Laura Bates, founder of the Everyday Sexism Project has got a British Empire Medal.

We can only speculate about the other candidates nominated for this honour but no doubt there are many women whose interests would have been served by her project getting more publicity. The Fawcett Society perhaps, or Sandy Toksvig and the Women’s Equality Party, or maybe she did a deal with Caroline Criado-Perez and they nominated each other! Who knows – we never will.

While some aspects of her nomination must have required levels of dishonesty of which only feminists are capable (‘moral courage’, ‘vision’ ‘the ability to make tough choices’), for someone who purveys stories of  female victimhood, other aspects, for example, ‘contributions to the media or professional interest groups’ would have been a breeze.

Gongs should surely not be about supporting ideologies but this is exactly what her project does.

Laura Bates sees herself as a champion of equality for women when female inequality must be the biggest contemporary myth and all time lie.

For the benefit of those who have fallen prey to feminist ideology, remember men are more likely to be unemployed, their diseases get less funding, they die earliercustodial sentencing treats them unfairly, their parental rights are limited, they are more likely to be homeless, commit suicide, and to be disadvantaged in the education system. This list could go on and on.

The one significant female inequality – in the labour market – has been shown to be a reflection of female choice.

If men ever wanted to compete with women for victim status they would certainly have the upper hand.

And this is exactly where Laura Bates has such a useful role to play. In a climate where there is such a dearth of evidence to support the case for female inequality, yet so many women (and even men) have such deeply vested interests in it, a project which provides a limitless supply of ‘evidence’ of female victimhood is literally gold dust.

However the harm she is doing is deeper and more dangerous than the floating of the feminist boat.

You will find on reading The Everyday Sexism website a lot of descriptions of very bad behaviour on the part of men. Whatever the cause of this unpleasantness the problem can only be significantly worsened by the website’s approach.

It is possible that this behaviour is actually much the same as it was 30 years ago. But because we regarded it as insignificant and harmless our memory of it has dimmed. I do nonetheless remember my fair share of chaps getting too close and occasionally having to thump them or vigorously tell them off. Fortunately I didn’t know I had been sexually assaulted, and they didn’t know they had been assaulted. Had we known the outcome could have been so much worse.

It is also possible that young men really are behaving badly in which case maybe it is important to draw attention to this. However this should not be done to humiliate, cow or bully them into hateful submission. Rather it should be done to understand what is going on.

I have a few suggestions. But really we should hear it from men. Firstly females will have lost all the credit which our foremothers accumulated for us in the moral economy as the self-seeking, self-serving goals of modern feminism reveal how bankrupt women’s motivations really are. Men may still want to ‘nail’ us, but when it comes to public interactions utter contempt has replaced vestiges of crude tenderness, with apparently disastrous results.

Another possibility is that the constant hum of female criticism has now turned into a deafening roar. Men and boys are constantly portrayed as predatory, sexist, their sense of humour is vilified and their behaviour is regarded as unacceptable. Factor in the constant diet we are fed of men as perpetrators of rape, murder and domestic violence. Boys must wonder whether they will ever be able to do anything right.

This must make it painfully difficult for young men and women to build up relations based on honesty, love and trust. Young men instead will look out for easily available sex or the risk free, short term satisfaction which pornography can provide.

Stir into this Laura Bates and her Everyday Sexism Project and the relationships between boys and girls, men and women are set to get much, much worse.

The damage she is causing does not end there. The Everyday Sexism Project nurtures the culture of victimhood with a singularly corrosive effect.

It is one thing to wallow in our victimhood when we are victims. Those who do so, can be understood, but I suspect they are doing a disservice to themselves.

However we are women, and we are powerful – demonstrated by the ongoing capitulation of every single cherished institution to the ravages of feminism. However despite this natural power, and even when we have everything we could absolutely wish for, Laura Bates enables us to own a corner of victimhood all for ourselves.

Victimhood gives us great moral superiority and entitles us to unquestioning sympathy while exempting us from examining any single one of our actions. A victim is utterly devoid of responsibility or blame. This of course leaves us vulnerable as we will carry on engaging in precisely the behaviour which provoked an unacceptable response.

But victimhood is even more dangerous for others than it is for ourselves. It allows us to see our actual or alleged perpetrator as less than human, beyond the pale, and justifies a no holds barred approach to punishment and humiliation as a response. Bates helps to turn alleged victim into actual victimiser and this is where we are now.

If we want to know where the buck stops when a brilliant scientist can be made to cry in public for wearing a t-shirt, or a Nobel Laureate can be made to publically apologise and lose his job, look no further. If we want to know why it is alright to despise the homeless, deprive men of access to their children or treat young boys as the deviants of the education system, we are on the right track. While we should all interrogate our words and actions, and think about what we do, and while we all carry responsibility for our action or our inaction, Laura Bates and her Everyday Sexism Project must carry a good dose of blame.


  1. Am already a big fan of you Belinda…not surprising really…there’s nothing wrong with your Brain 😉

  2. Whilst the “Everyday Sexism Project” is pretty abhorrent and would be roundly criticised by all and sundry if the subject was Islam, I am not convinced it is the root of all evil. It simply does not have the credibility it would need to be the root of anything.

    1] The remarks come from all over the world, often from women living in medieval 3rd world countries who clearly are suffering from male sexism. It has less relevance to Western women.

    2] The remarks are often laughable. Very many of them are along the lines of “I am 40 years old and the worst thing a man ever did to me in my whole life was 21 years ago when a boy of 16 shouted ‘you’ve got nice boobs’ at me”.

    3]Th remarks could easily be made up during a slow day by feminist activists – unlike “Women Against Feminism” there are no photos of the people posting comments

    4] Many of the remarks are not actually examples of sexism. They are simply human beings being human. Men taking a dislike to a another person and making it known and simply using insulting language, just as they might do to another man, or using insults that are specific to a woman but are really just insults (for example using the word “bitch”). Men taking an opposing side to an argument to the woman but actually making a perfectly valid point the she cannot see as valid from her perspective.

    5] There are no balancing comments so it has no inherent value. The are never comments along the lines of “The male brain surgeon removed a tumour and saved my life” or “The firemen saved my whole family” or even “Isn’t Robbie Wiliams great?”

    I’m of the opinion that this website is more a symptom of rabid feminism and is exactly the kind of nonsense that gave rise to “Women against Feminism” in the first place (and indeed “The Conservative Woman”). In that sense it is quite useful. Men and women can point to the nonsense written there and at similar websites and deride the attitudes shown quite readily.

    • Laura Bates (aka ‘Special Snowflake’) has won two of our ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ awards. A problem with The Everyday Whining Project is that it infantilises women. It tells them that they shouldn’t have to cope with life’s problems, and thereby become stronger, the world should change so that women are never made to feel uncomfortable. It also solicits only examples of sexism against women, not again men – i.e. it’s fundamentally sexist itself.

      • It does occur to me that the entire site could be a fraud. I notice that it claims on its wikipedia entry that after being up for about 500 days it had garnered 50,000 posts which were collated by a small group of individuals.

        Well 50,000 comments over 500 days is only 100 comments per day – you don’t need a small team to collate that – a lot of one person blogs get more comments than that. In any case less than 20 comments a day are actually being posted.

        You probably would want a small team if you intended to create the comments – after all it likely takes a bit of brainstorming. I notice in particular that the comments from 3rd world countries are actually written in American English in the same manner as all the other comments.

        Of course, when you are scouring the entire world for men doing slightly unpleasant things to women it should be an easy matter to find a handful of real examples each day. Nevertheless, I have an uneasy feeling that the Everyday Sexism Project has left nothing to chance.

    • they’re trying to signal their desirability to men by appearing as if they’re in high enough demand to have a problem with too much attention from other men – except men don’t work that way, women do. Men see that as a transparent attempt to talk their way into sexiness.

    • Casual sexism in the workplace – whether patronizing or harassment – is still objectification of women and is only a few steps towards more serious misogynistic attitudes and behaviours.

      1 in 4 British women – in other words, about 6.5 million – will suffer domestic violence in their lifetimes. In other words, they will be beaten up by their husbands or boyfriends.

      1 in 5 US women – about 20 million – have been raped.

      It’s about time the male establishment started taking sexual harassment and violence against women more seriously.

      Tougher sentences for misogynistic hate crimes would be a start.

      One incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute.

      On average, 2 women a week are killed by a current or former male partner.

        • No, you’re absolutely wrong there.

          “The vast majority of victims of domestic abuse are women”

          “The Office of National Statistics (ONS) has just been told, in no uncertain terms, that the way it measures domestic abuse is fundamentally flawed.

          It’s a searing accusation. And it’s the work of one seriously impressive woman.

          After a painstaking review of the data, Professor Sylvia Walby, professor of sociology and Unesco chair of gender research at Lancaster University,found that the incidence of violent crime against women, and domestic violence in particular, is grossly underestimated in official statistics.”


          • I have official citations above. You cannot say that it is wrong. On the same ground, if you call it wrong, then I can call your sources wrong, as well.

          • Read my article and stop mansplaining. Now.

            Professor Walby has shown the government statistics are flawed.

          • Where is the source? [citation needed]
            Still I can claim that feminist statistics are flawed because they are mostly done by women.

          • More importantly the single idea in the reports he quotes in the Telegraph is that when a woman is hit 5 times by the same person they stop counting. This has been presented as if this means not all assaults are counted, thus underestimating the total number of attacks.

            In reality the fact that 5 assaults have been counted separately overestimates the number of victims and perpetrators of serious domestic abuse by counting each attack individually, thus making the problem appear far more commonplace than it really is.

            This is the problem with science done in universities. It is funded by the state, and therefore used to propagate state propaganda. It is socialist science. Unless it can be used to make something or cure something, it is likely false.

          • Why do you believe it is appropriate to order people to do things?

            Are we ordering you to do things?

          • Why the hell dont you psychos actually speak up for women who are genuinely treated like dirt by men. You know which countries they come from – go and help your sisters you absolute coward! and waste of space.

          • Research in the US has shown that 10% of lesbians claim to have been the victim of violence at the hands of a partner, whilst 30% of heterosexual women claim the same. So women cannot claim to not have dirty hands in this matter.

            However, the real question is how severe is that violence? Very few women are actually murdered by their partners – those evil men have a preference for murdering other men, even though the women are likely closer to hand. That kind of extreme violence is atypical of the more general violence that is commonplace. So is a slap at the end of a tempestuous relationship really such a big deal when likely the woman would be forced to admit to dishing out a similar level of pychological abuse? Some relationships end badly, harsh words are spoken, there may be pushing and shoving, even a slap big deal. Nobody cares about this.

            Finally, remember this, women are more or less 100% responsible for raising children and have been since the late seventies. Behind every bad man, there is a very bad mother. Time for bad mothers to shape up. Time for you to have a word with them, Feminist Future.

          • Watch a few documentaries about seriously depraved serial killers, on YouTube, and make a note of just how many were subjected to particularly egregious sexual, physical, verbal and emotional abuse by their mothers when small boys.

          • Not to mention those mothers who invited some psycho into their bed and decided to forget their duty to their kids and stand back and watch the new boyfriend beat them half to death.

            Fortunately this is one area where good women are starting to wake up to the reality that in such cases the complicit mother is at least as evil as the psycho boyfriend.

      • The population of the USA is about 318 million. Just over half will be women but let’s assume half. So, that’s 159 million. You say 1 in 5 were raped; that is higher than war zones where rape, of both men and women, is used as a weapon. That’s actually 31.8 million.

        Of course that doesn’t factor in that 1 in 5 college women were supposed to be raped while at college never mind over their lifetime.

        The actual figures show its less than 1 in 40 but don’t let the truth stop you.

      • So your admitting that 1 in 5 women didn’t get raped across their whole lives despite the fact that rapists are more than capable of committing multiple rapes. Thus the percentage of men that commit rape must be pretty small. Thus defining men by the small percentage of men that commit this particular crime is hardly fair, scientifically or otherwise.

      • Hi F-F. Thanks for nominating yourself for our next ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ award, in connection with your ‘2 women a week are killed by a current or former male partner’. Several feminists have won the award for this lie, but as Belinda’s article was about Special Snowflake, here’s our piece on her award:

        Laura Bates has won our award twice, Caroline Criado-Perez three times.

        Maybe you could ask Women’s Aid to remove the lie from their website? Some time ago I challenged Polly Neate, CEO of WA, to retract six lies / misleading claims made by one of her spokeswomen, Franki Hackett. She refused to do so.

        So, the $64,000 question for you. Why do feminists NEVER retract their lies, even when their statements are DEMONSTRABLY lies, such as the one you’ve just repeated? Maybe because feminism rests firmly on:

        – conspiracy theories
        – fantasies
        – lies
        – delusions
        – myths

        … and nothing more.

        Have a nice day.

      • I see the page you link to on the Women’s Aid website is dated 2006. Hmm, why might such a well-funded organisation not have updated the page in 9 years? Come on, you can do this, if you try… maybe something to do with the long-term trend in men killing female partners or ex-partners being downward? Now that wouldn’t suit the ‘women as victims’ narrative at all, would it? And is the decline down to The Patriarchy Council issuing fewer orders to men to kill their partners and ex-partners?

        Five out of six men in British prisons today wouldn’t be there if men were treated as leniently as women by the criminal justice system:

        How on earth can you square this with your patriarchy theory? I’m sure you will, to your own satisfaction, because in the feminist whackadoodle land there’s an explanation for everything.

  3. She hates the patriarchy except when it gives her jewellery. Way to fight stereotypes!
    This woman has no life and spends all her time making petty remarks about inconsequential things to rationalise to herself that she has it bad and any failures on her part are externalised by her false locus of control to The Man.
    Her project is attention-seeking for social media – sexism is the excuse. Some reports might even be fake, or misinterpreted by broken women with no social IQ who swoon in fear everytime a man steps within 2 feet or looks at them for a split second “too long.” These people have nothing else in their lives, they should be pitied.
    Feminists won’t succeed in making men avoid all women – which is what they want, to punish the pretty girls. Men will just avoid any woman who gives off a whiff of social justice feminist nonsense. It works in our favour.

    • Feminists are already succeeding in making a lot of men avoid all women. It’s called MGTOW (men going their own way).

      • I know the beliefs. MGTOW doesn’t exclude the possibility of meeting a good one by chance. It just stops using women as a social focus for operating one’s life, very healthy imho. Open-minded to possibility, really.

        • Not for me. MGTOW means no woman not ever. Nothing I can do about it. It’s like a lock that can’t be undone. Once closed it is never open again

        • Exactly my position now PCB, was MGTOW for most of my 30’s long before the acronym, have actually found myself one of the good ones you mention…

          • neither sex should make the other their priority, if you need to rush it why bother?

    • In principle you are correct with your last sentence, but where it all goes wrong is during what the Americans like to call “The Baby Rabies Years”. These are the years between the ages 28 and 34 when even radical feminists decide that if they are to get the one thing they want from a man they are going to have to present a relationship as a “win-win” situation for both parties.

      That was what suckered me and several of my mates. It is only “win-win” while they are accumulating the number of children they want. After that it reverts to the usual feminist “it’s all about me!” approach. That relationship was doomed.

      There are plenty of good women in the UK, but finding the right one is a minefield. The feminists are consummate liars. It isn’t worth the risk in my opinion.

      MGTOW suggests three approaches for Western men: [1] The purist approach, and the one we all truly admire – do without women entirely. Don’t even engage with them to criticise their feminism. [2] The “buy them when you need them” approach. I have tried that. It is actually quite good, but some call girls do try to wheedle their way into your affections [3] the “leave the plantation” approach – go get a girl from a culture where feminism is unheard of. This is the approach I’m taking right now and it looks like the best so far. She is open, honest, reasonable, doesn’t play mind-games and discusses with me exactly what she wants. Not only will she take “no” for an answer, she doesn’t like it when I’m “too nice” to her, or too agreeable – I’m actually having to learn that saying “no” to her is OK. I have never been with a woman previously that didn’t consider the word “No” to be the invitation to start a full-blown row. She understands men and understands their needs are different from a woman’s needs and acts accordingly. She believes regular, frequent sex is important to a relationship, not a bargaining counter.

      My advice to any man (including my own sons) is this: Avoid all women that are going through the baby-rabies years, avoid women that were born and raised in Western or Socialist societies, and never lose your leverage in a relationship by getting married – your income must buy your assets in your name, so that your partner will lose something tangible if she kicks you to the kerb and you get to keep a roof over your head.

      • No. 3’s working for me too….. Inter-national (as opposed to interracial…no such thing!….there’s only one HUMAN Race)

        Feminazis simply don’t “appreciate” the differences between the sexes…. just as they don’t appreciate the world men created for them to spout off in!

      • Kate Winslet recently tried to claim divorce is good for children. I think her hamster was powering Branson’s island.
        1. is like a monk, or Tesla. 2. bad girls tend to stick for all the wrong reasons, you need tough will. 3. recently they’re divorcing once they get their green card and enough savings packed away you thought she spent on something else. She sounds like a winner, just watch the friends.
        aww, I wouldn’t say avoid all of us, but the feminist ones exist all over now, I don’t know if they’ll be able to snag the best without a wedding ring, those ones hold out because they can…

        • I certainly believe there are great women living in Britain, sadly they tend to get snapped up by the time they are 25 and stay married forever. My first girlfriend was great, but I didn’t realise how great until I met my second girlfriend – by which time it was definitely too late to go back to her as a more astute male had already snapped her up. Sometimes when I’m into my anti-feminist polemics I forget that 80% of British women will stay happily married for a lifetime – so they must have something going for them ( it often takes more than one painful attempts to find the right one)

          By the time you reach your late 20s the feminazis have become very adept at passing themselves off as “reasonable”. It is very difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. At this point outsourcing your relationship needs to a nation untouched by feminism becomes the safest option.

          By the way, the divorce rate for British men marrying Thai women is just 25% – so statistically they are the better bet. I have to say that those divorces that do happen seem to be caused by the guys going from one Thai bride to another, the naughty boys. Unfortunately for Thai women, because they consider British guys to be “the gold standard for husbands” picking up a new Thai bride is as easy as picking up a beer in Tesco. Once a guy has dated a Thai girl it is more or less impossible to go back to British.

          • and the Thai IQ loss from outbreeding/miscegenation doesn’t concern you? increasingly dumb, non-white grandchildren who won’t fit into white-majority society?

      • You’re right, they don’t, not sure that includes you though. However, if you get money from the state, or child support then you do need men. If you have to call in a tradesman or have your rubbish picked up then you do need men. ….

      • Today’s independent, assertive women don’t need a man to take care of us anymore.

        No, just the tax payer, who is overwhelmingly male. Check your privilege, white woman.

          • 72% of tax is paid by men, meaning that only 28% is paid by women. My male brain makes that 72:28 ratio (or 18:7 if you prefer) conclusive evidence that the average tax payer is overwhelmingly male. If I’m wrong I’d be grateful to you for femsplaining the insane mental contortions I need to undertake to understand the mathematics.

            If I’m wrong you need to show how I’m wrong. Simply disagreeing with me because the statement upsets you won’t do (hint: it’s irrational, which is not the way to win a point in an argument).

            Yet again you show yourself to be nothing more than an embarrassment to those of your sex who can think for themselves.

      • Me? I’m not a lesbian love.
        Good, they spent so much time claiming they don’t need a man their wish came true, more choice for the likes of me who like them. 😉

  4. I thought the already hugely discredited Honours system had jumped the shark with ‘sir’ Mick Jagger and Eric Hobsbawm CH. Bates and Criado-Perez are beyond satire. Who next? Anjem Choudury? Lutfur Rahman? Chris Huhne?

