshit. Men are the fucking oppressors! I want liberation from male oppression!” (Source)
As with very many others interested in men’s issues, I was originally very sympathetic towards the feminist message. Have you ever asked a feminist what reading she has done about male rights and male issues? I have, and I can almost guarantee that they will look at you as if you asked them if they could speak dog language. Having uncovered a surfeit of lies, hypocrisy and double-standards by that stage, this was the last straw for me.
Thus it finally dawned on me that most feminists believe that the only role for men in ‘their’ cause is to submit and be silent. This is clear in much of the material written by feminists, for example this article and the readers comments that follow.
Men are required to educate themselves about feminist concepts in order to (partially) redeem ourselves, or at least to do as we are told. There is no corresponding expectation on women, presumably as the male perspective is deemed to be so barren that we have no useful insights to impart. And in just one of their many feats of breathtaking hypocrisy, whilst feminists exaggerate the flaws evident in some men they studiously ignore the weaknesses and/or transgressions of many women.
Feminists promote the idea that women were utterly downtrodden before feminism arrived. In fact they have gone further and re-written history to support their belief in a patriarchy. This is explored in these papers: ‘Did men really have all the power throughout history?‘ and ‘Feminism against historical women‘. Yet still it doesn’t end there, as feminists:
usually opt to attack their critics rather than deal with the actual issues that they raise
persistently and blatantly misrepresent the position of their detractors
wilfully misrepresent reality in order to support their position, for example through the use of bogus statistics
wilfully misrepresent themselves as the natural spokespeople for women although most women choose not to identify themselves as feminists and/or are opposed to feminist doctrine
are hypocrites in decrying bigotry and sexism whilst pursuing an agenda based around such policies
These are symptoms of a movement that now has big issues in terms of its relevancy and credibility. These are symptoms of a movement whose net effect is increasingly one which threatens social cohesion and exacerbates pressing social problems.
This 2015 article stated that only 18% of Americans consider themselves to be feminists, although 85% are in favour of equality for women.
Feminism has devolved into what is essentially a powerful fundamentalistcabal of privileged white western women. These people have manufactured an industry instilling a heady brew of victimhood and entitlement to generate substantial personal benefit for its main players, whilst offering perhaps the last remaining state-sanctioned outlet for bigoted self-expression. Indeed some would go further and assert that feminism displays many of the characteristics of a cult – see how many points of likeness you can tick off on this list. The ‘redstockings manifesto‘ is a piece of feminist history about which most current-day feminists would have no knowledge, yet its doctrine still lies at the heart of what empowered feminists are doing in the here and now.
This June 2014 blog post by Ben Cobley looks at feminism from a left-wing political perspective. It’s quite heavy reading for those not into political theory but interesting and worth the effort.
Pierce Harlan has written an excellent article comparing the approach by feminists towards the treatment of those accused of rape with the lynch mobs of the American deep south.
“What I would like to add is that feminism, as a unique philosophy, does not do any favors to those that it claims to represent, for it puts women on the level of a vindictive battle, and a woman is much more than that,” the pope wrote. “The feminist campaign of the ’20s achieved what it wanted and it is over, but a constant feminist philosophy does not give women the dignity that they deserve. As a caricature, I would say that it runs the risk of becoming chauvinism with skirts.”
More from Pope Francis on the issue of gender differences here.
Feminism has now devolved to the point that using pre-pubescent girls in expletive-laden videos to further their cause is not only seen as appropriate, but as edgy and cool. (See critiques here and here). There is now a second video by the same producers, the main theme of which is domestic violence. A further example of the inappropriate use of children to bang the feminist drum is discussed here.
John the Other defined feminism thus: ”A doctrine built on the pre-supposition of victimhood of women by men as a foundation of female identity. In its goals is always the utilization of the state to forcibly redress this claimed victimization. In other words, the proxy use of violence and wealth appropriation. In whatever flavour, and variation, these two basic features are common to every doctrine using the label feminism. Feminism is therefore, a doctrine of class hatred, and violence.” (Source)
Having a son went from a dilemma to being the most valuable lesson of my life, by Polly Dunning (21 December 2016) Australia. Related Reddit discussion thread here. God help this poor little boy (and others like him) who should be allowed to grow up being accepted and loved, rather than have his gender bigot mum use him as a sociology experiment based around a perverse misandric cult.
“In the year 2000, Swedish feminist Joanna Rytel and the action group Unf**ked Pussy entered the stage during the live broadcast of the Miss Sweden contest. She also wrote an article called “I Will Never Give Birth to a White Man,” for a major Swedish daily, Aftonbladet, in 2004. Rytel explained why she hates white men — they are selfish, exploitative, vain, and sex-crazed — and just to make things clear, she added, “no white men, please… I just puke on them, thank you very much.” ”
In 1913 a gentleman by the name of Ernest Bax wrote:
“When, however, the bluff is exposed… then the apostles of feminism, male and female, being unable to make even a plausible case out in reply, with one consent resort to the boycott, and by ignoring what they cannot answer, seek to stop the spread of the unpleasant truth so dangerous to their cause. The pressure put upon publishers and editors by the influential Feminist sisterhood is well known.”[From The Fraud of Feminism, p.1-2]
In this post I am using a broad definition of censorship that includes blocking or excluding or misrepresenting people/groups or opinions that are at odds with all or part of the feminist narrative.
I should mention that it is not only anti-feminist perspectives that are censored, but also sometimes perspectives offered by men who identify as feminists, or by women who identify as (for example) equity feminists rather than gender feminists.
An example of feminist men being excluded can be seen in this article about a pro-abortion rally in Ireland where men in the audience were told to “know your place” and to remember that “this is a women’s movement“.
