Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Open Letter to Girl Writes What

I have never been more conflicted about the state of an argument. When Eric called for a debate I didn’t see it as my strongest skill, but did feel a response was needed to why feminism was not hate. No one else was jumping up so I did.

What I struggle with and what you must too is the burgeoning amount of apathy that exists in the middle ground. We must by necessity take sides because in the words of Elie Weisel, “our obligation is to give meaning to life and in doing so to overcome the passive, indifferent life”. The middle ground, the apathy, is where I find the most value in changing ideas.

GWW, you are a brilliant orator with a keen mind. Even with the insulting condescension with which you address me I still actually enjoy listening to you. So too do I have admiration for a woman raising three children while fighting for a cause. I regard you in higher esteem than to say that you seem merely nice. Women can’t always be nice. Feminism’s own beloved problem child the narcissistic Elizabeth Wurtzel praises the virtue of the difficult female. I honor you your contrary nature.

However, your assumptions about my beliefs make this conversation impossible. I don’t even know what we are arguing about now so I’m sticking to the whole “Feminism is Not Hatred” thing because ‘all the reasons that Danielle was wrong’ means we resort to endless recitation of old arguments. Through an 8-minute video you extracted my tertiary assumptions?  No you didn’t—what you did do was structure an argument pandering to your audience. You built up and fabricated assumptions to base an argument on.

The largest misrepresentation that you put forth is black-and-white reasoning. You propose that a situation is either/or—that the indifference of some in the feminist movement towards men is the proof of hatred throughout feminisms’ entirety.

That’s why despite pleas to the controversy, and against my own better judgement I keep on with this discussion. I think that binary application is damaging.

The movement to label feminism as hatred does neither of us any good. Classification of that sort creates an us vs. them mentality. It inspires hatred. Men in your comments sections call out for bloody resolution–what the world needs is not more bloodshed. Mens Rights Activists  who I hope are not indicative of the whole movement, have advocated for violence on me or any other dissenters commenting in the discussion. I honor that frustration calls out from pain but condemn MRA or feminist alike for employing anger towards individual dissenters.

It is worth note that your organization keeps company with people who advocate that single mothers should be put to work in whorehouses. Ideological hardliners from either side of the situation create the hatred. However, I consider this blowback from oppression, and you do not. I believe that women struggled on the path to self-actualization and that we struggle still.

Taken from Paulo Freire “during the initial stage of the struggle, the oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend themselves to becomes oppressors”. The situation that you argue exists in society seems to centre on this thesis: Feminism is hatred because it ignores the plights of men. The rise of feminism and the backlash towards men is itself evidence that oppression occurred against women. To argue against this supposes your own examples to be invalid. The alternative is that women enjoying the spoils of privilege, perhaps out of boredom, suddenly held a secret meeting and unilaterally decided to lash out at men arbitrarily.

Further, women are problematic to feminism too it’s not just males who are wrapped up in ideology. Ladies have been coddled and exist in a reality where they have not had to be self-actualized. The Declaration of Sentiments from the Seneca falls conference recognizes the situation into which females existed, They decreed of man that he has:

            “made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master–the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.

I know, you won’t buy that men have made women into anything. We differ greatly in opinion over the structures of society. I fear I am getting close to trying to measure who has had it worse, and that is not my intention.

You mentioned that Michelle Obama is running the country without having to be elected. The so-called moral hazard you mentioned about a partner in office having power to act without responsibility is an imaginary argument. We can’t prove who makes the decisions and the extent to which Michelle influences her husband—but neither should we scoff at someone for taking the opinion of their spouse under consideration.  I hold enough trust in the general populace that they may recognize the potential influence of the president’s partner. It’s a democratic election. That same argument was why many people who don’t like Clinton also didn’t want Hilary in the White House. Does not that moral hazard exist for both men and women in public office?

Nextly, there are documented matriarchal societies. But you are right there is no evidence of societies where women dominate men. Matrilineal societies seem to run differently. Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha describe a few examples in their book Sex at Dawn of matrilineal societies. One example is the Mosuo people. They are known as the ‘Kingdom of Women’ because they exist as a matrilineal society: heterosexual activity occurs only by mutual consent and mostly through the custom of the secret nocturnal “visit”; men and women are free to have multiple partners and to initiate or break off relationships when they please. There’s also the Minangkabau culture where property and land is passed down from mother to daughter, while religious and political affairs are the responsibility of men—though some women are involved. The existence of a “true matriarchy” is viewed by anthropologists as a direct mirror reversal of a patriarchal society and it ignores “the differing ways male and females conceptualize and wield power”.

There are plenty of pieces where I can dissect and argue these points and I’m tired of my refusal to do so being labeled as a lack of caring. Every opinion and fact in this discussion can be found splashed all over the Internet. Surely you have noticed commenter’s complaining about talking points. My response: maybe you are asking the same questions. I did not intend with my initial arguments to reside on the back of the feminist movement without burden of proof, but perhaps I did a disservice to the discussion. This is since remedied by the hours spent conversing with commenter’s and moving towards real understanding of the MRAs movement. I am unconvinced that people have been swallowing feminist ideology “hook, line and sinker” because not all of the ideologies that have been ascribed to them meet with my expectations of feminism.

I respect the time and attention you put towards these discussions. However, I am not going to jump back and forth rebutting every video and every comment thrown against me. I have stated my case: feminism is not hatred. That does not mean that the movement is perfect, or that the people within the movement deserve to be above reproach. However, you need to look in your own backyard before you start flinging around the word hate.


This is what hatred looks like

Now enough of this foolishness, this arbitrary debate over whether my ideology is hate will not accomplish the changes that either of us seek, there is real work to be done. I hope that we can, in the future focus on the issues that are of real importance to both men and women: equal representation under the law, and the end of dangerous or exploitative situations for both.


hooks, B. (2005). Feminism is for everybod:passionate politics. Cambridge: South End Press.

Gong, Binglin, Yan, Huibin and Yang, Chun-Lei, Gender Differences in the Dictator Experiment: Evidence from the Matrilineal Mosuo and the Patriarchal Yi (August 9, 2010). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1655689 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1655689
Documentary  http://silkrainmedia.com/kingdomofwomen/
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.
Ryan, C., & Jethå, C. (2012). Sex at dawn, the prehistoric origins of modern sexuality. New York: HarperCollins.
Sharing is Caring Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on TumblrShare on Reddit0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Facebook0
  • Aaron says:

    I’m very disappointed in your reply. You’ve addressed nothing she has actually said other than her remarks about Obama, to which she had previously in her own video, made known that it could be hearsay as to who really makes the decisions, but she let it be known that she was going by what the president himself had said. She didn’t get her information from some random blogger, she got it from the president. In spite of a very well dissected and academic reply to you in two separate videos, you have done nothing to address the root causes of feminism and where it began and why it began and instead have relegated your retorts to traditional victimization. Even after she has spelled out to you why feminism is hatred, why it’s oppressive, why it’s militant privilege and why women have never been oppressed, you plug your ears and block out everything that’s being said in favor of preserving your own malicious, twisted, blissful ignorance.

    To avoid long drawn out posts that will evidently fall on deaf ears, I’d like you to provide me with bullet form reasons why you’re a feminist. Let’s make this short and sweet. Providing of course you being happy to oblige.

    • Cassie says:

      I thought her response to the proposition that women had never been oppressed was a valid one – while there have been some charismatic feminist speakers, I find it hard to believe they were so very charismatic and persuasive that they managed to convince so many women they were being oppressed out of apparently thin air.

      • MBP says:

        Creating a hated-other is a favorite tactic of religions, governments, and cults everywhere. You might also want to take note of just how often the propaganda used by these groups makes out these individuals to be a threat to women, and children.

        The real motivation behind the propaganda often has absolutely nothing to do with those being portrayed as victims in it. I.E. Why pay all those Chinese railroad workers? Just make them out to be thugs who steal, rape women, and get children addicted to opium.

      • Aaron says:

        Do you equally find it hard to believe that one single man was capable of convincing an entire country that an entire group of people needed to be eliminated for the greater good? If so you might want to look up a chummy fellow by the name of Adolf Hitler.

      • Cassie says:

        Really? Straight to Hitler? Good grief arguing on the internet is predictable. There is plenty of evidence supporting the proposition that it wasn’t Hitler’s views alone that lead to the Holocaust. And no, I won’t list them. You can educate yourself if you want to participate in grown up discussions.