  5. I’m not too concerned about Laura Bates getting an MBE. She may as well have been given an ASBO for all the merit it has. Still, somebody in Whitehall decided this was a “worthy” project, which it clearly isn’t. I think the problem is that the feminist ideals have become embedded in the male psyche, which actually makes some men afraid of women, or at least afraid of engaging in a normal relationship with a woman.

    It is becoming increasingly obvious that the objective of feminism is the emasculation of men, and recent incidents have shown they having some success. This is bad for everybody. As with all the LGBT propaganda, it only takes a small number of feminist activists to become the fly in the ointment. Their pollution of peoples minds is made much easier by the media, especially the BBC. That makes sites like this one, and excellent articles like this one, all the more valuable.

    • I don’t know whether you’re female but your description of ‘some men’ as afraid of women is a typically female way of coping with rejection. You might as well describe men as being afraid of bees simply because we take steps to avoid being stung by them. The fact is that men are deciding, in increasing numbers, that women are not worth the trouble they cause and therefore best avoided. That is a rational decision, not a reaction provoked by fear.

      The task facing men is not how to deal with women in a new, post ‘patriarchal’, era but how to ensure that our radically feminised political, legal and social systems cannot develop ever more inventive ways to relieve us of our earnings to spend on women in education, health and the array of benefits that are paid only to women and not to men.

      The task facing men, therefore, is that of stripping women of the power we have allowed them to take from us.

      • A fair point, though I still think the sight of an eminent scientist weeping on live TV because feminists have criticised his attire is not rational. I would also say that the threat to men is not just financial. Witness the recent event in Italy where schoolchildren were forced to cross-dress so that the boys had to wear skirts. It’s hard to imagine the psychological harm that does to a young boy (You can find the article on Breitbart).

    • Are you seriously denying the existence of patriarchy when it’s obvious that the vast majority of business and political leaders are still rich, white men?

      Are you denying the existence of male privilege when the gender pay gap still exists – when female sports starts still earn a fraction of their male equivalents and hardly get any coverage?

      Are you denying the existence of rape culture when 1 in 5 British women will be raped or sexually assaulted in their lifetime?

  6. Working in academe, I was so impressed with this article that I will use it for students. It is refreshing to see such heresy in a Spanish Inquisitional atmosphere that prevails at every level of the establishment. Please spread your message widely, and don’t let the hectoring sex puritans grind you down.

    • I predict a boom in male mental health patients in your business in the decades to come. The original sin doctrine is just so damaging when applied as official policy just as it was in the church where it also failed.

  7. This is a good article. As a man, I would like to add another level of emerging problem that this endless feminist war on men is creating in the wider society?

    Men have been steeped in four decades of programming that they are *bad*. Moreover, society
    encourages them to take the ‘blue pill’, and accept their ‘guilt’, even though their guilt is founded on the simple accident, and having the audacity of being born a man.

    But more and more men, both young and old, are awakening from this madness, and taking the ‘red pill’. At first it is a shock, and a difficult mental transition, to witness, as you look behind you, to see the 40 years of imposed slavery of men working on the ‘feminist plantation’. But taking the ‘red pill’ is a permanent act by men who desire to ‘wake’, and no amount of feverish feminist dogma is going to reverse that ‘awakening’.

    This ‘awakening’ allows, the male retina to see more clearly. And in that clarity he sees a woman, with a childbearing shelf life of 20 years, if she is lucky? But whilst she is looking for that ‘good man’, amongst the sea of ‘bad men’, ..he in his waking state, is looking the other way, refusing to accept his imposed guilt. And as more and more of those men finally awake,.. and walk away from the ‘feminist plantation’, and begin Going Their Own Way, they will *never* return.


    • No, you’re wrong there.

      Progressives and Feminists care about Equality between the genders. We want every little girl to grow up knowing that she can do anything she wants to, just the same as the boys in her class.

      And it’s a myth that we don’t care about men and boys. Patriarchy hurts men too, by impelling them to conform to outmoded stereotypes of masculinity that undoubtedly contribute towards higher male suicide rates, for example.

      Feminists and men who are feminist allies should work together against patriarchy. That would benefit all of us.

      • If you care about equality, you are an egalitarian. Seriously, even the name “femi-” does not include the other genders. Or sexes or whatever you call it.

          • Well, if they are fighting for rights, the name ‘femi-‘ does not make
            sense in the first place. They could fight for Human Rights or
            Egalitarianism instead. Still, they insist on being called ‘Feminists’.
            They often cite the fact that it originated from females, therefore, it
            is called feminism. Well, now, I say, as ‘human rights’ started out of
            males, (Want source? The UNGC was mostly males.), so let it be called

      • Actually neither little girls or boys can do anything they want to, they can try but it didn’t mean they’ll succeed.

        The only people that benefit are the ones at the top, as always. It’s an oligarchy not a patriarchy.

      • So tell me how you are setting about seeing more women in jail for paternity fraud in the name of equality?

        You are brainwashed, simply repeating the mantras somebody else has taught you. Walk away from whoever it is that is controlling you. They are abusing you.

      • The only problem with that: It is a lie. Fem Soc policy documents specifically say, ‘Feminism exists for women’ and ‘it would be extremely unreasonable to expect this space to support and cater for the needs of men’.

      • Actions speak louder than words. Feminists can go on all they want about how they only want equality and how the patriarchy harms men as well, but until I see them trying to tackle some problem that disproportionately affects men — particularly at the expense of women — I’m going to take such protestations with a pinch of salt.

        • What are you doing to tackle those problems?

          Why don’t you admit the truth – you don’t like Feminism because it threatens your male privilege, and you’re framing “male problems” as an excuse to dismiss Feminism.

          • What male privilege do ordinary guys have in this day and age? Be specific.

            You have already admitted that we get paid less than women in many cases. You must surely know that we have no legal right to our children, that this means we lose our homes as a result of divorce.

            So, what male privilege do ordinary men have? I want you to tell me so I can celebrate it.

          • Here’s a list to help you to check your privilege.

            If I am a man…

            1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favour. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.

            2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex – even though that might be true.

            3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.

            4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.

            5. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are.

            6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.

            7. If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are relatively low.

            8. On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.

            9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.

            10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will
            not be called into question.

            11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for
            extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent.

            12. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.

            13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.

            14. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.

            15. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.

            16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.

            17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default.

            18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.

            19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.

            20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented.

            21. I have the privilege of being unaware of my privilege.

          • Well there’s a lot of it right? This is my personal experience of all that privilege I’m supposed to have. I don’t know about anybody else – but then neither do you.

            [1] I’m an engineer. There aren’t many females working in engineering at all. So my odds of getting a job against a female must be pretty high, as there are no women to compete against. So much for gender equality huh? Is it my fault? No.Have a word with the sisterhood – they’re letting you down. We’re a welcoming bunch in engineering.

            [2] My co-workers know full well that my gender played a part in me getting my job. Because for some reason it is primarily men that become engineers. They would be surprised if a woman got the job because so few apply. Blame the sisterhood. I can’t be putting everything right for you.

            [3] If I never get promoted its because I don’t want to be promoted. I was an engineering manager once and didn’t like it. Like many women I have no real interest in being promoted. I can’t consider myself hard-done by if I don’t even try right? When I have applied for promotion there were no women – but then there are very few women in engineering anyway so that’s no surprise.

            [4] I don’t even know what you are on about here. If society in general believed one failed woman blackened the name of all women then there would be no women in employment at all.

            [5] Actually I was accused by a female co-worker of a serious sex assault while she was drunk. Fortunately for me she was so drunk she didn’t realise there were four witnesses in the vicinity at the time who saw exactly what really happened. Needless to say, I was entirely innocent.

            [6] These days I happen to have a female co-worker. Like most employees we are measured according to fixed targets set by HR. It is not open to subjective opinion. By the way the HR manager is female, as they usually are, so if there was any unfairness she’d be the first to crow about it.

            [7] I can assure you plenty of men get raped. They are just far too ashamed to talk about it. I know of one young lad that was raped by two other boys whilst at school. It was hushed up – he certainly didn’t want it known. Why do you think there are so many straight men that hate gay men?

            [8] How on earth do you even measure that? Especially when men are more likely to be harmed than women? And isn’t the fear exactly what you have put into the minds of women?

            [9] check out Mr Cruise and the rumours about him “firing blanks” – seems pretty similar to me. By the way it is other women that will look down their noses at you for not having children – the brotherhood don’t care – this applies to [10] and [12] as well.

            [11] well the thing is, women have been so disparaging of male child-rearing capabilities that just being marginally competent deserves a gold medal surely? This is a situation created by feminism,

            [13] Fabricated. Tony Blair’s kids were often in the news, So were David Cameron’s and Gordon Brown’s and Maggie was regularly praised for raising two kids, having two degrees and being the leader of the western world (she didn’t have much time for feminists mind).

            [14] well you get who you vote for. Presumably most of the sisterhood feel adequately represented by men – maybe you should have a word with them?

            [15] My favourite boss was a woman called Julie Tyger – you can find her on the net. She was a no-nonsense straightforward tough cookie. Well the testosterone ran out when Julie reached 50 and now she sells dog jewelry from her ranch in the US – take a look you might like it

            [16] My sister played hockey in the county championships. Like most teenage boys I was very shy – I had to teach myself to be outgoing to do my job properly. Most women I meet are far more outgoing and sociable than men – that’s why they do so well in the service sector. I appreciate women’s unique talents – I presume your not a big fan of uniqueness what with your socialist obsession with equality and all.

            [17] Have a word with JK Rowling – why did she make the hero a boy? Not the fault of the brotherhood.

            [18] I did get more attention at secondary school. but not at primary school – more male teachers in secondary school back then. These days there are not so many male teachers so [18] is old news – my sons had real problems with female teachers, hence why boys are falling behind now.

            [19] If my mum dies I’m not about to say to myself “does this have sexist overtones?”. I presume by “bad day” you mean “slightly annoying”. Doesn’t deserve an answer, bet just let me advise you that if you keep blaming third parties for those bad days the bad days never get better. It’s your life, take control of it.

            [20] I don’t read a newspaper or watch TV – suggest you stop that nonsense too. However, as far as I remember the TV and newspapers have special programmes aimed specifically at women – are you sure we get privilege here? OK Top Gear is better than the women’s programmes. Fact is most commercial TV is aimed at women because women have all the spending power – do you really think Eastenders,, Coronation Street, Emmerdale, X-Factor etc were aimed at men?

            [21] I am unaware of my privilege because I don’t have any.

          • I’m not trying to defend a sectional interest movement by claiming that it isn’t actually sectional. I don’t see why “What are you doing to tackle those problems?” is relevant here.

  8. Here’s some everyday sexism. At the Australian Open tennis this year one tennis player was asked to ‘give us a twirl’ and another was asked if they were going to wear underwear beneath their wedding dress. Only one was greeted with outrage. Eugenie Bouchard was asked for the twirl to confected misandrist outrage. Andy Murray’s question (for his dress was actually a kilt) was only met with sniggers and some phwoars.

    When Alex Salmond said ‘behave yourself woman’ in the House of Commons he was called a sexist dinosaur. Yet when a woman called an MP a ‘Silly Boy’ ..yup..nothing.

    Sir Tim Hunt – Nobel Winning scientist says ‘The trouble with women’ he gets sacked. Mary Beard says “She would like to smack his bottom”..nothing.

    Sexism is rife but, like racism, the only perpetrators hung out to dry are white men.

    • You are a white man and therefore have no right to comment on Feminism until you’ve checked your white male privilege.

      • You do realise that everything you post virtually verifies the anti-feminist claims made in this article, don’t you? ‘Check your privilege’ – are you serious? You sound like a caricature!

      • How do you know I’m a white male man? You assume I am.

        you get good marks for trolling but, to be honest, your are not intellectually competent enough to engage in meaningful debate. I’m not that surprised the dishwasher repairer spoke to someone cleverer. Probably one of your cats.

        • Yeah, she’s like a bot spouting lines from her feminist buzzword dictionary. No original thought. She’s such a stereotype, it is entertaining.

          • Entertaining and fascinating. The idea that you can’t have an opinion if you are a man (she’s actually proffering this as an idea) is risible in itself but then to maintain that your opinion is also invalid if she thinks you are a man is actually illogical. Its sort of Schrodinger’s Man. Whilst you are in the box, you both do and don’t have a valid opinion.

            Being a man and not being allowed an opinion resonates with with 1930s Germany where being a Jew meant you weren’t allowed a shop, or 1950s America were being black meant you weren’t allowed a bus seat…

  9. Excellent article, Belinda!

    You could also have mentioned the blatantly sexist selection of incidents that Laura Bates routinely uses to illustrate the problem of ‘every day sexism’ – with any form of discrimination against men routinely ignored.

    • Sexism and racism both = prejudice plus power.

      Therefore white people cannot be victims of racism, because they are the privileged group with power.

      And men cannot be victims of sexism, because you are the privileged group with power.

      Is that unequivocal enough for you?

      • Wrong. They’re just discrimination by sex and race respectively. Your are conflating the intent (discrimination) with the effect. Sure people that have power can cause more harm by discriminating than those that have no power but it doesn’t change the intent.

        There are plenty of women with more power than men.

        • Not only that but she is making the assumption that all individual white men have any more power than people that are black or female or both. Most white males have no “power” whatsoever, so they can easily be the victims of racism.

          This person is merely repeating the “lines to take” learnt from somebody else. They are not thinking for themselves. They are brainwashed.

      • Your self-justifying ‘explanation’ of your ‘victimhood’-driven bigotry illustrates Belinda’s point perfectly. Thank you.

      • I live in North America princess. We have racism here in Canad againt Aboriginals and in the US, Blacks and Hispanics. The overwhelming experiences of racism in both countries is perpetrated against males. No where near that if females.

        Prison, racism, violence, murder, homelessness, homophobia, mental illness, suicide, reproductive rights, workplace injuries and death, military deaths, parental bias, failing our veterans failing education, lack of compassion, degradation, dehumanization, etc., are all overwhelmingly male experiences of gender injustice.

        Patriarchy Is a construct of the male/female dynamic. It’s the traditional collective male gender role competitive response of deference, protection, provision, security and privilege to females and in turn children. It’s mirrored throughout nature.

        Men’s greatest weakness is their facade of strength. Women’s greatest strength is their facade of weakness.” Warren Farrell

        Eventually everywhere gender feminists go it becomes about them and their martyrdom. And men are blamed for all women’ problems and injustices. Typical of fascist type vilification of another segment of society. Typical of an ideological cult. It doesn’t matter what the institutions mandate. It becomes secondary to the demands of gender feminists. Much of Academia has been coopted by gender feminism to the point that, in North America, academia is now failing young men and boys. Politics is saturated with female martyrdom as is the media. Now the militaries of the west have become all about accommodating the sensitivities and special needs of women. So standards are lowered, quotas applied and special status, exceptions and privilege are provided. All courtesy of the chivalrous patriarchy. A patriarchy that enforces traditional male gender rolls on men. All at the expense of other men. It’s often referred to as the “chivalry hypothesis”. Google it? It’s part of a rapidly growing body of evidence proving female privilege.

        Men are waking up princess and god help you when that patriarchy disappears. Why do you think there’s so much rape, violence and murder in minority communities. It’s because the men have largely been removed. Good luck with your little nirvana princess, you’re going to need it.

    • You speak from a position of white male privilege. You don’t know how it feels to constantly be the victim of sexist microaggressions that constantly make you feel inferior to men.

          • In simple terms Feminism is an ideology and increasingly blind. When you get a group of people so embedded in a belief that nothing will dissuade them from it (neither evidence, facts or anything else) then that is not something I wish to be part of. The world is not black and white.

      • LOL @ ‘sexist microagressions’. If a man with his legs open on the tube ‘makes’ you feel inferior to him the problem is yours and not his. Were you the autonomous being you expect us to beleive you are you would understand that no one can make you do, think, feel, say or believe anything. If you are so easily controlled it is because you are inadequate and that is no one’s fault but yours.

  10. The everyday man-shaming project is a load of tripe. This is all about feminists wanting to control men and police their behaviour. There are some rude and unsophisticated guys out there trying to show off and attract women’s attention (big deal) , and women love to whine a lot – Laura Bates has encouraged their whining on an industrial scale to the point where it’s just deafening. If she was targeting any other demographic for their behaviour and demanding they change it in order to make the world her own personal comfort zone, she wouldn’t be getting awards but severe warnings from the police for inciting hatred

    • Sadly for you and other men like you, women are never going back to being domestic slaves, cooking and cleaning and looking after the kids for her husband.

      Times have changed.

      • Go and check out the posts on “Women Against Feminism”. There are plenty of women that love keeping house, so any man that wants a wife to be a domestic goddess only needs to look for the right one. Times haven’t changed as much as you think.

      • Sadly for you and women like you, many women, perhaps most women, want to go back to precisely that, which was not in any sense ‘slavery’, unlike the servitude their husbands had to endure to keep a roof over the heads of wives and children, food in their stomachs, clothes on their backs and on and on and on.

    • That’s a serious point, Ronjam01: do you think my idea for an ‘everyday misadry’ website would just encourage men to be whiney and spineless, too? Or would they just not be whiney enough to post on there in the first place in sufficient numbers to make it viable?

  11. It’s only going to get worse. There is a momentum of a freight train which will not be stopped. Spare a thought for a country or countries in the third world where I expect we will see a feminist revolution (real revolution) in the 21st century complete with genocide and ethnic cleansing to the cheers of western feminists. Those speaking out against such atrocities will be called “misogynists” and “rape enablers” and few will do so out of fear for their careers.

    There is nothing men or women can do to to save the situation. You may as well ask a red hooded inquisitor to be fair and just. Aint going to happen. The only thing for men is disengagement from relationships a la Japan with its soshoku danshi (herbivore men) or MGTOW in the west. Male students need to boycott university for their own safety. Leave to ivory towers to the hysterical mobsters. You can not take them on.

    • I’d put money on India. They already have some of the most gynocentric laws around that heavily favour women, and lynching of men falsely accused of rape is still happening.

  12. Too late I’m afraid more and more men are going their own way (MGTOW) and starting to realise; other than sex and kids there really isn’t any reason to date/marry a women. When in reality sex can be replaced with masturbation and we can adopt kids should we choose.
    I’m open to debate though if there is another reason to date/marry women then please let me know?

    • MGTOWs are a joke amongst all the women and real men I know. I don’t want to sound harsh, but in the real world MGTOWs are seen as inadequate (get my drift?) “losers” who can’t get a girlfriend.

      Real men are feminist allies and are self-confident enough to go out with strong, assertive women.

      I’m sure the right girl (or boy) will come along for you, although I’d advise you to have a more respectful attitude towards women first. Today’s young women know what we want and we won’t settle for second-rate men any more.

        • I don’t necessarily have a problem with it, but a lot of people would find it a bit creepy. That’s all I’m saying.

          • Sexist. Your following the all men are paedophiles narrative. Thanks for proving the point of the article though LMAO!

          • You think that’s funny look at the dumbass’ comment on male privilege, she didn’t even read this article and she’s commenting on it. I assume it’s a she of course it looks more like a troll to me.

          • @TimoUK:disqus Yes, it looks like she, herself is a joke and she ran away because of her fear of loss from faulty arguments. She made me laugh and made today interesting with good (read: bad) jokes.

