269

Why women’s studies needs an extreme makeover

Emma Teitel on free speech, gender studies and feminism


 

Janice Fiamengo, a professor who advocates for men’s rights, at lecture at the University of Toronto on Thursday evening. (Photo by Josh Dehaas, Macleans)

Nothing says free speech like pulling the fire alarm. It was a quarter past seven last night when police emptied U of T’s George Ignatieff Theatre. Keynote speaker Dr. Janice Fiamengo, an English professor at the University of Ottawa, rolled her eyes and adjusted her blouse as the crowd poured out of the building and onto the sidewalk to mingle with the small throng of protesters—pretty girls with big placards and little patience. They wanted Dr. Fiamengo to take her message elsewhere. But firemen came and went, and the professor, once a radical feminist, proceeded to do what the University of Toronto Men’s Issues Awareness Society, and the Canadian Association for Equality invited her to do: denounce women’s studies.

The discipline has devolved into an “intellectually incoherent and dishonest” one, she argued, replacing a “callow set of slogans for real thought.” It’s man-hating, anti-Western, and fundamentally illiberal. “It champions a “kind of masculinity that isn’t very masculine at all,” and shuts down freedom of debate, hence the fire alarm.

This message was quite pleasing to the minority in the room—greying baby boomers of  the pro-Fiamengo, Men’s rights camp–and exceedingly distressing to the majority—by the looks of it, gender studies majors and people who would, if given the opportunity, personally execute Rob Ford.  It looked like a small contingent of CARP wandered, bemused, into a Bon Iver concert.

Appearances aside though, it was a meeting of truly lunatic minds.

Fiamengo opened the lecture with a recording of a song written by a male friend: a satirical folk number about the need for men to rise up and take back their masculinity from gender-bending feminists. “Stand our ground/defend our den/it’s time we learned to be men again.” And then there was this: “You don’t have to sit down to pee.”

From here things got progressively awkward. She referenced the male to female death ratio on the Titanic, and declared that “self sacrifice and heroism are not exclusive to men,” “but they are distinctive to men.” Students scowled behind their wayfarers. She railed against affirmative action, a family court system skewed unjustly to favour mothers over fathers, and the deep vein of anti-Western sentiment running through academic feminism that makes it okay to decry gender inequality in the West, and keep quiet about vaginal mutilation and honour killings in the East.

The women’s studies crowd looked constipated. Fiamengo’s arguments weren’t going down easy, this one—her best—in particular: women’s studies “can’t be about the pursuit of truth” because it has an “ideological base.” Its goal is to push the ideology that women are victims and men are perpetrators. Therefore, any evidence to the contrary, regardless of its veracity, is unwelcome. In other words, ideology censors truth. “If you believe you are righteous,” she said, “you don’t challenge other views.”

Click here for a photo gallery from the lecture. 

But you can try. And many did during the question period. When the professor finished her talk on an inspirational note about being relentlessly inquisitive, students and men’s rights activists filled the aisles to lambast and laud her. One man bemoaned the “feminist dictatorship,” another, the legal system that bankrupted him after a divorce. A stout black man in the corner demanded to know what men’s rights groups were doing to help him, as “a racialized person,” exploring different “gender identities.” When a woman complained that the man who spoke before her got more time at the microphone, another woman stood up and yelled in her defence, something  to the effect of “That’s because he’s a man!” A young woman with thick black hair in a yellow coat, irked by Dr. Fiamengo’s “heteronormative” answer to her question about lesbian moms, screamed “That is bullshit!” and stormed out of the lecture hall.

Free speech was alive and well at the University of Toronto last night, but in that moment I’d have welcomed its death with open arms.

It was clear that both the professor’s detractors and supporters were, overwhelmingly, nuts. And Dr. Fiamengo herself, was, standing at that podium, a buoy of relative reason in a sea of everything but. “Any movement can attract hysterical detraction and unsavoury allies,” she would tell me over the phone the next morning. “That is the risk one runs.” She’s right. Take this little Facebook diatribe from an active member of A Voice for Men, one of the men’s rights groups who support her.

There has never been a great female composer. Throughout history there has been plenty of privileged woman, who have had access to pianos, and violins, yet somehow we are expected to believe that men have somehow stopped them for being composers?  Woman have the big lovely eyes, big tits, but mean [I think he meant “men”] are far more beautiful, they are more beautiful where it counts. In their wonderful creative souls.

Unfortunately, though, the other side is no more intelligent. They just use bigger words.

Almost every pro-women’s studies person who approached the mic last night, spoke another language, a jargon you might misconstrue as scientific–only the words they used weren’t shortcuts meant to simplify or summarize complex concepts, they were used to make simple concepts sound complex: Hegemonic, racialized, problematic, intersectionality. It was pure obfuscation, 1984 with tattoos and septum piercings. Some of the students couldn’t even string together a single lucid sentence. All they had were these meaningless, monolithic words. I felt like I was on a game show, the exercise being how many times can you say patriarchal, phallocentric hegemony in 45 seconds or less. It was frankly, for a feminist, depressing.

Slogans don’t make scholarship and being self-righteous does not make you right.

Going into the talk last night I wasn’t convinced women’s studies needed overhauling. Now I’m positive that it does. Not because I believe fighting misandry is a legitimate humanitarian cause (LOL) or because Dr. Fiamengo’s speech was particularly insightful, but because her detractors—presumably, women’s studies’ finest—were so profoundly, not.

Happy women’s day, everyone.


 

Why women’s studies needs an extreme makeover

  1. Cranky ole white guys and their ‘last stand in Eden’ stuff.

    However, they are history, and all the Phyllis Schlaflys and Anita Bryants and Prairie Muffins in the world aren’t going to help them. LOL

    PS I hope you didn’t pay to listen to such crap!

    • It’s the first stand, actually. Too bad we have to waste time hunting wicked witches in the 21st Century but there we are. Thank goodness we have so many fine women to diss the hysterical hate movement for us however.

      • No, it’s the last one.

        For misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, creationism…..and all the other crap…….it’s the end of the line.

        • Actually, its the first one.

          For misandry, heterophobia, bigotry, reverse-sexism, female supremacism…and all the other estrogen sewage….it’s the beginning of the end of the Big Lie.

          • LOL whiny-candy ass and his big talk.

          • Shame game much? Hate men much? Double standards much?

          • Tracheal, folks, is a genuine troll.

            Big splash-down in an ordinary comment section trying to say outrageous things to get people all wound up and into an argument.

            Sorry sonny, I heard lots worse than you over half a century ago…..so I’m not interested in your kid’s candy-ass version. Find some other place for your TGIF games.

          • More stupid feminist shame games intended to shut down free speech. Did you even bother to read the article? Shocking to see Women’s Studies voted down even by a fairly bigoted female author…that is one for whom misandry is LOL funny. That’s some progress finally. I’d suggest you go listen to Daphne Patai rather than dissing younger people who know far more than do you about your own hate movement.

          • ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

          • Old but not bold.

          • LOL bored, more like…..so Ciao.

          • Feminists can run but they can no longer hide.

          • Don’t go, I’m still waiting for your personality to arrive.

          • Don’t flatter yourself.

          • Where Emily is concerned – you betcha she does!

  2. Really? Does the appearance of the protesters really matter to this story? Perhaps you’d benefit from a Women’s Studies course yourself.

    • If you had seen feminists’ actions at the last CAFE event (violence, etc) you would understand why the feminists hid their faces and how it is relevent here. But perhaps it was also due to embarassment, an inability to defend their dogmatic views in the face of logical inquiry, or protecting themselves from repercussions -meaning exposure in the media- for their continued censorship of those exposing their ideological bigotry?

  3. Hey thanks, That was a really well balanced article. I really like the part where you called me a pretty girl with a big placard and little patience, even though I happen to be male. Also, I study biology, not women’s studies.

  4. “Not because I believe fighting misandry is a legitimate humanitarian cause (LOL)”

    ‘Not because I believe fighting misogyny is a legitimate humanitarian cause (LOL)’, I guess too. Are YOU nuts or just an evil female supremacist who is blind to the dark side of woman and to the totalitarian tyranny of the One Billion Bigots Rising movement? Is there one standard for women and another for men in your Brave New World?

    • “Female supremacist” ? That’s a new one. Look– women’s studies programs are full of simple-sloganeering nutjobs, but you are equally a nutjob if you believe this crap you write.

      • Actually, I simply read some fine works from Canada’s finest authorities on feminist-inspired misandry. Now you can call them ‘nuts’ but don’t bother ‘nutting’ me before you’ve done your homework. Women’s Studies (and Men’s Studies) are bigoted covens for brewing bigoted female supremacist propaganda…and THAT has been well-documented by many credible scholars… both Lefties and Righties.

  5. “There has never been a great female composer. Throughout history there has been plenty of privileged woman, who have had access to pianos, and violins, yet somehow we are expected to believe that men have somehow stopped them for being composers? Woman have the big lovely eyes, big tits, but mean [I think he meant “men”] are far more beautiful, they are more beautiful where it counts. In their wonderful creative souls.”

    This dishonest quote mining is intended to slime A Voice for Men but ironically it resembles what Camille ‘grass huts’ Paglia has said about women.

    • “There is no female Mozart because there is no female Hitler” – Camille Paglia.

      • Of course. Can’t have one without the other. Good and evil in the female ranks tends to be far less stratified but no less dangerous.

      • Apparently women can neither be creative nor diabolical…it must be those “hamster” brains. I am kind of shocked that if you believe women so irrational and ridiculous, that you attribute so many nefarious conspiracies to them. Would a person with a hamster brain truly have the discipline and intelligence to plan and execute a “feminist tyranny”?

        • Conspiracies theories are relatively easy things to gin up…and sell in Idiot America….particularly to women who are naturally challenged in the systemic thinking department. As for discipline, you’d be surprised with how women respond to power pillaged from males or dollars stolen from the public till….through Hive Mind tyranny. Since feminists have no consciences…..any old lie is fine as long as it can be used to further more bigoted female supremacist entitlements. And that adds us to the kind of boring, banal and ugly evil that totalitarian regimes the world over our notorious for. Just as in Wikipedia, the hive mind although built by millions of brainwashed monkeys…can be very dangerous…when there’s no free speech to speak of.

  6. And so Emma Teitel makes one more tiny step in her journey towards realizing that the political left is intellectually bankrupt…

    • Yes, ‘Feminism is the radical notion that women are people’

      Trust you not to understand that.

      • Trust you to lie about what this hysterical hate movement really is too.

        • Son, I’m 66. Born feminist.

          Don’t tell ME what it is.

          • Born bigot. Sort of like Whites in the Deep South before the Civil Rights Movement. Brainwashed from birth but probably NOT intentionally evil. Ignorant even today because there’s little interest in digging into the bigoted ideologies behind your morally, intellectually, and socially bankrupt hate movement.

          • Yada yada.

          • Precisely, but bigoted yada yada from the Bitches, Witches and Snitches in your hysterical hate movement is something that needs to stop.

          • LOL

          • Yep, and we are finally the ones laughing. Feels good. Been a long time coming.

          • Goodness, do you have a mother, wife or sisters? What about daughters?
            You don’t seem to ‘appreciate’ women much.

          • Oh, I love those named Janice, Daphne, Christina, Camille or Cathy a lot because they respect men and scorn fraudulent feminist bigots. Careful before you go shame gaming me as a misogynist. That’s the kind of hateful scapegoating that your Twisted Sisters are notorious for.

          • I am not sure I understand what is means to “respect men”. I try to respect everybody. I certainly don’t feel threatened by either a feminist or a men’s movement. I find this all very fascinating.

          • First, you might start by better understanding how bigoted, reverse-sexist and tyrannical your hysterical feminist hate movement is both in ideology and application. There’s no reason for being threatened by the Men’s Movement. There are no One Billion Bigots Rising or bigoted, reverse-sexist and tyrannically totalitarian ViolenceAgainstMenActs coming from the MHRM.

          • My “hysterical feminist hate movement’?? As far as I can tell, the only I am guilty of is: 1) being a woman and 2) trying to better understand what it is EXACTLY about feminists that offends you so much and 3) how you see the world after you rid it of the “feminist tyranny”.
            You have never really defined what you want. Do you want woman to go back to traditional roles?

          • like I said before with age comes wisdom just doesn’t work in your case.
            shrill harpy does.

          • You kids must be on March Break, and bored already.

          • LOL that’s as last-century as you are.

            From now on, your posts will be tagged to go straight to Trash when you comment to me. I won’t see them.

            As funny as you are, I’m too busy to play with you student trolls today. Ciao.

          • You say “yada yada” and “LOL” above and you call others “student trolls”?

            For a sexagenarian troll, you sure are up with the newest “student troll” methods of concatenating lexemes.

            Will you kindly tag my posts to go to trash too?

          • If you can’t tell students and tree monkeys when you see them, the trash is the perfect place for your posts

          • Ciao is getting a little overused don’t you ‘feel’. Trashing other people as a 66 year old feminist is par for the course. Old trolls like you just don’t seem to know when to either 1) do some serious work or 2) fade away right away.