      • Aaron says:

        Yes straight to Hitler. It’s a gleaming example of how easy it is to brainwash people into thinking a certain way so if you don’t like the context of the comparison continue to wallow in blind ignorance. Hitler’s views weren’t what brainwashed the public, it’s the way he spoke. He had charisma and was extremely outspoken and when you know how to talk, people listen. So it’s no surprise that when women heard what they wanted to hear, they ignored the fundamental foundations of society/history and allowed themselves to be consumed with hate and contempt for men thinking they were oppressed when they really weren’t.

        • 100%Cotton says:

          You forgot G W Bush or the three 9 year old girls that wee responsible for starting the Salem Witch hunts.

      • John D says:

        It’s not about female oppression, but male privilege in which feminism (very nearly all of it) is guilty of simplistic zealous beliefs.

        The application of class warfare labels can only be don w/a ton of dismissal of male misery & very destructive gender roles for men.

      • John D says:

        I absolutely agree that women were oppressed particularly from the 1800′s through 1940 or so.
        However, the unspoken supposition is that men WEREN’T ALSO OPPRESSED at least equally if in very different ways.

        10 million men were drafted into WWII. That’s 10 million men who lost bodily autonomy & were put through trauma by the powers that be.

        28,000 men died building the panama canal for something as intangible as speeding up world trade. Everywhere you look at U.S. from dams to suspension bridges to highway/railway tunnels burrowed into majestic mountains our infrastructure was built upon the blood, sweat, tears, and deaths of workaday men. It’s kept running by the same. Men are 95% of on-the-job deaths.

        These self-destructive behaviors were (and still are) socialized & coerced by BOTH men & women.
        Women aren’t deadbeat shamed for failing to support an adult able-bodied man. Women aren’t virgin shamed, or low libido shamed, perv shamed, coward shamed.

        It’s the presupposition that women had it worse AND that they didn’t have input into the culture that I take umbrage with.

        If you look to some of the stock photos of Brown Vs Board of Education where white antagonists are following the black students trying to break segregation some of the most revulsion & hate-filled faces are worn by WHITE WOMEN, not the white men gathered there.

        Most lynchings of blacks were of black men for getting “uppity” around white women.

        To say that women had no impact upon the shape of society is to reduce women to pitiable wretches. Do you really think that?

        My grandfather was a medic in WWII & got two silver stars for pulling guys out of heavy fire. You know what? He was abused by my grandmother. Of course he was not going to call the cops on her & get laughed at.

        Women had IMMENSE indirect power in shaming men. Look to the white feather campaign.

    • Jorge Callico says:

      Exactly Aaron! To my mind it is still shocking when I see feminists like Danielle go into these debate/discussion arrangements with absolutely no ammunition for their arguments at all! Perhaps this is because feminism was so prevalent the past 40+ years that I automatically expect SOME kind of substance them. Then when the finally agree to debate (usually they refuse for obvious reasons)=there’s nothing there. The only comparison I could make would be a hypothetical case of a major world leader who couldn’t read or write.

      Feminism is violence! In fact I have never seen a feminist distance herself from the hate speech of monsters like Marilyn French or Andrea Dworkin. Not once in fact! And there’s a good reason for this: if feminists were to actively denounce the works of those rat bastards it would reduce recruitment of potential new members interested in an outlet for their violent thoughts.

      If I could confront Danielle I would show her the quote from Andrea Dworkin (below). Even after predicting in advance of meeting Danielle that she would not acknowledge the violence of that insane feminist author she would still refuse to distance herself from Dworkin’s words.

      Here: “”I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin

      Nowhere in the annals of men’s rights discussion will you ever see such horrible words writ about women. Or if you did say find some disturbed comment in a chat/forum discussion? His words would be deleted and he immediately banned. Conversely such violent types in the feminist movement freely speak of male mutilation, eugenics, mass murder and castration.

      Expect not a peep of outrage to their words from Danielle Paradis. Why? Because she can’t afford the loss of future (violent) subscribers…

      antimisandry.com http://antimisandry.com/feminist-misandry/feminist-quotes-20106.html#ixzz2NVRQL0BJ

  • Nils says:

    You seem like a great person. Thanks for the time you invested in responding to the critique of feminism, and for acknowledging that not all MRAs are the same.

    I am both a feminist and an MRA.

  • Daedalus says:

    I don’t really see how that image macro is “hatred”. The text on the right is certainly worded indelicately, but it is a completely valid interpretation of the event based solely on what she wrote. Her sign gives us no idea whether or not she said “no”, whether he used any form of coercion, whether he was trashed too, whether he was the one she was flirting with, or how she ended up in the staircase with him. In other words, we have no idea about the extent to which the sex was consensual.

    You’re probably thinking: “see? THIS is rape culture”, but I disagree. Words mean things. “Rape” is one of the most emotionally charged words in the language, and is generally regarded as one of the most horrible crimes one can perpetrate on another human being, right up there with murder. When you ask most people how they define rape, they’ll probably say something along the lines of coercing someone into having sex, or having sex with someone when they are unable to resist. Her sign does not indicate that this is what happened. Perhaps it was, and if it was then whoever did it should be punished, and she does deserve sympathy. As written, however, the event falls into a grey area – one that is quite different than holding someone down and forcing them to have sex. The word “rape” means something horrible, and should retain that meaning. If people want to describe something else, they should use a different word; this is where we get into all the semantic nonsense about “rape rape” and so on.

    I suspect what motivated the person who created that macro was her use of the word “rape” to describe something that isn’t clearly in line with most people’s understanding of the word. If the sex was not clearly nonconsensual, then by using the word “rape”, she is denying her own agency. She has no control over the things that happen in her life, she is merely an object, things just happen to her, and she is unable to make it through the world without someone “looking after her”. In other words, she is exactly the sort of person who needs “the Patriarchy” in one form or another.

    One of the major things that bothers me about modern-day feminism is how it attempts to criminalize not acts, but *interpretations* of an act. If rape is not an objective act – if consent to sex can be retroactively withdrawn, or it is defined as “not clearly and unambiguously saying yes” – then any sort of sexual interaction with the opposite sex becomes a very risky proposition. If sexual harassment is not an explicit type of conduct, but merely how someone interprets your conduct, then any sort of interaction with the opposite sex is a dangerous. Imprecision in language and imprecision in definitions poison the well of male-female relations. It turns our desire to defend people’s (particularly women’s) rights into a weapon that can be used and abused almost arbitrarily.

    Sorry for the wall of text, and I know this doesn’t address the rest of your post, but I felt it needed to be said.

    • Cassie says:

      This has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand. Make a post of your own if you feel the need to get this all out of your system.

      • Byron says:

        It addresses the photo Danielle posted as evidence of hatred in the Men’s Rights Movement. It has everything to do with this post & does it very well.

        Danielle’s entire post, however, addresses nothing of any consequence in GirlWritesWhat’s video, & that is the problem.

    • emkfeminist says:

      ” When you ask most people how they define rape, they’ll probably say something along the lines of coercing someone into having sex, or having sex with someone when they are unable to resist. Her sign does not indicate that this is what happened. Perhaps it was, and if it was then whoever did it should be punished, and she does deserve sympathy. As written, however, the event falls into a grey area – one that is quite different than holding someone down and forcing them to have sex.”

      Your entire argument is based on an incorrect definition of “rape”. Holding someone down and forcing someone to have sex is definitely rape. So is having sex with someone when they are unable to consent. It doesn’t matter how “most people” define rape — according to the legal definition, the woman in the photo was raped.

      From the Criminal Code of Canada (my personal point of reference):

      273.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2) and subsection 265(3), “consent” means, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.
      Where no consent obtained

      (2) No consent is obtained, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, where
      (a) the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant;
      (b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity;
      (c) the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority;
      (d) the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity; or
      (e) the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity.

      An intoxicated and/or unconscious person cannot legally consent to sexual activity.