Personally, when I read material produced by feminists and see how they respond in online forums, my mind is drawn to the Credit Union Australia adverts shown on Australian TV. In those ads people block out information they don’t want to hear/consider by covering their ears and saying “la la la”. Except that feminists often substitute the la la la with somewhat saltier language.
What is happening is that any view that runs contrary to feminist ideology is branded misogynistic and hateful, and thus automatically unworthy of consideration. In my eyes, alternative viewpoints are not necessarily hateful. Sure they might cause hurt feelings, but that is part and parcel of debate in intelligent adult society.
Feminists say they are addressing both mens and womens issues, and will make the world a better place if we just stay the F**K away and let them do what they need to do. This is a nonsense. Has there been even a single policy change initiated or achieved by feminists that has had a tangible benefit for men collectively? (Cue: sound of crickets)
Good quote about feminism: “That’s what gets me about them — for thirty years, they screamed that slogan [make the personal, political] at the top of their lungs. And then, once men start turning to politics to make the personal political, they start hemming and hawing about whether or not this issue or that one is really a ‘mens’ issue. But somehow, everything on earth is a women’s issue.” (Source)
Let’s be quite clear that we are talking about censorship based on ideology and personal preferences here. I have no problem with moderators taking action against posts that are threatening, incoherent, or peppered with profanity.
So what then are some of the techniques commonly employed by feminists/SJW to isolate those putting forward alternative positions?
Blocking and/or removal of posts or readers comments in online blogs and mainstream media web sites
A major factor in motivating me to create this blog was the annoyance I experience when I’m continually thwarted upon trying to post my views in online fora, for example in blogs, discussion forums, and mainstream news sites like news.com.au.
This blocking or removal of dissenting posts is extremely prevalent in sites related to discussions of gender and feminism. It generally occurs when I, and others like me, put forward perspectives that conflict with cherished notions held by the (usually female feminist) author or moderator. These are people who are, more often than not, singularly unwilling to accommodate alternative positions. I lost track long ago of the number of times this has happened to me … examples here, here, here, here, and here … courteous posts that were either not uploaded, or uploaded but subsequently removed.
This September 2016 article about domestic violence by Rebecca Poulson is an example where readers comments were overwhelmingly critical of the author’s perspective. The author complained on social media of her comments thread being “hijacked”, with many of those comments subsequently being removed by the moderator.
I don’t mean to be pedantic but the use of the term “hijack” demonstrates the sense of entitlement shown by many feminist writers. The definition of this word entails illegal seizure (of an aircraft, ship, or vehicle for e.g.) whilst in transit, and the use of force to make it travel to a different destination. Readers offering their views is neither illegal nor does it involve force, and others are free at any time to offer their own views.
The following collection of reddit discussion threads detail moderator bias and censorship in relation to threads/posts concerning domestic violence and child abuse – See example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5 and example 6 (27 October 2014) Includes the following quote from a moderator responding to a query as to why a post was removed: “It needs to be the right information from the right people. Here’s a shorthand guide: if you are an MRA or TRP, you need not bother posting. If your information may tend to make women look bad, same.”
Let’s consider the experience of another who has had similar experiences:
M the Atheist wrote on 3 September 2013 “… I found a thread about rape and power and spent the time to read the post and all the comments, did not seem too hateful and had some reasonable stuff … I wrote a very reasonable and objective post about rape, power and rape culture (based on one of GWW’s videos). I included data, reason, personal experience and points from GWW’s video; and was surprised that it got posted …
I went back a few hours later to find that my post was removed; and I could not figure out why. I went through great pains to make it neuter, people inclusive, and posited GWW’s hypothesis in what I thought was a well mannered and calm, dispassionate way.
They had also posted and allowed to remain other males’ posts. So why not mine? I then realized that they only allow mens’ posts to remain if they can destroy them or if they are easily group-attacked.”
Something similar also happened to Australian TV personality David Koch when he sought to respond to an attack on him posted in a feminist web site. Another example here from the UK.
With the exception of reddit/r/mensrights and a few others, there is a high probability that any post made that challenges the leftist or feminist narrative will quickly be made to disappear. It will either be removed by a moderator on their own volition or on the basis of the post being reported by users of the forum. This is not ‘tin-foil hat’ stuff, it happened to me as recently as this morning.
Two other common occurrences on Reddit, involving those making posts that challenge or question the prevailing feminist/SJW commentary, are:
Posts being removed from view to due to down-voting. The speed at which this occurs, plus the large number of votes cast, suggest that this is an organised strategy employed by like-minded activists.
Reddit users being banned from posting in particular forums for posting often remarkably benign comments or questions. Examples of this are provided in reddit/r/mensrights on an almost daily basis.
Another common tactic employed by feminists on social media is to lodge reports, which may be exaggerated or completely bogus, about Facebook pages maintained by others. They often do so in a co-ordinated manner with their friends/associates, with the aim of having the relevant pages suspended/removed. And in many cases they are successful.
It would be one thing if the administrators at Facebook were applying these rules and restrictions evenly across the board, but that is not the case. What is happening is that Facebook pages with a conservative or egalitarian or anti-feminist slant are being targetted. Meanwhile a blind eye is being turned to questionable content within pages with a leftist/liberal/SJW or feminist slant.
There are further examples and discussion of this trend in articles listed later, in addition to the following:
Developments on Facebook have helped drive many people, both those with anti-feminist/SJW views and trolls alike, across to Twitter where until recently there was a relatively unimpeded flow of ideas and information. Things are now also tightening up there also, both in terms of actions taken by Twitter staff and other users. For an example of the former, google search to see how Twitter have pursued MRA and anti-feminists such as Milo Yiannopoulos. More recently Twitter has introduced tools to enable greater censorship (see here and here).
