Men: stand up for yourselves and we WILL hate you. The new feminist war cry!

29 Mar

http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-into-a-self+fulfilling-prophecy

Okay, this is going to be a long one, but it’s an important one that needs to be taken apart. Let’s all hold hands and pray that Lindy West learns to be a little more concise in the future, but for now, we just gotta wade through the sewage filled swamp of her mind.

swamp

Ready? As always, Lindy is in italics.

If I Admit That ‘Hating Men’ Is a Thing, Will You Stop Turning It Into a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?

Lindy West

Okay, so maybe you are a man. Maybe you haven’t had the easiest ride in life—maybe you grew up in poverty; you’ve experienced death, neglect, and despair; you hate your job, your car, your body. Maybe somebody (or multiple somebodies) pulverized your heart, or maybe you’ve never even been loved enough to know what a broken heart feels like. Maybe shit started out unfair and became irreparable and you never deserved any of this. Maybe everything looks fine on paper, but you’re just unhappy and you don’t know why. These are human problems and other human beings feel for you very deeply. It is hard to be a human. I am so sorry.

Maybe? Maybe you haven’t had the easiest life? Maybe you grew up in poverty? Maybe you’ve experienced death, neglect, despair?

Almost certainly. That is the fucking reality for almost everybody alive. The vast majority of men and women, even in the wealthiest countries on the planet are a mass of disposable humanity.

#clueless

#whiteladyproblems

Table 2: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2010

Total Net Worth

Top 1 percent

Next 19 percent

Bottom 80 percent

1983

33.8%

47.5%

18.7%

1989

37.4%

46.2%

16.5%

1992

37.2%

46.6%

16.2%

1995

38.5%

45.4%

16.1%

1998

38.1%

45.3%

16.6%

2001

33.4%

51.0%

15.6%

2004

34.3%

50.3%

15.3%

2007

34.6%

50.5%

15.0%

2010

35.4%

53.5%

11.1%

Financial (Non-Home) Wealth

Top 1 percent

Next 19 percent

Bottom 80 percent

1983

42.9%

48.4%

8.7%

1989

46.9%

46.5%

6.6%

1992

45.6%

46.7%

7.7%

1995

47.2%

45.9%

7.0%

1998

47.3%

43.6%

9.1%

2001

39.7%

51.5%

8.7%

2004

42.2%

50.3%

7.5%

2007

42.7%

50.3%

7.0%

2010

42.1%

53.5%

4.7%

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

That top 1% of the population, comprised of both men and women? Yeah, that’s the ruling elite. Power and wealth and control is concentrated in the top, and the rest scrape by the best they can. The traditional word for that sort of social organization is aristocracy.

Patriarchy and aristocracy are not the same thing.  One is rule by men.  The other is rule by elite. Try to keep them straight.

However.

Here goes the hamster.

hamster

Though it is a seductive scapegoat (I understand why it attracts you), none of these terrible, painful problems in your life were caused by the spectre of “misandry.” You can rest easy about that, I promise! In fact, the most powerful proponent of misandry in modern internet discourse is you — specifically, your dogged insistence that misandry is a genuine, systemic, oppressive force on par with misogyny. This is specious, it hurts women, and it is hurting you. Most feminists don’t hate men, as a group (we hate the system that disproportionately favors men at the expense of women), but — congratulations! — we are starting to hate you. You, the person. Your obsession with misandry has turned misandry into a self-fulfilling prophecy. (I mean, sort of. Hating individual men is not the same as hating all men. But more on that in a minute.) Are you happy now? Is this what you wanted? Feminism is, in essence, a social justice movement—it wants to take the side of the alienated and the marginalized, and that includes alienated and marginalized men. Please stop turning us against you.

Quaking in your boots a bit, Lindy? You should be. Declaring openly that you hate an entire group of individuals for daring to speak is a dangerous precedent to set. The fact that you are starting to hate men (and women) for noting that there are actually are systemic forces that discriminate against men in favor of women is really just expressing that you fear them.

You should.