      • Merlinium says:

        Good of you to post the actual legal definition here. It’s most instructive too. Most of these should be non-controversial, but this one I find fascinating:

        (c) the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority

        This seems extremely problematic, especially to a person who truly buys into Patriarchy Theory, etc. Within such a system, there is an inherent power dynamic, with men being the more socio-politically powerful by default. The logical extension here is that all sex *may* be rape, and it doesn’t even necessarily depend on the feelings of the woman involved. How can one even truly know if one has been coerced at all if our partriarchal system has conditioned us to this power dynamic since birth? Something that may seem like consent may very well be just an ingrained response to the power dynamic inherent in our society (patriarchy teaches women to be submissive; therefore the act of submitting to a man’s desire is inherently fraught). This may be a reductio ad absurdum, but all it takes is a few court rulings to establish such a precedent (that the imbalance of societal power in favor of men qualifies as an appropriate power dynamic that may be addressed under the law), and the situation would become very murky indeed. Moreover, this is not idle speculation on my part; there are many feminists (outliers, mayhap) who maintain that *all* sex not initiated by the woman is rape or at least sexual assault. In my view, this is simply the true logical extension of partriarchy theory. Anyway, just my two cents…

  • Byron says:

    Hi Danielle,

    as GWW herself has pointed out, you seem like a nice, well-intentioned sort who has unfortunately found herself in the position of attempting to defend the indefensible. I don’t know if you’ll ‘print’ this or not, but here are a couple of observations on your article.

    1. The Men’s Rights Movement – unlike say, radical feminism – is to my knowledge a 100% non-violent movement. No-one in it is calling for ‘bloodshed’, I have no idea where you got that from. Citing random hateful comments from passing crazies (or trolls) at The Spearhead as the beliefs of the MRM is absurd – I could turn up here under a different name & write “CASTRATE ALL MEN!” &, unless you make it your policy to censor me, I could then point to it & say ‘Look at the company you keep!’. See how easy it is?

    There are plenty of prominent spokespeople for the MRM (GWW, JtO, Paul Elam etc) that you could be quoting from, if you wanted to address the aims of the MRM. After all, they are the ones being listened to the most. Perhaps you should in future try focus your arguments on the basically agreed assumptions of the movement rather than on some random angry outbursts from noisy yahoos passing through. To do anything else is just a deceitful derailing of the argument.

    2. There is no evidence whatsoever of there existing, now or at any other time, ‘matriarchal societies’. If you believe there are, please name them & quote the original ethnographic sources (not ‘I read this in “Women Who Run With The Wolves”‘, etc).

    Although you must be aware that a matriarchal & a matrilineal society are two very different things (matriarchal being a society of men & women in which the upper positions of the many different hierarchies present are overwhelmingly female, matrilineal being simply the passing down of the name or property through the female line), but your statement seems to equate the two as if one is evidence of the other.

    The popular (among feminists) notion that the Mosuo tribe are in some way a fairytale, golden-palaced ‘Kingdom Of Women’ is not based on any ethnographical study (there IS none for that tribe), but from a single Los Angeles Times piece from 1999.

    Because this set off an internet Chinese whisper that still shows no signs of dying off, sociologist Steven Goldberg, who has spent over 40 years investigating all claims of proposed ‘matriarchies’ around the world, tracked down ‘Namu’, the Mosuo woman named in it whose research had been so misrepresented on the internet & spoke to her personally:

    ‘She laughed when I said that some Internet folk had referred to the Mosuo as a ‘matriarchy’. “How could we be a matriarchy? We’re Buddhist and the religious leaders are all men. There’s no other government. Men’s and women’s roles are a lot like when I lived in San Francisco. Compared to the non-Buddhist groups around us, women have a good position, but nothing (an American) would find unusual.”’

    As for the Minangkabau, they are, it is true, matrilineal, but this has hardly made life better for the women – because the men commonly leave the tribe in large numbers for very long periods of time to find work, wealth & experience, the women left behind are FORCED to carry out the hard labour the men (in a non-matrilineal society) would usually do, & organize the best they can in the males absence. It would be hard to say whether this state of affairs has come about in RESPONSE to the matrilineal tradition, or whether the matrilineal society came about in response to the tradition of the men leaving.

    If that is not enough, the Wikipedia page we’ve both read tells us they are a strongly Islamic society that practices sharia law. Again: hardly a feminist promised land, & most importantly, nothing in either of these examples disproves GirlWritesWhat’s assertions that universal male & female roles emerged out from natural selection (rather than some Patriarchal conspiracy to oppress women).

    And that, really, is the big problem: you FEEL your position is right but you can present no real argument or evidence for it that stands up to objective scrutiny. If you holding these beliefs had no detrimental effect upon others, I would say fine, you’re welcome to your opinion. But hateful feminist ideology has directly led to the deeply misandric society & governmental policies we have today all over the western world, & in such a situation it is only right you should be called upon to explain your support for such actions. And it’s either here or Nuremberg, take your pick.

    There are a number of other points I could take issue with, but they seem comparatively petty & I don’t want to be here all day. I did however think the photo on the left was perfectly captioned, though I realize that is an entirely new concept for you.

    Still, I hope you are fine & I wish you well.

    • There’s a lot to comment on here. To clarify I listed my sources. Certainly there are lots of citations that I could use but then I would just be accused of cherry-picking anyway.

      • Byron says:

        Yes, there’s a lot to comment on, & you’re not doing it. Your sources clarify nothing: the paper on “Gender differences…” has nothing to do with matriarchies whatsoever & what differences there are between women’s status in the Mosuo & Yi tribes has probably a lot more to do with the fact that one is a Buddhist society & the other still holds animistic beliefs.

        Sex At Dawn, also, is simply a popular bestseller, not an ethnographic, firsthand report, & one which has only received negative reviews & criticism from academia for its simplification of evolutionary psychology & its ideological bias. These are not sources but theories. Anyone can make up theories.

        I am trying really hard not to be mean here, but you really have no actual argument whatsoever, do you?

        Why on earth did you take up the challenge to defend feminism if you were just going to stand there & say nothing when anyone replied?

      • Say nothing? I have been posting all over three video forums for some time now. I’ve also been watching long videos and formulating responses. Were I to have addressed every point in a 40 minute video that would have been a long piece of writing. Then I could be dismissed as TL;DR I stated my argument, defended it. At the moment I’m working on a thesis I’m a busy girl and I don’t have time to jump through the hoops of every person who demands commentary. I’m working towards a thesis at the moment and I really don’t have time to do much more than I am. If the effort isn’t good enough for you than by all means waste no more time on this hapless girl.

        Yes Sex at Dawn is a book from popular culture, but it is a counter-argument for the existence of matriarchal societies, and one that is backed up by the other citation (which mentions both matrilineal and matriarchal and yes I do understand the difference).

        • Byron says:

          “it is a counter-argument for the existence of matriarchal societies, and one that is backed up by the other citation (which mentions both matrilineal and matriarchal”

          a) Why would you have to bring in ‘a counter-argument for the existence of matriarchal societies’? If they exist, surely you could just point to one?

          b) How does the other citation back up aforementioned ‘counter-argument’ when no-one says the Mosuo are a matriarchy? Makes no sense. There’s just a great big howling, windy hole where the proof should be.

          So, in other words, no matriarchies exist. You have no proof (evidence) of any sort that matriarchies exist. Why not just edit that line out of your post, you can’t back it up & have no reason to believe it yourself.

        • RDavies says:

          IMO and from my experience there have always been “matriarchal” societies amongst us, but they have tended to be at the bottom of society. When I was younger there were still traditional communities, such as seafarers, where the men were absent from very long periods. In these communities women controlled everything, simply because they were the only adults at home. When the men did come home, they simply didn’t know the system and they knew they’d be back to sea within weeks.
          For pre-1980′s industrial society women played a dominant role as they were the only adults able to go to the bank / building society, pay the rent, go shopping: simply because men worked very long hours, and before the retail sector started opening 24/7 they simply couldn’t get to these places. Thus on a Thursday lunchtime the men were paid and then handed their pay packets over to their wives. The women might give them back perhaps 50p ($1) to buy cigarettes. In UK most working men in the 1970′s didn’t even have bank accounts or debit cards.
          Middle class women didn’t have to do that. Their husbands had steady salaries, and those women born before WW2 were painfully aware that the autonomy that poor women had was an essential survival technique, not some women’s movement progression. But the middle class life was a trade off for security and leisure time. Women still made the majority of choices about the household, and the so-called power & status of men only existed in the workplace.
          Most Feminists came from these advantaged middle class backgrounds. These were the backgrounds that could afford to send their daughters to secondary school until they were 18 and then on to university. These middle class girls had no idea what poor working class girls saw and experienced, and as a consequence they assumed that the position of men and women were exactly the same as for the middle classes. While middle class girls might want the opportunity to be able to have access to the same work opportunities as their fathers and brothers, but for working class girls they often lived far nearer to men’s work and saw the realities of it. And they wanted no part of it.
          If we want balance then we all must look at the realities and recognise that things do not fall into the neat descriptions that feminists produce.
          It is frankly laughable that women were totally powerless and oppressed by men. The imagery that Feminists draws on various sources much of which was propaganda used in the 19th & early 20thC’s to promote teetotalism, and the prohibition of alcohol.