Many feminists/SJW not only block those that they encounter, but also make use of shared block-lists. Clementine Ford, for example, blocks 133,000 Twitter accounts and invites other feminists to use her list.
Another Australian feminist, Van Badham, revels in her ability to block in this 2019 article.
This means that a Twitter user can find him/herself blocked from another user’s stream even when they have never had contact with that particular person or group. In some cases this may occur simply because your account was red-flagged due to others that you follow.
I have lost count of the number of times I have been blocked – Here are two examples:
In my first example a feminist journalist by the name of Lindy West blocked me. I don’t know Lindy from a bar of soap, but apparently she considers my views on anything/everything to be unacceptable. Really Lindy? As one cheeky reader commented in response to this article, perhaps you’d be better off blocking Twinkies instead.
At least in my second example I actually had some contact with the blocker (Tara Moss) before the hammer fell. That single solitary tweet is shown below:
Lobbying against planned events by anti-feminists or men’s rights advocates and/or disrupting events whilst they are underway
In what is becoming a popular strategy to prevent opposing views being heard, feminists are setting off fire alarms at venues hosting MHRA or anti-feminists speakers. If you want to get some idea of how widespread this form of nuisance ‘activism’ is becoming then google on the words ‘feminist protesters pull fire alarm’. Go ahead – you can start by reading this and this. And only recently feminist protestors disrupted a presentation by CAFE.
Christina Hoff Sommers debated Roxane Gay in Sydney & Melbourne in late March 2019. Refer this article and linked Twitter stream for now, whilst I try to locate a better review (oh and here’s a SMH offering with reader’s comments). Apparently Gay’s leftist supporters focused on disrupting the event rather than letting an actual debate take place.
The term ‘anti-democratic’ is way too insipid to describe this pattern of behaviour. This is something more negative, much darker and more pervasive, and which all but precludes any meaningful dialogue. Indeed the direction in which this is already heading is that any comments that are deemed to be anti-feminist and/or sexist will be made illegal on the grounds of combating hate-speech (example). Opposing this trend, at least for those that have the means to take legal action, is legal precedent such as this.
A curious aspect of feminist censorship is that one of its key functions is to block open debate of their own issues. Even the noisiest feminists only want to be heard when they can control the ‘dialogue’. Otherwise … well this challenge by Milo Yiannopolous to Anita Sarkeesian (thus far) illustrates what shrinking violets even high-profile feminists can be when someone else seizes the initiative. Mike Buchanan’s web site features many examples of his own unacknowledged public challenges to feminists to debate significant issues.
Feminists don’t want to debate issues or engage with their opponents, they want to neutralise them by almost any means necessary. What follows is a brief extract fromRules for Radicals‘ as cited in a blog post by Anne Althouse:
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”
Some articles on the general issue of the gradual death of free speech and/or the unwillingness of the liberal left to engage constructively
Two good articles in The Australian on 24/25 September 2016 (if you can get behind the paywall): ‘What more in the name of love?‘ by David Crowe, and ‘Straight-out hate in politics of identity‘ by Brendan O’Neill. Neither article specifically mentions feminists, yet very accurately describe their tactics.
“Labels are important tools in identifying socio-cultural problems. Privilege exists. Shaming exists. But when we adopt labels, project them onto others, or create new ones, we sometimes take broad social concepts and individualize them. We use labels to silence those who don’t agree with us, which keeps us from engaging in open, honest conversations. Many people with legitimate opinions and solid ideas are afraid to participate because they are afraid they might say the wrong thing, or say the right thing in the wrong way. When people are silenced, the conversation suffers.”
“The Google employee behind a ten-page viewpoint diversity manifesto that went viral online has been fired. James Damore, whose manifesto criticizing the politically correct corporate culture at Google prompted outrage from left-wing employees and social justice warriors online, revealed that he had been fired” (Source) More at:
To Milo or not to Milo? (21 February 2017) How the left neutralised a very annoying thorn in their side. A story rich in hypocrisy given what various feminists/SJW have previously said & done & walked away from without penalty.
Archetypal mangina David Futrelle seeks to undermine credibility of film-maker Cassie Jaye because she dared to produce a fair-minded representation of the men’s rights movement. See here, here and here for example
Columbia student newspaper disables sexual assault comments, while picking and choosing opinions published – Reddit discussion thread and linked article
And now to close with something a little different, this April 2015 article in The Guardian claims that men post far more comments online (think news and current affairs web sites), and that this has the effect of “silencing” women. The author also claims, amongst other things, that many women are posting online using male names for “protection“. Firstly this begs the questions how could he know how many of those posting were men/women. Secondly it would be counter-productive to assume a male name for this reason when surveys show that men attract significantly more online abuse/harassment than do women. But the best bit is that the moderator removed my comment. They didn’t even leave the usual “Your comment was removed” message. They silenced me!
“The anarchist Bob Black predicted back in 1982 that feminism would eventually become a totalitarian movement to rival history’s most oppressive tyrannies. Most people find this idea absurd due to gynocentrism, “women are wonderful” and neoteny (and frankly, male vanity). However Black made the point that feminism — since its arguments are completely illogical and do not stand up to scrutiny — could not maintain power except through censorship.