It is nearly impossible to address problems facing women—especially problems in which men are even tangentially culpable—without comments sections devolving into cries of “misandry!” from men and replies of “misandry isn’t real” from women. Feminists are tired of this endless, fruitless turd-pong: hollow “conversation” built on willful miscommunication, bouncing back and forth, back and forth, until both sides throw up their hands and bolt. Maybe you are tired of this too. We seem to be having some very deep misunderstandings on this point, so let’s unpack it. I promise not to yell.

Oh, but that’s the problem, isn’t it? We won’t throw up our hands and bolt. We’re here, and we intend to speak, and calling what we have to say “fruitless turd-pong” may satisfy some deeply immature, let’s chuck rocks at boys resentment down in the depths of your sour little heart, but it still won’t make us bolt.

boys

[Yeah, you can buy this shirt on Amazon. Keep calm and rape her shirts? Unacceptable. Throw rocks at boys? Okie-dokie. Nope, no misandry here. Move along. Nothing to see.]

Part One: Why Feminism Has “Fem” in the Name, or, Why Can’t We All Just Be Humanists?

I wish, more than anything, that I could just be a “humanist.” Oh, man, that would be amazing! Because that would mean that we lived in a magical world where all humans were born on equal footing, and maybe I could live in a house shaped like a big mushroom and birds would help me get dressed or something. Humanism is a gorgeous dream, and something to strive for. In fact, it is the exact thing that feminism is striving for right now (and has been working on for decades)! Yay, feminism!

We don’t live in a magical world where all humans are born on an equal footing. We live in a democracy where all humans have equal (theoretically) access to the power to control the state through the power of the vote, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. Both men and women have the power to vote.

The single greatest influence on how successful (or not) a person will be in their lifetime is how successful (or not) their parents are.

http://www.economist.com/node/15908469

That is true for BOTH men and women. There’s that aristocracy problem rearing its ugly little head again. Addressing the concentration of wealth and the restrictions on social mobility in what is supposed to be a meritocracy requires us to focus on human rights, and not just women’s rights.

Because those things affect humans, and not just women.

Unfortunately, the reason that “fem” is a part of the word “feminism” is that the world is not, currently, an equal, safe, and just place for women (and other groups as well—in its idealized form, intersectional feminism seeks to correct all those imbalances). To remove the gendered implications of the term is to deny that those imbalances exist, and you can’t make problems disappear just by changing “feminism” to “humanism” and declaring the world healed. That won’t work.

Nope. It won’t. But by using the term “humanism”, you explicitly acknowledge that the world isn’t an equal, safe or just place for some humans, who happen to be both men and women, and that the problems of ALL those individuals matter. Not just the women.

Think of it like this. Imagine you’re reading a Dr. Seuss book about a bunch of beasts living on an island. There are two kinds of beasts: Fleetches and Flootches. (Stick with me here! I love you!) Though the two are functionally identical in terms of intellect and general competence, Fleetches are in charge of pretty much everything.

If Fleetches are men and Flootches are women, then they are not functionally identical in terms of intellect and general competence.

The Fleetches are physically stronger than the Flootches.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683

The Fleetches are more likely to be of higher intelligence.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SexDifferences.aspx

The Fleetches have a greater tendency to take risks and pursue rewards.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14713

The Fleetches tend to cluster in occupations that invent, create and deliver tangible technologies and tools that collectively drive our entire society forward.

http://dpeaflcio.org/wp-content/uploads/The-STEM-workforce-2012.pdf

Stronger, smarter, more willing to take risks and occupied in technologically sophisticated pursuits. That is why the Fleetches are in charge of pretty much everything. Because they are qualified to do so.