      • B-Ishii says:

        To Danielle,

        Your response was very short, not to mention it did not address any of GWW’s points. She spent a lot of time laying out her argument for you to understand and you appear to have spent no time at all on yours. The majority of it is a character assassination to her as a MRA. If your sources aren’t going to supplement a valid argument, we have no interest in them.

        The writing of your thesis is not an excuse for your lack of a response. You took up a challenge and failed to meet that challenge. If you are busy, why start a debate with GWW when you know full well that she will put the effort that she does in her arguments, when you cannot?

        Likewise, your responses to comments on Youtube do not impress. If you were to put effort into a response it would be here on your blog, or preferably for convenience, in a video response.

        You had all the opportunity to defend feminism, but so far you haven’t done so.

        • My dear:

          It is not my role to endure anyone’s melodramatic rendition of The Passion of the Feminist. I offered the perspective of one feminist for a hyperbolic claim which is impossible to prove–because despite the well laid argument by GWW there still exists evidence to the contrary. For example, a movement that wishes to prevent the tortures endured by Jyoti Singh Pandey and her male companion seeks to change an environment in which that type of violence is tolerated. I do not advocate the death penalty for the men who raped her, who ruptured her organs with a pole. Instead, I urge we look at what factors allow the dehumanization of another person to occur. That is not hate. As not all of the MRA movement could possibly be hateful, so to is it with feminism. The beginning of the conversation is laid down for you should you wish to see it. I am always here if you wish to talk.

      • B-Ishii says:


        I don’t consider that a very strong premise to support the argument that feminism is not hate either. I could equally point to the few good things Stephen Harper has done for Canada and claim that this is evidence for the Conservative Party not being a negative influence on the country. Not only have you ignored the negative aspects of feminism which could give credence to feminism as hatred, but your argument does not support the negation of this statement.

        Regrettably, I have not heard the original radio broadcast where this debate was first pitted, but as GWW stated, your video response did little to support the idea that feminism is not hatred, and I think GWW did well in decomposing your statements to attempt to show you that perhaps it is. Likewise, as I said earlier, this blog response did not support your sentiments, nor did it address GWW’s argument at all.

        Although you arguably made a case for the Men’s Rights Movement expressing hate, this is not the topic of discussion. In logic, we would call this a red herring.

        I hope you’ll be able to see that this response is not acceptable as an argument to support the sentiment that feminism is not hatred, nor is it acceptable as a response to GWW.

        • Speaking of red herrings, the original topic was that feminism is hate. All the information outside of that topic including GWW’s depiction of the perils of men throughout history, and the reign of Michelle Obama, is ignoring the resolution that her and Eric originally set “Feminism is hate”. My arguments about the vote and marital tape serve as examples of reasonable non-hate related causes for which feminists have fought for. The vote was originally brought up up in the video by Eric. I expanded on that point even if you consider that voting was based first on land ownership that does nothing to hinder the argument that women wishing to pursue the vote could be motivated by the right for equality under the law. Not for hatred. I actually see it as females demanding to be held accountable for their actions–and thus freeing men from the burden of care. Read the Seneca falls Declaration of Sentiments if you are interested in that.

        • And I’ve just checked you won’t be able to see Eric, the original opponent’s video because he deleted his channel. Not sure what’s happened to him.

      • B-Ishii says:

        Firstly, that isn’t the argument proposed by GWW. She is arguing that universal male suffrage was granted by conscription for the sacrifices men gave (hundreds of thousands of lives) during the civil war. A blink of an eye later, suffragettes are demanding the same reward without having to sacrifice their lives the way men did.

        But I digress… Did Eric pose the argument of universal female suffrage in the original proposition, that feminism is hate?

        It was very acceptable for GWW to comment on this, seeing as it is an example of feminists using their political leverage (discussed in her second video) to manipulate the government and indeed the public today to satisfy their own goals for the benefit of women. In some cases, men are harmed by this political leveraging, such as with spending on healthcare programs. To me, when worded like that, it seems that feminism is hatred; the movement is motivated by hatred.

        On the topic of Obama and his wife’s role in political decision making, one can also make the connection that this is hatred. Again, manipulating the public by saying that feminism does all these great things yet doesn’t have a voice, and that women as a whole don’t have a voice in politics is countered by this example. This sort of manipulation can possibly be connected to hatred.

      • Jacko says:

        Cherry-picking might be OK in case it is representative. As Byron said, taking some random anonymous is hardly representative of MRA’s ideas. Let me cherry-pick some well-known feminist theoretician whose articles have appeared in The Guardian and Los Angeles Times:

        “I feel that “man-hating” is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”

        “Sexism is NOT the fault of women — kill your fathers, not your mothers.”

        As long as feminists (or anyone) don’t take a clear stand against these kind of sick, twisted hatred “ideology” (which by the way smears true Marxism and makes a ludicrous caricature of it) I have the right to consider that person dangerous and a potential enemy.

    • I’ve tracked down an ethnography of the Mosuo: Hua, C. (2001) A Society Without Fathers.

      “This lucid ethnographic study shows how a society can function without husbands or fathers. It sheds light on marriage and kinship, as well as on the position of women, the necessary conditions for the acquisition of identity, and the impact of a communist state on a society that it considers backward.”

      • Byron says:

        That paper is simply about the effects of fatherlessness on a society: as pointed out before, it is a tradition for the males to leave the tribe & go find their way in the world – under those circumstances, of course a woman must step up & become the ‘matriarch’ of her own house, just as in this society all single mothers have to.

        Another point to remember is that a matrilineal society is far more rigidly segregated than any in the west, & would be a nightmare to most feminists. It’s kind of funny how they are held up by them to be some more ideal society, when so many of the ‘privileges’ modern women enjoy would necessarily need to be stripped away in order to live that way. You yourself acknowledge that all political power & decision making of the Mosuo resides with the males, & as the Namu, the Mosuo woman I quoted earlier says, “How could we be a matriarchy? We’re Buddhist and the religious leaders are all men. There’s no other government. Men’s and women’s roles are a lot like when I lived in San Francisco. Compared to the non-Buddhist groups around us, women have a good position, but nothing (an American) would find unusual.”

        Mosuo society does seem very unique & interesting, for a number of reasons, but the inescapable point is – whatever else it is – it’s not a matriarchy, which is what you are offering it up as evidence for.

      • Byron,

        It is the merely the ethnography which you demanded and said did not exist. I thought you might be interested to know that there was one.

        A society that is functioning without husbands or fathers, in which the women head the household sounds a lot like a matriarchal society to me. There are hosts of studies by which the Mosuo are referred to as a matriarchal society.

        “The origin of Mosuo people as revealed by mtDNA and Y chromosome variation” by Bo Wen, Hong Shi, Ling Ren, Huifeng Xi, Kaiyuan Li, Wenyi Zhang, Bing Su, Shiheng Si, Li Jin, Chunjie Xiao

        state that: “The Mosuo, living in the Lugu Lake area in northwest Yunnan Province, China, is the only matriarchal population in China”

        “Family marriage and fertility in a matriarchal society — social survey of the Naxi nationality in Ninglang County, Yunnan Province” by Zhang K

        State that: “Researchers discovered 3 types of households among the Musuo 1) In the matrilineal household, a female presides over all activities and production. blood-ties are passed through the mother, and marriage patterns are characterized by the “visiting” style. In this type of union, the partners belong to separate economic units (the male resides in his mother or sister’s household), and disunion is easy and unrestricted. 2) In the matri-patrilineal household, both partners share the same economic unit, which includes both matrilineal and patrilineal members. And 3) the patrilineal household, in which a women joins the man’s family. Among the Musuo households surveyed, 41.4% were matri-patrilineal, 32.5% were patrilineal, and 26.4% were matrilineal. The matrilineal household has disappeared in the new People’s Village, but remains common in the Yongning Township.”