Feminists are attempting to turn all of society into a “safe space” for feminists (not women, not children, certainly not men, just feminists). That includes cyberspace. As more and more people debunk feminist ideology online, calls will grow to “end online misogyny,” with predictable results. There is already a huge chilling effect underway.” (Source)
In this post I want to address two related issues. The first is the standard feminist cop-out when publicly confronted with some truly egregious comment or action by a self-identified feminist. That default response is to assert that the feminist in question is some sort of outlier or crank, and not representative of feminists generally, viz. “yes, but, not all feminists are like that!”.
Of course it is damning of feminism as a movement that the ‘real’ feminists never seem to criticize the ‘bad’ ones. In fact it seems to me that the only women or girls that feminists ever criticize are the ones who are openly critical of some or all aspects of feminism.
A related feminist concoction arises in the form of the term ‘straw feminist‘, as used to describe (what feminists claim to be) an evil and inaccurate caricature of a feminist invented and used by MRA to denigrate the feminist cause. What an insult to our intelligence … why would we need to invent such a person when we can see and hear them with our very own eyes?! Denial on a grand scale or simply ignorant of reality?
The second thing I want to do in this post is to profile some feminists who really ARE not like that. These are people who do support equality, and are on the same page with many of the issues of concern to MHRA. It must also be recognised that many of those now active in the Mens Human Rights movement were formerly feminists but crossed over upon realising the flaws and hypocrisy of both feminist doctrine and feminist activism. An excellent example of such a person is Warren Farrell, the author of the seminal work ‘The Myth of Male Power‘.
Another example of a feminist who saw value in the message of the Mens Human Rights Movement is provided in this video interview
Christina Hoff Sommers is an American author and former philosophy professor who is known for her critique of late 20th century feminism, and her writings about feminism in contemporary American culture. Her most widely discussed books are Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women and The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men. Although her critics refer to her as anti-feminist, Sommers thinks of herself as an equity feminist who faults contemporary feminism for “its irrational hostility to men, its recklessness with facts and statistics, and its inability to take seriously the possibility that the sexes are equal – but different.”
“The orthodox feminists are so carried away with victimology, with a rhetoric of male-bashing that it’s full of female chauvinists, if you will. Also, women are quite eager to censor, to silence. And what concerns me most as a philosopher is it’s become very anti-intellectual, and I think it poses a serious risk to young women in the universities. Women’s studies classes are increasingly a kind of initiation into the most radical wing, the most intolerant wing, of the feminist movement.”
Camille Paglia, who was recently asked “what’s wrong with American feminism today, and what can it do to improve?“, to which she replied:
“After the great victory won by my insurgent, pro-sex, pro-fashion wing of feminism in the 1990s, American and British feminism has amazingly collapsed backward again into whining, narcissistic victimology. As in the hoary old days of Gloria Steinem and her Stalinist cohorts, we are endlessly subjected to the hackneyed scenario of history as a toxic wasteland of vicious male oppression and gruesome female suffering.
College campuses are hysterically portrayed as rape extravaganzas where women are helpless fluffs with no control over their own choices and behavior. I am an equal opportunity feminist: that is, I call for the removal of all barriers to women’s advance in the professional and political realms. However, I oppose special protections for women, which I reject as demeaning and infantilizing.
My principal demand (as I have been repeating for nearly 25 years) is for colleges to confine themselves to education and to cease their tyrannical surveillance of students’ social lives. If a real crime is committed, it must be reported to the police. College officials and committees have neither the expertise nor the legal right to be conducting investigations into he said/she said campus dating fiascos. Too many of today’s young feminists seem to want hovering, paternalistic authority figures to protect and soothe them, an attitude I regard as servile, reactionary and glaringly bourgeois. The world can never be made totally safe for anyone, male or female: there will always be sociopaths and psychotics impervious to social controls. I call my system “street-smart feminism”: there is no substitute for wary vigilance and personal responsibility.” (Source)
The biggest issue that arises when people travel is safety. This encompasses many topics such as sexual assault, robbery and scams, motor vehicle accidents, food poisoning, STD’s, animal bites, etc. Within the mainstream and online media most attention focuses on threats to the personal safety of women. It’s as if males are immune from muggings, drink spiking, motor vehicle accidents, etc … or are deemed to be incapable of benefiting from advice.
Nevertheless, out in the real world, males are just as vulnerable to these threats as are females, if not more so. No one questions that women are deserving of support and advice in relation to the issue of traveler safety. But it would appear that men being men, well you know, they should just suck it up. Or something.
I read a post in a feminist blog that informed me that men don’t need this sort of advice because men “can look after themselves“. Well to the extent that men *can* look after themselves whilst travelling, they do so chiefly by following the same sort of advice that they offer to women (and then get called victim-blamers!). Funny thing that.
Aside from feminist bias I can’t think of a logical reason why journalists persist in compartmentalising their coverage of this issue along gender lines … that is unless the goal is simply to perpetuate a myth of eternal victimhood.
And so it is that much of the online discussion of traveller safety is devoted to women railing against the injustice of being unable to dress like a hooker – according to local mores – without being approached with offers of work. Oh, wait, perhaps the patriarchy made them do it? Just what is the big deal about briefly modifying one’s normal fashion style? Those people promulgating this crazy notion of polite compromise as being akin to outright capitulation, have a lot to answer for. (Refer to these posts for more on this issue: Post 1 & Post 2 & Post 3).
Guys, on the other hand, seem to be able to enjoy their holidays just fine without the need to show off their butt cheeks whilst shopping in the market.
No, no-one deserves to be harassed or raped. And in an ideal world we could wear whatever we chose, and go where-ever we wanted at any time of the day or night, without attracting judgement or a violent response.