          • You would have more chance convincing a wall, it’s a tree than making her realise she is parroting facts and figures which are used by the feminazi to further their agenda of restricting freedom of speech. While I love disproving them I find it a waste of time.

          • Whilst I agree that Feminist Future is so brainwashed she is unlikely to change I still find it worthwhile to engage:

            1] Because her persistence in engaging may mean that as she matures she may start to question the narrative she is being fed by whoever it is that is controlling her.

            2] Because she is a useful foil to raise some of these issues with more open minded readers and contributors

          • I wldn’t mind if shehad read the aricle, one paragraph directly addresses t hol “Male Privilage” narrative yet shewent out of her way to accuse everyone in the comnts of bieing a white male , cis gendered (whatever tha eans) I call it normal straight people.

          • The “cis gendered” is exactly that – a means of making it sound as if being “normal” isn’t normal at all. Another example of the cultural marxists trying to break down the cohesion of Western society around “the norm” in the hope that somehow socialism will rise from the ashes.

            The reality is that transgendered people have a faulty gene that makes them transgendered. Not only are they medically not “normal” but there is even the possibility that being transgendered could be cured (or aborted as a result of a blood test – that should present the left with an interesting conundrum).

          • Yet they wouldn’t find it ‘creepy’ for a single woman to adopt a child, even though women commit 60% of child abuse.

          • It doesn’t work like that. Nice try though, even if not quite cute enough. You lefties never learn.

          • Over here in Canada that’s the case. But you do the homework? Go to the Statistic’s Canada website?

      • Coward removed her comments! But fortunately, I have taken a PDF snapshot from my Firefox Mobile 🙂
        Anyone wanting to see her stupid removed comments, just ask me.

  13. It’s worth a (brief) look at some of the comments on her site. If wimmin get worked up about that kind of thing then they probably just need to get out more. Here’s and example…..

    “I called an appliance repair man to come and fix my broken dishwasher. When he was working on it, he kept directing all his comments/suggestions to my husband’s friend who was hanging out at the house, even though I was the one who hired him and kept responding to him. Even after I told him that I am the home owner, he still refused to speak to me directly.”

    • You wouldn’t like it if the opposite happened, viz. you called a female engineer to your house to fix your broken dishwasher, who continually directed all her comments towards your female friend.

      Would you?

      You are so used to white male privilege that you don’t even realize you are privileged.

      • There are lots of things in life I don’t like. That doesn’t mean I have to set up a grievance industry over them. Some of us just try to deal with life.

        • Imagine if Susan B. Anthony, Emmeline Pankhurst, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi had just “tried to deal with life”. Progress and social justice depend on protest and struggle.

          • I don’t think their grievances gad anything to do with the dishwasher repair man

          • I dunno – Gandhi did wear a lot of whites, and India is dusty. Maybe he got pi$$ed off at the washer-women down at the river ignoring him.

          • 1. FYI, the word “mankind” used in that context has long been superseded by the gender-neutral terms “humanity” and “humankind”. You sound like you’re from the 1950s.

            2. Glad to see you’ve revealed your true colours by denying the value of women’s suffrage, civil rights for black people, ending apartheid and overthrowing colonialism.

            Any credibility you had on this site has gone forever now.

          • I would never deny the ‘value’ of women’s suffrage, which shares the same initials as welfare state, in the destruction of civilised society. Were you not so lost in the miasma emanating from your vagina you might understand that material advancement is not the same as a change in the nature of slavery, which is all those you cite have achieved.

            FYI, I’m amused, rather than disturbed, which latter I suspect you intended, that you think you can destroy any ‘credibility’ I may have on this site, for ever. It seems to be beyond your puerile understanding that I don’t care whether I have any credibility here or anywhere else; I comment merely to encourage other men, and it seems to be beyond your puerile understanding that your oestrogen rotted brain isn’t up to the job of destroying any man’s credibility. You also seem not to understand that men generally don’t concern themselves with questions of credibility when they know they smell bullshit.

            I don’t use ‘gender neutral terms’ whatever they are (your use of gender implies a laughable misunderstanding of the word) and I’ll use the term mankind to describe the human race whether wimmin like it or not, and, FYI, I am from the 1950s.

          • I’m not surprised you’re from the 1950s.

            I take comfort from the fact that views like yours are dying out; and men in their 20s are far more likely to be feminist allies than their fathers. More men than ever before are becoming househusbands, embracing their feminine side and eschewing the sexist ways of your generation.

          • Your views are so laughably 1960s, and ‘sexist’. The truth is that men in their twenties are waking up to the discrimination they suffer and turning their backs on women in their twenties, which is why women like you are asking where all the ‘good’ men have gone.

            Try again but try harder, much harder, and do try not to reiterate long worn out political clichés that have no basis in reality.

          • I am currently what you would refer to as a “househusband”, but I am far from being an ally to any feminist. You are a toxic group of people I have no desire to ever associate with. By the way, my wife and pretty much every female I know (all between the ages of 20-35) hate you too.

          • They are your allies right up until they reach about 35. That’s when they realise they have kids they never wanted, are living in an expensive house they didn’t need and subsidising an entire spare room filled with women’s clothes and shoes. At that point they realise that they are not getting anything in return and they run off with the 21 year old from work.

            I was an ardent feminist until I reached my late 30s and realised it is all just a theory, rarely seen in practice. Real British women are almost never feminists. They are not self-reliant, they have no intention of surviving on their own resources, and whilst they believe the kids are 100% their property they believe that dad must do at least 50% of the childcare with none of the credit when it goes right and all of the criticism when it goes wrong. Stuff them. British women have made themselves distinctly unattractive as mates so I have taken full advantage of globalisation and outsourced my relationship needs to the Far-East. You’ve got competition, ladies. It happens that in the Far East British men are considered by oriental women the absolute gold standard by which all other men are judged….

          • Young women are starting to match or out-earn our male partners.

            It’s increasingly us subsidizing you, rather than the other way round.

          • That’s great!

            So why do you want OUR salary spent on your nestbuilding and preening instincts?

            We want a fast car, a season ticket for Manchester United and a collection of movies and xbox games. Go pay for your own homes, kids, and clothes. We sure as hell aren’t stopping you. By your own admission the workplace isn’t the sexist patriarchal glass ceiling organisation you were claiming yesterday it is – because today you are admitting you get paid more than men. Make your mind up love.

          • Thank you for proving my point with your sexist microaggression.

            I’m not your “love”. Don’t patronize me. I am an Oxford graduate.



          • “an Oxford graduate’? Sweet Jesus, how out institutions have fallen. Don’t tell me, you graduated with a liberal arts degree. Was it gender studies, Feminism for Privilege?

          • You forgot to add, through the prism of gender feminist framework. It makes all the difference in the world.

          • You laugh, but you wouldn’t last one term on a PPE course (or a Gender Studies course for that matter).

          • You ought, if you really are an Oxford graduate, to have at least sufficient sense to understand that you cannot possibly know how long I might last at any activity, and more maturity than to make such an infantile comment.

            I’ll hazard that you are simply another mad, fantasising cat woman who hates men because she’s unable to attract one.

          • I think they will get the hell out due to the fact that gender studies is so boring and waste of time.

          • You deserve to be patronised. One day you are claiming that women are marginalised and held back by men, the next you are claiming they are paid more than men. Quite frankly, petal, you are a bit of a disgrace to the Women’s Studies course aren’t you?

            Oh, and I don’t respond well to orders given out by nutters on the internet. Whatever made you think that I would?

          • Women’s Studies or PPE?

            It won’t be anything useful, assuming, of course, that you aren’t just lying.

          • Actually my dear, the men’s movement is actually attracting more and more young men and women by the way, than once thought possible. i understand that it’s even jelling in mother Britain. How sad for you.

          • Well he ought to be flogged. Run tell the gender feminist police that you feel threatened? Tell them to make that man be quiet. You sound like a privileged, self absorbed little princess.

      • It wouldn’t bother me at all. I completely expect women to relate better to other women. In fact that is exactly what DOES happen in real life. Most wise people did not consider this strange or abnormal.

        • Happens with my wife all the time when we are out doing stuff. Even when I am the customer and she is standing to my side. Most females will immediately talk to her and hardly say a word to me. Doesn’t bother me, I just notice that it happens.

          • And how many times are they mocking you?

            Wife: “Look he’s bought 14 pairs of socks all the same!”

            Shop assistant: “Oh men, what are they like?”

            Hubby: “Well it means I never have odd socks left in the drawer”

            Wife: “So practical, so boring”

            Hubby: “Socks are socks. You hardly see them”

            Shop assistant: “Oh my husband is just the same. They’ve no idea about clothes at all have they?”

            British women really hate and despise men. It is not their fault, however, they are raised this way from birth and nobody thinks its wrong. British women are still wondering why their relationships keep failing.

          • If my wife did that she wouldn’t have a husband for much longer. I have experienced this type of behavior from women I have dated in the past though. A lot of women in the U.S. are like that too, and it is only getting worse.

          • Actual British women seem no different than many women here in North America. misandry is pretty common throughout the West.

      • Nope, he just thought that women don’t worth wasting his time talking to, even when they are his clients.

        • Did you notice that Paul used the word ‘probably’ to indicate that his statement was speculative inference? Now look at your definite statement. That’s everything about feminism in a nutshell. Think about it before you answer.

    • That kind of even may seem insignificant for you but when you face it every day from many people it gives you an idea on how people see women’s abilities and value. By the way, no one pretends that everything said on this site must be a huge case of sexist. Women just share their experiences serious or minor.

  14. Here’s a list to help males on here to check your privilege.

    If I am a man…

    1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favour. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.

    2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex – even though that might be true.

    3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.

    4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.

    5. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are.

    6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.

    7. If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are relatively low.

    8. On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.

    9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.

    10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will
    not be called into question.

    11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for
    extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent.

    12. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.

    13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.

    14. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.

    15. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.

    16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.

    17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default.

    18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.

    19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.

    20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented.

    21. I have the privilege of being unaware of my privilege.

    • You’re just taking the piss right? Surely you can’t actually be such a walking stereotype in real life?

      • She is brainwashed. Utterly brainwashed. Everything she writes is just repeating something she is told. It is horrific what somebody has done to her, to be honest.

        • She is brainwashed. Utterly brainwashed.

          That’s unfair. If you read back over her numerous submissions here, you’ll see that she has nothing to wash.

          • I think I’ve shown that I can rise to the occasion when necessary but to devote too much time and energy to refuting your wilder gynocentric excesses would be to show myself as lacking in discrimination. Sometimes mockery is all that’s merited and all that’s necessary.

            Have you fed your cats yet?

    • When you – or a male for whom you care – reaps the rewards of this ill-informed, anachronistic, hateful attitude, make sure you take responsibility. And, by the way, I have the privilege to hold any view I wish. And the privilege to express it. Because, unlike you, I am not a hater with a closed mind. Enjoy your bitter life.

      • Those problems exist, but are down to patriarchy. Patriarchy hurts men too, by given men a false notion of masculinity.

        • Oh, and, I can say that, these problems are down to women, they should deal with it rather than blaming males. You have the privilege of making false rape accusations, and go unpunished by law, for spoiling his future.

          • No, they are not THAT rare.
            Studies in other countries have reported their own rates at anywhere from 1.5% (Denmark) to 10% (Canada).[6]
            Now, how does that make it “rare”?
            If an anti-feminist made that image, that person could have claimed over 10%. The approximations are biased towards females.

          • No they are not; they are disturbingly common. That notwithstanding, no one can possibly know how many rape accusations are false because a malicious accusation is true once proven and so excluded from further investigation and therefore the statistics, and a false rape accusation that does not result in an acquittal simply becomes one of the ‘he got away with it’ statistics feminists use to demand the abolition of the presumption of innocence in rape cases. All we can say is that men rot in prison because women have lied about them, and one man imprisoned for that is far too many.

            The highest figures for false rape accusations I’ve seen in print have been 40% and 90%, both figures offered by women police officers.

          • You know I’m tired of the rape nonsense.

            I and many others have suggested for years that there should be a contract or token system where men need to be able to provide some sort of proof that consent was given freely. This suits men because most men are not rapists – more commonly they find themselves in the position of helping to pick up the pieces when women have been sexually assaulted by men.

            Feminists have been the most vociferous in shouting these ideas down. Why? I have no idea – can you explain?

          • Trigger warning – you are victim blaming.

            We need to teach boys and men not to rape, not continually blame women for getting raped.

            Rape is not a “grey area” as you seem to be implying. Consent is not a grey area. There is a clear legal definition of what it entails.

            Rape is rape is rape.


          • I’m not victim blaming at all. This is the excuse feminists like you give for not providing young women the tools they need to prove in court in front of a jury that they have been raped. This is the primary reason I utterly despise women like you. You would rather take away a tool that would allow women to see rapists put in jail promptly to protect others than risk having one of your main weapons against men taken away from you. Truth is you despise other women almost as much as you despise men. You would also love to see innocent men put in jail just on the word of a malicious woman, and continue to campaign for it.

            You are a disgrace to women and you should be ashamed of yourself.

          • Anyone with weird sense of humour: (“rape” == “rape”) = true, true = (“rape” == “rape”), ((“rape” == “rape”) == “rape”) = false.

          • Attempts to shut down free speech by making certain types of speech off limits are totalitarian and should be resisted by all those that believe in freedom of the individual.

            I suggest you keep you Marxist strategems for situations where they wont be spotted so readily.

          • BS! They’re far more common that the actual occurrence if sexual assault against women. Here in North America, the rate of female sexual abusers is skyrocketing. i’m a gay man, who once was exclusive hetero in my sexual expression until my later twenties. I was never really interested in women, but was thoroughly conditioned by the females and males in my life that if a women should interest in you, you were damn ass lucky and acquiesce to here wishes.

            I was violently sexually abused as a ten year old boy and also groped, grabbed, coerced, shamed and otherwise sexual assaulted as an adult. All by women. Even Britain’s own Michelle Elliott, an expert on female sexual offenders put women at one in five. And now that more young men and women are coming forward that number seems to rising.

          • That image is inconsistent. False accusations by definition have to be reported. So they should be in the reported section and not included in the rapists section because they are by definition innocent. Also, some of those convicted are also innocent it just hasn’t been proved yet.

          • How does this make that statement ‘NOT TRUE’? Britain is not the only western country, and, in many countries like US, this problem is increasing.

        • ‘Patriarchy’ is a figment of a seriously disturbed gynocentric imagination. The problems men suffer are due to chivalry, which is male deference to infantile female whim and not male control of society.

          • Patriarchy the system by Allen Johnson
            “Although some like to disregard the reality, we live in a patriarchal society. In Johnson’s “Patriarchy”, he presents the fact that for the most part our society is a male dominated, male identified, and male centered world. Males dominate in the position of authority, having political, economic, religious, educational, military, and domestic areas generally reserved for men. Similar to the writers of the Declaration of Independence, they shape the culture in ways that reflect and serve their collective interest and need. They set the glass just high enough, so women can not reach to break it, keeping the male in the dominate position. Patriarchy operates in order to keep us blind from its effects. Women’s growing opportunities are taken as evidence that the “woman’s problem” are fixed, causing people to disregard the problems still associated with female inequality.

            Unconscious stereotypes are used, depicting females in a negative way and drawing the conclusion that men are more important and influential than women, to hide the bias. Family traditions are passed down to each generation implicating that males are the head of the households and females simple housewives. The continuance of the patriarchy system does not only fall fault in the hands of male dominates, but continues to operate due to societies’s unconscious learned behaviors, stereotypical assumptions, and selective perception”


            ‘Patriarchy The System’ by Allan J Johnson
            scanned excerpt:

            “Gokova writes from his position as a male in a society as a feminist. He says that being male means you are privileged. He believes that men need to be responsible about their position in society. It is not good enough just to acknowledge that women are oppressed, but to take steps in changing that double standard”.


          • We don’t live in a society dominated by men. We live in a society dominated by TESTOSTERONE. Go and read something about it.

            Testosterone is what gives people drive, ambition, competitiveness, aggression. Men have lots of it, feminists have lots of it, 50% of lesbians have lots of it. Maggie Thatcher had lots of it, Jessica Ennis has lots of it, Madonna has lots of it, Boudicca had lots of it, Queen Elizabeth I had lots of it, Emily Pankhurst had lots of it. Women with lots of testosterone (or at least a high sensitivity to testosterone) are, however, a rarity, but if they have it they will likely rise to the top someplace somewhere.

            Take testosterone away from men, feminists and lesbians and we’d all be sitting watching afternoon TV and wondering what to make the kids for dinner. Or more likely, still living in caves……

          • Mad Mez the gynocrat copied and pasted yet more subjective opinion from a source that accords with her emotionally governed beliefs.

            Yours is precisely the same motivating urge as that of the religious zealot. Your opinions are formed by your faith and the pronouncements of your priests are the only evidence you need to carry on your fight against the heathen.

            Those men and women who will not sit quietly by while you spout your hysterical nonsense are simply rational atheists who can think for themselves, believe the evidence of their own eyes and know when their intelligence is being insulted.

          • What you’ve got here, is a young woman who is in school enjoying her women’s studies major and she has fallen in step. She buys every word and questions nothing. When statistics are PROVEN to be false, it doesn’t shake her beliefs at all.

            This is where the recruiting takes place. It must stop.

        • Really?! Why don’t you give us the “true” notion of masculinity? I mean….if we all have a “false” one.

          That is laughable. Are women really in awe of feminine men and their sensitivity? I think not.

          Nobody condemns femininity, so don’t even try and take a run at masculine traits. Strength, resilience, these things are admirable and necessary and are likely to be necessary again.

          Misandry… evident.

        • Oh if only little girls didn’t like pink stuff and dressing up as fairies. The ideas rattling around in your head might have some relevance to real life.

  15. I’ve got it.

    The real reason why men don’t want equality for women is they are scared of us.

    They can’t handle competition from women in the workplace.

    That’s why men can’t handle the idea of a woman becoming President.

    They want to return to the 1950s where simply being a straight, cis white male gave you a massive advantage in the job market.

    Well it’s not happening, boys.

    Men are going to have to get used to competing against us in the job market.

    Men are going to have to get used to being out-earned by your wives and girlfriends.

    Deal with it.

  16. I have had an idea: An “everyday misandry project”. Misandry is all over the place, such as when men in advertisements are routinely depicted as stupid, or domestic and sexual violence is characterised as “gender-based”. I’m not expecting an MBE(!), but would TCW readers support it?

    • Are you serious? Are you seriously claiming society is stacked against straight cis white men, when you make up 90% of CEOs?

          • You are ‘totally blind’ to yours.

            I have thought for years that oestrogen rots the brain and your submissions here add considerable weight to my opinion.

          • You are making this website into an unsafe-space for women like me. You are a disgrace.

          • It is the duty of all men to make all spaces ‘unsafe’ (What possible danger can you be in on a comments thread?) for ‘women like [you]’. You are a neurotic and misandrous gynophile and you should be in a mental institution and permanently sedated, for your own good as much as society’s.

            If that is the only answer you have to criticism of your gynocentric stupidity you are a fraud without a credible argument.

          • Imprisoning your political opponents in mental institutions…

            “Permanently sedating” them…

            All for “society’s good”, of course…

            Now where have I heard that one before?

            Thank you for proving what lengths the patriarchy will go to in order to retain power.