        That is not an exhaustive list, but a sampling.

        And so, my background is not in ethnography at all but there is a prevalence of data by researchers more versed in the topic that I that cite both “matriarchal” and “matrilineal” in regards to the Mosuo people. Perhaps we are all being terribly deceived.

        Further, my point was not that they are a superior society, but that I have significant reason to believe that they are a matriarchal society–because they have been studied and classified as such, as you can see from the literature the same assumption has been restated quite a few times.

        • Byron says:

          Yes, the assumption has been – incorrectly – made several times. I addressed that in my very first reply. My point is that assumption is unsupported by the facts. Also, considering the sources you cite are Chinese, it may even be simply an issue of translation, as both ‘matriarchal’ & ‘matrilineal’ are unfamiliar words, & may perhaps have different connotations in the original. Either way, the 1st source you quote is about DNA, it has nothing to do with demonstrating if & why the Mosuo are matriarchal, so has no bearing on…well, on anything, really.

          The 2nd source, the ‘social survey of the Naxi nationality’ you quote is interesting, as the 3 types of household found there sound almost exactly the same as what we have right now in the west:

          “1) In the matrilineal household, a female presides over all activities and production. blood-ties are passed through the mother, and marriage patterns are characterized by the “visiting” style. In this type of union, the partners belong to separate economic units (the male resides in his mother or sister’s household), and disunion is easy and unrestricted”.

          In other words, a present-day single mother: She has children who take on her surname. She has no man she lives with but a boyfriend who visits (& still lives at home with his mum). He refuses to marry her.

          “2) In the matri-patrilineal household, both partners share the same economic unit”

          Modern western marriage.

          “And 3) the patrilineal household, in which a women joins the man’s family.”

          Traditional western marriage.

          By this line of thinking, then, you believe that you have uncovered evidence that Britain & America today are in fact matriarchies! Whoah!

          That’s really quite a breakthrough. Whatever you’re writing your thesis on right now I think you should stop & throw yourself full time into this. It could well result in a Nobel Prize. :)

          Ok Ok, just kidding. I couldn’t help it, sorry.

          Aaaanyway, according to your quote, only a quarter of the Musuo are matrilineal AT ALL, which doesn’t seem to speak very well to its central role in defining that society, & again, draws parallels with our own.

          I think perhaps you are confusing a female head of a household with systems of government. The epidemic of fatherless homes in, say, inner-city black communities since the 60′s has led to those single mothers being referred to as ‘matriarchs’ & even those areas as ‘matriarchies’ – but this is simply because there are so few men living there & helping raise children. Few of the women living in those communities think that is a good thing.

          Anyway, the bottom line is that you are repeatedly quoting sources to back up your beliefs that are either entirely unrelated to the matter at hand or that do not say what you assume they do. I guess you’re free to believe whatever it is you want to, but I think most people would agree you’re not free to try make others believe things that are demonstrably untrue. But maybe that’s just me.

          And you’re right, I AM pleased to find that there is an ethnographical text written by someone who has actually spent time with them (it’s actually titled the ‘Na’ of China, rather than ‘Mosuo’, which is probably why it didn’t show up when I searched). I’ve found that my local university library has a copy of it, so i will go check it out tomorrow & give you my thoughts on it (including quotes) if you so wish.

          And in all seriousness, good luck with your (real) thesis.

          • I’m interested in the ethnography too but I can probably check it out from my Uni’s library and save you from having to quote lengthy passages.

            My “real” thesis is on open education. Specifically the study of open textbooks. Completion is a long ways off.

        • matrilineal does not imply that there isn’t a man in the household – it’s just that the relationship is a loose one. you seem to be equating matrilineal with matriarchy and two aren’t the same, as it has been pointed to you before. Another matrilineal society i know of is the asante people of ghana in west africa. Consider this woman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaa_Asantewaa who lead the asante people in the 4th Anglo-Asante war. this proves that way back in 1900, there were societies where women and men could stand together on a battlefield but is it also true that the asante society is matriarchal? the answer is no. men have their place and that’s along their mother’s bloodline.

  • Hieronymous "The Troll" Braintree says:

    The central claim of feminism is that women are oppressed by a so-called patriarchy in which men, out of gender hatred, systematically allot all advantages to themselves and all disadvantages to women. If basically true, then women really would be victims of oppression and misogyny. If, however, the claim is basically untrue then saying that feminists don’t hate men is exactly like saying that anti-Semites don’t hate Jews.

    GWW is laying out a number of examples of how women’s concerns were heeded, including some cases that were heeded very much to the obvious disadvantage of men in the supposed pre-feminist dark ages. If her examples hold up (and I’m pretty sure they will–the right to vote by itself makes her case pretty much a lock) then women were not oppressed as feminists claim, which means that men are the objects of their gender hatred, which means (ta da!) that feminism is a hate movement. Which it is.

    It’s really sort of simple, isn’t it?

    And, BTW, the two photos of that women is not an example of gender hatred. It is an example of sarcasm. If a woman gets drunk and has sex with a man in a stairwell and does it consensually, then she is responsible for both being drunk and her decisions made while drunk. Part of equality mean being expected to take responsibility for acting like a jerk instead of blaming others. As GWW and others have remarked, the radical notion of the men’s rights movement is that not only are women people too, they’re adults AND SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO ACT LIKE IT.


  • PaulBlartMallCop1 says:

    Just for the record, the National Organization for Women considers the men’s rights movement and fathers rights movements to be hate groups. I don’t think that is fair.


  • RDavies says:

    Whatever this reply was, it was no rebuttal of Girls Writes What.
    As for Feminism being a Hate Movement that is an interesting idea. certainly much of the language used by so called Feminists is violently aggressive, and has parallels with the sort of language that the Nazis and lesser antisemites said about Jews. However feminists are in a bind. On one hand they’d like to state that women can go it alone and don’t need men. On the other they have to face the inescapable fact that women in the Western world are wholly incapable of sustaining their life styles on their current levels of productivity.
    In UK females consume over 90% of all NHS provision, but females generated less than a third of its revenue through tax payments. There are parallels across the public sector with the imbalance of contributions and consumption.
    What Feminists have proven themselves very adept at doing is utilising Victorian / Edwardian stereotypes to justify the continuing victimhood of women. Women and children are endlessly lumped together as victims of abuse, even though 70% of all child abuse is perpetrated by biological mothers. Statistically any child is safer with their biological father than anyone else, even though most people would not normally believe it.
    Feminists have also been successful in influencing public policy to the stage where even before the law men and women are treated remarkably differently. A man is 96 times more likely to be convicted of IPV crime than a woman committing exactly the same offence in the same circumstances.
    But creating the myth of women as exclusive victims actually hinders women getting the progress they want, because it addresses and develops strategies based on a myth and not objective facts.
    Girl Writes What is remarkable in her objectivity and the thoroughness of her research. To rebut her requires the same standards, which sadly are lacking here.

    • It’s not a rebuttal the premise of the debate was “feminism is hate” and her lengthy response does not work towards that resolution. http://youtu.be/gy8gF4GrHa8 see Russ’ video he does a good job explaining why.

      • R Davies says:

        I suppose the argument hinges on what is hate, and what that impulse results in. Hatred is an emotional expression of antipathy wherein rational argument and objectives facts are irrelevant. Many of the assertions made by so-called feminists are emotionally devoid of facts and do posit males as a monstrous other. As I have said elsewhere feminism like other revolutionary political movement requires the other as an enemy and constant conflict to sustain it. As much as it was irrelevant that German Jews in WW1 had proven themselves to be far more patriotic then ethnic Germans, winning 12 times as many Iron Crosses per capita, the Nazis felt no compunction in ignoring these facts to project Jews as the perpetual enemy. Feminism’s patriarchy isn’t much different to the fantasy of the Elders of Zion – all powerful and inherently oppressively evil. While feminism may express hatred of men as a group, it reserves its vitriol to the enemy within, namely women who disagree with the feminist paradigm. With that in mind, yes I think it can be readily argued that much of feminism is characterised by hate.