      • “‘Feminism is the radical notion that women are people'”

        The response to the quote from the MRM:

        “The Mens movement contains the radical notion that women are ADULTS.”

        • Very true. Men are also supposed to be adults.

          Which is why I get so fed up with the whining, excuse making, and ‘boys will be boys’ attitude.

          The world will be a better place when everyone acts like human beings, not cultural cut-outs.

          • No problem with the lying, scapegoating, sliming, and ‘girls will be goons’ attitudes that come from you and your favorite Twisted Sisters I guess?

  7. “You don’t have to sit down to pee.”

    I say something like this all the time when my nephew and niece come to my house after school and they tell me what they learned that day. A few years ago now, I remember reading article about Nordic mothers making their young sons sit down to pee and I thought it was outrageous, I wanted to adopt a few Swedish boys and save them from that hell. So whenever my niece and nephew tell me the latest political correct nonsense they learned at school, we all shout ‘they are not going to make sit down to pee’ ( and yes, I have told my niece this metaphor and it is perfectly normal for her to sit down and pee I don’t want to be causing any confusion with either sex, really).

    • Men can sit to pee, and women can stand to pee….normal for thousands of years.

      That someone would actually get wound up about such silliness is amazing.

      • Pigheaded PC nonsense is silly but it’s also evil. Wind away I say. Time to toss these brainwashing bigots back into the Dark Ages from whence they came.

      • I don’t know…when I was a kid, I tried to stand and pee outside like the boys on the farm did. It didn’t work out well…

        • Didn’t yer mama teach you to V your fingers? Works fine.

          • Good lord NO! My mama is a lady and ladies ALWAYS squat!
            BTW, does that mean you get pee on your fingers?

          • No, your mama was ignorant.

            Why would you get pee on your fingers? Are you that clumsy?

          • Nothing more boring, disgusting. and absurd than women who wanna be men.

          • Did you give your daughters lessons in standing up to pee? I didn’t ask my mom for lessons because we were supposed to be peeing in the house, not in the yard.

          • ?? Doesn’t need lessons, it’s not that complicated….and can be done indoors or out.

            Why are you even on this site? Buncha losers blaming women for their own problems. Kids by the sound of it, talking Victorian rubbish.

          • I find it fascinating. I actually took an advanced women’s studies class. It involved no male bashing but rather the discovery of women’s stories through the objects they cherish. I am always curious about what motivates people and creates the emotions they express. I wonder how they can be so disdainful of women and yet not see the damage that does to the women in their own lives. It is like having a friend who is of a certain race and then being completely bigoted toward that race….how can you separate the two…

          • Ahhh, that explains it. Yeah, you’d think these guys sprang from the earth fully formed….and that they’d be cool with some guy treating their mom, sister, daughter…as a hamster, a sex toy, a servant, whatever….not fully human anyway.

            Personally I think it’s because they’re working class and can’t get the factory jobs that have been available for generations….and rather than blame themselves and their lack of education they blame blacks, immigrants, gays….lately it’s become boomers of all things, and this last week it’s women because of women’s day.

            Not too bright, anyway.

          • Actually, no. “These guys” are a cross section of the entire socioeconomic and cultural spectrum, including men and women very like those in your own peer group. It is evident that you know squat about “these guys.”

            Also, your remark about “lack of education” is just plain despicable. Have you ANY idea at all how vicious and vile that sounds? Classism much? You ought to die of shame for saying such things, but I doubt you are capable of shame.

          • No, they’re not. They’re uneducated morons.

            Class? Yes, gawd forbid we admit to having a class system in Canada. However there is everything from Joe Lunchpail to the Queen, and all else inbetween.

            Some of you seem to be aiming for Homer Simpson though, instead of moving UP the ladder.

            Are you another ambition-less Canadian?

            PS ‘Vicious and vile’?….yeah the morons on here are being that and more about women. It’s the lower class male lack of education.

          • I hate to break it to you, but “these guys” are exactly as I have described them. If you think otherwise, then explain the basis of your expertise.

            And my earlier statement about your vicious, vile, smearing attack stands — unless you can justify it. (Which, so far, you haven’t done.)

          • Half a century of experience with unambitious male morons explains it. LOL

            PhDs don’t talk like that

            As to ‘vicious and vile’…..you have no idea what that even means unless you’re female, or gay or black.

          • Your vague and incoherent statement is either willful evasion, or evidence of a disordered mind.

            Please justify your position that pro-male politics is exclusively the province of “unambitious male morons”. Do not duck, dodge, deflect or equivocate.

            I have stated a contrary thesis, based upon considerable real life interaction with people of a pro-male persuasion. I have found such people to be a cross-section of society — everything from Joe Lunchpail to academic degree-holders of all kinds. On average, I have found them to “just folks” — no better and no worse than people in general.

            Further, your limiting term “male” ignores the large number of women that I have known within this globally distributed demographic.

            However, it is just possible that I am blind as bat, or hallucinating. So I welcome any light you can shed upon these points that would tend to prove me wrong. Is it possible that your expertise on the pro-male sector is greater than mine?

            Also….you mentioned “PhDs”. Are you implying that anybody who is not a PhD is an uneducated moron?

            And would you say that anybody who has not attended college is an uneducated moron?

            Does self-education, Abraham Lincoln style, count for anything? And what about Eric Hoffer?

          • a) LOL I love it when uneducated morons come all over Eng professors when they haven’t a clue what else to say.

            Here’s a hint….never use big words when you have no idea what they mean. It gives the game away

            Second hint: ‘When bovine excrement comes in contact with the air-redistributor’……or ‘Aqueous substances are often found to be quiescent on the surface but are of very great depth’…..and other such phrases don’t help your cause. You’re bluffing. Badly.

            b) The only women who’d go along with this crap are Prairie Muffins. Don’t date them. And certainly don’t marry them.

            c) PhD sums up ‘educated’…..it’s a phrase even you recognized. But I’m afraid a Bachelor’s is simply entry level anymore

            d) Anyone who has not attended university is yes, an uneducated moron. May be plumbers or electricians or whatever, but that’s just skills training.

            e) You are not Abraham Lincoln (who was a lawyer within the standards of his time)…..or any of the other people you imagine have ‘made it big’ without education. I use the word ‘imagine’ for a reason.

            f) You have ‘the arrogance of unearned conceit’. Also called ‘white male privilege’. You assume because you’re white and male [kindly don’t waste my time arguing otherwise] that you are naturally brilliant, superior and don’t need no ‘edumacation’.

            g)Your kind of nonsense is why western civilization is on it’s last legs.

          • Fidelbogen’s ‘white male priveledge’? (rofl) Lady (I use the term as a sexual differentiation, not as a social statement of your value) You are truly projecting with that statement, as you have done apparently no research into the actual social status or education of your opponent in this case. Your entire statement is merely an advanced case of ‘rebuttal through ridicule’.

            I, for example, have never attended ‘university’ as I have ever been disgusted with the hotbed of propaganda and brainwashing it has become. PhD essentially means ‘piled higher and deeper’. The only qualification for such honors involves spending enormous amounts of money and writing an ‘original contribution to human experience’ that involves citing whatever crap the investigating professors have written, and filling a paper with ivory-tower, incomprehensible doublespeak to support whatever pet theories the examiners prefer.

            In fact, I have seen that ‘university’ is a crutch for those who are incapable of independent intellectual growth. Do you know how to milk a cow? Calculate time based on the position of the sun? turn raw iron ore into damascus steel? Can you wire an intercom circuit with a soldering gun, breadboard, and two speakers, or create your own generator out of little but raw materials? Do you know what an AU is, and can you quote the various distances of local celestial bodies from memory? Can you cook a decent, healthy meal from raw materials or slaughter and safely store a hog? Do you know what the primary ingredient in most fertilizers is, and can you deliver a baby or calculate compound interest at 3.16%? Do you know how much structural steel is required to support a 6 story cement-block building with approximately 20,000 sq feet per story to even the nearest ton? Can you identify a safe to eat mushroom, or load and fire a rifle? Can you stitch a wound, or know what drugs to request to prevent infection? Can you identify the symptoms of autism spectrum disorder, or how to deal with mentally handicapped children? Can you change a diaper on an 80 year old victim of Altzheimer’s without upsetting her unduly or damaging her? Do you know how to change a tire, repair an alternator, change oil or land a small single or multi-engine aircraft? Do you know how to draw accurate schematics, or pleasing sketches? Can you play a piano or a guitar, design an appropriate well using available materials, create good landscaping, or grow wheat or corn? Can you write a successful software manual or create a computer game and market it well enough to pay for itself?

            Most importantly, can you do any of these things WITHOUT consulting a book or the internet?

            How DARE you claim that men with this sort of ‘education’ are uneducated morons? How dare you assume that spending 8+ years sucking at the teat of formal propaganda somehow makes you ‘superior’ to those who have labored hard to learn the skills and knowledge that really matter, instead of the pseudo-intellectual masturbation known as ‘liberal arts’.

            Those who have real degrees, STEM, business, administration, even those crank-em-out-by-the-million nursing degrees have far more true education than your run of the mill ‘educated’ failure of a liberal arts major. A single fisherman with no ambition has more societal value and useful knowledge than a battalion of women’s studies PhD’s.

            “Just Skills training” is the great rallying cry for those who are utterly incapable of actually performing any useful function in society. Have you actually EXPERIENCED anything in your life? Have you visited the wailing wall, fallen in love, ridden in a helicopter, spelunked in a cave? Has your education ever given you the pride of building something REAL with your own hands?

            My disgust is with the fact that EVERYTHING you know, EVERYTHING that enables YOU to live the life of a ‘privileged academic’ has flowed from the hands of those that you refer to with disgust as ‘uneducated morons’.

            Keep paying lip service to egalitarianism, you self-righteous waste of money, while sneering down your nose at everyone who’s contributions are what stand between your privilege and starvation.

            It’s overeducated twits like you that are the reason western civilization is (or may be) on it’s ‘last legs’. Achievers, workers, builders and ‘uneducated morons’ are the source of civilization, ivory tower ‘experiments in social engineering’ such as you are the thing that is tearing our society, and future as a species, apart.

            But please, continue reveling in your supposed educational superiority, instead of making any real, tangible contributions to society other than arrogant jawbone. When you and your hordes of ‘social winners’ destroy our culture, it will be us, The plodding, self-educated workers. The brilliant men who don’t see the need to put up with screaming, scheming, scamming, self-promoting egotists that cannot exist outside of the artificial world of academia who will continue humanity and culture. You bigoted intellectual elitists will starve, and I pray that none of us lift a finger to save you.

          • Wrong, mind and WILL is the basis of all human achievement. all the intelligence in the world is irrelevant if you do not put that achievement into practice.

            Have you written a great book with your much vaunted “Piled Higher and Deeper?” Have you done anything better than criticizing the work of those with the will to accomplish?

            Even your degree… English professor? seriously? I have put over 14 years into my education for my job, and yet I have never once taken a university course. Computer programmers and Game developers have almost zero use for a degree, especially after the first game they have released. I am accomplished and support myself, and do not require tenure or any sort of constant begging for attention. Have you published anything? or do you spend your time like so many other liberal arts ‘doctors’ flipping burgers or indoctrinating children into hating themselves?

            Honestly, I feel sorry for you. All that money for a worthless degree. I hope whoever paid for your education could afford the loss. I even more pity you for feeling like you need to lie about having a degree of any sort, since you seem to barely have command the language.

            But wow, what incredible proof of your intellectual superiority. What an amazing refutation of all the salient points. “Brigadumb”. What an amazing score!

            Apparently, if you even have a bachelors, logic and Rhetoric are no longer required courses. Go ahead and get in your last word with some shallow but utterly pointless insult, you have adequately proven through your own words that your opinions are the utterly unsupported maunderings of a disordered and self-absorbed mind, utterly convinced of your own superiority in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are thrashing about in complete ignorance of the subject matter.

            Prairie muffins (snort) I’d like to see you try to apply that appellation to Girlwriteswhat.

          • You’re a very confused person…..and I’d appreciate you not posting to me until you sort yourself out.

            Stephen Hawking, Galileo, Gene Roddenberry, Einstein….came up with ideas. They worked with the mind….not the ‘will’ and all those other Ayn Rand renderings of Soviet power.

            No, I’m not an English professor…..I said it was obvious YOU weren’t. As to making video games, kids can do that. There’s no future in it.

            No, you’re not ‘sorry’ for me, you have class envy that’s all. 3 degrees, one in economics and one in science.

            Not interested in ignorant girls either…..sorry. Schafly, Coulter or your current heroine…..all prairie muffin pov.

          • Hard to imagine how you can be a fascist feminist if you aren’t interested in ignorant (and evil) girls. The ironies in your bombast are endless. Camille Paglia has some choice words for cultists like you in Vamps and Tramps.