          • You don’t seem to understand the concept of a straw man, nor do you have sufficient subtlety to twist an opponent’s words to his disadvantage. Keep it up, you’re adding considerable force to my arguments.

          • Ahhhh! Poor little you. The big bad man made you feel offended? What’s a girl to do? If you find the world unsafe, don’t expect men to respond to your crying wolf. Grow up little girl.

          • Is cognitive dissonance so unsafe? You had the choice not to talk about the topic in the first place.

          • You actually tried the “I’m unsafe……on an internet forum?” You actually played the victim card to try and win an argument?

            You should be ashamed of yourself. Do you actually think that does anything but reinforce the idea that Feminism uses victimhood like a shield to avoid scrutiny, and as a weapon to bash dissenters?

            Awfully nice of you to demonstrate EXACTLY why feminism is something to be loathed.

      • Being a CEO is not a right; it is a privilege. Of course, women want just the jobs wit cool air conditioning and they do not care about males working hard with manual labour. And being a CEO is not your ‘right to vote’. Even being a black, someone cannot go and claim for a CEO of a company saying that they are the minority.

          • Why can’t you admit your own fallacy? Being a CEO is a privilege, so as being a president.

          • Wot, you mean like being the first female prime minister of the UK as a result of the votes of millions of men? Wait that couldn’t have really happened cos we’re all sexist right?

            I must have been off my head during the 80s. I could have sworn Maggie Thatcher was PM. Oh well….

          • Oh, if not having a woman president makes all Britons sexist, does not having a black president make them racist as well? I am from a country where there were two female presidents with executive rights – standing for a president is a right, but being selected is a PRIVILEGE.

          • Because they weren’t wrong. Equal OPPORTUNITY is not the same as equal OUTCOME. You can’t force equal OUTCOME and keep the all-important freedom of personal choice. If a woman wants to be, say, an elementary school teacher (of which there are more females than males! Oh my god, the sexism!) instead of a construction worker, who are you to FORCE her to pick a job she doesn’t want to take? Read the article. Particularly, the line about female choice in the labo(u)r market.

          • That is nothing more than a deflection, FF, because you know full well that women would never apply to be sewage workers or refuse collectors. Neither will you ever scream about the inequality of men being the only ones down London’s sewers. It’s false and you know it, and you read like a book. I want to see feminists campaigning for more women down sewers – but that’ll never happen.

          • I’d like to see parity between male and female suicide rates and if women don’t increase their rate voluntarily I think government should step in and legislate for an increase.

          • Why? What about choice? Why does it remotely matter if 50 out of every 100 shelf stackers is a man or a women in what way does it help anyone? This ridiculous tokenism does nothing for femism. All the female bosses that I know and I know and have worked for quite a few over the last 30 years laugh at people like you

          • I want 50:50 gender equality in manual labour jobs as well.

            I’ll wager that you don’t want that for yourself and have done nothing to set an example to other women.

          • There are times when I can’t help but despair.

            I really hope you are very young and this is just a silly phase, or you are just winding us all up. There isn’t any other reason you could make the pronouncement.

          • I want 50:50 gender equality in manual labour jobs as well.

            How would you assess that ratio? Would you simply count the heads doing a particular job or the amount of work done? If the latter, over what period? When, as I hope most sane people will accept, you find that women are less productive in manual jobs than men, what excuses will you make and would you agree that men doing more work than women in the same role should be paid more?

            I think most readers of this comment know the answers in advance.

      • No they dont, you’re wrong. In this country there are 5.2 million businesses. 4 million are SME’s. Founded by their “CEO’s” 25% of those businesses are currently owned and run by women. Women are creating new sustainable businesses at a faster rate than men. The female entreprenuer is massively important. Tokenism isn’t

      • More lunacy from Feminist_Future (an oxymoron if ever there was one). That perhaps 0.1% of men, or fewer, occupy the greater part of the positions in one particular sector does not mean that the other 99.9% are not generally disadvantaged. I wouldn’t expect you to understand that though, conditioned, as you clearly are, to equate penis with privilege.

        Do you actually know the definition of privilege?

      • You have 2 options: You can be a victim who whines about something or you can be a survivor who does something about it.

      • and 90 % of inmates and combat deaths, 80% of suicides , 65% of the homeless , 90% of work place deaths and injuries – stop looking up at the men in suits and have a think about the working class men who do the dirty jobs that keep the lights on .

        • We need to encourage more women to do those jobs by smashing sexist stereotypes from an early age.

          • No, what we need to do is demand that gender feminist stop their culture of misandry and hate. They must be challenged. We need real equality that also deals with the far more serious problems that affect men. We need to get young men and boys away from toxic gender feminism. Even if it means segregation of the genders is schools and other relevant organizations. If you want to stop stereotypes quit using them to acquire advantage and privilege.

          • There is something to your point about sterotypes , I agree , but there is also a biological difference between men and women that plays a role in vocational choice and means men will probably always be required to and preffer to do the dirty and dangerous work. Equality of opportunity is all a society can offer – the free choice of vocation must be left to the individual.

            I would also argue that the world is ruled/dominated by a very small percentage of predominately white psychopathic rich (ceo) men (some women too)but 3rd and 4th wave feminists need to realise that these aforementioned men (and women) and the systems they facilitate and perpetuate hurt middle and lower class men more than they do women (see stats in my last post) .

          • And you need to encourage more women to suicide, be homeless, be denied unequal care by society (like provided homes), take harmful jobs too, rather than arguing only about white-collar and jobs in rooms with A/Cs.

          • Women CHOOSE their careers. Even in the most egalitarian places, 80% of engineers, male. 80% of nurses, female. When asked, they said they chose that career because it meant more to them. Women could be CEO’s and sometimes are. But don’t rain on the ones who don’t want to be. I don’t want to be either!

          • We’ll let you have the positive discrimination for the CEO jobs if you force women to work down sewers. How’s that? Seem fair?

            Otherwise it sounds like feminsits just want to take all the cushy well-paid jobs regardless of the industry they are in thus forcing the men into the dirty dangerous low-paid jobs whether they like it or not. That’s not really fair is it?

    • It’s true that men are often depicted as stupid when it comes to housework, child care and relationships. And women are depicted as experts in those things. That annoys me as well.

      • I’ve noticed that advertisements for convenience foods (deep fat fryer, microwave, boil in the bag, oven bake etc.) always show a woman spending more cash than necessary to put a ‘delicious meal’ on the table in minutes. Why? Because most women are too lazy to cook from scratch, which is also far cheaper.

        • Cooking from scratch is also healthier most of the time. It`s a bit more work but unless you want to prepare a very sophisticated meal it does n`t take that much time when you`re used to it.

  17. Excellent article, the only part I would draw attention to (yes, I do have my tinfoil hat on), which it omits, is that none of this is chance or accidental. Cultural Marxist feminism has been foisted on us as part of a bigger plan. I’ve shared this on here before( and I copied it from another commenter whose name I sadly forgot to note at the time), but I think it warrants another airing:

    The Frankfurt School: Conspiracy to Corrupt

    What was the Frankfurt School?

    Well, in the days following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it was believed that workers’ revolution would sweep into Europe and, eventually, into the United States. But it did not do so. Towards the end of 1922 the Communist International (Comintern) began to consider what the reasons for this might be. On Lenin’s initiative a meeting was organised at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow.

    The aim of the meeting was to clarify the concept of, and give concrete effect to, a Marxist cultural revolution. Amongst those present were Georg Lukacs (a Hungarian aristocrat, son of a banker, who had become a Communist during World War I; a good Marxist theoretician he developed the idea of ‘Revolution and Eros’ – sexual instinct used as an instrument of destruction) and Willi Munzenberg (whose proposed solution was to ‘organise the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilisation stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat’) ‘It was’, said Ralph de Toledano (1916-2007) the conservative author and co-founder of the ‘National Review’, a meeting ‘perhaps more harmful to Western civilization than the Bolshevik Revolution itself.’

    Lenin died in 1924. By this time, however, Stalin was beginning to look on Munzenberg, Lukacs and like-thinkers as ‘revisionists’. In June 1940, Münzenberg fled to the south of France where,
    on Stalin’s orders, a NKVD assassination squad caught up with him and hanged him from a tree.

    In the summer of 1924, after being attacked for his writings by the 5th Comintern Congress, Lukacs moved to Germany, where he chaired the first meeting of a group of Communist-oriented sociologists, a gathering that was to lead to the foundation of the Frankfurt

    This ‘School’ (designed to put flesh on their revolutionary programme) was started at the University of Frankfurt in the Institut für Sozialforschung. To begin with school and institute were indistinguishable. In 1923 the Institute was officially established, and funded by Felix Weil (1898-1975). Weil was born in Argentina and at the age of nine was sent to attend school in Germany. He attended the universities in Tübingen and Frankfurt, where he graduated with a doctoral degree in political science. While at these universities he became increasingly interested in socialism and Marxism. According to the intellectual historian Martin Jay, the topic of his dissertation was ‘the practical problems of implementing socialism.’

    Carl Grünberg, the Institute’s director from 1923-1929, was an avowed Marxist, although the Institute did not have any official party affiliations. But in 1930 Max Horkheimer assumed control and he believed that Marx’s theory should be the basis of the Institute’s research. When Hitler came to power, the Institut was closed and its members, by various routes, fled to the United States and migrated to major US universities — Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley.

    The School included among its members the 1960s guru of the New Left Herbert Marcuse (denounced by Pope Paul VI for his theory of liberation which ‘opens the way for licence cloaked as liberty’), Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, the popular writer Erich Fromm, Leo
    Lowenthal, and Jurgen Habermas – possibly the School’s most influential representative.

    Basically, the Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief – or even the hope of belief – that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus — ‘continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means’ as one of their
    members noted.

    To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution – but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future – the School recommended (among other things):

    1. The creation of racism offences.

    2. Continual change to create confusion

    3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children

    4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority

    5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.

    6. The promotion of excessive drinking

    7. Emptying of churches

    8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime

    9. Dependency on the state or state benefits

    10. Control and dumbing down of media

    11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family

    One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pansexualism’ – the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:

    • attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.

    • abolish differences in the education of boys and girls

    • abolish all forms of male dominance – hence the presence of women in the armed forces

    • declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’

    Munzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation thus: ‘We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.’

    Would anyone like to flag up ANY of these Agenda items that have not been inflicted by the State Apparatus in the Western World in the drive for its own destruction by its own “Elite”?

    • This ought to be taught in schools Shaunr19, it is so distressingly correct.
      Hands up who thinks there is any chance ot will be.

      • I take no credit for it. I copied it from another commenter a while ago because I found it interesting. However, since then I have a number of occasions when I thought it would be appropriate to the discussion, so I’ve posted it. I have seen it (or something close to it) in other places, but there is more here:

        Sadly, I don’t think it’s something they would teach in our in our left-wing, ideology-driven educational establishments.

  18. “Destructive feminism…tears men and women apart”
    You are quite correct but this was the intention of the feminist movement all along.
    It was never about equality and understanding – just a sort of women-only apartheid.

    • Germaine Greer describes herself as a “Marxist Anarchist”, so there isn’t much argument about it.

      Considering she has never had a successful relationship with a man, nor was qualified to discuss relationships from a scientific point-of-view, she had a lot to say about male/female relationships. Why she ever had any credibility I don’t know.

      • A lot of feminists are known to be mental basket cases.I don’t even mind them writing a lot of BS, that’s their right. I rather worry, that so many women fall for it. Like there is a certain lack of intelligence for the whole picture.

        • Yes Roland, I agree.
          But the trouble is these ‘mental basket cases’ have the ear of the government, the U.N, the BBC, teachers, universities etc.etc.- add your own organisations to the list. You and I will have to live under the laws that these ‘basket cases’ have the power to bring about.

        • Irrational thinking and behaviour is so much a part of the female psyche that it is hard to know where they cross the line between sanity and madness. When compared to the average for men, I think all women are mental basket cases to some degree.

        • It is VERY seductive and attractive as a paradigm. “Nothing is your fault and life is hard because of…..THEM!” I think that Hitler fellow used that to great effect too.

          Be gentle on the women who get sucked into it. Where does this political paradigm do it’s recruiting? On campus. Young and inexperienced so that theory trumps a lack of reality.

    • I would support and repeat ‘upset’s’ comments – they are spot on.
      To tear men and women apart would surely require an army, so where do you get that army?
      Why, by setting us against each other of course. A classic marxist trick, only with men as the ‘oppressive capitalist bourgeois’, and women as the ‘workers and proletariate’.
      That this technique will cause immeasureable suffering and grief to so many is of no concern to the femarixists in their ubiquitous quest for power.

  19. The behaviors described in this site can come from men or women and it’s not about “men are evil and women are victims” but more about stereotypes that should disappear. No evolution will happen if no one talk about it.

    • A lot of it is class differences.

      A builder wolf-whistling a working class girl (not that it happens much these days) will likely get a positive reaction because working class girls are OK with the direct approach and like the attention. It doesn’t go down quite as well with upper middle-class professional women.

  20. It is clear that over the last decade or so an obvious institutional bias against men has crept into many facets of life. As Shaunr19 reasoned below, this adheres to a set of plans formulated in Germany, intensive efforts that seek to undermine much of what has benefited so many of the world’s people. If we are to make the best of past progress and not destroy those benefits we need to confront and overcome the ascendancy of bigoted feminism, a movement that is simply a tool to assist in bringing changes what will favour few, and certainly not many women despite what many modern females appear to think. Of course that is not the whole story, but at the moment this divisive force is leading the way. MGTOW is not really an answer, women need to be confronted with the ugliness of their attitudes, fawning over them all the time is past its sell by date. The behaviours of far too many females today is wretched, they need to be called out when they start demeaning. Sure, they are not going to like it, tough, they need to learn to consider others and not just themselves.

    • I agree with your comment but would observe that MGTOW is not meant to be an answer to the problems caused by what is actually nothing more than uncontrolled female self-indulgence; it is simply the inevitable response of individual men who realise they stand a better than even chance of losing everything, and for the rest of their lives, if they engage in relationships with women, especially if they make the mistake of fathering children. Women have chosen a particular path and men are increasingly saying we aren’t interested in following them along it. Feminism is simply a more emphatically misandrous form of chivalry, which was never intended for any other purpose than the enslavement of men by women.

      It’s difficult to see that any other male response to an increasingly feminised world is possible under the present circumstances and it is becoming harder and harder to confront women with the ugliness of their attitudes, apart from which, doing so is simply not worth the time, effort and expense. Women need to put their own house in order, men are under no obligation to do it for them.

      • I agree William that MGTOW is not much of an answer, it is a logical reflex to a situation that targets men using the power of the State. We are on the same sheet I think.

  21. Victims’ are only victims when they’re prepared to accept what’s happened to them. Speaking out about it isn’t a trait of victim hood, because only be talking about is there likely to be a force for change. A refusal to accept such issues happen, is part of the culture of blame.

    Are all people who are still creating this culture of sexism not self seeking and self serving? (women also endorse sexism), again your comment is part of the culture of blame.

    It’s the media which is presenting that ‘all men’ and ‘all boys’ are “predatory, sexist, their sense of humour is vilified and their behaviour is regarded as unacceptable” ; which in reality we all know isn’t the case, but opens an opportunity for men to throw the ‘victim card’. It’s a self
    serving media practice to insinuate that all men are rapists, in the same way that ‘all
    feminists’ are part of the sister hood of men haters, when in practice there are hundreds of thousands of men who are feminists because they believe in women being treated equally. If you don’t believe in women being treated equally, what does that say about anybody as an individual?

    What you’re doing it seems is laying the blame for men not being able to find sex, at the door of women who want to be treated equally (with respect by the way, as well as honesty, love and trust).

    • Mad Mez the benefits dependent, gynocentric gynocrat wrote the usual risible gynocentric tosh.

      Few men, these days, disagree with women making the necessary effort to be our equals and one of the areas I’d like to see women equal to men is in those committing suicide. I think more women should be stepping up and killing themselves and I would like to see you taking the lead and setting an example.

      Go on Mez, show us how it’s done.

      • “I think more women should be stepping up and killing themselves and I would like to see you taking the lead and setting an example. Go on Mez, show us how it’s done.” How ignorant, ( I work for myself by the way).

        Here’s research by the Samaritans on the reasons for male suicide, (the Samaritans are a lot more qualified to discuss suicide than you are Gruff) .
        They have a downloadable pdf on their web site. Note point one which is actually a major behest of the feminists, ie destroying the social construct of ‘power, control and invinsibility’.

        Our research, Men and Suicide: Why it’s a social issue, reveals that:
        Feminists don’t create relationship breakdown, (men may well do that themselves, because of factor 1) , and feminists have certainly had nothing to do with the decline of traditional industries (most CEO’s are male) or levels of literacy. You might ask youself why it is that middle age men are almost totally reliant on their wives for emotional support and won’t look for help, because somehow I don’t think either that, or alcoholism has anything to do with feminists either. Note that “Challenges of mid-life ” and “socio and economic issues’ both refer to all ‘people’ and not just men.

        1 – men compare themselves against a ‘gold standard’ which prizes power, control and invincibility;

        men in mid-life are now part of the ‘buffer’ generation, not sure whether to be like their older, more traditional, strong, silent, austere fathers or like their younger, more progressive, individualistic sons;

        with the decline of traditional male industries, these men have lost not only their jobs but also a source of masculine pride and identity;

        men in mid-life remain overwhelmingly dependent on a female partner for emotional support.

        Main findings

        The main findings are split into 6 key themes and below are some of the issues raised:

        Personality traits – some traits can interact with factors such as deprivation, unemployment, social disconnection and triggering events, such as relationship breakdown or job loss, to increase the risk of suicide.

        Masculinity – more than women, men respond to stress by taking risks, like misusing alcohol and drugs.

        Relationship breakdowns – marriage breakdown is more likely to lead men, rather than women, to suicide.

        Challenges of mid-life – people currently in mid-life are experiencing more mental health problems and unhappiness compared to younger and older people.

        Emotional illiteracy – men are much less likely than women to have a positive view of counselling or therapy, and when they do use these services, it is at the point of crisis.

        Socio-economic factors – unemployed people are 2-3 times more likely to die by suicide than those in work and suicide increases during economic recession.

        Suicide in disadvantaged men in their middle years is a health and social inequality issue.

        Men living in these circumstances are up to 10 times more at risk of suicide than those living in the most advantaged conditions.

        There is a major issue for both sexes who’ve lost their jobs at the age of 50 or more. For decades policy has been towards promoting further education for youngsters who are now vastly more qualified than their parents who grew up at a time when university education wasn’t a necessity, and decades of vocational training only aimed at youngsters and not retraining older people. None of this being a feminist issue.

        • Mad Mez, the benefits dependent, ‘self-employed’ gynocentric gynocrat writes – and copies and pastes – the usual risible gynocentric tosh.

          I offer for your amusement gentleman:

          Note point one which is actually a major behest of the feminists, ie
          destroying the social construct of ‘power, control and invinsibility’ … 1 – men compare themselves against a ‘gold standard’ which prizes power, control and invincibility …

          Keep it up Mez, we all appreciate the joke.

          • Wow, does she really believe that nonsense?

            Can only conclude she has never known an actual man her whole life.

            Doesn’t it bother you Mez that women are the equal of men but women never do anything wrong? Does that seem realistic to you Mez?

            Here’s one for you Mez. When are women going to take responsibility for raising their male offspring so badly, now that they have taken complete control of the child-rearing?