    • John D says:

      RDavies, I am going to enumerate your two points:

      A)”Women and children are endlessly lumped together as victims of abuse, even though 70% of all child abuse is perpetrated by biological mothers.”

      B)”Statistically any child is safer with their biological father than anyone else”

      My response:
      A) I agree with this with 1 disclaimer. Mothers r 70% of all *PARENTAL* child abuse. When u include step parents, family & strangers mothers % drops.

      This is proven correct in the 2006 child maltreatment study from the HHS. Mothers r also the culprit in 70% of parental child slayings

      B) I don’t think the data proves that. I think what the data shows is that the primary custody / visitor parenting arrangement family courts r in love with is a bad model.

      If I remember correctly some 12% of the populace have undiagnosed mental disorders.
      The sole custody model removes a childs best defense against a dysfunctional parent–the other parent.

      I would believe that if the genders were flipped on custody, that it would then be 70% of fathers who committed biological parental slayings & abuse of children.

      • R Davies says:

        My understanding of the basic situation is that the closer a woman is biologically to a child the more likely she is to be abusive and the opposite is true for men. I came across this statement when leading a review of children’s services in London following the Victoria Climbe and Baby P cases. The relationship between biological mothers and their children is profoundly different to that of fathers and their children, and I know of no evidence to suggest that were fathers to be primary carers that we would see a rise in abuse of children by them.

  • [...] a rebuttal to GWW our commenter says (and I cherry pick so here, find the entirety yourself in Open Letter to Girl Writes What I’m damn patient but there are limits to the education I will spoon [...]

  • John D says:

    Excerpt from the article:
    “You propose that a situation is either/or—that the indifference of some in the feminist movement towards men is the proof of hatred throughout feminisms’ entirety.”

    Feminist pundits positionging themselves centrally in the DV industry & spreading systematic lies about male perfidy while RUTHLESSLY suppressing contrary credible evidence of gender symmetry of DV & VIOLENTLY censoring those who want to help male victims isn’t merely indifference.

    How many thousands of men were not able to escape violence (or their children saved from witnessing it) due to these advocates misappropriating feminisms banners to inflict harm upon men?

    When you look to the feminisms largest polticial lobbying arms, their advocacy in relation to men has been overwhelmingly harmful & hateful. Where is the brakes within feminism to stop this?

  • jo says:

    The problem is BOTH men AND women are oppressed. Men I think moreso than women, since even their clothes have not really changed that much in years, yet women are able to wear trousers without anyone batting an eyelid.

    However stirring up hatred towards women (all women lie about rape) and hatred towards men (all men are rapists) is absolutely despicable. It helps no one. It lets everyone revel in their anger and blame and blamelessness. Why is it that we all know that violence is wrong. We all know that there are people who are real shits, and really push peoples buttons and STILL we know that the person who uses violence against them has crossed the line. But rape is still seen as the victims fault. It seems that we are able to forgive children and men for being victims than we can for women.

    Women have a right to stand up for themselves. If someone thinks that is hate, well their is not much hope for them in this world. Men equally have a right to stand up for themselves. But why is this a man vs woman issue anyway.

    Shouldn’t we be working together to fight against violence, oppression and hate together? A black man and a white man can work together side by side, regardless of history. Why can’t men and women do the same?

    Go to http://www.acalltomen.org — Now THIS is about empowering men, THIS is about freeing men from oppression AND its about ending violence towards not only women, but men and children too. So if you’re a man, or woman, I throroughly recommend this site. Girl writes what is extreme, it goes completely the other way and does nothing to fix things. We need to move forward NOT backward, regardless of our gender or views. There is room for both men and women in this world.

    • Rod Davies says:

      The Call To Men (CTM)site is fascinating, not so much in what it says (which is the same tired old cliches) but what it doesn’t say. There is no recognition that large numbers, and arguably the majority, of men are victims of oppressive cultures and of violence.
      What CTM presents is a call to men to conform with very traditional male stereotypes. While I have no issue with respecting & valuing women and children, going back to the failed and failing traditional model seems rather stupid. The traditional model for a man no longer works because in the last 100 years the world has been changing exponentially and men need to find a new way of dealing with it.
      CTM focuses on an alleged need for men to change. Yet the system that has created all these dysfunctional men is constructed and maintained as much by women as men.
      The CTM images of primarily of well dressed men, conforming to a middle class professional model, who will, as we all immediately recognise because we’re conditioned to expect it, put his interests to one side in the interests of women and children. While it may be supposedly noble to sacrifice ones self for the greater good, it results in vast numbers of men arriving at a point in their lives when they see the opportunities for self-fulfillment gone and they learn to resent the generally ungrateful beneficiaries of their sacrifice.
      There are enough embittered men out there, the last thing we need is more of the same.

  • Anonymous says:

    [quote] The movement to label feminism as hatred does neither of us any good. [/quote]

    Almost by definition feminism is a hate group/movement Danielle! Again I urge you to examine the quotes from feminists I’ve given you. Then please define them as the hate speech that they are. Next denounce ALL those who say them

    But I predict that you won’t. After all you’ve had several days already here to denounce the quote I gave you from that monster Andrea Dworkin. Here, have a few (there are many) more:

    “If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them.” – David Angier

    “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” – Catherine Comins

    “All men are rapists and that’s all they are”
    – Marilyn French,

    “We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men.” — Elizabeth Cady Stanton

    “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart

    So Danielle:

    Girl Writes What is right on the money when she says that “feminism is hate speech”… From the HATE GROUP we know as “feminism”. The idea that you would say:

    “The movement to label feminism as hatred does neither of us any good”

    is pure denial. You have NOT renounced the violence of feminism and as I predicted. Then when given the opportunity to do so you still wouldn’t. Further even when needled into taking the action (by my using the the horrific words of noted feminists) you STILL refuse to acknowledge the inherent VIOLENCE of the movement you defend. Why refuse to accept the basic tendency of feminism to promote violence if you’re not actually one of the persons openly or secretly endorsing violent attacks on men and boys?

    Answer: By definition feminism AND feminists are violent.

    • What do you want me to denounce quotes where I do not understand the context? I think that is unreasonable. I didn’t write them boyo. I’m aware of many pf the attitudes of suffragettes was less than perfect. So were the founding fathers who KEPT SLAVES. Feminism has a most imperfect history.

      • Anonymous says:

        The context is simple Danielle: those women are crazy. VIOLENT crazy that is. Yet your original statement maintains that feminism isn’t violent. An easily disproved concept once one examines the facts about feminism. This is part of the reason “Girl Writes What” IS so successful. Why she’s the new internet rage: Feminism IS violent. Their main concepts usually untrue and no other woman has ever taken them to task for it before Girl did.

        GWW simply came along at the right time. Money found on the ground is the easiest money there is. A reasonably bright person, all she did was bend over and pick it up. We’re all richer for her work.

        The quotes I gave you come from noted feminists Danielle. Some from fairly recent history. The clearest forms of hate speech I’ve ever seen coming from a movement generally described as liberal. I do declare myself a tree hugging, anti war liberal too. Though not a feminist if only because feminism is so violent. Yet I have never seen anything so hate filled coming from any other of our liberal causes. Not even close… These fem’s take the cake on this one. This is obvious and if only for your own good you ought to admit it.

        Not even when George W Bush stole the 2002 election did any of my kind spout words as violent as those fems did about men. We didn’t plot to beat the president and stick a shoe in his mouth like a pig. Didn’t plot to castrate, or neuter Republicans OR plan to eliminate 80% of their kind.

        But feminists not only spew these hate filled remarks they do so freely AND with total impunity. Had they said these words to the president? They’d all be doing 20 to life in Club Fed.

        To wish it were only words the fems threw at us. They give violence against men a free pass, VAWA is designed to take property and money away from men simply because they were unfortunate enough to move in with a woman.

        “Abused” women go into warm, well equipped shelters. Abused men? They sleep in theirs cars. If they still have a car that is after their personality disordered significant other stole his wallet, emptied his ATM, and TOOK his car after she busted him on false allegations of domestic violence. Happens all the time. False allegations of both D/V and rape are more the rule than the exception.

        And you KNOW that women do these things Danielle! Is nothing new. I’ll bet that your girlfriends at work speak of these things. Some may even brag about sending their b/f away on false or trumped up charges of D/V. It’s the new game and couldn’t exist without VAWA.