          • Many who have attended university (feminist indoctrination factory) are yes, uneducated morons. Your kind of university is why western civ is on it’s last legs. You have the arrogance of earned idiocy.

          • Vicious and vile. Guess you’re talking about the bigots in Warren Farrell’s welcoming committee or the masked bandits pulling fire alarms at this one. Don’t know about you but your twisted sisters seem to be the lowest class I’ve seen here and you come in second with your constant but slimy ‘intellectually sophisticated’ shame gaming.

          • No one has to be very bright to run circles around you. Anyone who buys (much less worships) the Big Lie (feminism) is either very stupid or very deluded. I say stupid fits here given the asinine nature of most of your posts…when the temperature is turned up.

          • “and that they’d be cool with some guy treating their mom, sister, daughter…as a hamster, a sex toy, a servant, whatever….not fully human anyway.”

            I wouldn’t be happy with it happening to anybody. However I don’t check their genitals first to decide whether they are worthy of my concern. I don’t limit my expression of concern or my consequent activity toward only those with appropriate bits. Nor will I limit my compassion to those with the appropriate class markers. I’ll leave that sort of thing to you. As a bloke called Orwell once wrote, “Some pigs…”.

          • Don’t bother with Orwell. You wouldn’t understand him either.

          • Orwell I understand. It’s the hatred demonstrated by fat pigs such as yourself that I have difficulty comprehending.

          • LOL none exists…you are fantasizing.

          • Undressing Feminism, Professing Feminism and Who Stole Feminism were included in the reading list too, I guess? How bout Spreading Misandry or Legalizing Misandry? And I’m SURE Moxon’s The Woman Racket was included just for objective balance as well?

          • No, there was no “reading list” in the class I took. As I said it was an advanced class. It was about telling women’s stories and how that happens if when you interview a woman, you ask her to talk about the objects she cherishes and why she cherishes them. It was all about telling women’s stories. Men and feminism never factored into the course at all.

          • Well, giving how indoctrinated your other comments are, it might be good to revisit the brainwashing you almost assuredly suffered in your previous WS course then.

          • Wow…you know what is really interesting? I have had feminists rip a strip off me too for my apparent “anti-feminism” comments. That was when I suggested that women in Canada should be able to make their own choice about wearing a niqab.
            As for a previous women’s studies course, I did not take one. I was a masters student and I was allowed into the advanced class without having taken any previous courses in women’s studies.

          • Well, now you have an opportunity to dig down into the estrogen sewage upon which your ‘advanced class’ floats. It’s time to get a dose of reality before you talk about WS. The rest of your comments seem to reflect the fact that you are skimming the surface here.

  8. What I find most odd here is that the woman who was arguing that the discipline of women’s studies “has devolved into an ‘intellectually incoherent and dishonest’ one… replacing a ‘callow set of slogans for real thought'”, opened her lecture with “a recording of a song written by a male friend: a satirical folk number about the need for men to rise up and take back their masculinity from gender-bending feminists”.

    Was she trying to be ironic?

    • Was the folk song ‘intellectually incoherent or dishonest’ as is WS?

      • I don’t know about the lyrics themselves per se, I just find the notion of beginning an academic lecture with a satirical folk song to be intellectually incoherent and callow.

        Frankly, opening an academic lecture by playing a satirical folk song written by your friend is the sort of thing I’d expect from a stereotypical Women’s Studies major, not a person attempting a serious critique of the discipline. That’s why I presume that Professor Fiamengo was engaging in irony.

        • Lot’s of opportunities for irony abound here. In any, case lots of solid credible critiques of the diseased cow ‘discipline’ have been done by other scholars. Attacking WS intellectually or morally is like shooting fish in a barrel.

          • Attacking WS intellectually or morally is like shooting fish in a barrel.

            And yet, it would seem that when aiming at the fish it’s incredibly easy to shoot one’s own foot.

          • But of course no holed feet can be seen anywhere here so gotta wonder what you are going on about.

  9. Some people believe women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. I don’t. I buy my wife shoes.

    • Your honesty is refreshing.

    • I’d suggest you buy yourself some books. The Woman Racket (Moxon) might be a good start. There are lots of interesting short stories with pictures which really helps the bitter pill go down easier for those of us in the biologically Disposable and now ‘gendered’ Oppressed Sex.

      • Okay, now we are getting somewhere…men are “biologically disposable and gendered oppressed”. Does that mean you think women are using men for their sperm only?

        • Read Moxon’s The Woman Racket. Women have always used men as disposable objects thanks to female biological predilections. More recently feminists have added the hysterically hate-full ‘gendered’ oppression to the mix. Traditional biological disposability was never a picnic for males and the added socially constructed ‘gender’ evil is absolutely deadly for males.

  10. And yet, in some ways it’s still a useful discipline, if only because it can serve to open our eyes to just how much sexism we still unwittingly experience or even perpetrate every day.

    Hell, just look at any article that mentions Justin Trudeau and you’ll see people who don’t like him feminizing his name to Justine. What is it that draws the connection between that which we don’t like or don’t respect to the female? Why is that even considered sarcastic?

    I mean, if I don’t like Rona Ambrose or Leona Aglukagg, does it even make any sense to masculinize their names to Ron or Leon? As I talk about what they’re doing? If I did that, people would be going, “What the hell are you talking about?”

    Yet we don’t do that for “Justine” Trudeau. We all instantly know what is meant, and what is being implied.. and our internalized sexism is evidenced through that knowledge.

  11. What a horribly written story. Do you actually care about this issue or were you just out to marginalize everyone?

  12. Sounds pretty defensive, like she couldn’t even begin to grasp the lecture. Is playing a song by a man less problematic than having a cervix-viewing session of a “vagina monologue”?

    • I didn’t think the comment about the song was about the fact that it was by a man.

      I thought we were meant to take from that “who starts a serious academic lecture by playing a satirical folk song written by their pal?”

      • Serious academic lectures often benefit from satirical introductions…unless that is they are of the totalitarian PoMo nature…in which case of the whole notion of ‘academic lecture’ is oxymoronic. Of course, as the author noted above WS is based on PoMo nonsense through and through. And WS is well known to be an oxymoron.

        • I like what you did there.

          Establish that it’s perfectly serious to start a lecture criticizing Women’s Studies with a folk song written by your pal, while keeping open the option that someone who began a lecture defending Women’s Studies with a folk song written by their pal would just be engaging in nonsense.

          Nicely done.

          • Lordy lordy, you missed the point entirely. Satire is forbidden in the PoMo world. In any case this whole ‘irony’ thing is much ado about nothing.

  13. Fiamengo’s arguments weren’t going down easy, this one—her best—in
    particular: women’s studies “can’t be about the pursuit of truth”
    because it has an “ideological base.” Its goal is to push the ideology
    that women are victims and men are perpetrators. Therefore, any evidence
    to the contrary, regardless of its veracity, is unwelcome. In other
    words, ideology censors truth. “If you believe you are righteous,” she
    said, “you don’t challenge other views.”

    That about sums it up. Women’s Studies evolved out of the feminist movement… and rapidly devolved into ideology. Is there still inequality? Absolutely! Should it be addressed? Certainly. But there seems to be far more crap than truth and reason in the WS mix, from what I’ve seen of it (which admittedly is little).

    It may be that only the nonsense gets media attention, but from an outside, middle-aged male perspective, it DOES seem to be mostly slogans and male-bashing. WS is largely Us vs Them. The adversarial approach, for many, just gets backs up and makes behavioural change less likely.

    Men’s Studies is a useless backlash.

    We need conversation, not warring camps, to truly move forward.

    • I think you address a really important part that I feel the writer of the article may have tried to do, but lost it in trying to be witty and argumentatively cynical:

      Feminism, and Women’s Studies in general, simply isn’t accessible. Unfortunately, Men’s Studies (as it is practiced) is easier to understand. Of course, that in itself highlights a problem: why is it easier for people to identify the problems men face rather than the ones women [still] do?

      I disagree that words like “problematic” are difficult to understand, but the title ‘feminism’, unfortunately, lends itself to literal interpretation. Of course, feminism ISN’T about the downfall of men; it IS functionally about equality (and the deconstruction of the current social ideals, which is that women AREN’T equal). Also, the idea that something born out of ideology cannot be substantiated is absolute poop. There is no way the speaker there was “formerly a radical feminist”; I think that requires you to have knowledge about feminist research and academic critique.

      In general, I disagree pretty thoroughly not only with the conclusion the writer is trying to make, but with the immature jargon she uses to infer the protestors were unintelligent or discredited. However, I acknowledge there may be a point there, somewhere… probably hiding behind my Wayfarers.

    • Male Studies is the antidote. And someday Female Studies will be too.

      • The antidote is to dismantle feminism as a societal construct, in its entirety. Sort of like the “de-nazification” that took place in Germany after WW2.

        • We agree, of course. Any honest scholarship on males or females is likely to do that quite effectively…assuming that the Nazi’s don’t pull the fire alarms first that is. No problem with going after these lying scumbags in the meantime though.

    • You want to move forward, even as you dismiss the objective study of males as “useless backlash”?

      Forward. Right.

      • Most of what I have seen of “Men’s Studies” (and I admittedly have not paid much attention to the area, so my impression may be wrong) seems to be men whining about how they no longer rule over women.

        In any event, I don’t see how progress can be made as long as we divide ourselves into warring camps to nurse our grievances. No meaningful dialogue can happen that way.

        • There is no such thing as this “men’s studies” that you speak of.

          So your impression is most emphatically wrong, as you have had the good grace to anticipate.

          As to dividing ourselves into warring camps: we don’t need to do that because it has already happened whether we like it or. We ARE warring camps, and the only thing to do is join the right camp. The good camp.

          Either you see feminism for the social cancer that it is, or you don’t. It is just that simple.

          So pick your side.

          • Lots of idiots on here talking about men’s studies, the manosphere, etc. You may want to tell them they don’t exist.
            If we really want to make progress, how about “gender studies”? An objective look at how the sexes interact, and frank discussion on how each side treats the other. The myths each side clings to will quickly fall; real discussion can happen; real change can happen.

          • ‘Gender’ is merely how feminist bigots rape reason to indoctrinate their marks. Frank discussion is impossible with totalitarian tyrants. One must first break down Lace Curtain so that these loathsome liars are seen as such…and that just what happened according to the article above.

          • Such “mens’ studies” programs which exist in educational settings are, with only a couple of exceptions, offshoots of Womens’ Studies. You would be correct in assuming any adherents to such “mens’ studies” programs will be a bit loopy. “Gender Studies”, where it exists, is simply a re-branding of “Womens’ Studies”.

    • “Moving forward” would need to include a societal critique of feminism as a movement and ideology, hopefully ending by tossing feminism on the trash heap of history.

    • Are you confusing “men’s studies” with “male studies”?

      They are NOT the same thing.

      You should research this a bit.

      • Well, based on the comments I’ve read on here by the defenders of “manhood”, I’d rather think any such research would be an utter waste of time. The blather I’m reading here by you, Frank Ernest, et al makes most radical feminists seem rational.

        • Spoken like a true feminist fool.

          • And another intelligent comment from “et al” to prove my point.

          • You obviously have no points to prove. What you are proving unintentionally is what a silly tool you are for man-hating bigots as a male no less. Sad really but hardly uncommon…given how many boys have been ‘brained’ by said bigots.

          • Speaking of bigots – looked in the mirror lately? You are a serious misogynist.

          • Speaking of shame gaming idiots – looked in the mirror lately? You are a serious misandrist.

          • You are mistaking my view of you for my view of men. You are an overgrown child. Come back in a few decades, when/if you mature.

          • You an overgrown feminist child yourself? No sense of irony here…something that is characteristic of feminists. FYI: it’s not misogynist to diss misandrist female supremacists like those who run the One Billion Bigots Rising racket of the evil coven known as Women’s Studies.

  14. Laughing at misandry? – overhaul yourself.

  15. This article is disingenuous and way out of balance. Just exactly what constitutes an “active member” A Voice for Men? The site has no membership list. It has an editorial board and contributors. That is it. So let’s call that “active member” what they really are, someone who comments there, along with thousands of other people.

    Either that or please bear with me while I mine through the comments here for something silly or obtuse so I can claim it comes from an “active member” of Macleans.

    Please.

    You rightly pointed out the conduct of the feminists at this event as less than sane, but then ran off to Facebook to mine a comment from someone who once commented somewhere else as a way to bring balance to the demonization.

    Sloppy of you. Just plain sloppy.

    Paul Elam, publisher, A Voice for Men

  16. Not bad, Miss Teitel, but how many books have you read on men’s issues? How many manosphere websites do you read regularly? Zero and zero.

    If you would take a moment to educate yourself on men’s issues – we’re incarcerated at a rate twenty six times higher than the rest of the population, to name one, which is an outrage in an otherwise gender equality obsessed society – you would not find the idea of misandry so laughable. Don’t laugh at our cause and expect us to support your lesbian and minority ethnic group rights – there must be reciprocity.