But it’s not an ideal world, and it is foolish to ignore patterns of behaviour correlated to higher levels of threat, in favour of feel-good public rituals and esoteric babbling about the need to “educate” men and boys. Sounds a lot like comfortable insulated upper middle-class delusion to me. The criminal underbelly of society, along with the mentally ill, naughty boys (and girls!) one and all … they just need a good talking to, and a couple of polished Powerpoint presentations should straighten them out.
Christian schools have been teaching the ‘do not steal’ lesson for a couple of thousand years now, and we still seem to have a problem with theft. I am not saying that there is no place for education, but I sure wouldn’t be relying on it as the biggest stick in my armoury.
Oh, but heaven help any man who attempts to join the discussion and suggest tips like “don’t get drunk or take drugs”, “dress conservatively” or “don’t walk alone at night”, for they are immediately labelled victim-blamers and rape-apologists!
This theme, that the behaviour of women never causes nor contributes to the problems they encounter or anything bad that happens to them, is a feminist mainstay. And dare you suggest otherwise then you are the bad guy, even if you really don’t think you are … because your mind has been corrupted by “cognitive bias’ and ‘systemic sexism’. Move over Scientology!
Did you know that some airlines still have a policy of not seating unaccompanied minors next to men? I guess that haven’t read my post about female kiddy-fiddlers.
And so in April 2014 a Australian feminist journalist by the name of Tracey Spicer wrote an article about how she didn’t want her children sat next to men on flights – see the article and related discussions here and here. This article in a feminist web site contributes nothing to the debate but there are some interesting points buried amongst the readers comments.
Oh, but I love this article, it contrasts feminists silence about men being required to sit away from unaccompanied children, with the requests of ultra-orthodox Jewish men to be sat away from women.
This blog post discusses an article by Wendy Tuohy on the same topic, but which in this case drips with hypocrisy bearing in mind the pronounced feminist bias of her prior repertoire of articles and offerings on social media.
This family-oriented tourist attraction in England has taken the step of banning unaccompanied adults from entering, though I suspect that unaccompanied women would not encounter a problem.
Passengers arrested after wild mid-air brawl (25 April 2023) Now if this story involved 3 or 4 guys causing mayhem then I bet the journalist would have given us a gender rundown within the first paragraph (if not in the headline).
Miss Universe model Olivia Culpo told to ‘cover up’ before boarding plane (17 January 2022) Virtually identical articles as per this one seem to appear a couple of times a week now … they are beyond tedious. It’s time that narcissists (and their media enablers) put on their ‘big-girl’ pants.
This post deals with false accusations or allegations by women in relation to sexual harassment, sexual assault, and domestic violence.
False allegations in relation to online harassment are dealt with in this post. False allegations in relation to paternity fraud are dealt with in this post.
One of the common false claims made by feminists is that men’s rights activists assert that most women who claim to have been raped are lying. Personally I have never seen or heard this statement made by any MHRA. What is often stated however is that there are substantial and unacceptably high numbers of women making false rape accusations, and that this problem should be acknowledged and treated seriously (including charging the false accuser where appropriate).
Being the subject of a false accusation of sexual assault can be, and often is, a traumatic and life-changing experience for anyone. False rape allegations also minimise and demean the suffering and the credibility of victims of actual rape.
Let’s start with the Wikipedia entry for false rape allegations, which extracts data from many different studies. This highlights the practical difficulty in differentiating between false rape allegations, unproven allegations, and ‘not guilty’ verdicts for example. It does however refute the suggestion made by many feminists that false allegations are either non-existent or absolutely negligible.
Here in Australia I came across the following information:
“A Victorian study, which analysed 850 rapes reported to the police over the period 2000–03, found that only 2.1% of reports were designated as false by the police. In these cases, the alleged victim was either charged or told that she would be charged unless she dropped the complaint. While this only represents a fraction of the sample, there was a much larger proportion of cases where police were confident, or reasonably confident, that the allegations were false, but there was no attempt to institute charges against the alleged victim.” (Source here and related reddit discussion thread here)
This article ‘How often do women falsely cry rape?’ gives quite a fair and balanced intro to the issue and can be read in conjunction with the Wiki entry cited above. Further recommended reading:
I would also draw readers attention to a Twitter thread entitled ‘False allegations kill – help us to make a change’ (@KathleenM__).
A further summary of the false abuse and rape allegation literature can be found in a 2013 book by Phillip Cook and Tammy Hodo titled ‘When Women Sexually Abuse Men‘. While statistics in this literature are problematic, Cook and Hodo report four studies that found false allegation rates of 62 percent, 41 percent, 50 percent, and 60 percent.
How and why do women falsely claim to have been sexually assaulted? There are a number of factors underlying the false rape phenomenon, starting with the widespread and exaggerated picture of men as persistent and unrepentant aggressors.
This article mentions women who claimed to have been sexually assaulted after their drink was spiked, yet in almost all cases were not found to have any drugs in their system. (See also this discussion thread). This video provides a detailed analysis of the issue. I’s suggest that it’s highly likely however that there are in fact far more instances of drink-spiking by women – with the intention of theft (example here).
It might well be that many women are exercising bad judgement and then, rather than accepting accountability for what subsequently occurred, look about for someone or something to put the blame on. Were this be indicative of a broader trend re: women’s propensity to shift blame, clearly there is considerable potential for false rape allegations to occur.
The damage to young men who are falsely accused is further magnified via the growing number of university campuses that run kangaroo courts (quite separate from the judicial system) to punish those accused of rape.