        Women initiate MORE domestic violence than men do! Here’s a mind blowing statement: ”

        “One of the leading causes of injury to women in domestic violence incidents is their own initiation of violence. She hits first and he retaliates with far greater force. Dr. Sandra Stith of Kansas State University has called it “a dramatically more important factor than anything else.”

        I believe that even our own CDC has concurred with this saying: “Women initiate MORE domestic violence in non reciprocal violent relationships”

        Conclusion: The topic and your statement maintain that it is “not helpful” to describe feminism as violent. However once we look at this claim after reviewing the FACTS we clearly see it untrue. It is time to put aside emotional arguments. These feminists argue from their instincts constantly. I even had a woman try and declare that “women victims of war worldwide are not only greater than men but their bodies are piled higher than the Nazis did the Jews”. Oddly enough this kind of complete fabrication isn’t so unusual:

        When a feminist can not find facts to back up her claim (which is most the time anyway)??? She will simply make them up. We see this in D/V, rape hysteria, claims of “oppression”, college entrance stats everywhere.

        I’;d say you’re busted Danielle. But still do wish that you would simply denounce the words of those monsters I quoted. For your own sake.

        Afterwards? Get on the TEAM!! Work for real egalitarian issues. Not for special rights laws written by overweight, unattractive. middle aged and older bull dykes who hate all men and boys. Then as I do you will quickly learn how utterly easy it is to OWN feminists in debates…

        As GWW says: “Own Your Own Shit” http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com/

        Thank you for responding anyway.

  • Rod Davies says:

    Fellow men, at the heart of this issue is men’s failure. Yes, we are to blame.
    Not to blame for battering, raping, discriminating against, enslaving, torturing women. Oh no!

    What we and our predecessors (my fathers generation), simply did not take feminism seriously enough to engage with it and explore their demands, and challenge feminism to develop “business models” for what the long term outcome would be. Partly, IMO, this was due to the fact that most men actually wanted women to be their equals in everything, and so feminists were pushing at an open door. Partly, perhaps arrogantly, we assumed that what feminists were saying was more the female claptrap that we as men really close our ears to most of the time. (I am not sorry if some women are upset by this, but women can talk so absolute crap a lot of the time.)

    Unchallenged the incredibly introspective movement called feminism created a various platforms for all sorts of ideas. As we men just ignored it, there was no balancing articulation of the male perspective. As these feminists became more influential and progressed into positions of power they had unfettered access to social policy making. In many respects using their networks the feminists created a tangible entity that mirrored the “patriarchy” that they had conjured up in their political development. But this new power base had really coordinated influence and support in a way that the Patriarchy construct never had.
    Feminists almost from the beginning warned of the “Backlash”, and that feminist had to be on their guard against it.

    When men, in the shape of some fairly inept groups, belatedly started to challenge the extremes of feminism, feminism was ready with an entire body of counters to the request for moderation from men. feminists proved themselves extraordinarily effective in lobbying against change and closing off avenues for equality as they appeared if they appear to reduce women’s advantages.

    By the late 1990′s there started to emerge individual women who were increasingly uncomfortable about the level of influence that feminists have. Often these were the mothers of boys who observed how unequal public policy disadvantaged their sons. But even in the early Men In Crisis events, feminists managed to dominate the debate and actual men were often completely absent. In most of these early events male participants were never more than perhaps 5%, and it was to these men that the women looked for insight.

    This situation will never change until we men organise locally, nationally and internationally and go through the same processes that feminists did. In the debates that will follow, we have to tell women they have no place, these will be debates by men, with men and for men. Women can listen if they wish, and they will find it incredibly uncomfortable to hear men speak of their experiences of women (ordinary women and not just the FeminoFascists at the extreme end of feminism.) The language will be clumsy and seemingly extreme as men explore alien territory – what we feel and have felt.

    To date what we as men have mainly done is what we do best, we’ve walked away in silence and cried silent tears alone. But it doesn’t help us and it certainly doesn’t help women.

    If we are to change and start to express out experiences and emotions it will be a long hard journey for us to undo all the conditioning of the thousands of years where we have been ordered to be silent, and to suppress our pain. It will not be like it was for feminists as they explored the female condition because women have always talked about their inner feelings.

    IMO the feminists, who are out there screaming at the participants to M(H)RM events making all sorts of awful accusations, are frightened. They are frightened to hear what ordinary men may actually feel and actually want. They are frightened because once mens anguish is recognised and legitimised then it too has a claim on the communal resources to which feminism has to date asserted an exclusive claim. IMO this entire charade is all about money.

    I am sorry that this is so long.

    • Anonymous says:

      Good post Rod. I think the feminists are afraid because if even one thing the MRA;s say is true? This single truth paints them for the monsters that they really are. Kind of like 9/11: If anything the truthers say is true? Well we’re all in a lot of trouble.

      And in fact much to all of what the MRA’s say surely is provably true. The reason poor Danilelle won’t accept that feminism is a hate group. She can’t or it lays waste to her whole worldview. So it’s easier for her to just shake her head no, whistle and pretend I’m not here. Doesn’t matter how silly this appears. Most the women I know (my own otherwise very bright daughter included) can not accept criticism of feminism even when the truth is obvious as a category 4 hurricane howling outside.

      And Rod is correct: Men did let this happen but can’t much be blamed. It is the inherent and ingrained CHIVALRY each man carries in his mind that prevented him from even raising a finger in protest. Essentially what feminism did was model the technique the early American slave owner used.

      He gave the female slaves a cozy place in the master’s home if they kept the men in line. This technique was borrowed from the Roman conquerors. Nothing new… The best slave holders are always the actual slaves themselves. The master merely needs to offer the females a few extra crumbs and immediately she sells her own men and boys down the river. It’s part of her ingrained sense of entitlement. She expects favors even when she doesn’t deserve them. Thus she can allow men (whom she regards as expendable utilities anyway) to suffer the most grotesque of hardships and yet show them no concern at all.

      Family court, VAWA lies, and even the war machine were made because their creators realized the truth of my previous paragraph…

      • 1. I can “hear” you and I’m allowing you to criticize, condescend, and insult me on my blog. So stop bitching.

        2. I just don’t find your mannerisms particularity pleasant and I don’t enjoy speaking with you. Whereas Rod and I have a wonderful time here.

        3. It has never been my responsibility to answer for the words of radical feminists.

        And lastly there’s certainly problems with feminism and if you bothered to read more on this blog you would see that I do criticize feminism. Also I am just delighted that your bright daughter is a feminist. ❤

      • Rod Davies says:

        I am not sure where you get your ideas about the management of slaves from.

        Slave owners cared for female slaves because they produce the next generation of slaves. If we compared the treatment of slaves with that bond workers we see the difference. Bond workers often failed to live long enough to see out the period of bond, and the owners merely drive them into early graves. A slave they had for life and so they had an interest in keeping them healthy, especially if the availability of slaves was limited as it had been after the importation of new slaves from Africa was made illegal in 1830. Of course the slave owners looked after the female slaves cos that’s where the next generation of slaves comes from.

        Feminism is far too broad, varied and amorphous to describe as a “hate group”. Even Feminists can’t agree what its objectives are or what constitutes a Feminist.
        Danielle may be wrong on somethings, so what. She’s young and it’s only by expressing herself that she can elicit a response; then listening and thinking; and maybe revising her views. Thank the Lord she does actually engage, and she’s very cool for doing so.

        P.S. Of course your bright daughter is a Feminist (regardless of whether she believes it all) cos it presses your button every time, and that’s what kids do. Power to her elbow!

        • Ugh I wrote a long post and it deleted. I’ll try this again. I actually think a lot of things that MRAs talk about make sense. Yes, male suicide is not addressed, male rape, especially prison rape is made the butt of jokes by a hypermasculine society that all that ignores the pain and suffering caused. So too do the courts unfairly favor the woman on the presumption that she is a better caregiver. While evolutionary psychologists may claim women are naturally more caring there are many ways in society that we trump evolution i.e., our bodies are meant to hold fat for times of scarcity but since we rarely have scarcity in the developed world we have adapted to restrict food and exercise. It’s no different with the ability to parent. I’d say the parenting skills are becoming more equal because we grow up with smaller families. My grandmother helped to raise eight children. On the other hand I was the youngest in my family and only learned to change diapers through baby sitting. My acquaintance Ally Fogg (male, for reference) puts this feminism/male rights dichotomy well: ” I think it is more accurate to say that feminism concerns itself with those areas in which women are disadvantaged. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. It’s not feminism’s job to sort out all the world’s problems, but to address female disadvantage and discrimination, just as I think it is primarily men’s job to address male disadvantage and discrimination. I’m not waiting for women to do that for me, are you?”