    • So wait.. you’re suggesting we arrest and incarcerate more women for… gender equality’s sake?

      I think I prefer we stick to doing it for crimes committed.

      • I’m merely saying (tongue somewhat in cheek) what Howard Sapers said this week and which nobody at Maclean’s disputed: a disparity of outcomes infers systemic racism/sexism.

        Incarceration equity could be achieved by “gender normalizing” the Criminal Code: for example, making a false accusation of sexual assault such as what Sarah Thomson did to Rob Ford. A two or three year prison sentence, pour encourager les autres, would be appropriate, and should be served in a co-ed “real” prison, not a “country club” women’s prison.

        Gossiping in the workplace, muffin-topping, and “marriage fraud” (cashing in on wedding gifts then promptly divorcing) are other avenues to explore in achieving gender sentencing parity.

        • Who the hell is Howard Sapers and why should anybody here give a rats’ ass?

          One sec.

          Okay.. last thing he was mentioned in here was over 6 months ago, so wherever he made those comments last week, why you think they should be brought up here is beyond me.

          Regardless of that.. I think you’re having trouble understanding what the word “outcomes” infers. Incarceration is an outcome, yes. But what is it an outcome of? Committing crimes. It’s not an outcome of being male or female, it’s an outcome of committing a crime. So if males are 26 times more likely commit a crime, then that they’re incarcerated 26 times more often does not give any evidence of a disparity.

          And you’re seriously suggesting that gossip should be an incarcerable offense? Jesus man, please get some help.. or better yet, just find a fascist state and move there, you’d feel more comfortable out of here and we’d feel better knowing you were gone.

          • I found your argument unconvincing until I read the word fascist, then you totally made sense.

            Just kidding, the use of fascist in this context is contemptibly stupid, even…criminally stupid. Hmmm, this could be helpful in achieving “incarceration equity”, thanks.

          • Some of these people who are replying to you are men, Frank so even if you find their comments “criminally stupid”, it will be no help in achieving incarceration equity for you. As for your seeming fixation on false claims of rape, the statistics show that the incidence of false claims is between 2 to 8 percent. Given that the statistics also show that only 10 percent of rapes are reported, even if they convicted and incarcerated every woman who put in a false claim or they said put in a false claim, there is no way that you will reach incarceration equality. There just aren’t enough of them doing it. You obviously would have better luck with the muffin topping but then there are a lot of men with guts hanging over their pants so that might not work.

          • Blink…

            This logic is astounding…

            “I think you’re having trouble understanding what the word “outcomes”
            infers. Incarceration is an outcome, yes. But what is it an outcome of?
            Committing crimes. It’s not an outcome of being male or female, it’s an
            outcome of committing a crime. So if males are 26 times more likely
            commit a crime, then that they’re incarcerated 26 times more often does
            not give any evidence of a disparity.”

            Unjust Law leads to unjust outcomes. By the same logic you employ here, it wasn’t an “outcome” of Jim Crow type laws resulted in so many African Americans being beaten, arrested, and lynched….it’s that those darn coloreds just don’t know their place, and keep breaking the Law.

            In fact, the logic you employ in the quoted text is typically logic employed by Tyrants and Dictators, and falls along the same lines as “If you aren’t doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear.”

          • So tell me, what’s the unjust law that men are being incarcerated for that women simply don’t do? Is it something that we should allow?

          • “It’s not an outcome of being male or female, it’s an outcome of committing a crime.”

            Incorrect. There are significant sentencing disparities which correlate more to sex than to any other factor including race.

        • Incarceration equity could be achieved by “gender normalizing” the Criminal Code…

          Oh, good grief.

          The way to address the fact that men are disproportionately likely to commit crimes is to tackle the societal causes that contribute to men being disproportionately likely to commit crimes. Criminalizing behavior that women tend to engage in disproportionately in order to even out the prison population is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard.

          • Be nice to see female evil be criminalized however. Women tend to prefer psychological crime to physical crime…eg. False Rape rather than rape. Time to be sure that women go down for and serve the same time for physical crimes as well.

          • Yes, but what is a crime is subjective. Women are virtually never prosecuted for fake assault claims – we social justice minded people think that should change.

            The Criminal Code is a relic of the patriarchy and must be updated to reflect that women are not innocent porcelain dolls.

            You’re a partisan fellow but not a dim-witted one, judging from previous comments – I’m surprised you’ve taken this, er, unenlightened tack.

          • Accountability is “idiotic”?

            False rape, false abuse, false sexual abuse claims should be punnished exactly as an actual instance or rape, abuse or sexual abuse.

            Women receive lesser sentences for the same crimes. http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?tid=820&pid=5022#pid5022

            Did you molest a child? Well, if you’re a woman we’ll call it a relationship and give you a plea-bargain.

            Did you kill your husband? That’s ok, just claim he slapped you once and that you were scared of him and that evil, patriarchal word we know as ‘responsibility’ goes right out the window.

          • False rape, false abuse, false sexual abuse claims should be punnished exactly as an actual instance or rape, abuse or sexual abuse.

            If you think that punishing someone for making a false accusation of rape should be punished exactly the same as actually RAPING SOMEONE, yes, that’s idiotic.

          • Most of the comments on here from the “manosphere” are complete crap, but knowing what a complete mess a false accusation of that nature wreaks on a person’s life (it is always “guilty until proven innocent” and even then the suspicion and whispers linger), then yes – for a deliberate, false accusation where the intent was to destroy another’s life then I have no problem with equality of sentencing.
            For sex crimes, I think that the accused as well as the accuser should be entitled to anonymity up until conviction. In the public’s eyes where sex crimes are concerned there is all too often no “innocent” – just unproven guilt.

          • Severe punishment for deliberate and malicious false accusations of rape? Sure. The same sentence as for ACTUAL rape? Sorry, still think that’s repugnant.

  17. Super pathetic. “they were used to make simple concepts sound complex: Hegemonic, racialized, problematic, intersectionality. ”

    My dear, if you don’t know what those words mean, I’m pretty sure it’s not feminism that is the problem.

    • Those words are pigheaded PoMo code words intended to puff up empty nonsense. Since WS is utterly empty-headed nonsense they’ve got to make dishonest concepts sound complex to fool those too simple-minded to know better. Standard tricks of the PoMo trade.

  18. Darling: pretty sure the women speaking up on behalf of women studies spoke plain English. Perhaps you should get educated: that way you could learn those “big words” and actually know what you’re talking about.

    • More likely they spoke PoMo gobbly gook. Those big words are used to conceal the emptiness of their heads and the bankruptcy of their hysterical hate movement. Plain English is anathema to the ‘gender’-as-female-sex bigots in WS.

  19. BTW: the simple fact that men are whining and screaming for MORE RIGHTS!!!! when they already HAVE all those rights is a clear sign that feminism is very much an unfinished business in Canada. Just sayin’… What they are REALLY demanding, here, is the right to remain above women, NOT to grant them the rights that is dutifully theirs. So we keep fighting, because there are still battles to be won.

    As for women studies, what can I say? You seem to despise it, and that is your right. But have you read any of the stuff? Have you ACTUALLY bothered to open a book on the subject, and attempt to understand what it’s saying? Then you’d understand that the field, like ANY field in academia (big word here… grab a dictionnary) is complex and multifaceted (oops I did it again, another big word… sorry). And no, women studies are not about women hating men. And no, it’s not about women being victims and men being the big bad wolves. It’s not an “us” against “them” you see? It’s more like an “we all work together” kinda thing. But those who oppose women rights of course have all to gain by simplifying the issue and misrepresenting the views of those they disagree with. They’ve always done that: because they’re pissed. They’re pissed that women have gained rights over the years. This sort of little “conference” is rather like a huge collective tantrum while the rest of us have grown up and try to enforce in the everyday life the hard fought legal equality we’ve managed to achieve (and even THAT is not always so secure…). So yeah. Anyways.

    Some people are just not meant to understand complex thoughts. They shouldn’t display their ignorance by writing embarrassing articles about a field of study they know nothing about. Because it shows. Painfully.

      • “But those who oppose women rights of course have all to gain by simplifying the issue and misrepresenting the views of those they disagree with. They’ve always done that: because they’re pissed. They’re pissed that women have gained rights over the years.”

        No one is opposing women’s rights. What the MHRM opposes is feminist tyranny, bigotry and reverse-sexist entitlement. We’re pissed because mainstream FEMINIST women are lying scumbags who proudly murder masculinity, rape reason, and pillage male power.

        • Can you provide some examples of “feminist tyranny, bigotry and reverse-sexist entitlement”? What I find interesting is that despite so many women working, they still do the bulk of the work in the home. Also, women’s earning power continues to trail men’s by a significant amount. People say that the court system favors women. Does that mean in terms of custody and financial arrangements? If a woman is doing the bulk of the child rearing, wouldn’t it be logical that a court would keep the children with the parent that spends the most time with them and if the woman doesn’t make enough money to raise the kids, shouldn’t the man help out? As for a woman stopping a man from standing to pee…..go ahead but if you pee all over the place, kindly clean up your mess….surely I am not “murdering your masculinity” when I remind you that you are a capable adult and I am not your mother.

          • Feminist Tyranny/Bigotry is well documented at the AVFM website. Please go read 6 or 7 dozen articles before denying this fact again.

            The wage gap is a myth -even the AAUW has admitted this: http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/race-and-gender/wage-gap-myth-exposed-by-feminists/

            Men do the bulk of work outside of the home -you’ve got your feminist blinders on. Feminists just ignore male’s contributions while doing their “honest” research in order to prove their pre-ordained world-view. http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?tid=809

            The court system favors women in most every instance:
            http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?tid=820

            “you are a capable adult and I am not your mother.”
            – shaming language, how productive.

            When do feminists start to fight for women to be held responsible for their actions and choices?
            ‘Woman kills man’ -what’s her excuse going to be so she won’t be held accountable? I know, just falsely accuse him of something.
            ’37-year-old female teacher rapes her 13-year-old student’ -poor lonely woman was just looking for love. She was a confused, impartial victim in all this. It was a “relationship”.
            Feminists are fine with these double standards and many more.

          • I am going to have to pull a Tom Flanagan and insist you took my comment out of context, Sue. I said if the guy pees all of the toilet, he should clean it up because he is a capable man and I am not is mother. That is not “shaming language”. That is reality. As for men doing the bulk of the work “outside of the home”, what exactly does that refer to…..yard work or are you saying they work harder than women outside the home, even if a couple both works 40 hours a week?
            I am not sure about the research you provided about men and women’s financial equality in the workplace but it was just reported in a Canadian newspaper that in THIS country, there is no equality. Maybe you could dig up a source other than one in your Men’s forum that disputes that reality of Canada.

          • H.I,
            You know as well as I do that equal pay legislation has been on the books for quite sometime now, and that the ministry of labour and or human rights tribunals love to screw employers to the wall for not operating within the confines of that law.
            Also if women were truly paid less then why aren’t employers only hiring women after all they allegedly make ‘$ 0.72’.
            A 28% profit increase simply by hiring women only.
            Brian Lilley did an article about it a year or two ago, I am not your mommy so do the research yourself.

          • DannyboyCdnMra, it isn’t about equal pay legislation. The inequality comes from the fact that jobs that are typically filled by women….nursing, child care workers, etc. pay less (are less valued) than jobs that are typically filled by men (construction, oilfield, etc.) All you have to look at is what they are paying a nurse at the top of the scale in Quebec after four years of education….$33.00/hr. Now think about the level of knowledge and responsibilities that nurse has. Thank you “mommy”. Make sure to drop the lid after you pee. It is really irritating when you fall in the toilet.

          • For the most part, HI, I agree with you. But when it comes to seat up / seat down, (a) look before you squat & you won’t fall in; (b) in a household where the majority are males, it is just good manners for the female to put the seat UP when she is done ;-)

          • Actually, I put the whole LID down…I find that “seat up” thing fairly unattractive and I have to tell you that as a little kid I did fall in the toilet bowl one night when I got up to go to the bathroom in the dark. When you have a little butt, it can be a frightening experience! Lid down favors no one….male or female….I think it is gender neutral and if a guest drops by and uses the facilities, it looks good too.

          • I was just having a bit of fun with you. Never understood what the big deal is with toilet seats up/down; it’s such a trivial thing to get worked up about. But for the record, I live on my own and the seat (and usually lid) is always left down when the toilet is not in active use.

          • Who forced those women to make the choice to become a nurse again?

            You want to work in a certain field it comes with a certain pay grade.

            Whose fault is that?

            So working in high risk jobs does not deserve consideration?

            You know where a chunk of steel comes crashing down on your head pushing your body into your hardhat thereby saving you the cost of a coffin?

            No one forces anyone to take on a profession it is all choice.

          • Actually, our society forces them to make a choice.