Some of the wording used in this article caught my attention:
“We have concluded that we cannot go forward with prosecution because there is not a reasonable likelihood of conviction at trial,” said Senior Charging Attorney Jane Nicoletti-Jones. “In (this case), the statements of a witness other than the suspect or alleged victim were an important part of our decision.” Although officials declined to comment on this case specifically, it illustrates some of the hurdles that accusers and their advocates face when filing sexual assault complaints.” (my emphasis added)
In this case a witness or witnesses cast doubt on the accuracy of the rape accusation, but in this feminist journalists eyes such eyewitness statements are merely “hurdles”. Who cares about the truth or justice anyway … we just need to get those rapists men in jail.
Whilst false accusations are only one of several factors contributing to false imprisonment, it’s worth mentioning that 99% of the prisoners exonerated due to the efforts of the Innocence Project were male, and that more than half of them were initially found guilty of rape.
And here’s another perspective, addressed in this Twitter thread: “So found the data and one big problem with it: Charge ‘Perverting the course of justice’ But what were they lying about?, why were they charged with the above crime? There are so many reasons you might get the above charge. Not all apply to false allegations.”
The list of links below concern specific cases involving false allegations against men by women (and in some cases by women against other women). Such reports appear in the media quite frequently. As a consequence many further cases can be readily sourced via online searches. Scroll down the page for sources providing a general discussion of this topic.
MG v SN [2024] EWFC 202 (B) (23 July 2024): Fact-finding in private law proceedings, concerning serious allegations of abuse made by the mother against the father. None of the allegations found proved. No punishment for her though
“This dishonest woman might exist – in fact, lots and lots of dishonest people exist – but there are thousands more victims for whom the stigma of reporting domestic violence, and not being believed, means they’ll never come forward.
When we see the front page story about a man falsely accused of rape, or framed for domestic violence, we’re allowed to feel sympathy for him. But we need to remember that his story is the exception, not the rule, and often the rule – in this case, countless honest victims – fades into obscurity.
Because when something is normal, it doesn’t make the news. And that’s the saddest part.”
“Pointon broke down in tears and asked if she could drop the charges when her account was challenged by police … Judge Christopher Batty told her: “Your malicious complaint has done a huge disservice to those seeking justice through the police and courts.”
Why do judges never make the point that false rape allegations are very damaging to men, in part due to their lack of anonymity, and offer them some sympathy?” (Source)
“… the court agreed with Joy’s arguments that the lender’s investigation was handled differently because he’s a man.
“The whole factual matrix on which the decision to dismiss was based was, in itself, infused with, and tainted by, discrimination,” Judge Graeme Hodgson said in the ruling. “The conclusions on the claimant’s behavior are founded on stereotyped assumptions of how a man behaves.””
“I’m sorry Kelly but 3 days is rubbish. My ex partner went straight to the Courts and just filled out a form 5 days before Christmas and alleged that I had stalked her, threatened her and abused her and our son. I had to wait three MONTHS before I had my day in court.
I went to court armed to the gills with evidence of her lies and after waiting 6hrs in the court rooms I had 5 mins in court where no body asked me anything, not a word. Her lawyer changed the story at the last minute and then the lovely magistrate decided to postpone the next determination hearing 6 weeks down the track.
I went close to 5 months without seeing my son all because of my ex partners lies. No evidence. Nothing. Never touched her, never threatened her. Ever.
But I was determined to be guilty until proven innocent, and all on the say so of one bitter, twisted person. No one cared about me or my side of the story. The only ones who cared were the lawyers (a prominient law firm) who asked for $10K up front before they would even represent me.
In the end she dropped her accusations after we had to go to court the second time. Her penalty for perjuring herself twice? Nothing. Her penalty for slandering me for 6 months? Nothing. Her penalty for denying my family access to their grandson over Christmas? Nothing. Her penalty for denying my son access to his father? None.
I came so close to topping myself on several occasions during those long dark months that I had to endure being treated like a criminal, like the worst of the worst, the dregs of society.
But I kept on saying to myself that I had to fight for the most important person in the world; my son. I am glad that I had immense support from my family and friends otherwise I probably wouldn’t be here to write you this note.
I am all for very harsh penalties for any person who assaults another but the changes to DV that were made several years ago make basically every possible argument or disagreement in a domestic environment grounds for DV, and all it takes is one person to accuse you and you’re nicked. Well you are if you are a bloke.
There were penalties for perjury in the DV legislation but they were removed. Penalties for knowingly making false statements to police and the courts should be treated just as harshly in my mind. If there are no penalties for lying in court then who can believe what people say in court?” (Source – See reader’s comments from Brett)
Albury sex assault: Investigation finalised (1 May 2015). Notice how no-one actually comes out and says the girl made a false allegation, presumably all too scared that the feminists would get even angrier. No repercussion for the girl making the claim because that would be ‘victim’ blaming. In this article the police even state that they “were adamant they didn’t want the outcome to dissuade people reporting similar incidents. “We encourage anyone who has been the victim of a crime to come forward,” police said. It appears unlikely the teenager who reported the incident will be charged.” Hello! The only crime here was the false allegation. Idiotic PC. Related reddit mensrights discussion thread here
Two girls on a bus in India start beating some young men with their belts. The claim the men groped them. They became internet heros for defending themselves (and womanhood generally). Then the truth gradually leaked out (4 December 2014) And more videos surfaced of them beating men on other occasions.
“Those statements led to the rape charge last summer against the professor who subsequently spent nine days in jail and was placed on leave from his job”
How to get rich: Accuse a man of rape (15 March 2016) Australian feminist journalist thinks the idea of women lying about rape for financial gain is funny.
Ever wondered why most doctors insist on a chaperone with female patients – but not with male ones? It’s generally not motivated by abuse prevention, but rather to prevent false allegations of abuse. A reddit discussion thread (July 2014)
Upon entering the search term ‘feminist good manners’ into google one day, one of the first papers to crop up was one entitled “No chivalry, thanks”.