          • That nonsence produced by the Samaritans? really ? I posted an excerpt from their web site.. by the way there’s nothing that I’ve written which suggests that I think that ‘women do no wrong’.

            How about this paper connecting male ‘power’ and violence, produced by a man

            Here’s one for you Phil. It’s a book authored by a male psychiatrist who says (regarding mysogenists) that there are men who fundamentally hate women, which has developed as a result of their upbringing.

            Why Men Hate Women by Adam Edward Jukes
            excerpt “What makes a man like John, in every respect a cultured and charming man, successful in his career and liked by his friends and acquaintances, behave violently towards a woman he says he loves? Is he sick? Is he different from other men? Is it, as he says, Jane’s fault? Does she like being beaten? Otherwise why would she go on doing what she knows upsets him? Adam Jukes hopes that by the end of his demanding but gripping book, the reader will be able to answer these questions. Adam Jukes works with men who are abusive and violent to women. In the last five years he has been involved in the London Men’s Centre, which offers dedicated programmes to men who are violent. He began working with abusive men as a psychodynamic psychotherapist, but as his work continued he found that the work of feminists in the refuge movement and in the ‘speaking bitterness’ literature could not be ignored. He integrates these two perspectives in his work. The way in which he presents men in this book will generate distress for those men who experience their masculinity as a burden – for he argues that misogyny, the hatred of women, is an inescapable element in the development of masculinity. But he also shows how the model of misogyny which informs the book is applied to an intervention programme to stop male abusiveness. This is a shocking book. Its thought-provoking view of the issues will be of great interest to mental health professionals and all concerned readers.”

            What he’s saying that boys who’ve had a disrupted process from transferring their emotional development from their mother to the father (or not loved adequately by their mother), have a predisposition to hate women as an adult.

          • All of the “evidence” you provide is based on conjecture and anecdotes- not too dissimilar to the Everyday Sexism Project mentioned in the article above. At the same time, your arguments towards those that disagree with you boil down to a glorified version of “ur dumb”, and you’re all to quick to completely ignore the 6th paragraph of this article, where Belinda kindly pointed out plenty of facts (with linked citations!) that contradict your “women are victims, men are not” dogma for us.

            If I was a betting man, I’d wager that you *didn’t even read the article*, or perhaps just the first few lines before deciding that you’d skip over it to avoid cognitive dissonance and get right to spewing your uneducated, self-serving opinions in the comments section.

            Maybe when the delusional movement you associate with can produce substantial statistical evidence (read: not hear-say) of the supposed “misogynistic” culture in the west, stop using proven lies to spread awareness of an alleged “truth” (“1 in 4 women will be raped”, the wage gap myth), and cease their idiotic, sexist, and highly bigoted views towards the opposite sex (“teach your little boys not to rape”, “stop manspreading”, “don’t mansplain”), people will take you seriously. But that will never happen, because anyone that truly desires equality for all living humans would never be caught dead associating with a movement as hateful and toxic (to males and females alike) as feminism.

          • Not only that, but the Samaritan’s “evidence” she provides appears to be a defence of feminism rather than an examination of why men commit suicide – from that underlying motivation we can presume that the “evidence” was produced by feminists in support of feminists aimed at finding a way at countering the argument “if men have it so easy why do they keep killing themselves?”

            Of course, as with all the best polemics there are elements of truth within it. Men are 50% more likely to be nuts than women, and that may indeed come down to the issues raised in the report, but men are 300% more likely than women to commit suicide, so we still have a big gap to explain.

            If only more women were genuine feminists and actually took some of the burden and responsibility of family life on their own shoulders rather than dumping it straight onto the shoulders of their men the moment the going gets tough. That’s why I am strongly in favour of feminism – it sounds like a great idea. Imagine it, women becoming self-reliant, paying for their own kids, toughing out the bad times instead of falling apart in tears the moment they are most needed. If only all women were genuine feminists that the lives of men would be 10x better than their lives today.

            This is a real British feminist: “I want to have kids it is entirely my idea, but it should be your idea, the kids are 100% mine and all child rearing is my responsibility and you mustn’t be involved because men are a bad influence, but men have to pay for it all either directly or indirectly through taxation. Also, if ever the child rearing goes wrong it is entirely the fault of the father who wasn’t even permitted to be involved with the child-rearing and he still has to pay”. Does that sound reasonable to you? To anybody?

          • “Not only that, but the Samaritan’s “evidence” she provides appears to be a defence of feminism rather than an examination of why men commit suicide”

            The Samaritans have absolutely nothing to do with feminism.

          • The Samaritans are an organisation full of like-minded individuals with their own thoughts and beliefs. Presumably the research was done by an individual or individuals who also have their own thoughts and beliefs. It is entirely possible that they are full of marxist feminists just as JP Morgan is likely full of capitalists.

            Open your own mind and make your own observations, than deduce the facts from logic. You cannot rely on socialist science. When you are sure you know where you stand, and are not simply relying on the thoughts and beliefs of others, come back and deal with the other challenges to your comments that you have skipped over.

          • It’s also entirely possible that they are full of neither, and that their report sets out to inform people of what the real issues are. I have opened my mind, that’s why I posted material from the Samaritans as a single example (I didn’t write the article)

          • You opening your mind brings to my mind the image sometimes shown in comedies and horror films of a door with a brick wall behind it.

          • The report clearly makes no sense. Go and look at the national suicide rates by country and you will see that the male/female ratios are roughly the same wherever you are in the world and hence regardless of culture. So most of the explanations for male suicide don’t fit with that known known fact.

            Always dangerous to allow yourself to be spoon-fed information from the establishment Mez. It is entirely corrupt and has been for decades. If we are going to make progress we need to do it despite the establishment not by relying on it – I though you feminists had worked that much out for yourselves.

          • I should add that the entire tone of the “research” is along the lines of “men commit suicide a lot and its all their own fault”.

            This is exactly the kind of discrimination that men are used to all the time. They wouldn’t dream of saying that about female suicide. Still, it saves the state from spending money on the subject and since men are not organised to challenge the discrimination no votes will be lost.

          • If you refuse to accept data from non govt sources because of the possibility it’s been produced by a feminist, and also refuse to accept data published by the corrupt ‘establishment’; there isn’t much left is there Phil?

          • No Mez. I refuse to accept research from university sociologists that doesn’t fit with known facts. Most of the reasons they have given for male suicide rates are western centric when the problem occurs regardless of culture. Hence the research does not fit the known facts and should be disguarded.

            Also the research is basically along the lines of ‘when it comes to men the facts they commit suicide 3x more than women is all their own fault so it can be ignored. We can go back to concentrating on women instead’. Does that seem fair to you, given your obsession with equality?

          • A surprising amount of such researchers are ‘feminists’ who tend to cherry-pick and fall for ‘confirmation bias’, making those statistics biased towards their desired side.

          • Open your own mind and make your own observations, than deduce the facts from logic.

            Now that’s not fair. Expecting a feminist to open her mind, make her own observations and then to deduce facts using logic is akin to expecting a solid lump of scrap iron to float in water.

          • 1) You’re not a feminist, you’re a libertarian? It is only necessary to look back through your many comments at this site to see that statement for the risible tosh it is. We can also see that you have no idea what libertarianism is.

            2) You noticed that did you? Well done. I would like to write ‘clearly not much gets by you’ but I can’t because almost everything does. I didn’t ‘substitute’ feminist for woman, I wrote feminist because I was referring to feminists rather than women either generally or in toto.

            So you’re not a feminist and you’re not dependent upon benefits, because you’re self-employed, that’s right, isn’t it? When I was self-employed I found my time too precious to waste, yet you clearly spend hours every day trawling the web, and perhaps your bookshelves for propaganda to support your position. I think I was right, you are a benefits dependant.

          • Well as you are a libertarian – like me then let me point something out to you.

            Two non-identical things such as men and women cannot ever be measurably “equal”. It is like considering a dust cart and a chieftan tank to be “equal”. It has no value as a concept.

            If you believe in liberty then you will reject feminism and its insistence on “equaity”, because most women have no desire to be like men and most men have no desire to be like women. Promote instead the liberty for all that you claim to believe in – so that the few women that want to be like men can break ranks and be like men if they wish.

          • What makes him an idiot? I do not understand why “There exist at least two men in {Feminists}” → “William is an idiot”.

          • ROTFL. I’ve only just noticed that Mad Mez the allegedly self-employed, benefits dependent, gynocentric gynocrat described me as an idiot. I have to admit that I’m flattered, as always when insulted by those who dislike me. The disdain and mockery of my enemies is always taken as a compliment.

          • All
            research is based on reporting, there’s no other way to do research.

            takes numerous evidence from different individuals and finds common
            denominators. The Samaritans are a charity which have nothing
            whatever to do with feminism. What I was pointing out was that in the
            list of issues raised as risk for older male suicide that ‘feminism’
            is aiming to destroy the number 1 contributing factor, which revolves
            around control and domination in the home.

            I didn’t comment on the other links for a reason, Belinda does research to back her position. Men do have disadvantage as a result of work, and I’ve been writing for some while that both sexes should have access to part time work at regular work rates, and that the ‘ideal’ would be both sexes sharing work and family life equally

            Are you telling me you have a problem with that?, because Belinda
            does, and seems pro-tradition, ie men should be the providers to
            allow women to stay at home and have babies. Men had a lot of money spent on them when various cures for heart disease and blood pressure were discovered and developed. Men live a couple of years less than women, although women generally have poor health during those couple of extra years, (ie difference in types of lifestyle problems and resulting diseases). The pension eligibility gap has closed. Family law was changed last year to focus on children.

            More women work in the public sector probably because more ‘caring’ and low paid admin jobs are in the public sector, and men are attracted
            to more ‘masculine’ possibly higher risk, high paying jobs outside of
            it. That is a matter of choice. Nobody ‘forces’ anyone to do anything, what we are all looking for is equal opportunity, not enforcement.

            As to evidence of mysogeny, you’ll find plenty of evidence in that book
            I linked produced by that male psychologist who works with men (duhhh). I noticed you wrote examples of mysogeny ‘in the West’, because there are plenty of examples outside of it, right? like the 100 male gang rape of an American journalist in Cairo, (in fact I think there’s been two), and another gang rape of a Dutch journalist. Or the culture of rape prevalent across Africa and India?

            In the UK one incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute. On average, 2 women a week are killed by a current or former male partner (about the same level as in Australia) .

          • Mad Mez wrote ‘personal insults only show you up for what you are.. and that everybody can now see‘.

            ‘Everybody’ (an emotive word often used to appeal to and mobilise a mob) can see what I appear to be from my comments here yet, apart from you and the laughably misnamed Feminist Future, no one has criticised me here, and some of those clicking on the green arrow have been women.

            What does that tell you?

        • Everything you say, all your research, is within the framework of gender feminist ideology and therefore misandrous. There’s a men’s movement rising both here in North America and elsewhere that rejects the foundations of that ideology, because it is based on hatred.

          • You misunderstood what i said. I spoke of misandry and men are every bit as capable of it as women. As a matter of fact, since the dawn of humanity men have always viewed other men as competition and the enemy to attain alpha or genetic celebrity status. Study history? Men have slaughtered each other throughout history, by the billions, in order to be worthy of females. And it continues.

            Today they are often referred to as white knights. Men will do anything to ingratiate themselves to women. That’s why society’s greatest challenge is to demand for men the same value, freedoms, justice, choices, dignity, humanity and especially compassion, that we demand for women.

          • Actually from the point of view of history, (I haven’t read it yet, but on my Christmas list), is a book by James Demeo called
            SAHARASIA: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence In the Deserts of the Old World
            He says before this period in time were all pretty peaceful, and modern violence is avoidable

          • He knows what was happening back in pre-history? That must be quite a book.

            Not sure I’d rely on made-up stuff as evidence.

          • It’s not if we continue to put women on a pedestal with their constant mantra of victimization to shame men into giving them whatever they want. Women must no longer be given deference, protection, provision and privilege than men. We haven’t even started top address those things yet. But it’s coming.

          • It’s also based on BRUTAL methodology, propaganda, and outright lies. It’s a political group garnering money and power and they’ll do anything to get it. You think they actually care about furthering the relationship between men and women? Not a chance.

        • How do you function having hatred for 49% of the population? How can you be happy when you can only see yourself as a victim…..always?

          I’m kind of hoping you are into women because otherwise, well…..not good.

      • I think no one should commit suicide. I don’t think eliminating feminism will prevent men from commiting suicide.

        • It would almost certainly lower the numbers. I knew someone personally who hanged himself because of the pressure of his marriage break-up.

          • ..and you don’t think women become depressed and commit suicide because of their husbands behaviour? oh no I forgot, it’s always the womans fault when things go wrong, men never consider themselves because they are always right , always in control and therefore perfect. Maybe one solution would be to get counseling first

          • Not to the same extent, no. About 70% of divorces are initiated by women. Why? probably Because the impact of divorce is nowhere near as destructive for women as it is for men.

            Women rarely lose their home, or their children, or a huge amount of their income for an indeterminate number of years. And yes, a lot of the reason for this destruction of people’s lives rest firmly at the door of feminism, a disgusting ideology that is ruining the western world in little increments.

            I wouldn’t care if you’re too stupid to see beyond the little world painted for you by your women’s study classes, and you’re imagined evil patriarchy, but you and your sisters are tearing apart the country and destroying the fabric of everything good that has been worked and fought for for centuries.

          • I find it otherwise – MEN are the ones who usually get blamed for this, even when the woman contributes almost nothing to the household.

          • Men are 80% of suicides. Wives who commit suicides are very rare: the most common persons who commit suicides are divorced men, mostly divorced-raped by feminazis like you.
            Since I’m divorced I’m at risk even talking with you: you represent the class (feminazis) that is oppressing my class (divorced men).

        • Yes, feminism is oppression of men, so without feminism male suicides would be reduced.
          Feminists opposed shared parenting, and that led a lot of divorced men to commit suicides: feminists have the blood of these men on their feminist hands, everybody knows it.

    • I found it difficult to follow what you are saying, but the “All men are rapists” meme didn’t come from the media. It came from radical feminist Andrea Dworkin and Marilyn French. Maybe you are too young to remember this, but I grew up when such ideas were freshly baked and young girls became so terrirified of us boys that they spent their days pinned up against the back wall of the classroom watching us warily as if at any moment we could be overcome with uncontrollable lust. It wasn’t a nice time for anybody.

      • That this comment came from a couple of radicals so long ago surely shows most think it’s a nonsence, otherwise why would any woman get involved with a man at all? I do think there are girls who’ve grown up in abusive homes who if theyve met the same approach as an adult, might well come to that same conclusion, but for the majority that wouldn’t be the case..

        • Most women are not feminists. They just want to get married, have kids, and have a job in Next surrounded by shoes and clothes with a staff discount. So fortunately most women are not like you.

          By the way, I don’t believe in “equality”. Equality is another socialist myth. For equality to be meaningful you have to have identity. Only two identical things can ever be equal. Women are not identical, so they cannot be measurably “equal” in any meaningful way.

          I believe in liberty. Some women want to do man stuff so let them. Most women want to be women and have enough pressure in their lives just doing that without a bunch of Marxist feminists telling them they should be something else entirely.

          • So what are male feminists then Phil? . The vast majority of women do want to be women by the way, even a lot of feminists really like being women. You can be a women and dislike receiving continual ‘put downs’ like ‘what’s all this rubbish?’, ‘Mad Mez the benefits dependent, gynocentric gynocrat wrote the usual risible gynocentric tosh’ or ‘he knows what was happening back in pre-history? That must be quite a book. Not sure I’d rely on made-up stuff as evidence.’

            Very clever (not)

          • … what are male feminists …

            The lowest form of life. Neither male nor female and not intelligent. They are dead from the neck up and the waist down. They can be said to live only because their hearts beat a dull rhythm sufficient unto their needs, the which are few and pitiful, being mainly the approbation of fem-things no man finds attractive.

          • ”mainly the approbation of fem-things no man finds attractive”.

            What ‘men’ find attractive in other men isn’t important to women Gruff, that’s quite a big and important point you’re missing. Male feminists (very masculine by the way, but just don’t feel the need to subjugate and devalue women to get what they want), become automatically more attractive to women, and much more attractive marriage prospects than men who hold dear the kind of values you represent.

            The problem you have is that there’s a lot of competition out there, why should any woman be interested in a life which revolves around only fulfilling your very backward needs above her own, when there are men out there who think about it all as equal give and take?.
            Mind numbingly simple really.

          • So stick with them Mez. I mean, we dont want you and you dont want us. As long as everybody is honest everyone can get what we want. We are all different. The differences between women are as big as the differences between men and women.

            Thats the libertarian approach. You’re a libertarian right? Why straightjacket everybody under the banner of feminism? Why do we need state approved relationships?

          • Not to be crude…..but I’ve noticed that 90% of the vocal feminists you wouldn’t want to sleep with anyway. Who cares what they find attractive in a woman…..oops….I mean….man?

          • 10 years ago when you looked on dating websites you could easily tell the Feminazis from the women that were worth bothering with, because the Feminazis were the ones that didn’t think they needed to offer men anything and treated men as if they were kitchen appliances that had to fit in the space in the kitchen normally occupied by a dishwasher.

            Now the dating sites have profiles that are all the same. So have the Feminazis given up? No. There are just a lot of websites telling the Feminazis “How to catch and keep a man”. This basically means that the Feminazis have learnt how to misrepresent themselves. Dating profiles now consist of a series of misleading soft-focus pictures and a profile that is basically of somebody completely different. All the profiles are the same. It is impossible to sort the wheat from the chaff until after the date has happened. Woe betide the man that makes the mistake of taking a Feminazi all the way of course.

          • Mad Mez the gynocentric gynocrat wrote:

            What ‘men’ find attractive in other men isn’t important to women …

            I’m not surprised that your gynocentric spectacles have distorted your perception. I didn’t refer to any aspects of masculinity : ‘femthings’ refers to undesirable aspects of unattractive females.

            Get a grip woman.

          • If you don’t like having your views trashed don’t proffer them. It’s not like people get an easier ride on Mumsnet.

          • You’re not debating though are you Phil, you’re trashing for the sake of trashing and mixing it with personal insults. Do you think women in real life find that behaviour attractive? really?

          • I think you’re mixing me up with one of the other contributors? Sometimes you say silly things Mez – you’ve got to expect some ribbing when you do that.

            Nevertheless Mez, you do find me attractive…..

          • Male feminists – a bunch of ignorant people who believe that women are the victims and cannot that they commit crime, giving them the unfair advantage on benefit of doubt.

          • Or worse…..the proverbial “White knights” hoping to garner favor with the powerful women’s movement… an effort to get laid. So admirable. I just point out the NOW president opposing joint custody for fathers and ask how they can back such a group that is so hateful and prejudiced towards the male gender. Traitors? The word is too good for them.


          • “They just want to get married, have kids, and have a job in Next surrounded by shoes and clothes with a staff discount”

            Thank you for mansplaining that for our benefit. I suppose you’re an expert on women now?

          • More than you are babe. Why don’t you chat with the shop assistants in Next and find out what they want. Has to be better than living in that theoretical bubble?

          • All men are experts on women. What you and your kind cannot understand or accept is that we have expectations of women that suit us and our needs. Why should our expectations of you match what you think it reasonable to offer? Men are not obliged to accept a woman at her own valuation of herself, nor to accept whatever changes she makes, on a whim, when it suits her.

            Women who want a man must be what a man wants, otherwise they must resign themselves to living alone.