            Consider, if you have two equally skilled occupants applying for a job typically thought of as a “man’s” job.. construction, architect, electrician, plumber, what have you… which do you hire? Unless there’s some kind of affirmative action scheme in place, employers typically don’t just flip a coin and pick one. They pick the man.

            And the exact same works in reverse. Two equally qualified candidates for a “woman’s” job — secretary, nurse, nanny, interior designer, what-have you, and it will be the woman picked more often than the man — and you know what’s really weird? If a man is hired for one of these positions, it’s assumed he’ll want to be moving up and into a more supervisory role in short order and may be offered promotion to a managerial type role without even seeking it. This I know from experience. (Fortunately, I also know my limitations and desires well enough to have refused the offer when it was made — it helped that I also knew the clusterfuck I’d be stepping into to try to steer.. was a weird conversation though)

            The easiest place to see this play out is in the hiring of a cook vs a chef.
            They’re both male dominated professions, both requiring pretty much the same skill-set, but the chef is far more likely to be male, and gets paid more.

            Who forces them to make that choice? We do. They can choose the gender appropriate job for the lesser wage, or they can choose to not eat. Hmmm..

          • And affirmative action produces reverse discrimination.
            Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome.

          • DannyboyCdnMra…..High risk job? Do you have any idea how often nurses get assaulted while at work on psychiatric units and in nursing homes? Maybe you remember a few years back when the nurses working the night shift on a British psychiatric unit were found beheaded by the day staff. Then there is the risk of transmission of diseases like Hepatitis B and HIV. There are nurses and doctors working in ER’s worried that gang members will come in with guns. Are you aware that paramedics in the cities in Canada wear flak jackets? On top of the “high risk”, these nurses are also saving peoples lives.

            Now, you denied there is a pay equity issue. The simple truth is that when more men choose nursing as profession, the wages will go up.

          • Gee I wonder how many male orderlies get attacked for doing their job?
            No I do not remember a few years back about some British nurses getting decapitated across the pond, yes tragic and horrific but an obscure case.

            How many doctors and nurses are dying on the job compared to say the logging industry? Oil rig workers? Police officers?

            Here’s a list of the most dangerous jobs and for some unknown reason I don’t see one female dominated profession in there.;

            http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs.html

            If these people did not do their jobs, which produce raw materials, nurses and doctors could not do a tenth of what they are able to do these days.

            I suspect if you added up all hospital staff killed while doing their job it still would not come close to the number of men killed in the jobs no woman wants to do.

            The simple truth is that if you want higher wages you have to fight / bargain for them, just like every other union and or employee has ever done.

          • Actually, to be utterly fair, That list also does not include Game Warden…. not because it does not have an even higher fatality rate than logger, but because there are very few game warden fatalities per year. If you averaged the fatalities over a 4 year span, game wardens actually come close to (by the scale used in the article) 300 per 100,000 per year… except that there are nowhere near 100,000 game wardens, and the fatalities usually occur a year or two apart.

            The irony is that when you look at fatalities by gender, you find that those male-dominated professions that are leaders in fatalities, often have a huge multiplier when attempted by females. for instance, 3 female cops are injured or killed for every male cop, when adjusted by the actual number of female patrol cops versus male patrol cops employed. This can be directly attributed to diminished physical standards and inadequate defensive ability. (And, if you want to be nasty and truthful, female inadequacies in strength, agility, and reaction speed compared to males) This holds true for most high-risk professions women have attempted to ‘break into’, from oil rigging to lumbering.

            So females have very good, very logical reasons for avoiding these professions… Which goes to show that, in point of fact, any income disparities are directly the result of Women’s choices. But don’t let feminists hear you say that, since any biological difference between men and women are strictly the fault of the ‘patriarchy’ abusing women.

          • Oh you also might want to remember the psychological differences. When a man gets injured, the rest of the men say “It won’t happen to me.”
            When a woman gets injured, ALL women everywhere get injured.

            So in the female mind, one woman getting raped is far more tragic and immediate than the thousands of men subjected to a nightmare of hourly gang rape in government ‘rehabilitation facilities’ on the accusations of a woman that woke up with a hangover and a naked nerd in their bed.

          • I don’t believe it is news to anyone that females are not as strong or fast as males so they likely don’t excel at jobs that require brute strength and speed. The question is “why do jobs that require brute strength and speed” pay significantly better than the ones that are more suited to the attributes of a woman? That is the crux of pay inequity and income disparity. This thread is evidence that even things like years of education, level of responsibility on the job, physical demands of the job (nurses do a lot of lifting of patients), inherent risks, working conditions ….doesn’t seem to sway the opinion of many males on the thread that the jobs predominately filled by women do deserve equitable pay. Amazing!
            Meanwhile, this ‘get a different job’ remark is silly. We already have a global shortage of nurses. Who is going to do the work if every nurse gets a different job?

          • you just answered your own how do we raise the wage of nurse question with your own words,, you create a demand for them.

          • There is a BIG demand but guess what? Not many in the younger generation want to do the job. Even many of the ones who are studying it, plan not to practice. They have no intention of “wiping asses”. Apparently when they applied to enter the program they didn’t realize that dealing with body fluids was part of the job. They watched ER or Grey’s Anatomy and those shows didn’t reveal that along with working “code blues”, nurses clean up the patients AND they are responsible for cleaning bodily fluids (and solids) up off the floors and walls too.
            No, there has been no increase in wages in Quebec related to demand. Instead they work chronically short of staff and they close beds. As a result, patients wait for care in ER’s longer than they should and surgeries are delayed.

          • Male orderlies don’t exist anymore. There are “porters” who transport patients but there are as many women and men in that profession. We have security guards because the place is dangerous. One physician got attacked and the patient beat him up; another the patient tried to rip out his throat with his teeth; yet another had a patient drive their car right into the ER trying to kill him. A co-worker had five of her teeth knocked out; another had her facial bones broken and required multiple surgeries.
            However, risk is not the ONLY reason nurses deserve decent pay….I think you left out the education and responsibility factors of the job. You just ignore the years it takes to become a nurse and the important work they do? Let me ask you, how many on that list of dangerous jobs are saving lives while doing their job? How many are wallowing in human feces, vomit, blood and spit to do their jobs? As for your suggestion to negotiate better pay, I am sure the Quebec nurses have tried that.

          • Again Dr.’s and nurses do not make the list of dangerous jobs, your argument on that fails.

            And how many of those violent acts you like to mention are for drugs?

            If you didn’t mind wading through bodily fluids and or solids then you should not have gone into your profession.
            Responsibility factors, you mean like if I don’t get this piece of machinery set up and operating properly I could kill dozens of people sort of responsibility?

            Stop pulling the ‘how many are saving live’ crap outta yur arse it is getting tied and old. IF the workers in those high risk jobs did not produce the raw materials, you nurses and doctors would not be able to do the life saving you do. Needle,, plastic petroleum product, metal point steel industry / mining industry.

            Oil rig worker require 3 yr apprenticeship for C of Q. Granted some of that education is hands on, but hands on training / education is still education.
            If you wanted to earn more money why did you not choose to go into a business management job instead?
            You want a better wage get off your arse and strike or petition for it, stop relying on men to change things for you.

          • Don’t you realize it is illegal for nurses to strike. We are like the Police. You may not appreciate the necessity of the work we do but the public and governments do. We are an essential service.
            I only brought up the working conditions (feces, body fluids) because another blogger claimed that because construction and oilfield workers are working in harsh outdoor conditions, they deserve more pay. I just wanted to let you know what we are working in.
            As for responsibilities…..we aren’t just setting up “machinery and making sure it works properly”. The machinery does different things. Some of monitors a patient’s progress…vital signs, heart tracings. Other machinery gives the patients medications and different fluids through the veins or through tubes into their stomachs or into their spinal columns. We have to be monitoring how the patient is doing and evaluating the results of lab tests and heart tracings as well any output such as through chest tubes, urination, feces and vomit. We have to be able to identify any problems and that might indicate internal bleeding or infection of the blood (sepsis). We also have to evaluate if the epidural used for pain management might have migrated in the spinal column and the patient is at risk for death due to respiratory depression. It is our responsibility to intervene quickly if the patient shows any signs of decompensating. The physician is only with the patient for a very short time each day. We are their eyes and ears

            .24/7. Yes, people can die if you put the wrong med in the IV bag. Yes, people can die if the rates on the IV are incorrect (blood thinners are run through IV’s). A nurse is as responsible as a doctor for the care given the patient, even if the dose or drug ordered by the doctor is incorrect. It is the job of the nurse to question the orders to ensure patient safety. Just an aside on the education, nursing tends to have the highest averages coming into the university.
            …at any rate as I keep reiterating to you…it isn’t about “my” personal choice, it is about the value society puts on jobs that tend to be done by women.

          • actually, no, oil rig workers are not paid more because of the harsh living conditions.

            They are paid more because the nickname in most places for a retired oil rig worker is ‘lefty’. They have an incredibly high average rate of death, critical injury, chronic damage and permanent mutilation. They exist for six months at a time in an awkward and repressive social situation, and are subject to constant danger. Even their training can be deadly.

            I do not disrespect the effort it requires to both become and maintain yourself as a competent nurse, I even agree that they are incredibly underpaid considering the long hours and often incredible physical effort required. I am even aware that Nurses are often in physical danger.

            However, a retired nurse is not often referred to as ‘lefty’.

          • Which works out to $67K/yr before overtime and shift differential. $100K nurses are very common. Plus, it’s likely that said nurse will be able to retire at the age of 54-57 with a guaranteed pension of 30-35K per year or better.
            As far as pay differential for construction/oilfield versus “women’s jobs” such as nursing or child care, there are a number of factors at work. Higher inherent risk is one. Show me a job where there is rotating equipment that could kill you, a need for steel toed boots or hard hats, the presence of pressurized fluids and gases, moving equipment, mud, cold, rain, snow, mosquitoes, black flies, wasps, possible flying debris, and I’ll show you a job that probably pays well.

          • You think a nurse working 37.5 hours a week at $33.00/hr is going to make $100K through shift differential and overtime? Given that shift differential in Quebec is around $2.00/hr., do you realize how much overtime the nurse would have to work?
            As for your reasons for pay differential, that is ridiculous. Let’s start with the fact that many of these nurses have four years of education. They run epidurals, monitor and remove chest tubes, in some places remove pacer wires from the heart. Meanwhile, they aren’t working in mud…they are working in blood, feces, vomit and sputum. As for your “inherent high risk”…they are getting assaulted by dementia and psychotic patients, they run the risk of needle stick injuries (Winona Judd contracted Hepatitis B as a nurse) and they deal with demanding patients and their families, not to mention a few grumpy physicians, all while trying to provide empathetic care.

          • And…In a free country such as ours, if you’re not making what you think you’re worth, find a new job. It’s that simple. Nothing more, nothing less.

          • Here are some hilarious examples brought to you straight from the halls of the US Senate: http://www.shrink4men.com/2012/03/12/now-and-vawa-attorney-lisalyn-r-jacobs-cops-a-plea-for-assaulting-daddy-justice-ben-vonderheide/ Women may still do the most of the work at home but that’s probably because they believe they can be the boss at home…and no man in his right mind will work for a woman unless he is forced to temporarily. I mean even women hate to work for women. The Pay Gap is one more big lie from the the Big Lie so don’t pull that in here from now on. The court system is utterly tyrannical to fathers as you can see in Daddy Justice’s case. And NO women should never have the right to rape child custody from men for any reason. Nor should any man ever be forced to pay child support to his children’s mother….that’s the standard family kangaroo kourt recipe for tyranny. As for peeing, from what I’ve seen women have far more than they can easily manage handling their own pee to worry about how men pee.

          • Tracheal, do you have issues with your mother? Have you gone through a nasty divorce? This hatred you have for seemingly ALL women is quite worrisome.

          • HCI, stop the foolish feminist shame gaming. It just makes you look as stupid, ignorant and hateful as are your Twisted Sisters. Moxon’s The Women Racket will clear your head about the issues wise males have with said racket. A Voice for Men is a very good place to go for the issues that men have with feminist tyranny.

          • Tracheal, you talk using phrases I have never seen before coming on these site but it seems to be a language that you are all sharing….”shame gaming”, etc. I had no idea there was a feminist tyranny with its own language or a group trying to destroy with its own language. It sounds a bit like the Masons.

          • More shame gamin. Anything to bypass the real issues and slime one’s opponent. Spoken like a true feminist.

          • What about when you referred to women as “witches, snitches and bitches” and then warned about “evil little girls”. What exactly is that called?

      • Nadine
        You claim to like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on your FB page and yet an equal voice for men is not something you seem to believe in.
        Refresher for you look at S 15 and 28.
        Both of you should do some research into the issues such as bodily integrity (no more genital mutilation of boys) Shared parenting, aka rights of a father to be a father to children he donated 50% of the genetic material for. The fact that men make up about 80% of the suicide population, 50% of the domestically abused population, 97% of all military casualties, 93% of industrial deaths and causalities. We die off on avg 5 yrs earlier, have less funding for our respective sex specific cancers (breast v prostrate) are falling behind in education and yet our Cdn govt still has grants and bursaries only for women.
        The list is long and vast.
        Stop with feminist drone horse crap Nadine.