I’m just going to cut the rest of Lindy’s stupid metaphor because there is no point pursuing an argument that is based on the idea that men and women are functionally identical. They’re not and no amount of screaming at the heavens is going to change that.

screaming

It’s a nice example of the contradictory logic of feminism: let’s observe that men are better than women in lots of ways, and then insist that there is some imaginary force that keeps women from being equal to men. As opposed to assuming that women are different from men and that our skills and abilities and contributions are equally valuable. Men set the bar at heights they can reach, and when women can’t quite reach that high, the bar gets lowered because equality? Reining in male accomplishment just so women can feel “equal” is stupid. It denies that women have a very specific contribution to make and it slows down our entire trajectory of progress and innovation.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/02/18/her-iq-is-higher-than-einsteins-what-does-she-care-about-her-nails-fake-tanning-and-her-hair-lady-genius-in-action/

http://judgybitch.com/2013/02/05/the-genius-of-women-or-the-capacity-to-love-others-more-than-you-love-yourself/

Back to Lindy.

Part Two: Why Claiming that Sexism Isn’t Real Is a Sexist Thing to Say

We live in a world of measurable, glaring inequalities. Look at politicians, CEOs, film directors, law enforcement officers, comedians, tech professionals, executive chefs, mathematicians, and on and on and on—these fields are dominated by men. (And, in many cases, white men.) To claim that there is no systemic inequality keeping women and minorities out of those jobs is to claim that men (people like you) are just naturally better. If there is no social structure favoring men, then it stands to reason that men simply work harder and/or are more skilled in nearly every high-level specialized field.

Correct. They are.

Men work longer hours.

http://www.oecd.org/els/family/43367847.pdf

Men acquire greater, and much more highly specialized skills.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0812.pdf

Even in traditionally female occupations, men acquire greater specializations, earn more money and work longer hours.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/03/01/there-are-more-male-nurses-than-ever-highly-specialized-technically-qualified-male-nurses-who-get-paid-more-than-female-nurses-because-sexism/

God, facts just suck, don’t they?

It’s fine (though discouraging) if you legitimately believe that, but you need to own up to the fact that that is a self-serving and bigoted point of view. If you do not consider yourself a bigot, then kindly get on board with those of us who are trying to proactively correct inequalities. It is not enough to be neutral and tacitly benefit from inequality while others are left behind through no fault of their own. Anti-sexism, anti-racism, anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia—that’s where we’re at now. Catch up or own your prejudice.

By others, we assume Lindy means women? Because choosing a college major is usually done with a gun to your head? The entire school system is rigged to benefit girls, specifically, and women enroll in college in much greater numbers than men, but they take utterly fucking useless degrees that confer no skills other than the ability to perpetually imagine oneself a victim in need of succor.

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2011/gender-gap-in-education.aspx

The demonization of little boys in the school system and the utter failure of society to address the needs of boys as they proceed through a system designed to benefit girls is an excellent example of sexism. You want to talk about being left behind through no fault of your own? Let’s talk little boys in public education.

http://judgybitch.com/2012/11/22/boys-are-stupid/

Part Three: Why People Being Shitty to You Is Not the Same as You Being Systematically Disenfranchised

There might be a lot of women in your life who are mean to you, but that’s just women not liking you personally. Women are allowed to not like you personally, just like you are allowed to not like us personally. It’s not misandry, it’s mis-Kevin-dry. Or, you know, whoever you are. It is not built into our culture or codified into law, and you can rest assured that most women you encounter are not harboring secret, latent, gendered prejudices against Kevins that could cost you a job or an apartment or your physical sanctity. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t isolated incidents wherein mean women hurt men on purpose. But it is not a systemic problem that results in the mass disenfranchisement of men.

I’m assuming that by “disenfranchised, Lindy means “downtrodden” and not “denied the right to vote”, but she opens a nice little can of revealing worms. Turns out there is a large group of people who are, in fact, disenfranchised: felons.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000287

91% of whom are male.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt

74% of whom were non-white males.

(same report)

And men are far more likely to receive a conviction for a felony than women.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/wo.pdf

Black men, in particular are sentenced more harshly.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01265.x/abstract

And even when women are convicted of crimes, they receive preferential sentencing.

http://works.bepress.com/gang_lee/5/

Yeah, no systemic problem here, and certainly not one that results in disenfranchisement.

angry

There are some really shitty things about being a man. You are 100% right on that. You are held up to unreasonable expectations about your body and your career and your ability/desire to conform to traditional modes of masculinity (just like women are with traditional femininity), and that is absolutely oppressive.