          • Mez, you’re missing the point. The point of MGTOW is that men don’t care what women want because we no longer want women. When searching for a stick to beat me with, or any other man, do make sure it isn’t already broken.

            This is a women’s web site yet apart from the oxymoronic Feminist_Future, not one woman comes to your aid here. What does that tell you?

          • “Mansplaining” is a feminazi term meant to shut down men.
            He wasn’t talking about WOMEN, he was talking about an IDEOLOGY: FEMINISM aka FEMINAZIS, an ideology about hatred of men and female supremacy.

          • a- You have absolutely no idea what women want, married women are actually now in a minority, there are more women going to University now than men.
            b- You’re confusing the meaning of equality . If I ask to be treated equally as a man, I expect to have an equal opportunity to get a job that I have adequate or similar qualifications to do, and progress to a senior level without being constrained by other peoples expectations that I should be having babies, if that isn’t what I want, (or do but later). I don’t expect to be turned down for promotion purely because of ‘some old boys preference ‘ for example, or to be told to prove myself I’m expected to spend my evenings at work, while male colleagues disappear home. I expect to have equal access to education and training, I expect to be treated with equal respect, and I expect to be able to go about my business with equal safety. I don’t expect to have to mimic a man to enjoy that level of existence. None of this requires any additional resources, it’s all about attitude.
            c- There are a number of flavours of modern feminism which have nothing to do with Marxists,

          • a) I likely know a broader range of women than you do. That’s the thing with us guys -we get to know a lot of straight women to a surprisingly intimate level.
            Married women are in a minority now because men won’t marry them even when women beg them to. That’s what this website is largely about – getting rid of destructive feminist beliefs that are preventing women getting what they want like marriage.
            Many women are going to university now because if you go and study media studies then come out and get a job in Next, guess what – you get your education for free! That’s why over half of student loans will not be repaid. Girls are going to uni to party and meet eligible boys. Do you think Tony Blair changed human nature overnight?

            b) I see you’re a pick and mix feminist. You want equality in a narrow sense when it suits you, such as in the workplace, but then want special privileges when you meet with robust criticism of your views from men on the net. Give me one good reason why someone shouldn’t despise your egocentric attitude?

          • You want equality in a narrow sense when it suits you, such as in the workplace …

            They don’t equality; they want superiority in certain areas of certain workplaces – the nice clean, tidy, sitting on the phone giving orders all day areas. They’re not at all interested in equality in the difficult, dirty or dangerous areas, or in taking orders.

          • Phil, you are wasting your time. Mez is so locked into her dogmatic belief system that she is simply incapable of thinking her way to the truth.

          • Phil – getting to know somebody means more than between their legs, and you have absolutely no clue how many friends I have, of what sex they are and how well I know them. The idea you can form any opinion at all on that, is really very comic.

            “I see you’re a pick and mix feminist. You want equality in a narrow
            sense when it suits you, such as in the workplace, but then want special
            privileges when you meet with robust criticism of your views from men
            on the net. Give me one good reason why someone shouldn’t despise your
            egocentric attitude?”

            To be honest I couldn’t give a damn what you think one way or another, you’re a very tiny self serving mind in a sea of much more advanced and interesting thinkers.

          • Sorry, you seem to be suggesting I had sex with my mother and sisters. Or did you just jump to conclusions that my experience of women was remarkably narrow?

            Oh and you care a lot about what I think. You got up this morning, heart pounding, looking to see what I’d written. Face it, arguing with me turns you on. Don’t worry,I understand. We’re only human.

          • “that’s the thing with us guys -we get to know a lot of straight women to a surprisingly intimate level”

            It’s you who made the statement above, I didn’t. For most their relationship with their mother or sisters is neither surprising nor ‘intimate’.

          • Um Mez, I think you need to check the meaning of the word “intimate”. You seem to have a rather more extreme definition of it in mind, you naughty girl.

            I thought it was me that had the problem with reading…..

          • you could have used the world ‘close’ instead, (I’m close to my brothers, intimate with neither). I think I was right first time.

          • The dictionary definition of the word is quite clear. I was using the word according to the dictionary definition. It is not surprising how intimately I know my mother, it might be surprising how intimately I know other women. The thing is that women often tell men things they won’t admit to other women because frankly the sisterhood can’t be trusted.

          • Mad Mez the gynocentric gynocrat wrote:

            You have absolutely no idea what women want …

            It isn’t a man’s responsibility to ascertain what a woman wants, nor to provide it. If she is his equal it is for her to decide whether she can find what she wants with him and to provide it for herself, and not to blame him for her failure to do so.

          • None of the issues I listed were anything more than common decency, what one person expects from another person living in a civilised society. That you diminish it as a petulant rant just shows everybody exactly what male sexism is, and why there are so many men ending up divorced in middle age, because of their own sense of superior ego . Actually I feel very sorry for you, because you’ve obviously got no intention of changing.

          • the ‘legally enshrined female privilege’ you refer to was changed last year in the ‘family act’ after a lengthy public consultation.
            Highly amusing (not) that while I’m asking that we should all be able to walk the streets safely, that your response is on withdrawing ‘legally enshrined female privilege’ first, which more than illustrates your attitude towards women. You actually seem to think that our safety is some sort of privilege, rather than a basic human right which applies to everybody.

          • Your ‘safety’? You’re away with the fairies Mez. Men are far more likely to be attacked by a stranger in the street than women. The last time I saw the statistics, a young man was two hundred times more likely than an elderly woman to be assaulted.

            More brainless nonsense from Mad Mez, the gynocentric gynocrat.

            Get a grip woman.

          •’s some survey data from the US which suggests the’ last time’ was a very long time ago

            Street Harassment

            Seventy-five percent of female respondents have been followed by an unknown stranger in public. More
            than 27 percent have been followed at least six times.

            Blocking path

            About 62 percent of women say a man has
            purposely blocked their path at least once and 23 percent said this has happened at least six times.

            Sexual touching or grabbing

            Nearly 57 percent of women reported being touched or grabbed in a sexual way by a stranger in
            public. About 18 percent said they have been touched sexually at least six times.


            More than 37 percent of female respondents have had a stranger masturbate at or in front of them at least once in public.


            About 27 percent of women report being assaulted at least once in public by a stranger.


            ..and since I’ve been assaulted twice on the street by strangers, I’m backing the stats

          • ‘Have you ever decided, thirty seven years after the event, that perhaps you didn’t want sex after all’?


            Then you were raped.

            Keep trying Mez.

          • Shame the Ched Evans jury wasn’t quite so clear on it, letting one guy go free and the other getting several years in jail, despite having done much the same thing.

            Feminist activists just don’t understand juries. For a feminist everything is so black and white. No 50 shades of grey for them….

          • Yeah, I checked your source and as usual, the methodology is brutal.

            This from YOUR source. “two informal, anonymous online surveys about street harassment: one in 2007 for her master’s thesis at George Washington University and one in 2008 as preliminary research for a book. Between both surveys, there were 1,141 respondents”

            Which makes me wonder how it was presented…..was it like Ms. Magazine’s famous survey which pretty much guaranteed that only women who had an axe to grind would respond? Probably.

            My personal favorite was this….”Ninety-five percent of female respondents were the target of leering or excessive staring at least once”

            Now if that isn’t a victim paradigm, I don’t know what is. That’s right….excessive looking. How can you ever be seen as equal when you are constantly playing the victim? You win the battles but lose the war. That’s not just my assertion, but of feminists criticizing this new wave. It wasn’t popular.

            In short…your source sucks.

          • Don;t want to follow the link via work PC, so I’ll just ask. – What mechanism does the site employ to avoid gaining a biased sample of respondents?

            If it’s entirely voluntary responding, then you’re going to get a hugely higher response from those who have been victims, or perceive themselves as such. People who have had no problems are unlikely to respond or even visit the site.

          • a- is an unfounded statement that you have no evidence for. Unless of course, you know Phil personally. And if you are basing your definite statement on the comments on this website, then my guess would be that it’s YOU who have no idea what OTHER women want.

            b- If women were so inherently (and profitably) employable, then there would be no need for short-lists, or quotas or sex-discrimination laws. Do you honestly believe that employers would ignore women if, as you claim I’m sure, women were paid lower rates for the same work? The economic benefit to any company that employed women would be huge. Only a moronic company director would contemplate discriminating against women who would make them a bigger profit, and give them an advantage over their rivals – and in my experience, there aren’t too many moronic company directors out there – that’s why they are directors.

            Secondly, no one forces women to have babies, but it is a natural instinct – the problem is some expect the whole of society to bend over backwards in order to cater for their own choices.

            c- There are a number of flavours of modern feminism which all have something to do with Marxists – whether they realise it or not.

          • I need to have a founded statement that Phil can speak on behalf of all women, when Phil has clearly stated that he thinks we all want to spend our money on shoes and work in Next? really ?

            What’s your argument, that women could get more work if employers were able to pay them less, but that also applies to men you see, cut the minimum wage and everybody gets more work, but earns less. The reason women are at a disadvantage is because employers are being penalized to pay for women on maternity leave. (As a libertarian I would prefer that was paid out of my own national insurance account with default investment management supporting the value of it. Also as a libertarian, I want to live the life I choose to live without being forced into ‘societies ideas’ based on the majority vote of the day, ( which changes by the decade if not every 4 years), of what ‘we all want’. We are all different.

            Motherhood might be an instinct but for 10% of women that isn’t an option because of infertility, and another chunk never marry anyway, so what’s to happen to those people in a society which is’ only interested in planning around maximum pregnancy’ ?, hey never mind, maybe they’ll just die off and remove themselves from the stats? . Men are in uproar because there aren’t enough spaces available in homes for men subjected to domestic violence, (many of those allocations taken by women); based on the figures alone those men are the tiniest minority, far smaller than the 10% of women who are infertile, does that mean those men should be ignored? not according to male rights activators.

            Society shouldn’t have to bend over backwards to support any individual choices. We should be responsible for the choices we make and the outcomes; and have state which keeps itself as much as possible, ‘out’ of our affairs. It’s a large super expanded state which wants to fund all manner of lifestyles that has created a need to impose majority wishes on minorities. The proper position for the state is resolving the clash between different groups by law, be it consumers and business, or criminals and the public, and educating in a non conformist way. It’s leftist Marxist welfare policy which makes single motherhood a viable career, but the fundamental basis of liberty is being free to make the choice, and having sufficient education to make informed decisions, ie single, divorced, career or motherhood and then living with the consequences.

            “Recently there’s been much discussion around the term feminist, and most of it boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of what “feminism” actually means. At its core, feminism is “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.” Or if you’d like to take the word of Beyoncé’s “***Flawless” over Merriam-Webster’s: “Feminism is the social, political and economic equality of the sexes.” (Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie FTW.)

            ‘Of course, many of the people who want to see men and women have equal rights and opportunities are dudes. To celebrate these badass bros, we’ve rounded up 28 famous men who have openly advocated for women. ”


          • Mez, I give in – you’re a lost cause. You’ll just have to keep going till the edifice that was the western world collapses and the only thing that worries us is whether we are going to eat today, or not.

          • I didn’t say “all” I said most. I was quite clear. You cirticised my reading ability but it seems you have comprehension problems.

    • I don’t see any relationship with the writing and the culture of blame. And, I am sexist only when YOU are sexist in some way, like, being a feminist. I counter sexism with sexism itself.
      And, what you, feminists are doing is, trying to claim unfair advantages like lower insurance costs despite more physician visits (being a moral hazard for insurance companies), demanding more for less work (the 77 cents/dollar joke), falsely accusing men for rape on the benefit of doubt (the Sulkowicz’s art project which demonstrated how far a false rape accusation and playing the victim card on blaming, goes), etc.
      Feminism is not really about equality – they are a group of idiots who are politically non-inclusive from the first place, falsely claiming and deceiving people as feminists are ‘true human rights activists’.

      • I’m British so I don’t know what your issues in the US are. In the UK insurance advantages like paying lower premiums when there is less risk involved, eg which applies to women drivers for instance as there are lower pay outs involved have been around decades, otherwise insurance companies just wouldn’t offer the lower premiums, they’re in business to make money after all.

        77c/dollar joke, I don’t know what that is, but there should be equal rates of pay for the same job offered by the same company when qualifications and experience are the same. That applies to all men and women.

        False accusations of rape are a very tiny percentage of those overall; in the UK a false accusation can be subject to legal action, there’s a case of a female suicide which happened as a result of a false rape legal action. Like most things, if you don’t put yourself in the way of potential harm you reduce your risk. That lesson has been hard learned.

        • But both are west, anyway; I am happy that I do not live among a set of misandrists. And, where are your sources on false rape claims? They are reported to be as much as 10% in CA [wikipedia, see original citation], so they are not that tiny percentage.

          Yes, the insurance is an issue in the US, I don’t know about Europe.

          Doesn’t it increase the risk if a woman is a driver?

          And, there were a MALE SUICIDES due to false accusations, too. We are not talking about feminazism in specific regions – we are talking about common feminazism in the world.

          • Why would it increase the risk if a woman is a driver, the companies hae records of who they pay out on, and women drivers are obvously a lower cost to them.

            False rape allegations can be prosecuted in the UK and carry a very heavy maximum sentence.

            “The study released on Wednesday by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) reveals that during the 17-month test period – when all false allegation cases were referred to the DPP – there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape and 111,891 for domestic violence in England and Wales. By comparison, over the same timespan, there were only 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape, six for false allegations of domestic violence and three that involved false allegations of both rape and domestic violence.”


          • It would increase the risk, obviously, if a woman drives rather than staying at home.
            Oh, it seems like at least Britain cares, about false rapes; this does not invalidate, the other points, though. More countries should focus on getting rid of these FRAs and feminazis.
            And, moreover, UK has ‘Universal Healthcare’, which the US does not have. Having an insurance plan is not practically necessary in the UK – even my aunt who lives in Britain does not seem to have an insurance plan like this. In case you don’t know, in many states, people are responsible for their own healthcare expenses. In the US, to avoid living in debt of thousands of dollars, they practically HAVE TO pay for insurance companies.
            And, feminism is still not about equality for all genders. Women who want to be treated equally does not necessarily equate with feminazis. She does not say about women wanting to be treated equally – she said just about femmies.
            There is nothing wrong with the culture of blame, unlike the culture of rape the feminists perceive. So as there is nothing wrong with culture of controlled substances; they are only exercising the freedom of controlling their own bodies.

    • ” there are hundreds of thousands of men who are feminists because they believe in women being treated equally”

      Then why don’t they identify as “egalitarians”? Given the huge amount of historical negativity associated with feminist organizations – for example, opposing state funded refuges for battered men in California – it would surely be wiser to identify with a movement without such baggage.

      Mez, you don’t sound a million miles away from that view yourself, and this illustrates the problem with the term feminism. Either you have to accept that it’s unfairly anti male – due to any number of such actions by those presenting as feminists – or you have to accept the alternative hypothesis that a huge number of those identifying as feminists are not “true feminists”.

      I wonder if you’d get on with women identifying as egalitarians? I don’t know. On the plus side you seem to want to throw out the stereotypes of men. On the minus side, you DO seem to be somewhat strict?

    • Men can always find sex. It’s £60 for half an hour.

      Men don’t enter into long term commited relationships purely for sex any more than women would do it to fix a leaky tap.

      This is yet another pesky strawman

      • That’s why feminazis want criminalise purchasing of sex: European Parliament voted it on february 2014.
        Prostitutes will have full right to sell their bodies but purchasers will be criminals, arrested: very logic – prostitutes are too cheap, feminazis wants enslave men enforcing us to have sex just only within medium term relationships, 2-3 years, then alimonies forever.
        Thanks to God I never bought sex: I think it’s insulting for a man to pay a woman for sex. At least she should pay me, sometimes 🙂

        • I am fully in favour of paid sex. Sex is a human right, and paid sex ensures that as many people as possible can participate in this healthy activity. My current girlfriend actively encourages me to pay for sex when she is unable to make love with me, which makes her the most reasonable woman I’ve ever met.

          Paid sex is liberating and levelling. A man that looks like Dany de Vito can see what it is like to have sex with a super model if he is prepared to pay. He will quickly find it’s not that impressive – average looking girls usually perform better. Young men can practice on professionals before getting things wrong with amateur women. Rape incidence tends to be lower in countries with liberal regimes regarding paid sex. It is better for everybody.

          • I don’t think sex is an human right, and I don’t like pay for sex, though I have to admit I don’t look like De Vito (even if sometimes I act like him in the first scenes of the movie “Twins”: check it if you want a good laugh). I’m not particularly interested about “super models”: I had enough experiences to be fully aware that looking is unrelated with sexual performances. Also, I even despise having sex with women far younger than me: it seems to me something like rape, really – in other words a woman without a job and/or who haven’t her home is not an adult but a child for me, always.
            Still, I’m against Swedish model: it’s deeply unfair, because it says prostitutes are free to sell their sexual services but who buys these sexual services is a criminal. It’s just another feminist sexist anti-male law.

  22. Correct me if I am wrong, but you feminists are saying that the higher suicide rate of men, higher incarceration rate of men, higher rate of homeless men, etc. are due to patriarchy, yet in the same breath are also saying the patriarchy gives men privilege over women? Does anyone else see the irony in that?

  23. Yesterday I made the mistake of watching part of “Question Time”, in which a number of women in the audience (not all) behaved like evil witches, condemning the Nobel prize winner, and all round decent man, Sir Tim Hunt, whose career they have successfully destroyed. Disturbingly they reminded me of the women who sat beside the guillotine knitting during public executions in the French Revolution. I am quite sure these women love reading the Everyday Sexism Project, it is so full of anti-male propaganda it is their dream come true.
    Meanwhile, this morning a neighbours flat was being emptied of its contents, because two months ago the young man who lived there killed himself by jumping in front of a train. Am I connecting his suicide, and the suicides of other men, to the constant criticism and injustice men and boys face each day?……Yes I am.

    • There’s nothing which you wrote that would allow anybody to connect his suicide with criticism of him purely because he is male. Every adult in the world is faced with some form of criticism on a daily basis, this web site is no different, and we don’t then all resort to suicide. People become depressed for an enormous variety of different reasons, some men accept the arguments of feminism as valid and join in themselves, if that is the case how can it possibly cause another self harm?. As I wrote earlier, if you don’t think men and women should be treated equally (and with respect) what does that say about anybody as a person themselves?, feminism is basically about human rights. The pressure put on women in society can also cause suicide, isn’t that important too, or should we only be concerned about young men?

      Secondary victimization is the re-traumatization of the sexual assault, abuse, or rape victim through the responses of individuals and institutions. Types of secondary victimization include victim blaming and inappropriate post-assault behavior or language by medical personnel or other organizations with which the victim has contact. Secondary victimization is especially common in cases of drug-facilitated, acquaintance, and statutory rape.” source Wiki

      Main article: Victim blaming

      The term victim blaming refers to holding the victim of a crime to be responsible for that crime, either in whole or in part. In the context of rape, it refers to the attitude that certain victim behaviors (such as flirting or wearing sexually provocative clothing) may have encouraged the assault. Rapists are known to use victim blaming as their primary psychological disconnect from their crime(s) and in some cases it has led to their inevitable conviction.