The author of that article sought to differentiate between the notion of ‘good manners/politeness’ on the one hand and ‘chivalry’ on the other. Her position was that good manners are mostly OK, whilst ‘chivalry’ is bad. I agree with her that chivalry can be a negative factor … but not for the reason she states.
Let’s detour for a moment to visit www.thefreedictionary.com, where upon entering the term “good manners” we bring up the following related words:
courtesy
personal manner, manner – a way of acting or behaving
niceness, politeness – a courteous manner that respects accepted social usage
urbanity – polished courtesy; elegance of manner
graciousness – excellence of manners or social conduct
chivalry, politesse, gallantry – courtesy towards women
respectfulness, deference, respect – courteous regard for people’s feelings; “in deference to your wishes”; “out of respect for his privacy”
civility – formal or perfunctory politeness
The definition of the term ‘chivalry’, on the other hand, includes “The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women”, and “kindness and courteousness especially towards women or the weak”.
Back now to the ‘No chivalry, thanks‘ article where the author takes aim at two criticisms of feminism, which she describes as being:
The “cake and eat it too” complaint: “This anti-feminist argument says that women want to be independent and strong when it’s convenient for them, but they don’t want to lose the option for men to buy them dinner, open doors, and all around make them feel special. We want all the rights afforded to men, but that we also want to be treated better than men. Feminists want special, not equal, treatment, or in other words, they want their cake and to eat it too”, and
The “feminists hate manners!” complaint: “Other anti-feminists have chosen to smack-talk feminism by claiming that any stance which truly speaks out against chivlary (sic) is actually an affront to good manners.”
The author indicates that she’d “like to dismantle these complaints”, but in fact her views only serve to reinforce the validity of those complaints whilst undermining the feminist perspective generally. Her comments include:
The core of my disdain for chivalry is that it’s rooted in a gendered premise. Its very notion is that women need special assistance and wooing, which I flat out disagree with. Given this, I can say fully that I do not want or expect chivalry. In that way, the “cake and eat it too” complaint is nonsense to me. I do not want any person to look at me and treat me differently based off of (sic) my gender, even if that treatment is favourable.
(Mod: My emphasis added. LOL … I think we could readily find a plethora of exceptions to that with respect to feminist goals and achievements generally!)
“The same goes for stereotypes of all sorts–just because something is “nice” (ie Asians are so smart!) doesn’t make it any less racist. So with chivalry, just because it’s “friendly,” doesn’t make it any less sexist.”
“All in all, I simply feel that chivalry and feminism are inherently incompatible. I would never expect to be treated both equally and special. That’s an oxymoron. In fact, I’m not entirely sure that there are women who actually are advocating for both. Yes, some women want chivalry, but I would suspect they do not typically identify as feminists. To me, it seems a to be a straw man situation, as is the claim that feminists are really attacking manners. Nevertheless, it is important for us to understand the arguments used against our viewpoints, no matter how trivial.”
So in short, many feminists abhor chivalry because they perceive it as a pattern of behaviour intended to subjugate and patronise women, and as a manifestation of what they term ‘benevolent sexism‘.
Ah, but it gets confusing. In yet another of their breathtaking displays of hypocrisy, feminists strongly rely upon and encourage chivalry to achieve their goals. Look at all the calls for men to mobilise against other men in stopping domestic abuse and rape. Consider the #HeForShe campaign and many other similar campaigns. In none of these examples do feminists call for, or support, corresponding campaign for women to support men or men’s rights.
In contrast, the core of my ambivalence in relation to chivalry is that:
I believe in gender equality, and chivalry cannot and should not exist where there is true equality
Chivalry stands in the way of objective reasoning. Chivalry causes men to conflate the often unreasonable assertions and demands of feminists, with the welfare of women generally. I see this happening in almost every mainstream media article that permits readers to contribute comments, wherein men attack one another in the mistaken belief that any progress on achieving men’s rights is not just a set-back for women, but somehow akin to spitting in their face. If only such men would make an effort to familiarise themselves with not just the specific issue under consideration, but also both the nature of feminism and of men’s rights advocacy generally.
No, chivalry is not dead – but it’s about time it was (18 January 2022) I suspect that feminists have no idea of the extent to which the strength of their lobby relies on the continued existence of rampant and endemic chivalry (sans any chivalric expectations re: women’s conduct).
Here’s a recent newspaper item that features a prat-like whinge from a woman who would like men to leave her alone – after they perform whatever service she requires. Presumably men are meant to magically realise that she is a feminist and is not interested in social overtures. But on the other hand they are magically meant to know that although she is a feminist, she does appreciate men helping her by performing manual labour in relation to her overweight carry-on luggage. Perhaps if she held up a sign providing all this information, then men might be more co-operative/compliant. A subsequent online discussion can be found here.
And here is an article on the subject of holding doors open (plus readers comments) in a feminist blog.
Here is an article entitled ‘He also pays for his own dinners‘ that , in a patronising tone, sniffs at the notion of men displaying chivalry and their motivations for doing so. The best thing about the article was this readers comment:
“The most generous and helpful thing a man can do for a woman on an individual level is to hold her accountable – no letting her off because she’s female.
If traditional expressions of chivalry are important to women, let women do them. My girlfriend brought me flowers last night because I had a bad day. Fine. I’ll cook her dinner sometime.
Listen men, chivalry backfires. If you pay for the first date you’re losing a valuable opportunity to screen out the women who will see you as nothing but an ATM machine. And there’s no such thing as paying for a first date anyway. When you pay for a first date, you’re making it cheaper for her to go on another date with somebody else. You’re just subsidizing her search for the perfect man. Do yourself a favour and make women chip in for their quest for Mr. Right.