One of the unreasonable expectations, apparently, is to have intact genitals and to be protected from mutilation, just like girls are.

http://jezebel.com/5192599/the-anti+circumcision-movement-puts-their-skin-in-the-game

There are radical feminists and deeply wounded women and women who just don’t have the patience for diplomacy anymore who absolutely hate you because of your gender. (However, for whatever it’s worth, I do not personally know a single woman like that.) That is an unpleasant situation to be in—especially when you also feel like you’re being blamed for the seemingly distant problems of people you’ve never met and towards whom you feel no particular animus.

Deeply wounded women who openly hate men? Let’s offer the poor ducks some support, shall we? Create a safe space where they can express their rage and anger and sense of helplessness.

Deeply wounded men who openly hate women? Well fuck you, MRAs.

http://jezebel.com/5967923/fuck-you-mras

The difference is, though, that the radfem community on Tumblr does not currently hold the reins of power in every country on earth (even in nations with female heads of state, the political and economic power structures are still dominated by men). You do, abstractly. No, you don’t have the ability or the responsibility to fix those imbalances single-handedly, but refusing to acknowledge that power structure is a slap in the face to people actively disadvantaged by it every day of their lives. You might not benefit from patriarchy in any measurable way—on an individual level your life might actually be much, much worse than mine—but the fact is that certain disadvantages are absent from your experience (and, likely, invisible to you) because of your gender.

Why do men control the reins of power over political and economic structures? Because women don’t want them! When women DO express political ambition, they are MORE likely to be elected than their male counterparts.

http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/research/topics/documents/InitialDecisiontoRun.pdf

There is absolutely zero systemic bias against women in political power. Women are not elected to the senate and the congress and the Oval Office because they DO NOT RUN FOR THOSE OFFICES.

The same is true for the “glass ceiling”. Women do not run the corporations or organizations of the world because, for the most part, THEY AREN’T INTERESTED. In Australia, women who DO reach the top of the corporate ladder have almost universally suffered some deep trauma in their childhood, and their career ambitions are a reaction to that trauma.

http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/executive-women/gender-divide-in-cradle-of-ambition-20120526-1zbmj.html

Maybe you’re saying, “Hey, but my life wasn’t fair either. I’ve had to struggle.” I know it wasn’t. I know you have. But that’s not how fairness works. If you present fairness as the goal—that some day everything will be “fair” for everyone—you’re slipping into an unrealistic fantasy land. Life already isn’t fair, because of coincidence and circumstance and the DNA you were born with, and we all have to accept the hands we’re dealt and live within that reality. But life doesn’t have to be additionally unfair because of imposed systems of disenfranchisement that only affect certain groups. We can fight against that.

Oh, preach it, sister! That’s exactly right!

Oh wait. You mean only when life is additionally unfair to women.

Oops, my bad.

Feminism isn’t about striving for individual fairness, on a life-by-life basis—it’s about fighting against a systematic removal of opportunity that infringes on women’s basic freedoms. If a woman and a man have equal potential in a field, they should have an equal opportunity to achieve success in that field.

Agreed. And when men and women DO have equal potential in a field, they DO have an equal opportunity for success. Provided they work the same hours, acquire the same advanced training, dedicate the same resources, men and women achieve at equal measures of success.

Let’s look at medicine, for example. Women are now enrolled in medical school in equal numbers to men.

https://www.aamc.org/download/321532/data/2012factstable27-2.pdf

And what do they do with their qualifications? They decline advanced specializations and work as family physicians, mostly part time. Basically, they write prescriptions for painkillers and antibiotics and as soon as a perplexing problem crops up, they refer it on to a specialist man.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9549262/Part-time-women-doctors-are-a-risk-to-NHS.html

That’s why female doctors make less money than male ones: they work fewer hours in less technically qualified specializations.

It’s not that we want the least qualified women to be handed everything just because they’re women. It’s that we want all women to have the same opportunities as all men to fulfill (or fail to fulfill, on their own inherent merits) their potential. If a particular woman is underqualified for a particular job, fine. That isn’t sexism. But she shouldn’t have to be systematically set up, from birth, to be underqualified for all jobs (except for jobs that reinforce traditional femininity, obv).