      It has been proposed that one cause of victim blaming is the just world hypothesis. People who believe that the world is intrinsically fair may find it difficult or impossible to accept a situation in which a person is badly hurt for no reason. This leads to a sense that victims must have done something to deserve their fate. Another theory entails the psychological need to protect one’s own sense of invulnerability, which can inspire people to believe that rape only happens to those who provoke the assault. Believers use this as a way to feel safer: If one avoids the behaviours of the past victims, one will be less vulnerable. A global survey of attitudes toward sexual violence by the Global Forum for Health Research shows that victim-blaming concepts are at least partially accepted in many countries.

      It has also been proposed by Dr Roxanne Agnew- Davies, a clinical psychologist and an expert on the effects of sexual violence, that victim-blaming correlates with fear. “It is not surprising when so many rape victims blame themselves. Female jurors can look at the woman in the witness stand and decide she has done something ‘wrong’ such as flirting or having a drink with the defendant. She can therefore reassure herself that rape won’t happen to her as long as she does nothing similar.”

      Many of the countries in which victim blaming is more common are those in which there is a significant social divide between the freedoms and status afforded to men and women.

      • What on earth is all this junk about? Jenny L didn’t mention rape, nor did she make a criticism of feminism per se – she only confessed to an appreciation of the enormous pressure that men are under part of which is caused by the criticism they get from the likes of Laura Bates.

        You created an entire strawman argument that fooled nobody except the brainwashed feminist activists that ip-ticked your post.

        • “Am I connecting his suicide, and the suicides of other men, to the constant criticism and injustice men and boys face each day?……Yes I am.”

          Do you have a problem reading Phil ? the first part of my post was in reply to Jennys post as above, the 2nd part of my post was an explanation about my ‘victimisation comment’ in another post.
          This is a comment section not an article writing section Phil.

          • Prince Harry is the younger son of the Prince of Wales (this is a British web site?) so presume British royalty are not considered a group of real life inconsistent trolls’.

          • Oh! Feminists deceived the royal family as well! I never thought that someone from a monarchy would support these idiots.

          • It’s just PR. Harry is 30 and showing no sign of wanting to settle down. I expect his sexy escapades in Las Vegas needed have some positive spin put on them. There’s nothing feminist about climbing naked into a hot tub with a bunch of hot chicks.

          • Unless you are a lesbian…..then it is a VERY feminist thing to do….right after the protest.

          • There are quite a few other celebrity male feminists on there, including B Obama, (no doubt his sexy escapades need a positive spin put on them too) LOL

            Women are going to go for the pro equality guys rather than

            male chauv-pigs, genetics will take it’s natural course because that’s how their children will be brought up.

          • Really? The last I saw children were apt to rebel against their parents beliefs. A dope smoking copper’s son I knew was a primer example.

            And also – if you want to bring genetics and evolution into it, the birth rate of the fundamentalists is much higher than that of religious moderates, which is higher that that of the atheists.

          • If you can’t distinguish political correctness and pandering to the loudest voice, from reality….I feel bad for you.

      • You are wrong.
        Male suicide rates began magically growing the more feminism began having a grip on society. Strange, huh? How men suddendly began killing themselves more and more, ever since the beginning of last century.
        But no, when men suffer, it’s never because they’re male. When women suffer, it’s ALWAYS gendered discrimination.

          • Mez, you seem like a reasonable person. Please… In a discussion, “you’re wrong” is not a valid argument.
            And please, stop using “sexist” as a rebuttal. I disagree with you, AND I’m not sexist. Is it that hard to understand?
            Why is it so common for people to meet everything that doesn’t say “Women are wonderful, but they suffer much more than men and we need to give them advantages to even out” with utter disdain?
            This is my opinion, based on FACTS: Women don’t have it worse in everything. They have it worse in some things, but men have it worse in others.
            There. I said it.
            Stop using the word “sexist” for having a non-standard opinion. It’s annoying and dishonest, and you know it.

  24. I cannot help but point out that mutual respect is a requisite for the continuance of a viable civil society. Yet what seems clear spectating on modern female behaviours is that this trait is losing ground to a barrage of endless complaints, much of which is either exaggerated or simply made up. This one side distortion of normal discourse is no achievement worthy of praise. It is a disastrous policy whose full ramifications must destroy the world we have known. Feminists will take the lions share of the responsibility for leading the charge towards that goal, in this we are all losers. Few females have any true idea what that will mean as life will evolve towards a harsh existence with little room for emotional fulfilment.

    • Are you saying that emotional involvement can’t happen when couples have respect for each other?, it seems to me that feminism is very much geared towards wanting more respect rather than less. Here’s a link to a video covering a big US study on the family. It’s showing that the most successful and long lasting marriages come from adults who’ve only had relations with their one marriage partner, over the age of 25. The success rate and the quality of marriage is weighted very much in favour of mutual ‘respect’, retraint and waiting.

      • ..and here is another US research report which says the reasons why people are not marrying are largely economic, and also differences in opinion over the upbringing of children (largely driven by men). Maybe it’s women who are driving the ‘not getting married’ stats, because they won’t accept what’s on offer and delay for the right relationship with somebody who wants the same thing?.

        • About your first post, you’re really not connecting the dots here, in my opinion. Feminism is fighting desperately to change our culture in regards to sexual liberty. They’re fighting hard to prevent people from thinking ill of women who engage in sexual promiscuity. In other words, they want everyone to be accepting of casual sex. It is conservatives that try to push the other way.
          That said, according to your own link, what feminism is doing IS harming marriage. Marriages won’t last if everyone is sleeping around.

          Also, NOW fights actively for automatic primary custody for women, continuation of alimony, automatic victim status of women in case of domestic abuse (when either spouse is abused), amongst other things. For each man that suffers injustice in marriage (and the current system allows that – whereas women are almost always redressed of their wrongs), more men see that they really don’t want to be in that position.
          “Economic reasons” is just an excuse that reflects that mentality – they’re not eager to get married, so any reason for not doing so is valid.

          • Yes. When NOW opposes joint custody they can hardly be seen to be out for “equality.” I think it’s insulting for people to say that if you believe in equality, you are a feminist. Not at all! I can’t get behind a political movement that uses dubious methodology to spread lies and propaganda and ACTIVELY works to make fathers suffer in family courts. Happy Fathers’ Day!! (said no feminist….ever.)

          • All the above are pure sexists comments with no factual basis whatsoever. It’s your own personal opinion ‘they want everyone accepting casual sex’, I obviously don’t so why doesn’t opinion count for as much as some blogger writing something different?

          • The feminist movement has regularly fought for women to have the same freedom to have casual sex as they seem to believe men have. I take it you haven’t heard of Germaine Greer.

          • Mad Mez the gynocentric gynocrat wrote the usual incoherent nonsense. Give yourself a douche, Mez: the miasma from your vagina is stewing your brain.

          • KD Lang is more of a man than I’ll ever be and she’s a slightly better singer. The concept of ‘equality’ is only of use tototalitarian Marxists. To hell with them.

          • No, they want everyone to accepting of casual sex AND expanding definition of rape, so they could denounce every heterosexual intercourse….

          • They want female casual sex to be considered normal but then are horrified when a jury of 12 ordinary people can’t now tell the difference between casual sex and date rape.

          • I don’t think you understand what feminism is , it isn’t a political party with everybody holding the same views, (there’s a matter of free speech). No doubt there are promiscuous feminists, but because promiscuity is rife across society, not because promiscuity is created by feminism.

          • Mez: I think I have a pretty good idea what feminism is, since I’ve been reading and discussing about it on a daily basis for the past 2 years.

            Let me ask you a question: if a group of students go to school every day and play poker, would that make it okay to say “school is not a place to study”? No, it wouldn’t. Despite what that group of students do, a school was DESIGNED for studying; people MOSTLY study in there; and people are ENCOURAGED to study by the system set up in place.

            The feminist movement has relatively set tendencies and trends. Many people believe many things, but the laws and campaigns done in the name of feminism tend to be uniform across the globe.
            With regards to the sexual behavior of women, the greatest evidence you have are the “slutwalks”. They happen across the globe, have hundreds of thousands of attendees and supporters, and have the stated goal of convincing society that women shouldn’t be shamed for their way of dressing, sexuality or number of sexual partners.
            How can you seriously state that this doesn’t represent most of feminism? Do you know any feminist SIGNIFICANT movements or campaigns that go in the opposite direction?

          • You chose to identify with feminism, so we are obliged to pin the whole of excess to you. It’s like identifying with Nazism but proclaiming you’re not into gas chambers.

            If you are a libertarian as you say you are then start acting like it. Fight for freedom, the right to be different and fairness under the law. A woman can find anything she will ever need as a libertarian, without harming the quiet men in the process.

      • I cannot see the purpose of re-phrasing a perfectly plain comment and then employing it to advance other theories. Your objective can only be wilful, in which case there is little gain for either of us, in trying to establish common ground. What I had to say stands unaltered, as does the conclusions that will evolve from female bigotry. It just takes time.

      • Hahahahahah 🙂
        You just forget respect should be MUTUAL. 🙂
        Feminism is not about respect of men: feminism is about desping and bashing men.

        • You can only take ‘bashing’ badly if you’re participating in the bad behaviour that’s being bashed. A lot of men are joining feminists and they’re men who like women, (the celebs look like a lot of hunks to me), they don’t have a problem with being ‘bashed’, maybe because they don’t warrant it in the first place.

          • The “men” who are “feminists” are usually heterosexual losers who beg for sex from women with a dangerous compound of dominant behavior and victimhood complex. Even many gays are rejecting feminism because they appreciate men and most gays don’t like to see men despised.
            As bisexual man who likes both very feminine and very dominant women but despise feminists, I declare that sex with a feminist is always rape and men who have sex with feminists are also traitors of their gender.

          • Oh come on. I’ve lived through 40odd years of feminism. Same old arguments in all that time and no progress. Even Barbie has been outdone by Bratz. You’re swimming against the tide. The internet has given quiet women an outlet and they’re telling you aggressive radfems to do one. A generation of girls growing up in broken homes missing their absent fathers have done for you.

      • You might also note that the countries with the highest proportions of divorce have the highest proportion of feminism. Not necessarily causal, but worth considering.

    • Interesting point. While I’m grateful that my daughters can be anything they choose in life, and that it is illegal to discriminate based on gender…I don’t want them anywhere near feminists as I think it is ultimately bad for their self-esteem and happiness.

      Why? (Glad you asked!) Well, part of being happy in life is being grateful for what you have. Gratitude is important and so is “self-talk.” If my daughters get sucked into the seductive and misleading victim narrative, they will be ultimately unhappy and bitter. If they play the “poor me” story in their head over and over again, they will be miserable.

      Better they learn that both genders are capable of good and evil, and one isn’t better than the other…..they’re just different. Celebrate and enjoy the differences without condemnation. After all, we’re in this together.

  25. ‘I wore a tight skimpy top with no bra and a man looked at my breasts’ or ‘I wore some spray on lycra leggings with no knickers and a man looked at my camel toe’.

  26. Thank you BELINDA … 3rd wave feminism cannot be defeated without the growing number of women like you … men cannot alone win for honesty and actual equality to prevail for both genders … best wishes to you and your husband.

  27. Great article, but you miss the most obvious possibility of all – that much, if not most, of the sexism in that website is as much fiction as the Rolling Stone rape report was.

  28. I see some of my replies have disappeared – wonder if someone has been flagging things they don’t like?

  29. Feminism is about equality among gender not superiority.. That is what most of these “Feminazis” fail to see

    • Feminism WAS about equality. Now, it has gone in another direction. Want proof-positive? How about the president of NOW opposing joint custody in family court? You’re going to love the reasoning behind it. Yet, people try to say “Feminism cares about men too.” and I find that incredibly insulting. How stupid do they think we are? Enjoy the read.

      • How does NOW (New York state) represent the UK? UK Family law was just changed last year following years long consultation with numerous groups, this is a British conservative web site. So telling us all that feminism is going in the ‘wrong direction’ because of one Web site in the US, (anybody can set up a web site), is by no means indicative of ANYTHING.

        • Oh come on Mez, you are forever quoting US stats. I think you quote Pew Research in this very thread.

          Fact is we are just ahead of the US in turning the tide of Marxist feminism.

        • It is indicative of the fact that Feminism is becoming yet another way of real-life trolling in the world.

      • I disagree with you both.

        Feminism was originally about correcting one specific type of injustice – that which applied to women. It was, in effect a revolutionary movement.

        But revolutionary movements are never suitable for long term stability – and if they are to avoid becoming a problem instead of a solution, they need to know when to bow out gracefully.

        And so with Feminism – it was never a road map to equality between the sexes. Many wiser men and women are identifying themselves as Egalitarians, and rejecting the notion that Feminism is just another word for this.

        After all, if you want a movement that embraces us all, don’t name it after one sex – and more importantly, don’t act as if the problems of one sex are the sum total of all problems, nor that the thoughts of one sex will suffice to guide us all.

  30. I could write a long analysis of why Laura Bates is wrong, or I could just say that she has quite the look of scariness about her. A demeanour that would lead me to shuffle away from her in most situations.

    I’m sure many people feel the same about me, so she has my sympathies. I guess the difference is that I didn’t set up a website to project my frustrations onto others.

    There are generally two ways to resolve these things. One is to do something valuable, against all odds. The other is to whine incessantly about how hard-done-by you are. For the certain sections of society who are in the favour of the mainstream media, it appears the latter can be the most lucrative choice.

    Feminism since the 1960s has a history of social misfits projecting their own desires and frustrations as the “norm” for all women, whilst drastically exaggerating the failings of men where it supports their cause. The general population of women then reaps the benefits of what these women campaign for. A curious situation, as most women have little in common with the motives of their supposed champions.

    I would say to Laura: There’s nothing wrong with being a social misfit. Just try to live with the fact that not everyone is like you and if you just got on with it, you might find a worthwhile vocation that isn’t centred almost entirely on misandry and general whining. I have no doubt however, that this would be seen as some kind of dismissive patriarchal arrogance. C’est la vie.

    • There’s only a look of scariness about the Lara Bates site, because it forces women to confront a situation they really don’t want to. What is does, is enforce the idea that the pernicious sexist put downs which I suspect many women face on a regular basis, is in fact the reality for every one else. Where it falls down is not including dates or photos to illustrate those are real people posting, but then if that were the case would women post – maybe not.
      Scary yes, but let’s call it the awakening that we all need to change things for the better, rather than calling it ‘whining’ which in itself, is part of the ‘blame’ culture.

      • It’s odd, but I can’t remember the last time I was in the presence of a woman and heard a man make a sexist put down. I guess all these pernicious sexist put-downers are doing it in private when no one else can hear?

        What I do hear on a regular basis, however, is anti-male put downs from women. Almost every day in fact – at work and in public. Normally said “in jest” but apparently indicative of a mild-to-moderate contempt for the opposite sex.

        The problem is, a few unpleasant comments from a tiny minority of men are being used to extrapolate some kind of widespread problem in society. I refer you to my previous comments regarding the personalites of people who perpetuate this unrepresentative nonsense.

        • ‘It’s odd but I can’t remember the last time I was in the presence of a woman and heard a man make a sexist put down’

          then I suggest you carry on reading the remainder of these blog
          comments for some enlightenment……

          • This would be on the basis that the comments are representiative of a widespread problem and not that they satisfy any of the below criteria:-

            – Historial
            – Exaggerated
            – Fabricated

          • I know. Some of Feminist Future’s comment are so atrocious I’m surprised the moderators let her get away with it. Can’t you have a word with her? Seems like you’re good friends.

        • My friends – both male and female – roundly take the mickey out of each other in all sorts of ways. Some might be considered sexist, but be assured we’ve got plenty of other ways to get on each other’s wick.

          We’ve gone the opposite way to the feminists, though – instead of trying to create a sanitised world with no rude comments, we all get the p*** taken equally – with the proviso that if you dish it out, you’ve got to be willing to take it back.

          • I tend to think a “piss-taking” culture is just a way for people to air their inner grievances in a jovial, non-confrontational manner.

  31. Mez and I have officially won the argument here.

    Out-debating these reactionary throwbacks is so easy it’s hardly worth the effort.

    • F_F, you are displaying signs of delusion again. You and Mez have won nothing, there is nothing here to win. The reasons for this conclusion are quite obvious, TCW publishes an article that invites response, many folk do just that for their own reasons, just as you and Mez contribute by way of counter. There can be no ‘official’ adjudication, ‘How can there be?’ it is just a forum for sharing and airing views. However as you have advanced another of your nonsense lines there is a legitimate question to ask. As increasing numbers of men abandon the idea of associating with any female, is this the victory you seek? It maybe, but you will not enjoy triumph for long, for the culture in which cossets you is dying from the inside. You will not prevent it nor will you inherit much of any value apart from an increasingly harsh existence, one men will endure better than you.

      • Don’t spoil it for them!! Let them pretend that a “win” has taken place. It might be the best thing that happened for them all year. Although, screaming “I win!” seems to be a little childish…..why deny the obvious child? (Paul Simon)

      • You’re assuming it’s only men who are abandoning the idea of associating with women, whereas the reverse has probably been true for some while (women abandoning men). Further education is enabling more of us to become independent and independence creates choices. We can choose between living with a man who treats us as an equal, or living with a man who doesn’t. Guess who wins?

        • Poor Mez. Every point counter by inversion. What other techniques exist in your armoury, besides blaming everyone else for your failings. Females, well not all but far too many offer little in the way of return for a man investing his energies. So keep up the pretence, and celebrate the fact that in your lifetime the world you know will change. In it your place,assuming you live a while, will find little sympathy for feminist rights, Islam after all treats women quite differently. Think it won’t happen Mez. Think again, as Sweden is beginning to find out.

          • Barry your post reads like a mirror of your own reflection
            How am I blaming anybody else for my failings? what failings exactly? I haven’t identified any .

            “Females, well not all but far too many offer little in the way of return for a man investing his energies”

            You can’t expect a ‘return’ from another human being. We’re not an investment opportunity. What does anyone get out a relationship? it isn’t monetary. If you want to bring up a family and enjoy all that family brings with it, that costs money and you have to be prepared to spend it. That agreement is part of the bond of any marriage which expects children. The idea that people are walking blithely into that level of commitment without realizing the financial implications if things go wrong is amazing. Men have always had the responsibility of the upkeep of the cost of their family- in Victorian times men who tried to run off and unload their responsibility on the Parish, could expect a prison sentence.

            Relationships go wrong for a lot of different reasons, but current family law requires arbitration before divorce, which is the best thing for children and forces adults to face their differences and issues. In my opinion there is absolutely no excuse for denying access other than abuse. Children need access to both parents, and the law now favours children in the first instance.

          • Dear dear Mez what nonsense you utter. Of course one invests energies in creating a bond with someone else. This is a fundamental part of human interaction and irrefutable. Though having taken this stance I now see how limited your understanding of life is, in particular the outcomes of the various rulings of the Family Courts.

          • According to feminists women do not need men to raise children. In fact we are a bad influence, what with us being violent rapists and all. According to the courts women are the sole owners of the children. Men are really just sperm donors.

            This is what I mean by pick and mix feminism because strangely we still have to pay for it all. I don’t expect other people to pay for my expensive hobbies.

          • You don’t expect other people to pay for your expensive hobbies because you’re not a feminist woman.
            Feminists, especially the ones who took “women’s studies”, knows well that when men refuse to pay for the expensive hobbies of a woman that’s “patriarchal oppression”.

            Now they’re trying to extract money from men in another way, through the lie of wage gap: another tool to stole money from men, with tax benefits for women, paid by male taxpayers (even by gays, that’s really funny and ironic)

          • “You can’t expect a ‘return’ from another human being. We’re not an investment opportunity.”

            That’s great. I’m glad you agree that true feminism means that women must be entirely self-reliant on their own resources and stop using the men in their lives as ATMs.

            As for your opinion about denying access they sound great but clearly you live in a bubble. Most women I know that have denied their ex-husbands access have not done so because abuse was involved – they just don’t like the idea of sharing the parenting with the new step-mum, and men and children are simply caught in the cross-fire.

          • If you continue to devote so much time to answering comments in such detail you’ll jeopardise your self-employed business and be in danger of becoming a benefits dependant.

          • When I lived in Sweden I removed the tablet from my WC, as reaction to their “suggestions”: Swedish women who sleeped in my home had to use the WC without the tablet 🙂 sweet revenge – “sorry, impossible to find a new tablet, it’s a very rare model of WC” I answered to them 🙂
            Even now that I’m divorced and I live alone I removed the tablet from my WC 🙂 and my actual partner is practically enforced to use the WC without tablet 🙂
            My forbidden dream is to enforce some gender feminists peeing in an urinal, claiming it’s more healthy for them 🙂

          • Sweden is like hell for a man who have heterosexual relationships.
            I lived in Sweden for 3.5 years, cohabiting with the female chief of human resources of my company. I was abused, both psychologically and physically, and I was totally unable to replay for a miryad of reasons, even if I had much more muscles than her. Attorney said there was no way to have justice. She was older, richer than me, and I was in a foreign country, she was my chief, with full power over me within my workplace. Still, she can be just only a victim, never a perpetrator, just only because she’s a woman and I’m a man.

          • Grim reading Eric. Hopefully your over it. Sweden is now the rape capital of Europe. A sad fact but rather expected given the inverted behaviours of that nation.

          • Oh, well, she also fired me. Sweden is the rape capital of Europe just because almost everything that is heterosexual sexuality is rape: if you have CONSENSUAL sex with a woman without condom she can legally change mind the day after…just check the case of Julian Assange….also Swedish women are especially used to have sex while drunk: that was normal and accepted during 90s (indeed I had a lot of similar sex) but now radical feminists (feminism is almost all radical feminism in Sweden) have taught to Swedish women that drunk sex is always rape (well, as long as it’s heterosexual)…most Swedish women don’t care but some others have happy drunk sex then the next day they regret…

          • Sweden is hell for men. I got accused of sex assault while I was there too. Fortunately there were no less than 4 witnesses that said otherwise.

            I’m surprised that there are any men left in Sweden since they joined the EU. Of course many of them bought flats for the weekend in the Baltic states.

            I was reading that in Denmark they have the same problems and the college girls have taken to openly chasing the guys because the guys aren’t interested any more.

          • I had a vacation in Sweden early this month. A week in Stockholm. I had a mini-relationship with a tall and blonde…Japanese tourist 🙂 it’s more safe than a random Swedish woman…
            Denmark have always been more sex-positive than Sweden. I guess the problem with college girls chasing guys is that they will chase 10%-20% top guys only: it’s an universal law – in fact it happened even to my son: 11 yo (really, that’s not a joke: 11 yo) – he played “spin the bottle” at a birthday party with 13 female classmates (other boys were playing soccer) basically kissing all and then the days after two (11 yo!) little girls quarreled for him. It’s really amusing but I guess it’ll be hell-on-earth for the average guy, especially if he’s shy.

        • Whoa! Who said any of the men were not treating the women in their lives as equal??? Is this an Islamic website? I think you slipped that pesky strawman in their again.

        • oh yeah, plenty of fish is full of women not wanting to have anything to do with men. They go to enormous effort to put them off by using photos that are not at all flattering and with profiles that are the God’s honest truth. Those text messages inviting me to go speed-dating at half price because they haven’t got enough women are probably sent by MGTOW.

          It is a bizarre world you lice in Mez

    • That’s one of the problems with feminists – you equate (mistake) tenacity for intelligence.

      • This study shows that there is virtually no difference between male and female intelligence and that girls playing with ‘boys toys’ could improve their spatial awareness

        Regarding sex differences intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns is a report issued in 1995 by a task force created by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association.

        …so have most standard tests of intelligence been constructed to show equal results, but some studies show small
        differences. Males do better on visual-spatial tasks, with a
        particularly large difference on mental rotation (nearly 1 SD), which is
        significant for their generally better performance in tasks that
        involve aiming and throwing. Males also do relatively better on tests of proportional and mechanical reasoning as well as on mathematics.
        Females do better on verbal tests and some memory tests. They do
        relatively better in tests of literature, English composition, Spanish,
        reading, and spelling. More males have dyslexia and stuttering. Possible causes include gender roles and differences in brain structure which in turn may be due genetics and/or environment. Differences in sex hormones may be another explanation. Female exposure to high levels of male hormones in utero
        is associated with higher spatial abilities, as well as more spatial
        ability as well as more play with “boys’ toys” and less with ‘girls’
        toys”. Males with higher testosterone levels do better on visuo-spatial
        abilities and worse on verbal abilities. Older males given testosterone
        score better on visuo-spatial tests.

        • I’m not sure if you’ve disproved your point, or were after making a different one? Namely that we could all be the same given enough testosterone?

          Or that men and women have different strengths – a conclusion I have no problem with?

          I’ve seen several studies suggesting that both testosterone exposure in the womb and that produced by the gonads later in life can affect brain wiring – and that supplements enhancing or suppressing testosterone can cause a gradual change in wiring.

          Which leads to an interesting question – could enough hormones given for long enough make, for example, a transsexual feel like they’ve been born in the correct body after all? Or is there a limit to this plasticity?

          • We all started of the same as females in the womb,but the point I referred to in the article was about girls using boys toys to create better spatial awareness, not take extra testosterone. Personally speaking I have strong spatial awareness, one of my brothers is an engineer, and I could also have been an engineer had I been able or wanted to, but I also have below average testosterone (for a woman) so I can’t see those two things are automatically connected. I’m also very artistic so maybe it comes from creativity. It isn’t clear from this summary how creativity influences spatial awareness, or general intelligence for that matter..
            According to a scientific article posted on another blog here a few weeks ago, transexuals have a different brain structure, would extra hormones alter that for an adult, when men and women are now known to even produce slightly different cellular proteins?. Brain cells are replaced continually, but some organs can take a decade to replace themselves, and then there’s a question of having the right genetic blueprint to start with. You’d have to ask somebody in the field.

          • I think it’s a fairly well established fact that if you practice at something relentlessly, you will become better at it. So of course a girl who acts to hone spatial awareness will, in time, improve her spatial awareness. Whether she is particularly motivated to do this in the first place is another matter.

          • Goodness me that is very old discarded science. We are genderless in the womb and how the genitalia develop is determined by the SRY gene. Go and read something on the SRY gene. Try and bear in mind that women are X-X and males X-Y.

          • At least the oxymoronic Feminist_Future thinks you have a point.

            We didn’t start out as ‘females’; we started out as separate gametes brought together in a random collision and we developed from that, in ways that are still not understood, although we are much much further along than believing that women are just less developed men, which is what you have asserted.

            You really are mad Mez.

        • That’s BS again Mez. It is a well known fact that men tend to congregate at the higher and lower percentiles of intelligence, and women tend to congregate in the middle. It’s why there are many more male geniuses than female. Before you ask, I’m not going to give you the links – go look it up yourself.

        • This Feminist Future just has to be a joke, right? Some sort of TCW click-bait? I mean really, it is beyond parody.

          • +1, I agree. I see it on her profile name – she has to also remember how many families have they split apart, by promoting promiscurity.
            I guess her real-life is as funny as her online behavior, too.

          • That’s the problem. A movement isn’t a political party where everybody in it has to agree on the same views, it’s a collection of people who are as widely diverse as the general population itself is. Just because two women once declared themselves as ‘men haters’ once upon a time, doesn’t mean that Prince Harry (one modern day male celeb feminist) is also a ‘man hater’, or that even the majority of women who support feminism agree with that same point, or that all feminists are promiscuous. Does respect really equal to promiscuity?. Feminism didnt create ‘promiscuity’. Certain people writing in the media have sanctioned it, (Germaine Greer notoriously writing about repressed ‘married women’ ), and it’s a culture propogated by the overwhelmingly male writers and producers in Hollywood, and ‘ladette’ magazines .
            The expectation that equality is the same as women ‘behaving’ as if they’re men, might just as equally originated from men attempting to maintain the status quo

          • How many times should I talk about the fundamental exclusiveness of feminism, from its base, like the etymology itself?

          • Feminists don’t want promiscuity: they want money, assets of men.
            Feminists are serial divorce-rapists.

          • Pro-promiscuity is just a scam to trick men: in reality feminists are for expanding definition of rape, against sexual freedom. The very ideas of promiscuity, hook up and one night stand are very masculine ideas and the greater majority of women don’t like such behaviors. Feminists are for locking men in medium term relationships then enforce men to support women.

          • You haven’t a clue what feminists want or don’t want, do you think feminsists dont want to get married? really I’m rolling up. Women are the keepers when it comes to sex, if we don’t want to participate with chauvenistic dinasaurs that’s our individual choice.
            You seem to think men don’t have a place in a relationship with a woman unless they can control, dominate, and manipulate their partner. In which case, the joke’s on you, because there are plenty of men who don’t, and are very happily married- long term, with wives who want to stick with them.

          • “Women are the keepers when it comes to sex” – that’s very traditionalist and also SEXIST, you know?
            It’s not surprising you’re a bigoted sexist, since you’re a feminist.

          • Once again you have created a strawman. Where did Eric say he was into dominating women? He just said he wasn’t keen on being dominated. You can’t help yourself can you? You are always defining things as black and white. There’s never a third option with you.

          • Sure 🙂
            “Legislation to redefine “family” to include, but not be limited to, extended and new family formations including shared space, domestic partners and consanguinity.”
            Since men are avoiding marriages, feminists wish to extract money from men through “cohabitation’s rights”
            You should also download the PDF: myths and facts about fatherlessness.
            Feminists say fathers are useless…so…why the hell they wish to marry?
            It may be due they just want extract money from men…and of course the same page contains even requests for more money for divorced women.

          • Mad Mez the gynocentric gynocrat wrote:

            You haven’t a clue what feminists want or don’t want …

            It’s not about you or any other self-centred woman Mez. Get used to the idea that men are saying, more and more, that we don’t care what women want, which means that we don’t care if you reject us and we aren’t interested why. We don’t want you and if you don’t want us there can be no confilct. You can’t win, Mez, because your position is founded on a flawed premise.

            Keep on though, and we’ll keep on laughing, and not because we are ‘sexist’.

    • Mez and you have the chance to write here, without censorship. In a feminist site the men answering to you would have been censored and you would have “officially won”.
      Here it’s very different.
      The fact that Belinda let you write it’s fair, but it doesn’t mean you won: it means your silliness is amusing for us.
      Feminists cannot win in an open debate, they can just entertain people with their bigoted silliness.

      • “Feminists cannot win in an open debate, they can just entertain people with their bigoted sillines”
        = pure sexism

        • Wrong, you don’t know what the word “sexism” means.
          “Feminism” is NOT a “sex” or a “gender”, is an IDEOLOGY (a man-hating ideology that enforce victimhood complex on women), followed by a minority of “women” and an even narrower minority of “men” (note the quotation marks: that’s despisement).
          So bashing feminism (a dumb ideology) cannot be “sexism”.
          Feminism is actually the major source of SEXISM and GENDER STEREOTYPES in western world, it’s not surprising that a feminist don’t even know what the world “sexism” means.

  32. This coward, @Feminist_Future – anyone interested in looking at her deleted comments, just reply to this – I have a copy of an old version of this page 🙂

    • Okay, I’m interested 🙂
      I really like feminist rants.
      I also appeal to Belinda: please, don’t delete their hatred – I think it’s more useful to see WHAT REALLY FEMINISM IS.

        • Every man who disagree with feminist theology is a “chauvinist” for you.
          You cannot win in an open debate.
          QUESTION FOR MEZ: “fathers are important for childs?”
          Since you’re a feminist who said “feminists wish to marry, too”, you cannot answer, and whatever you answer, you lose.

  33. Funny thing is that feminazis said “it’s more healthy for men peeing sitting down”: wrong, touching the tablet can led to infections through contact with bacteria. Also: feminazis care about worsening men’s health, not improving men’s health 😉
    I don’t live in Sweden, I lived in Sweden for 3.5 years, Malmoe, and also I was used to escape to Copenhagen (sadly, there wasn’t Oresund bridge yet): Danish are far more funny than Swedish, even it wasn’t totally bad in Sweden in the 90s – now situation is really worsened and worrying – they also are exporting their feminazism to the rest of Europe: Convention of Istanbul is sexism and discrimination against men, a pure radical feminist policy. It’s scary. I admit I would be afraid to live again with a woman: I never beated nor abused a woman but I’m used to discuss, criticise, quarrel and even scream sometimes, and with these new laws she can at every time cry “emotional abuse” (that’s one of the reasons why I don’t give and I’ll never give the keys of my home to my actual partner – and, well, also because after three years of cohabitation she would be entitled to almost half my stuff: I’m divorced, I already avoided alimonies to my ex-wife and I give her money just only for the childs, I don’t want to risk again).

    • I think they should have an one-to-one debate with me, to see my politically incorrect yet correct arguments. Yes, not touching those public stuff is FAR MORE healthy, like peeing in an open ground.
      I guess we are not importing this BS to South Asia where you are practically free to pee anywhere if that is an open place (not buildings of anything, we have quite a lot of free land), on the corner. Even feminism in Middle East is far decent.
      Entitled to half the stuff? Really? Wow! Greedy women. Do women pay alimonies? I guess to they are immune. Putting an ever-recording recorder in our homes (for FRAs), fabricating the evidence against them, dealing it the politically incorrect way. Like men screaming that, whenever they argue, ’emotional abuse’. I think being cruel itself is the real solution for the problem.
      All the best with life, dude. Maybe you will find someone soon, who is capable of love, and deserve the trust, unlike that past partner.
      The laws, I have to admit, even in our country, laws are more gynocentric but I never heard of anyone abusing it so – because women have more respect for men.

      • I lost trustness. My partner in Sweden was abusive but she began to do it after 7-8 months, my ex-wife here was a tradcon who developed compulsory shopping syndrome after years of marriage and two childs, not immediatly, and even if I don’t pay alimonies to her, she took the house, and the childs, after dilapidating a lot of money: if I have to keep an eye on every movement a person living with me is doing, then it’s more easy and relaxing to live alone. The woman I have now it’s not a beggar: she’s 36 yo (I’m 42 yo), divorced, she have her job (postal clerk), her home (she owns it) and her car. Still, I earn almost twice her, I have two houses, a boat, a Jaguar (X-Type 2009 diesel, not a supercar, I’m not rich – but she have, well, a Citroen C3: that’s pretty telling about the difference in money between me and her): with new really gynocentric laws about “cohabitation’s rights” is very risky. And I don’t want other childs (though that’s not a problem: she cannot have childs).

  34. Thanks Belinda for posting this thread. There are many interesting responses, including the determined assaults by the feminist fanatic Mez to everyone else, you have to wonder at why anyone would go to such extremes, very instructive for me. Anyway kudos to TCW for allowing a free exchange of views, we need more women like you to speak up.

    • Oh, “Mez” is a quite moderate and very conservative feminist. You have not even an hint how a real extremist is.
      In another site there were MGTOWs saying they wish to live alone and they don’t care about having relationships with women: it’s sad but at least they do not rape nor harass women, so feminists should be still quite happy. Wrong.
      A feminist answered: “Men avoiding women: that’s the end of patriarchy, I hope women will take over America and maybe finally we’ll stop producing males, since they hate us so much and they don’t want share resources, so we’ll keep care just only about ourselves”. That’s extreme feminism. Obiousvly a similar woman would be abusive even towards another woman, not just only towards men, but that’s another thing….

      • Eric, perhaps your right and there are others even more extreme, it matters not. What amazes me more is the fact that money, public money that is, ends up funding useless programmes such as gender studies. Mez claimed in one of here lectures that she could have become an engineer. Just think about it, the chance to do something of benefit to humanity, but no, that would have meant turning aside the chance to become a individual whose intellectual capacities are distorted into slating one half of the entire human race. Feminism is a vile evil. Its product is the fostering of pointless conflict and the destruction of the necessary harmonies on which any social structure must incorporate if it is to survive. In essence feminism is more like ISIS than anything else, both celebrate death and want death and what is more they will get it.

        • Mad Mez the gynocrat claimed that she could have become an engineer, and we know how much reliance we can place on her word for anything.

          • What a load of cowardly, sexist -and name calling bullshit. All on the level of ‘bullies in the playground’.
            Thankfully chauvinist dinasaurs are a dying species. Women have a choice in who they want to take up with, you’ll just have to live with it.

          • Mez feminism is based on bullying, it is the weapon it uses in attempting to deflect debate and criticism. Still you know that of course as your tirades on this blog illustrate time and again.

          • what tirades? I offer arguments and provide links to back my arguments
            what are you offering other than your own opinion?..absolutely nothing

          • Your so called arguments and associated links have one theme Mez. Men are the problem, women are not. None of this constitutes a foundation on which to progress the debate. Until you realise you are walled behind feminist dogma your never going to mature beyond a person who deserves the title of bigot.

          • The ‘links’ you offer to back your ‘arguments’ are simply those that support your opinions. What we offer is a witty and irreverent check on your absurd offerings, backed by the male logic feminists decry as abusive.

            Keep trying Mez and we’ll keep laughing, and not because we’re ‘sexist’.

          • Your irrational reaction and completely irrelevant points, using bogus terms, simply prove my description of you. If the cap fits, wear it Mez, and you are quite clearly mad, and a gynocentric gynocrat.

        • Moderate feminists are the matter, no extremists. Moderate feminists are almost always moderate but they support even extreme ideas when it comes the moment of the truth: yes-means-yes, Convention of Istanbul, and so on….

      • That’s extreme feminism.

        For which one could use, synonymously: infantile, puerile, warped, insane, retarded … the list is endless.

  35. Couldn’t men behaving badly really be the fault of all women who encourage or let them get away with it.

    Mysogyny arises (so the specialist says) out of the natural emotional transition from connection with mother to connection with father, and the emotional onset of masculinity. When that mother>son bond is too weak (mother didn’t love her son enough), the man seems to hold that sense of inadequacy as an adult, and blames other women for it.

    Here’s a video by a male counselor, explaining how women can achieve healhy respect in their personal relationships with men. He points out that lack of respect is being created by women who accept poor behaviour, rather than confronting it, and then moving on if that individual fails to change. Isn’t it women who are at fault in thinking they have to continually pander to all male needs in order to get a husband, (when there’s always another fish in the sea). Posting examples of chauvinism (loads here anyway), is just highlighting an issue, which only women can change, (because men clearly won’t until they can’t get away with it) .

    • Mez, poor Mez. Still blithely pursuing the idea that men are the problem. While misogyny exists, that is not the stain that contaminates today’s dialogue. The problem today is institutional misandry. Those encouraging this blight are feminist bigots, of which you are an example. The pity is if you read what has been put down here by various men and expressed some understanding of the poor experiences that prompted these conclusions you would have gained respect. Instead you endlessly denigrate while claiming for your sex every advantage. It is disappointing because beneath this Flint like exterior you may have the ability to strike a balance by seeing some of the injustices that men suffer. That you can’t is why you are mocked.

Comments are closed.