          I don’t agree completely situations like the family court should be a joint concern. But men also best know men’s concerns.

          • Rod Davies says:

            Danielle, I think men have always done parenting and enjoyed it. Some recent interviews with mainly women in their 80′s & 90′s regarding their fathers of the 1920′s suggest that men of the time were nothing like the image that is painted of them.
            There was however until recently this weird idea that men were incompetent as carers, and women and health professionals would step in and take infants away from men.
            I remember vividly when my first son was born my immediate instinct was to pick him up and cuddle him. So I did.
            Up rushed the doctors (literally) and took him from me with all sorts of dire warnings about me dropping him or passing some infection or whatever. A silent scream of anguish and then terrible sadness ran through me at that moment.
            For as long as I can remember I have known how to change a baby’s nappy (a diaper for you Oglala Lakota / Cherokee types). My mum was a district midwife and so we always had mothers and babies about, and anyway changing a nappy isn’t rocket science, it’s just a bit smelly that’s all. Hell, my father had delivered me when the midwife couldn’t get to our home due a severe storm (he’d learnt as a medic during the Korean War), and I survived the ordeal!
            About 12 years ago I did some work with the Army reviewing their recruitment marketing material. What was really interesting was that the most compelling image for teenage boys considering going into the infantry was one of a basis soldier playing with toddlers during a peace keeping mission in Africa. Not fighting, playing sports or acquiring marketable skills, but playing like a big brother with small children. And it’s not like the British Army doesn’t occasionally involve itself in war…
            I often wonder if everyone, media, feminists, politicians etc, all shut up and let boys & men be as they would like to be whether they would turn out to be the very gentle people that women want. I’m sure as sure can be that none of us set out to be the dysfunctional people we often are.

            As for the Family Courts the Law Society in UK proposed a decade ago that they should be restructured to end the adversarial nature, and something like an Examining Magistrate be created to ensure that the outcome was fair to all. Sadly it got nowhere, too many vested interests (lawyers???)

        • Anonymous says:

          “Feminism is far too broad, varied and amorphous to describe as a “hate group”. …”

          Yes Rod there were probably some “nice nazis” too I suppose. The facts however are that the WELL FUNDED Fems dominate our college campuses and law writing efforts in Washington and various state capitals. And they write the VIOLENT laws and create the VIOLENT atmosphere for men. Just yesterday I debated a Huff Post nazi fem who sought the “eventual elimination of the necessary evil (for now) men”. Any other group defined as this would have resulted in the censoring of the sexist post. But calling for the elimination of men? Acceptable.

          The warm & fuzzy feminists? Well yeah they exist too. Kinda, but in the words of Girl Writes What they “amount to a gnat in the face of a musk ox”.

          And like Danielle these warm and fuzzy fems have still not specifically denounced the radicals who seek the castration and elimination of men. Bad for recruitment. Hate sells. Peace? Well it’s bad for business and business is what this well funded hate industry aka VAWA is all about. Money.

          I do not belong to any organization NOR will wear the banner of any group with members (significant in size such as the violent sickos of feminism are) who plot the death and dismemberment of any set of people. Period. As did that sicko fem who debated me just yesterday. Openly seeking the mass murder or men.

          So yes feminism is hatred. ALL of it. Even manginas seeking to score a few brownie points here and there with feminists. Sadly for them their efforts are in vain. In fact I think it’s been proven that these manginas are even more belittled in feminist circles than the MRA’s are. Taken for suckers by their master fems. Kinda like the unscrupulous woman who tells a macho guy that he needs to beat up her boyfriend and he falls for the scam. She considers him an even bigger schmuck than the poor clown she had him clobber. Example: “Here’s a nice guy destroy him”

          DANIELLE EDIT: I’m sorry I can’t dig up Dworkin and yell at her to help your feelings. Arguing with people on HuffPo though? WOW you’re right feminism is hate. Also I deleted your link because Rod’s already seen it and it he hasn’t he can Google. You’re language is getting pretty hateful towards men “mangina” is a particularly interesting insult because it insults men based on a tie to the feminine. You are going to need to reconsider who is being hateful here.

      • Rod Davies says:

        2nd Pt of reply: re: CHIVALRY??? As they say this side of the pond “BOLLOCKS!”
        Men didn’t ignore feminism because of chivalry or let feminist go unchallenged because of it.
        We did it because we were arrogant mainly, and secondly too wrapped up in the conditioning that we were subjected to to even notice.
        Also I think we let it happen because most of us were sick and tired of the “helpless little woman” who was an endless emotional drain, and we hoped at last women would stop the endless whine (so it seemed to us) and got on with living.

  • Anonymous says:

    I’m not “insulting you” Danielle*. Didn’t even declare you anything less than bright. Even mentioned that my own daughter is very bright too but still refuses to acknowledge feminism as a hate group. The denial is very common. I’m not here to hurt your feelings or wish you any ill will at all. I would however like to see you bite the bullet, accept the obvious and get onboard a more egalitarian cause than feminism. Work for human rights. Not special rights laws written by feminists closely associated with women who wish to persecute, maim, castrate and kill the male gender.

    The truth about feminism is just consistently opposed to your original statement which was:

    “I’m sticking to the whole “Feminism is Not Hatred” thing”.

    This the very sentence from your fourth paragraph at the opening, top of your own page. You made this statement essentially declaring that feminism is not a hate group. Not me. Not my words. I didn’t even bring the subject up. Thus from these words of yours onward the conversation (by the terms of your own definition) simply must revolve around whether feminism is a hate group or not. You may not like it that I pointed this out. Not upon my throwing your own words back at you but this is not “condescending”. It’s called “debate”.

    All I did was provide plenty of god awful quotes from feminists (both present and past) proving that major figures in the movement intend for the persecution, maiming, castration and mass extinction of men & boys.

    Game, set, and match as to whether feminism is a movement of hate. Indeed it is.

    I mean what more do you need in order to refute your contention that feminism is not hate? But as to whether I was “impolite” or “condescending” ??? I didn’t say anything about your mother. Didn’t make fun of any characteristic of you at all. I’m tough but fair.

    Yet I did mention and accurately predict that you would not consider the planned persecution, maiming, castration and mass extinction of men & boys as hate speech as words coming from a hate group. In fact I’ve never, not even once ever seen a feminist anywhere declare that their fellows whom commonly “plan for the persecution, maiming, castration and mass extinction of men & boys” are complicit in fomenting hate speech. Never, not once. And sadly you didn’t disappoint. Wished that you did. Still not too late ya know…

    So I suppose that you consider my pointing out this unflattering refusal of yours to acknowledge the hate speech/crimes as being “condescending”. If so? Then I say it is far better that you consider my truthful statements and accurate prediction of you giving feminists as being “condescending” then for me to look the other way and give a free pass on the hate speech/crimes than these feminists spout.

    *Attack the messenger, play the victim? All familiar tactics of feminists who they find themselves out of ammunition in discussions with men or men’s rights activists. Usually their next move is to say something like: “I feel SO THREATENED” and then try and roll their short hair into pigtails. Playing the sweet, innocent, fragile flower of a victim. To try and coax support from the white knights in the gallery. See if one of them will take up her defense.

    They want “equality” but not the responsibilities. “Equality” but also favorable scholarships, loans, lower admission standards, even weaker physical performance scores in extremely important tests such as strength and endurance tests in the armed forces, police and fire. Both putting the public at risk and taxing them to pay for those job candidates with lesser capabilities.

    See “Jane” at 0:18 minutes here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERwzqvs7vvU Watch her poor performance. “A man with no firefighting experience has no trouble with the same task”. Sad isn’t it? That’s the current state of feminism in America…

Read previous post:
A long awaited…not a rebuttal to Girl Writes What

Caught in a peculiar place in the debate of Is Feminism Hate I'd been shelving my arguments of the torrent of half-truths spilled at...