    • How can you possibly mistake legitimate concerns about the PENALTIES men face being far more severe simply because they are applied to men as somehow equating to ‘men demanding more rights’?

      No, men do not want more rights. What they are campaigning for is for the authorities to stop disregarding the rights that all humans are supposed to share simply because they are men.

      They are campaigning against preferential treatment of women in all aspects of society. They are campaigning against bigoted ‘affirmative action’ laws that put sexual and racial politics ahead of legitimate achievement.

      They are campaigning against horrifyingly unfair rape laws that put innocent men in jail on nothing more than hearsay, without the burden of proof or innocent until proven guilty.

      They are tired of bigoted ‘chapter 9’ rulings, and from the complete and unremitting trivialization of ‘human’ concerns in favor of solely female concerns. They are tired of the abusive and exploitative child support and divorce laws that only exist in order to force men to pay women under the cover of such ridiculous notions as ‘supporting someone in the style to which they have become accustomed.’ especially when such support is given to women who have chosen to quit a marriage because they are ‘bored’ and yet demand a man continue to support them and their children ad infinatum with no return on the investment.

      They are tired of children being torn away from loving fathers on the thinnest of threads, with no evidence of abuse whatsoever, and of being treated like criminals permanently.

      Men are tired of having their privacy violated, and their relationships questioned at every turn by people who have no right nor responsibility to do so. They are tired of being forced to sign up for ‘selective service’ without any corresponding privileges for their willing submission to death by enemy combatant.

      Men are tired of being forced to pay for a system that hates them, to contribute labor, time, and money to a support structure for women that are essentially using it as their giant playpen. They are tired of being forced to ‘change’ when they are doing an excellent job to suit the sensibilities of a woman who is incapable of physically, mentally, or emotionally contributing nearly as much to the job that they are doing.

      Men are tired of being ignored when they point out their rightful contributions to society, vilified simply for being men.

      Men are tired of being considered the ‘dominant aggressor’ and getting forcibly removed from their homes on absolutely no evidence, despite mountains of evidence that proves that women are not only exactly as likely as men to initiate physical domestic violence, but MORE likely to initiate physical violence when there are children involved.

      I have read much of the ‘required literature’ for women’s studies courses in the united states, and the amount of popular fiction taken as ‘fact’ and the utter twisting and ignorance of scientifically-tested evidence is staggering.
      And it universally supports the sort of bigotry that even ku klux klan members of the 40’s would consider ‘over the top’ were it applied to blacks.

      Frankly, women’s studies and feminism have done more to convince women that they were eternally powerless, helpless victims than any culture in history. Even when the Catholic church claimed that women were not human, they were better protected, more powerful, more self-assured, and more capable than today’s ’empowered’ feminazi slutwalker.

      So no, men are not whining about wanting more rights. They are simply trying to stop, or at least restrain, the damage that unrestrained feminism and it’s powerful commercial backing is doing to human beings, male and female alike. They are trying to end the ‘war of the sexes’ before it becomes a blatant, bloody orgy of violence. They are trying to bring equality and equal responsibility based upon merit, rather than artificially and government-enforced ‘equality’ that punishes achievement and celebrates mediocrity.

      So stop with the shaming language. It is a transparent effort to make light of a real and burgeoning problem in western culture today.

      • Awww! Men Rights Advocates. Aren’t they cute? Aren’t they absolutely adorable? I love it when white, male, provileged individuals living in a society which has been fashioned for millenia around their needs and aspirations tell other individuals they have, wait for it, too many rights. Like a 2 years old,

        So listen up ladies! Men in position of privilege are explaining to you something and they’re stomping their feet to be heard. Despite the sexism that is still blatantly obvious in our society, we’re supposed to shut up and sit down like the nice ladies that we are. But you know something is deeply wrong when misogynists compare those fighting for equal rights to the KKK.

        Personally I particularly like the part where this dude gets upset whenever women ask men NOT to rape. I mean, I know right? Unfair rape laws… Imagine that! Fighting to end a sexual crime is now misandry. Guess what? Don’t want to go to jail? Don’t rape. Otherwise yes, you will be called for what you are: an aggressor.

        Guess what? Have a kid? You’ll be expected to pay some childcare for it if the marriage goes awry. No more free rides.

        Want to end the “war of the sexes” (sic)? How about stopping the war on women’s bodies with attacks on reproductive rights?

        BTW did you know? There’s still no law guaranteeing equal pay for equal work for women. Let that sink in for a moment.

        Anyways. Once again, they remind us why feminism and women studies will stick around for some time. Because clearly, there’s still work to do.

        • Oh nice attempt at ‘argument by ridicule.’. I forget that talking to a feminist is like talking to a brain damaged toddler.

          Institutionalized male rape? Let’s pretend it doesn’t exist. An epidemic of false rape accusation? Oh, that’s just a lie.

          Having children stolen as an official ‘guideline’ of the authorities? Oh, that’s just men whining about losing privelege.

          Blatantly ignoring the fact that society has been fashioned for millenia around protecting WOMEN by men, Oh… no… I broke a nail writing a personal attack about that!.

          Although, i agree with you on one thing. There is no law guaranteeing
          equal pay for equal work for women. Instead, there are reams of laws
          guaranteeing women greater pay for less work, and less hazardous work, than men

          And you consider a woman ditching a marriage because she is bored and then expecting to be supported by that man is NORMAL? Ethical? Just?

          Check your privilege at the door.

          I understand that they make pills for most degenerative psychological conditions, now. I believe yours is referred to as ‘narcissistic disassociative personality disorder’. There is no cure other than a solid dose of reality, which you seem to lack.

          • The problem is that you keep making outrageous, unsubstantiated, ridiculous, and FALSE accusations in the process of slandering people campaigning for true equality between the sexes.

            Better get used to see us around. We’re not getting anywhere. After YEARS of being told feminism is no longer valid (ha!) women are now realizing how utterly false that was. YOU are a living proof of this. Not to mention that calling people “brain damaged” is hardly an efficient way of getting the point across: seems to me more like another pathetic attempt at invalidating your opponent. And if you truly believe I’m brain damaged, why argue with me? Go away, then.

            Epidemic of false rape accusations? WHERE? Men are accused of raping because they rape. The end. They should stop raping. Then they’ll stop being accused of this crime.

            Children stolen? When? Where? By whom? No one is stealing nobody’s children. Although, seeing the utter nonsensical actions that MRAs are doing, I believe there’s often a very good reason why in these cases courts have come up with the decision to grant the mother custody of the child, not the father.

            Women ditching a marriage because they’re bored? Oh, because men never ditch women because they’re “bored”? Not to mention that this grossly oversimplified the issues surrounding why people break up.

            You write: “Blatantly ignoring the fact that society has been fashioned for millenia around protecting WOMEN by men.” Yeah. That worked out GREAT for women over the centuries… Because OF COURSE violence against women is just another myth, now, isn’t it? And I don’t want protection from men! I’m perfectly capable of taking care of myself, thank you! I’m asking, however, of equal opportunities to do so.

            And we both agree that there are no laws ensuring equal pay for women. (And your allegation that women are paid more, or too much, as you seem to imply, for the work they do is pure fantasy.) Again, I don’t want SPECIAL privileges. I want EQUAL privileges. I don’t believe I’m a special person deserving a special treatment. I believe I am a PERSON deserving of the same rights regardless of gender. Not only in the law, but in real life. We’ve got a long way to go, baby. So I’m afraid you’ll have to deal with us for a little while, honey.

  20. I post things on a femi facebook page, I am often attacked by other women there when I suggest equality includes men.

  21. I have a few observations:

    “Free speech was alive and well at the University of Toronto last night, but in that moment I’d have welcomed its death with open arms.”

    Is this just flippancy and ignorance? or should I find it as chilling as I do, coming from somebody who earns an income writing?

    This is a little troubling too: “Not because I believe fighting misandry is a legitimate humanitarian cause (LOL) ”

    That’s a peculiar thing to say, why is hatred of any group by an aspect of their identity a cause for humor?

    However, what’s also a bit weird is that a “facebook diatribe” was hunted up by the author of this peice Emma Teitel, and attributed to AVfM. The “active member” language by Teitel seeming to imply that somebody who posted in the comments thread at AVfM represents the site. Does my comment here mean what I may post on facebook represents macleans.ca?

    In fact, I’m wondering if Teilel’s commenttary “it was a meeting of truly lunatic minds” a way for her to retain some hold of her own feminist identity after seeing the intelectual vandalism practiced by her erstwhile comrades?

    Also, why did Paul’s comment get moderated to the bottom?

    • In the manosphere, they refer to a woman’s brain as a “rationalization hamster”, or “hamster” for short, the idea being that their thinking is so random, unpredictable & wholly illogical that it is similar to a hamster running amok in their noggins.

      I confess to discerning a certain flailing randomness in the author’s writing, or, as the lads might say, “the hamster is strong in this one”. Sexist, I know, but, as Miss Teitel might say: LOL.

      • That this expression is not only accepted in the “manosphere”, but that you also feel so comfortable with the sexism of it that you want to parade it around I think tells us all we really need to know about both you and the reality of what this “movement” is about.

        Pathetic.

        • Actually, given the hysterical, hateful, and utterly asinine nature of both WS and the hate movement known as gender-feminism…AND the way many otherwise nice women uncritically back the Big Lie, there’s very good reason to wonder about the hamster like nature of the female brain. It’s not sexism for Camille Paglia to talk about grass huts, for instance, when so very few women even care to use their brains for more than pretty but pigheaded decoration. You need to create some distinctions between false accusations of sexism and the reality of tyrannical One Billion Bigots Rising foolishness.

        • “That this expression is not only accepted in the “manosphere”, but that you also feel so comfortable with the sexism of it that you want to
          parade it around I think tells us all we really need to know about both
          you and the reality of what this “movement” is about.”

          Evidently you don’t know what the expression “rationalization hamster” means. Well, I’m going to set you straight.

          “Rationalization hamster” is simply a metaphor for the rationalization process in the human mind — ANY human man, male or female irrespectively.

          “Rationalization hamster” does NOT mean “a woman’s brain”, or anybody else’s brain for that matter. It means something that the brain is doing.

          Do you see the difference?

          All right, now that I have corrected your error of understanding, do you STILL believe that the expression “rationalization hamster” is sexist?

          There is only one acceptable answer here, and that is “no, I no longer believe that.”

          Hopefully, that is the answer you would make.

          And hopefully, you also believe that male rights are human rights.

          • Perhaps you should explain that to Frank here, because he’s the one claiming it’s how they refer to a “woman’s brain” specifically.

      • Some definitions, as provided by the Manosphere Glossary:

        Rationalization Hamster: Using dishonest techniques (like hamsterbatics, or deprecated theories) to provide illogical justification for a wrongful act.

        Hamsterbatics: Tactics of classifying something as good or bad with a self-presumed moral authority, to suit one’s own agenda or ideology.

        And here’s a bonus found elsewhere…

        Kafkatrapping: “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of
        {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}.”

      • Again, I am just interested know….in the “manosphere”, are these men talking about their daughters, mothers, wives, sisters as having brains “so random, unpredictable and wholly illogical that is similar to a hamster running amok in their noggins”? Also, do they share this opinion with the women in their lives?

        • You evidently don’t know much about the “manosphere”, or you would not say that “these men” are saying what you say they are saying.

          That is, assuming you could tell us exactly who “these men” are in the first place.

          The expression “these men” is rather vague, so will you provide a list of names, and citations to prove that the bearers of said names veritably did say what you suggested they said?

          After that, would you consider apologizing to all the other men in the “manosphere” who did NOT, in fact, say such things?

          • You are asking the wrong person for an apology. Frank Ernest made the claims of what is “said in the manosphere”. I only asked Frank for more information. If you want a list of the offender’s names and apologies for the offended, I suggest you talk to Frank.

      • “In the manosphere, they refer to a woman’s brain as a “rationalization hamster”. . “

        You are a liar.

        That is NOT what the expression “rationalization hamster” means.

        “Rationalization hamster” is simply a metaphor for the rationalization process in the human mind — ANY human man, male or female irrespectively.

        “Rationalization hamster” does NOT mean “a woman’s brain”, or anybody else’s brain for that matter. It means something that the brain is doing.

        Do you see the difference?

        Okay. Now stop telling lies.

        • Ah. You did tell him. Fair enough.. excuse my earlier response to him, I thought he had a clue what the hell he was talking about. Apparantly I was wrong. My mistake.

  22. Emma,

    I was there last night.
    I am generation X and was there with another generation X, videoing the event last night.
    So much for your allegation of aging baby boomers.

    I am fairly sure you were sitting back in the upper corner of the room by the fire exit opposite the main entrance. I will need to check my videos of the night to make sure.

    I don’t want to make an assumption like you have done in your article. (see above)

    I am as well the news person for AVfM in Ontario.

    Instead of assuming things why did you not come on over and ask me personally?

    I suggest you as well look at Mr. Browns profile on fb,

    “Earlier in 2013
    “Joined Facebook 20 February”

    I find it suspicious that Mr. Brown’s profile on face book is very recent.

    And you as a reporter with journalistic integrity did research that fact right?

  23. Hello Emma,

    I was at the lecture helping to represent AVFM with Dan Perrins and we would have openly welcomed any questions you might have had about AVFM, our views on men’s issues, feminism or just the lecture itself. I’m somewhat saddened by the fact that you didn’t approach us, but shocked that you would opt, instead, to mine out a random comment on the event facebook page.

    Speaking about the comment, I have good reason to believe that Alex Brown is an agent provocateur tasked with the challenge of tarring the reputation of various men’s groups, not only at the event, but in general as well.

    Exhibit A

    http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll166/xXToYeDXx/alexprofile1_zpsf66dc71e.png

    This is a screen cap of his profile page. You can plainly see the page is public, and also quite bare with very little content as well. Essentially just what is needed to paint a self portrait as an MHRA, with a heavy negative connotation as a supporter of “The Commune” and “Anarchism” as well. Everything needed to make someone automatically wary of not only his personal views and intentions, but also the men’s groups he liked and favourited.

    Exhibit B
    http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll166/xXToYeDXx/alexprofile2_zps5b88cce0.png

    This is a second screencap with information further down his page. I direct your attention to the photo of the LGBT rally to stop violence against lesbians and gay men. His comment is as follows:

    “Yes. Give me a second to look up the links. Do you realise what that means for feminist theory on domestic violence?

    Men may be more violent, but they mostly direct their violence towards strangers. Woman are more likely to be violent towards members of their peer group, members of family.”

    The part about men being more violent than women is just plain false as every empirical study ever done has clearly shown that men and women are equally violent in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Put in other words, violence is a violence issue and not a gender issue. His lack of knowledge on this, and his quick assumption that one sex is more violent than the other, is another indication that he is not an advocate for men’s issues as he claims to be.

    Exhibit C

    http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll166/xXToYeDXx/alexprofile3_zpsad43a36a.png

    This is a screencap showcasing the date the profile was created, February 20th, 2013, and on the same day AVFM, Barbarossa, The Commune, Anarchism and a few others were liked by this profile. It is highly suspicious that this profile was created, and those pages liked and favourited, so close to the lecture date. This suggests to me that this is a fake page, quickly created and tossed up on facebook to bait journalists such as yourself, and protesters, into mining it for quick quotes and references. Based on this article, and Exhibit D below, it succeeded in that goal.

    Exhibit D
    http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll166/xXToYeDXx/IMG_1720-e1362719260656_zps84659ef9.jpg

    In this photo (pulled right from your own photo gallery of the event) you can clearly see a protester at the event who apparently already mined the exact same post by Alex Brown and put it on a placard. It’s far too convenient to be coincidence.

    In closing, I would expect a Maclean’s journalist to at least have the journalistic integrity to do some of this research before jumping to conclusions. And as previously stated by another commenter, I’m appalled by the fact that you regard the hatred of men, simply by virtue of our being men, as humour. No form of bigotry should be touted as a form of humour.

    Also, I find your lazy use of the quoted comment, and your attribution of it to every individual men’s issues advocate in attendance, to be intellectually dishonest at best and sexist at worst. I won’t tell you how to do your job, but to be honest I shouldn’t have to.

      • Guess you missed the rest of that quote let me help you with that;
        “shown that men and women are equally violent in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships.”

        “SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600.”

        http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

        Meh don’t let the 286 scholarly investigation nor the 221 emperical studies bother you.

        • Oh don’t worry. Knowing these people, they will never ever let such a thing bother them in the least.

          They “wanna believe what they wanna believe what they wanna believe..”

          And nothing but nothing will ever make them believe otherwise!

          You might as well be talking to a brick wall.

          • True Believers all.

        • Hey, you provided a citation. I’m good with that. And looking through them, there’s a lot of crap in there, as pretty much every study in there relies on self-reported rates — all that tells us is that men and women report the same level. It doesn’t say how often it actually happens. Of those that don’t, we have a couple of individual case-studies, some studies looking at courtship (women are more likely to be physically aggressive during courtship — punching their shoulder, etc, as a means of trust testing, absolutely.)

          However, any time the studies look a little deeper and we find things like “women were more likely to slap, punch, bite, or throw objects at men, men were more likely to strangle, choke, or beat-up women” There’s a qualitative difference to those acts that I think is being intentionally glossed over. To say nothing of the bias of the reviewer — a bias that comes out pretty strongly when he puts out the quote ” “2% of the men and none of the women indicate that they had been hurt by their partners between five and nine times.”

          Between five and nine. All of the other ranges.. less than 5, over 9, all of those are completely ignored. Do they not happen? Or do they just not support this guy’s attempt to color the information to meet his hypothesis?

          Given the number of counterstudies available that say just the opposite (just look up domestic violence in wikipedia for a starting point to that bibliography), and how this guy is having to stretch to find his examples, not to mention that even if we give him the full benefit of the doubt, this is entirely contained to violence happening within relationships. Anybody who thinks that the’s only violence that occurs against women is either a complete moron, or has a really big axe to grind that isn’t supported by the world at large.

          That all said, thanks for providing the citation. Because buried among all the dross and bias there, there are a number of good studies as well.

          Yes, violence does happen against men, and yes, it happens far too often. It shouldn’t be ignored, I’ll agree, but no way in hell should it be used to justify further sexism against women either.

          • Where the hell does sexism come into play here?

            The only sexism at play on this topic is feminism’s toxic view of men always being the criminal and women the eternal victim.

            The MHRM speaks out against a misandric ideology known as feminism not women, try not to mix the two up.

            Look a little deeper and you’ll discover a woman is more likely to use a weapon or an ambush attack.

            Then there is the pass given to women who kill or attempt to kill their husbands and claim it was self defense when there is no evidence of a history of abuse, thereby creating bad data. (nicole ryan case ring a bell?)

            Then there are the cases like the Lucio / Johnson case out of London Ont. where she killed him and the system bent over backwards to have it classified as a bi-lateral tragedy and not a domestic homicide where the woman killed the man.

            Then there is the fact that when a woman hires a hitman to kill her spouse and it happens it doesn’t get classified as a D.V. homicide.

            Then there is the way women tend to kill which is via poison, which as well can have a D.V. murder overlooked in the collection of the data statistics.

            And the biggest indicator on whether or not a woman will be hit is whether or not she initiates physical violence first.

            We teach young boys don’t hit a woman but we do not teach young girls don’t hit a boy. This produces women who believe it is fine to initiate physical violence against a man. Try watching the ABC series ‘what would you do’ segment on this.

            Feminism’s goal is the eternal victim-hood of women, if that victim-hood status disappears so to will their power.

            This is what truly scares them.

          • Where does sexism come into play? Take a look at a lot of what’s being posted here. Hamster brain (which Fidelbogen has indicated is not specific to women but that *is* the frame of reference that it was brought up in), things like gender normalizing *incarceration* rates regardless of the severity of the crime, not to mention your last two sentences — it’s sexist as hell to accuse women in general of having “power” through victimhood, and if you can’t see that, I can’t help you.

            As to your other stuff: If the plural of anecdote was data, the various anecdotal cases you bring up would mean something. It’s not. Because all an anecdote shows is that it’s happened once. Not that it’s regular, and not that it’s happening more often than the exact same thing on the other side.

            Should it happen at all? Of course not.
            Do we live in a perfect world? Of course not.

          • The fact that you couldn’t be bothered to do a google search for the cases I mention shows your intellectual dishonesty.
            Easy searches to do and yet you claimed to have looked through the Fiebert bibliography, somewhat harder to do.

            AND although what I said appears to already to have gone over your head once I shall for clarity repeat it.
            I said ‘feminism’ not women. Two different things.
            I am not responsible for every persons post so that point is just you getting desperate.
            Whose the hamster brain again?

          • The fact that I couldn’t be bothered to do a google search for the cases you mention shows their irrelevance, anecdotes tell nothing about rates, as I point out, and as you continually seem to be unable to comprehend. It’s very basic statistics.

            You said “feminism”, yes, but then generalized their arguments to all women.

            Nobody said you’re responsible for every person’s post, but you’re the one who asked “where does sexism come into play”.

            Whether it comes from you or not, if you don’t care that these examples are being used to justify further sexism by the likes of Frank, then that’s not a whole hell of a lot better.

          • Yah I guess a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada is irrelevant. Much like you.

          • It certainly is.. when what we’re looking at is the rate of these offenses.

          • Younger female rape victim: “They tell me I cry too much.” Older female rape victim: “Then cry some more.” Crying and lying are the primary feminist tactics…tactics which no man in his right mind would ever proudly depend on.

          • Thanks. You’ve proved my point nicely.

          • And what point is that pray tell?

      • Yes, in the realm of domestic violence, women are as likely to be perpetrators as men.

        But that is not the view which feminism has promoted for the last third of a century.

        Some people, however, have managed to rip the blinders off and discover the truth — and that truth is abundantly documented for all who are open to such discoveries. Those who are NOT open to such discoveries, are “operating within a paradigm”, as the eminent Canadian DV researcher Donald Dutton would say.

        All right. Go now and refute every item on Martin Fiebert’s bibliography:

        http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

        When you are done, you will be qualified to continue this discussion. (But not sooner!)

        • Okay, most of them I refute simply on the fact that they’re self-reported studies, which tell us between jack and squat about actual rates, and they’re presented by a person who’s so biased he’s cherry picking data ranges that fit with his hypothesis such as when he says “2% of the men and none of the women indicate that they had been hurt by their partners between five and nine times.” and provides absolutely nothing about any of the other ranges. Apparently nobody is injured less than four or more than nine times… at least, nobody he wants to talk about.

          Not to mention that what little data there is there is fairly well refuted by the NCVS survey –http://web.archive.org/web/20090414033235/http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ipv01.pdf which is a survey that uses statistics from more than a small group of “at risk” couples as so many of the ones Fiebert is referencing do.

          Now the case studies I don’t refute, because they’re case studies, so irrelevant to the issue of rates.

          The remainder I generally refute on the notion that sheer quantity is not a sufficient measure. Even if there were over two hundred guys that are slapped for every woman that is killed, I’d still be more concerned about the violence against women. I think most reasonable people would.

          • Even if there were over two hundred guys that are murdered for every woman that is killed, I’d still be more concerned about the violence against women. I think most bigoted people would. Just mirroring your nonsense here. No intention to suggest that the above ratio is reality…although men are murdered far more often than are women.

          • “Even if there were over two hundred guys that are slapped for every woman that is killed, I’d still be more concerned about the violence against women.”

            If you were arguing in good faith you may have framed this as four men killed by their female partners for every six women killed by their male partners.

            Go ahead. Line up the victims of violence. Check their genitalia. Regardless of the violence or harm they experienced those with the wrong genitalia are to be summarily dismissed. You are not a reasonable individual.

          • Love that you’ve got to narrow this down to “by their partners”. As if the rest of the world doesn’t exist outside the very narrow confines of where it supports your case.

            Also, unless you can cite your source, you’re full of shit even with that definition. Because the bibliography presented demonstrated.. AT BEST, that there were still more women being victims than men, just that the difference wasn’t significant.

          • My source is Australian federal govt stats.

            “very narrow confines of where it supports your case.”

            Come off it. You were equating people being slapped with people being murdered. I merely correct your deceit.

            Again, you are not a reasonable individual.

  24. It is a shame that the author feels that the discussion of why males commit suicide at a rate of almost four times that of women, why approximately 90% of homeless people in Canada are males, why male university enrollment has declined to the point where only 35% of university students are male, why 93% of workplace deaths are men, why teenage males are becoming addicted to pornography and video games, why 96% of teenage murder victims in the G.T.A. are males, why young males are addicted to alcohol and drugs at rates that are vastly greater than their female counterparts are laughing matters.
    Feminism claims to provide spaces for these discussions, but they don’t. Men are ridiculed and shamed into silence when these topics are brought up, very much like they tried to do with the lecture on Thursday night. On my way to the lecture I passed half a dozen homeless men sleeping on the streets only to be confronted by these placard waving privileged parakeets spouting their nonsense. One of them, filled with righteous indignation and rage, deliberately bumped into the man beside me in an effort to claim she had been assaulted.