That’s not sexism. It’s biology. And evolution. Women prefer caretaking jobs. They are naturally more nurturing than men. They have been designed by nature to be so.

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html

Men’s greater abilities at spatial orientation and women’s greater abilities at speech and communication are present at birth. There is no socialization aspect involved. It’s simple biology.

Part Four: A List of “Men’s Rights” Issues That Feminism Is Already Working On

Let’s go all the way back to this:

In fact, the most powerful proponent of misandry in modern internet discourse is you — specifically, your dogged insistence that misandry is a genuine, systemic, oppressive force on par with misogyny. This is specious, it hurts women, and it is hurting you.

The entire point of this article is that there is NO genuine, systemic, oppressive force working against men.

Now watch the hamster dance.

The next section claims exactly the opposite: there IS a genuine, systemic, oppressive force working against men, and that force is the PATRIARCHY! And what is the greatest foe of the PATRIARCHY? Why, that would be FEMINISM, of course.

So all you men who are NOT oppressed by any genuine, systemic force working against men, except all of you who ARE oppressed by a genuine, systemic force, come and join hands with FEMINISM.

We’re here to rescue you. Let’s see what that rescue will look like.

Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.

Widespread feminist support of single mother families and the insistence that the state offer generous benefits to single mothers is BY DEFINITION denying men custody of their children. If men were custodial parents, either solely, or in unison with the child’s mother SHE WOULDN’T BE A SINGLE MOTHER.

http://www.academia.edu/1490030/A_Feminist_Family_Agenda_Putting_the_mother_back_into_sole_parenting

Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.

They do, however, like ads that portray domestic violence as being something only men do to women. The assumption that men are violent and women are victims is totally understandable, right?

http://jezebel.com/5960402/frances-new-anti+domestic-violence-ads-are-pretty-jarring

Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their “traditional” marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.

But they will rail against divorce lawyers who specialize in making sure that men get treated fairly in divorce proceedings.

http://jezebel.com/5928162/bros-before-hos-a-new-breed-of-divorce-lawyer

Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

But they will demand that juvenile offenders be sentenced to adult facilities, where, hopefully, they will get raped.

http://jezebel.com/5991944/what-lies-ahead-for-the-steubenville-rapists

(read the comments, if you dare)

Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

They do, however, support the right of women to claim state benefits on the basis of rape without actually having to prove the accusation. There should be an automatic assumption of guilt. Against the man, of course.

http://jezebel.com/5954804/pennsylvania-bill-requires-low+income-women-to-prove-they-were-raped-in-order-to-qualify-for-welfare

Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate “nice guys.” The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.

Except for all the nice guys on OKCupid. Those guys suck and are worth hating.

http://jezebel.com/5969737/meet-the-so+called-nice-guys-of-okcupid

Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don’t is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.

But we fully expect you to offer to pay for dinner. That’s just being a gentleman. It’s up to us to decide how the check gets split, if at all. The person who proposes the date should be the one who pays.  And who is required to propose the date?  Oh yeah.  That would be men.

http://jezebel.com/man-pays-for-dinner/

Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.

But don’t ask us to lift any heavy bags when we’re pregnant, even if that is part of our job. That’s not fair! Get some guy to do it for us!

http://jezebel.com/5992775/pregnant-hospital-worker-forced-to-take-unpaid-leave-because-she-couldnt-lift-50+pound-bags-of-trash

Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of any gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.

Unless you’re a white man, of course. In that case, your depression is definitely worth mocking and deriding and ignoring.

http://jezebel.com/5970262/poor-pitiful-dudes-why-you-should-defer-to-men-with-post+patriarchal-depression

Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it’s unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.

But they will question your masculinity and declare a “creepy” factor should you happen to like My Little Pony.

http://jezebel.com/5923270/male-my-little-pony-fans-sparkle-at-bronycon-2012

Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.