And men, while we’re on the subject of chivalry, remember you’re not a human punching bag. Make it very clear at the beginning of the relationship: if she ever hits you, screams at you, or calls you names, or tries to humiliate you in front of your friends, or destroys any of your property on purpose, or tries to use sex as a bargaining chip, that’s the end of the relationship, right then, right there. No questions asked. No looking back. Just walk away.
Don’t let your sense of chivalry turn you into a victim. You’re better than that.”
“Men were 1.5 times more likely than women to have concerns about transgender women using women’s bathrooms.”
Man stabbed in Southbank while coming to woman’s aid (25 February 2017) Australia. It appears the female being assaulted left the scene – did you she render any assistance to her rescuer? Don’t be that guy. Timely that this incident occurred the same week as this article in The Conversation.
Chivalry is not dead when it comes to morality (8 June 2016) We’re more likely to sacrifice a man than a woman when it comes to both saving the lives of others and in pursuing our self-interests, a team of psychology researchers has found.
Where are the stand up men? (29 May 2016) This special snowflake rant earned itself some rather forthright readers comments. Further commentary here.
“I just knew, they wouldn’t hit me … I was glad, right then, that I was a woman. I felt they wouldn’t hit me because of that, and that might mean I could slow things down a bit. I’m pretty sure if I was one of the guys I probably would have been hit as well.”
“The most despicable thing about the feminist movement is that it exploits male protective instincts and male virtues such as self-sacrifice for the “greater good” in order to expand female privilege. It doesn’t actually challenge these gender roles in any meaningful sense. But I agree it’s time to put an end to chivalry. The cat is out of the bag and it’s not going back in.” (Source)
And more recently, an article entitled ‘Equality is essential but so is chivalry‘ (Herald Sun 16 June 2014). This one very much in the all rights/no responsibility vein. It starts of bemoaning the fact that nobody stood up for a pregnant woman on a train and then goes on and on from there. The usual feminist theme of … there’s a problem, men caused it, and it’s mens responsibility to fix it … to our specifications. No readers comments were permitted – wonder why? Thank goodness that this MRA made the time to prepare a great rebuttal.
How to be a 21st Century ‘Gentleman’ (12 September 2014) I liked this reader’s comment: “Are there any classes teaching women some basic etiquette, too? Why are we just gripping on men when women need just as much a major make-over on behavior”. This theme is oft repeated – recent versions here and here, and with a rebuttal article here
Now for the background to this article you’ll need to take a look at this other blog post. In the article feminist author, Lauren Rosewarne, lashes out at those concerned about comments made by a federal parliamentarian. That politician told journalists that she wanted a male partner who was rich, well-endowed and who didn’t talk. Lauren haughtily admonishes us, “today the sane amongst us dismiss such notions as laughably repressive and egregiously controlling.”
The vast majority of feminists active in both social media and in lobbying government for policy change are at home on the right hand side of this chart. This group includes Jessica Valenti (pictured right) and Anita Sarkissian. These feminists are by far the most problematic in the context of the sorts of issues discussed in this blog.
I went to court armed to the gills with evidence of her lies and after waiting 6hrs in the court rooms I had 5 mins in court where no body asked me anything, not a word. Her lawyer changed the story at the last minute and then the lovely magistrate decided to postpone the next determination hearing 6 weeks down the track.
I went close to 5 months without seeing my son all because of my ex partners lies. No evidence. Nothing. Never touched her, never threatened her. Ever.
But I was determined to be guilty until proven innocent, and all on the say so of one bitter, twisted person. No one cared about me or my side of the story. The only ones who cared were the lawyers (a prominient law firm) who asked for $10K up front before they would even represent me.
In the end she dropped her accusations after we had to go to court the second time. Her penalty for perjuring herself twice? Nothing. Her penalty for slandering me for 6 months? Nothing. Her penalty for denying my family access to their grandson over Christmas? Nothing. Her penalty for denying my son access to his father? None.
I came so close to topping myself on several occasions during those long dark months that I had to endure being treated like a criminal, like the worst of the worst, the dregs of society.
But I kept on saying to myself that I had to fight for the most important person in the world; my son. I am glad that I had immense support from my family and friends otherwise I probably wouldn’t be here to write you this note.
I am all for very harsh penalties for any person who assaults another but the changes to DV that were made several years ago make basically every possible argument or disagreement in a domestic environment grounds for DV, and all it takes is one person to accuse you and you’re nicked. Well you are if you are a bloke.
There were penalties for perjury in the DV legislation but they were removed. Penalties for knowingly making false statements to police and the courts should be treated just as harshly in my mind. If there are no penalties for lying in court then who can believe what people say in court?” (Source – See reader’s comments from Brett)
False rape accusations tell us something important about America (17 July 2015)
Woman demanded lift home, then falsely alleged rape: prosecution says (20 July 2015)
Mother Incarcerated after Forcing Daughter to Falsely Accuse Father of Sexual Abuse (25 June 2015)
Another example of the deplorable way reporters cover false rape claims (24 June 2015)
Woman Who Accused Her Husband Of Beating Her Is Arrested For Domestic Battery (11 June 2015)
Monash University awarded $900,000 in indemnity costs for failed sexual harassment case (11 June 2015)
Scots woman cried rape after man she had first date train sex with ran away at his stop (9 June 2015)
Carole Thomas charged with public mischief (9 June 2015)
Why do women lie more than men? Because we’re ‘nicer’ (5 June 2015)