    • Malcolm, I would interested to know where you got some of your stats. While young males do commit suicide more often than young females. Females actually attempt suicide much more often than males. Males, however tend to favor more lethal methods….hanging vs. overdose and therefore are more often successful. The stats I read indicate that with regard to homelessness, 67% are single males while 32 percent are single females and this is attributed to the fact that it is very unsafe for single females on the streets so they will do ANYTHING to get off them, including turning to prostitution where they are protected by a pimp. As for university enrollment dropping for males, that is due to several reasons, one of which is that men can make very good money in trades or can often enter jobs straight out of high school that pay well but require physical strength that females don’t have. Also, females are performing better in school. With regard to the workplace accidents. My guess is you are referring to construction sites which are heavily favored by men. I can tell you that over 90% of the nurses getting assaulted in old age homes and on hospital units by patients are women only because by far and large, most nurses are women. As for your substance abuse stats, 17% of the population of males are alcoholics are men, 8% of the population of women are alcoholics.
      I have no doubt that teenage girls avoid the streets in the GTA due to the risk of rape on top of the risk of murder.
      I work in mental health. Many of the older homeless men you pass on the street suffer from illness such as schizophrenia. Unfortunately, they are very resistant to accepting treatment and they do have the right to refuse it.
      I have no doubt that there is discord between the men’s studies and the women’s studies groups. I am not sure why. I took an advanced women’s studies class. It involved exploring the life stories of different women through the objects they cherished. It certainly had nothing to do with bashing men. If things have changed in women’s studies, that is a shame. Instead of the two genders bashing one another, they should be celebrating one another.

      • ” Females actually attempt suicide much more often than males.” If they’re failing most of the time, is it really committing suicide or just faking it to gain attention?

        • Cheer up….in China, woman commit suicide more often than men.
          Now as to your “faking it” question….given that these statistics are reported by emergency departments, etc. and are established to be legitimate attempts (ie: the “woman” who attempted is confined to the psych unit for medication treatment or electro-convulsive shock therapy treatment for depression), NO, I don’t believe that the women that these stats capture are faking it for attention. Now there is a psych diagnosis ……borderline personality disorder where people do indulge in para-suicidal behaviors to get attention however, unfortunately, sometimes they end up dying because no one arrives in time to cut the ligatures from around their necks.
          Why do women fail so often? They don’t like violence and the medications likely available to them to overdose on aren’t always lethal although some will cause organ damage if taken sufficient quantities.

      • With regards to more men on the street, the explanation is simple on my city. We have four places that women can go to, seeking help and shelter, but zero for men, until a church managed to provide sixteen beds for an emergency men’s shelter for just the coldest months of the year. Women simply have more services. Is there a place yet in Canada where abused men and their children can find help?

        • Yes, the Family of Men runs a safe house for men who are the victims of domestic violence.

          As for women having more services…in Canada the shelters provide services for women and men. They are usually on different floors. There are also areas designated for families. I don’t know what city you are from but with our cold winters, we provide service for everyone.

          • Bunk.

          • Really? I live in Calgary and all of the shelters here are for both sexes.

          • Excuse me but margeryk and I were discussing homelessness and shelters available to the homeless, both men and women….not safe houses for abused individuals. In Calgary there is the drop-in centre and the Mustard Seed, etc. that offer “shelter” to men, women and families. We already discussed that the Family of Men runs a safe house for male victims of domestic violence. Are you denying that the shelters for homelessness in Calgary for provide services for both men and women?

          • My bad. But you can bet that the Coddled Sex gets far more resources than does the Disposable Sex regarding homelessness too…in today’s
            Gender Bigoted Great White North. In any case you cannot convincingly claim that your hysterical hate movement treats the sexes fairly. I mean right in the article above we have the author LOL about misandry…a form of hatred that is well known in the feminist totalitarian tyranny that is Canada (and only a little less the so the US) today.

      • “Instead of the two genders bashing one another, they should be celebrating one another.”

        WS is based on bigoted, reverse-sexist, and female supremacist ideologies. One hate-full Sex does need to stop bashing the other…and it’s NOT the already disposable Sex either. Celebration of women by men is not going to happen before the hateful feminist bigots are shown the door.

      • “While young males do commit suicide more often than young females. Females actually attempt suicide much more often than males.”

        Hmmm, I’m inclined to see this differently. Rather than seeing a false equivalency, as you seem determined to do, what I see is greater willingness to pay attention to female attempts and classify them as attempts, than men. I am at a loss to explain how it is somehow vitally important we inject a kind of ‘women have it worse / just as bad’ narrative every time we talk about issues facing men.

        Suicide is the second or third leading cause of death in Canada for men under 50. That in and of itself should mean it warrants attention in it’s own right as the National disgrace that it is. There is no need to qualify this with some kind of faux egalitarianism…the problems are not Gender Symmetrical, and they haven’t been since the suicide rate was similar between the sexes (pre 1940’s).

        We do not need to ‘include’ women in an issue to feel concern about it. We do not feel the slightest dab of guilt in focusing on men, as a sex, because frankly it’s such a rare thing as to be Political suicide, and no one else is doing it. The real travesty here, is why it took a bunch of angry guys with an internet connection to get these issues talked about, when we have Billions going towards “Gender Equality” groups every year. Just how much more ‘equal’ are these folks than us ‘others’ anyway?

        • Actually Dan, I have no interest in “seeing a false equivalency”. I was rather responding to Malcolm Johnston who was talking about the issues facing men as though they aren’t shared by both genders and he was spewing out incorrect statistics and incomplete information. I would really like to know what you are basing your belief that there is a “greater willingness to pay attention to female attempts and classify them as attempts than men”? Do think the psychiatrists, many of whom are men, misdiagnose the women so the stats will be slanted for some unfathomable reason?

      • Why the dogged determination to repress, undercut or deny the reality of anti-male bias and anti-male sexism within the culture?

        • The only “dogged determination” I have is to correct inaccurate information.

          • Well, start with yours.

          • I wasn’t aware I gave inaccurate information but I am sure you will be more specific and correct it.

          • Hardly. Waste of time to work with badly ‘brained’ women. Go read Who Stole Feminism.

          • “Badly brained woman”? I can honestly say that is the first time I have ever heard that term.

          • For fine brained women, go listen to Camille Paglia, Daphne Patia, or Christina Hoff Sommers. As for your brain…badly brainwashed I’m a feared. And it’s badly ‘brained’ not ‘badly brained’ so don’t confuse the two.

          • Seriously???
            HI & I don’t always see eye to eye, but based on yourcomments here and what I know of HI, she isnot the “badly brained” one.
            If your intent is to make us men look good, you are doing one piss-poor job.

          • My dear boy, It’s badly ‘brained’. She’s far too brainwashed to consider that the world’s favorite hate movement is bigoted, reverse-sexist, and tyrannically totalitarian. That’s not for lack of me offering fine women who haven’t been ‘brained’ by your favorite bigots.

      • “As for university enrollment dropping for males, that is due to several reasons, one of which is that men can make very good money in trades or can often enter jobs straight out of high school that pay well but require physical strength that females don’t have.”

        These factors have always existed and cannot be the source of the change that has occurred through the past two decades.

        I ran funding systems for government schools in Australia during the eighties and nineties. Curriculum and it’s delivery mechanisms underwent change in the early nineties to ensure they better suited girls’ preferred learning styles. The potential impact on boys WAS NOT a consideration. Poor future outcomes for boys were predicted by myself and others but written off on the basis that that girls were disadvantaged in the past. The fact that girls’ outcomes were, on average, already ahead of boys seemed to get lost in the fog.

  25. “…..I felt like I was on a game show, the exercise being how many times can you say patriarchal, phallocentric hegemony in 45 seconds or less……”

    Well?
    What was the winning result?

  26. “It was pure obfuscation, 1984 with tattoos and septum piercings. Some of the students couldn’t even string together a single lucid sentence. All they had were these meaningless, monolithic words. I felt like I was on a game show, the exercise being how many times can you say patriarchal, phallocentric hegemony in 45 seconds or less. It was frankly, for a feminist, depressing.” Thank you for making me laugh so hard. This article was brilliantly written and I agree with you completely.

  27. “Throughout history there has been plenty of privileged woman, who
    have had access to pianos, and violins, yet somehow we are expected to
    believe that men have somehow stopped them for being composers?”

    Emma, can you actually answer this question? Why aren’t there any great female composers?

    • There are. All kinds of them. And painters and scientists and mathematicians…..

      This is why we need women’s studies…..’somehow’ women got left out of the history books you got in school.

      • Still fomenting class war against the male proletariat? ;)

        • I’m strictly a 21st century high-tech globalist type and I have no interest in your ancient political systems from the industrial age. Sorry.

          • What a sad indictment of the 21st century high-tech globalist.

          • The amusing thing is that a few minutes ago she called me an ‘Ayn Rand inspired soviet’ for asserting that both intelligence and action were required in order to achieve, and attempting to claim that a list of ‘thinkers’ were never required to ‘accomplish’ anything. (and she included Galileo on that list! Ooh, someone needs to check their ‘actual’ history, since Galileo was a ‘scientist’ the same way that a clock is right twice a day.)

            Ayn Rand Inspired Soviet? really? I am highly amused.

          • Scornful amusement is all old fools like her deserve. Don’t believe there is an intellectually honest bone in her brainwashed body. Very good fit as a feminist however.

          • She’s like the old, arrogant version of that train wreck that Sparkyfister panned on youtube. Just two nasty comments away from dozens of cats eating her gin-soaked corpse to keep from starving.
            Although, admittedly, that’s a bit shame-eye, but I am beginning to wonder if that’s the only thing that poisonous second-generation manhaters understand. Arguing logically does not work. Anger does not work. Facts, peer-reviewed research, Objective Analysis, and the evidence of thousands of years of recorded history does not work.

            The only thing that works is to look at them sadly, shake your head slowly, and walk away, looking for someone more intelligent to have a meaningful discourse with, secure in the knowledge that you will never, ever meet them in real life and that they have had no more impact upon you than a couple of dozen words that might as well have been created by a random insult generator, for all the impact they have on the actual discussion at hand.

          • Fair enough. You are absolutely entitled to limit your interest to your own ancient political systems from the industrial age. I am nothing if not a democrat.

          • Have some more coffee before you post again. You are totally confused.

      • Camille Paglia’s ‘grass hut’ builders generally don’t deserve serious treatment in history books. Nor do the wicked witches in WS who brew poisonous anti-male hatred which has no basis in fact. The very fact that so many hate-full old women like you buy the Big Lie that is feminism…is more than enough reason to wonder whether women are worth writing into history. When women worship bigoted hate movements en masse we have to wonder whether they be baboons or people.

    • Hildegard of Bingen comes to mind. And Clara Schumann, perhaps. But overall, not many. And the women who achieved greatness in the arts tended to have markedly “masculine” personalities. (E.G. Katherine Anne Porter, a favorite writer of mine.)

  28. Thanks, Emma.

  29. If the “stout black man” identified their self as a “racialized person” who is “exploring gendre” why did you describe him as a black man? you do realize that in doing that, you were simultaneously racist and sexist in one sentence, right?

  30. The smug, self-congratulatory author of the present opinion piece (Emma Teitel) is what I call a ‘false centrist’. False centrism is a position of intellectual laziness, taken by people who cannot be bothered to understand the (often brutally complex) issues.

    • Classifying the animal is always very helpful. Thanks.

  31. btw, “racialized” is not some out-of-reach jargon word that is somehow innaccesible. im a high school drop out that uses it all the time. its a word meant to imply the systemic causes of the construct known as “race” – people arent inherently racial, they are racialized. i know feminists can be academic at times, but its not as hard to understand as you might think.

  32. Dear Emma,

    If you think you just saw nuts being nuts. Pay attention. I believe things are going to get even nuttier in the future.

  33. If fighting misogyny is a legitimate humanitarian cause, why isn’t fighting misandry the same? Is hatred of men acceptable when hatred of women is not? That doesn’t seem like a very egalitarian viewpoint.

  34. For all those not initiated (including delusional feminists or neophyte feminists) you need to understand Identity Politics with relation to Patriarchy theory. In the 1960’s feminists deployed Identity Politics to create classes based on gender (not the original Marxist intention, but) women as victims and men as oppressors. It has been a a very effective tactic and has served women well. It has been used effectively to make our academia, politicians and press submit to a theory that has very little basis.

    Quite frankly men have been the beasts of burden in Western culture for centuries. Yet today they are seen as potential rapists with a propensity for violence at the least provocation. How did we get here? A very determined campaign by feminists is the answer. By pitting men as enemies through classicism women have elevated themselves as moral arbiters. By painting men as evil feminists have been successful in subjugating women through tactics like misinformation (e.g. 1 in 4 women are raped, when in fact it is sexual assault which includes an unwanted pat on the bum or a look considered by the “victim” as a leer or “male gaze”).

    Unfortunately men are no longer allowed in the conversation unless they kowtow to the feminist line as we are the “oppressors” and may sully their pure intentions. This is why feminism is dead. It has become a prescriptive ideology like a religion that tells women (and a few delusional allies) what they must think/believe.

    Just as women have determined what their destiny will be so will men (despite being told what we should be). Unfortunately we live in a time where civil discourse between men and women is impossible. Thanks feminism.

Sign in to comment.