But they’re not down with drafting the ladies. Mostly because rape.

http://jezebel.com/5986756/the-lady+draft-may-be-in-our-future

Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.

Except for all those times when women were naturally gentle and compliant and forgot to tell someone they were actually being raped.

http://jezebel.com/5964359/when-will-we-stop-pretending-that-college-athletes-cant-be-rapists

Probably the most ridiculous account of “rape” you will ever read. But it WAS rape, because gentle and compliant by nature, dontcha know?

Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you.

I’ll just quote from the opening paragraph:

we are starting to hate you. You, the person.

If you really care about those issues as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking feminists, because feminism is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them. The fact that you blame feminists—your allies—for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting men isn’t nearly as important to you as resenting women. We care about your problems a lot. Could you try caring about ours?

If you really care about those issues as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking men’s rights activists, because the men’s human rights movement is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them. The fact that you blame men —your allies—for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting women isn’t nearly as important to you as resenting men. We care about your problems a lot. Could you try caring about ours?

Part Five: I’m Sorry That You Are in Pain, But Please Stop Taking It Out on Women

It’s not easy to swallow your own privilege—to admit that you’re a Fleetch—but once you do, it’s addictive. It feels good to open up to perspectives that are foreign to you, accept your complicity in this shitty system, and work on making the world better for everyone instead of just defending your territory. It’s something I had to do as a privileged white woman, and something I still have to work on every day, because it’s right. That doesn’t make me (or you) a bad person—it makes me an extremely lucky person who was born into a white body in a great family in a vibrant, liberal city in a powerful, wealthy country that implicitly values white bodies over all other bodies. The least I can do is acknowledge the arbitrariness of that luck, and work to tear down the obstacles facing those who are disenfranchised by the insidious fetishization of whiteness. Blanket defensiveness isn’t going to get any of us anywhere.

Work on making the world better for everyone instead of just defending your territory.

Exactly, Lindy.

To all the men who have had shitty lives and mistake that pain for “misandry”: I totally get it. Humans are not such complicated creatures. All we want is to feel like we’re valued, like we deserve to exist. And I’m sorry if you haven’t found that so far in your life. But it’s not women’s fault, it’s not my fault, and it’s certainly not feminism’s fault. The thing is, you’re not really that different from the women you rail against so passionately in these comment threads—the women who are trying to carve out some space and assert their value in a world of powerful men. Plenty of women know exactly what it feels like to be pushed to the fringe of society, to be rejected so many times that you eventually reject yourself. That alienation is a big part of what feminism is fighting against. A lot of those women would be on your side, if you would just let them instead of insisting that they’re the villains. It’s better over here, and we have room for you. So stop trying to convince us that we hate you and I promise we’ll start liking you a whole lot more.

Nice try at sucking up, Lindy.

Newsflash, bitch: I don’t give a fuck whether you like me or not, and neither does anyone else fighting for men’s basic human rights. Because human rights are a goal worth pursuing whether you benefit directly from them or not.  And if you are human, then guess what?  YOU DO!

The fact that you even wrote this article means that the voices are beginning to penetrate. You hear us. And you’re afraid.

Good. You should be.

We’re coming. And we don’t care if you like it.

Lots of love,

JB

189 Responses to “Men: stand up for yourselves and we WILL hate you. The new feminist war cry!”

  1. sahutchins April 4, 2014 at 07:05 #

    I have to say, I found this article randomly on a Google search, and I did not expect a blog post such as this to be so engaging,

    You Mrs. Judgy Bitch are awesome. It’s nice to see somebody who understands these issues, especially when it’s someone who dishes it out to the opposing side with such a logical force to be reckoned with.

    I’m so glad the weekend is here. I’ll have time to explore this archive of greatness you have established. :)

  2. AubreyMoeketsi June 9, 2014 at 10:15 #

    Reblogged this on AubreyMoeketsi's Blog and commented:
    Very insightful

  3. lorenzo September 25, 2014 at 10:33 #

    the type of communication used by jezebel with her readers recalls the one inside an abusive relationship, contradictory, full of insults, threats and general mockery

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,615 other followers

%d bloggers like this: