IT’S SHIT LIKE THIS, FEMINISTS – If you want to talk about rape…..

We have some tips for you.

There are a couple of things you should try to avoid….

Don’t engage in rape denial, rape erasure and rape apology – Don’t try to insist that the overwhelming majority of rapists are male, so as to cover up female rapists; don’t deny that women are socially enabled to apply much greater sexual coercion – gay-shaming, claiming if the guy doesn’t want it he’s insulting them or hates women – to men than men can on women; don’t deny that male rape victims get ignored, erased and that their rapes are often dismissed by law enforcement.

And when it comes to the matter of consent, please, please don’t make the mistake of indulging in dehumanizing, sexist stereotypes that claim that men are all sexual animals who want sex all the time 24/7, so that a woman can just have sex with a man anytime she feels like it, because he’s in some kind of permanent state of consent. And please don’t indulge in the peasant ignorance of basic biology that claims that an erection equals consent. Because either of those will just make you look like stupid and hateful and not really worth discussing this with.

Feminists have done such good work getting everyone to see that non-consensual sex is rape; please don’t go and shit on all of that.

Don’t try to say that female-on-male rape is so rare as to be insignificant, that it is such an anomaly that it really doesn’t merit much attention, or worse yet, that talking about female-on-male rape is just a ploy to divert attention from women who are raped, “the real victims of rape”. Instances of female-on-male rape and sexual aggression are in no way anomalous.

Don’t try to  claim that men categorically cannot be raped because rape is a crime of power and men have all the power. That will just makes you look ridiculous to anyone who has lived as a man for more than a week.

And don’t try to claim that being made to penetrate is somehow any less of a rape than being penetrated. That’s just noxious sexist bigotry, and it’s probably not a comparison you’re in any position to make anyway. Also please don’t try to claim that very influential people have insisted on this very distinction and succeeded in getting it recognized as authoritative.

Don’t try to insist that rape is socially condoned and ignored – Don’t claim there is a “rape culture” in a society where rape is punished almost as severely as murder, where accused rapists are denied specific Constitutional guarantees, and where there is a bloody history of rape accusations being used in the service of racist terrorism and oppression, resting on a cultural valuation of women’s bodies as sacrosanct, because it puts you in nasty, nasty, nasty company and can even suggest you may be a nasty, nasty, nasty fellow traveler.

Don’t try to deny that false rape accusations are a real problemDon’t advocate for policies at schools that enable anonymous accusations without any provision for verification, don’t deny that people accuse other people of rape for all kinds of spurious reasons for completely self-serving ends, or that they can and quite have had quite deadly consequences. So please don’t try to claim that a false rape accusation is somehow less serious than an actual rape. And when people advocate for reasonable penalties for false rape accusers, don’t come up with every squirmy prevarication and distortion you can to argue against that.

Don’t try to insist that when a woman rapes a boy it is somehow not as harmful to him as when a man rapes a girl. I hope this doesn’t require any explanation, but that’s just a disgusting thing to even say.

And last and most important:

Don’t try to monopolize the discussion – Don’t assume rape is a feminist issue or that the issue belongs to feminists, or to women, and that you as a feminst have some special insight into the problem that others don’t, because that just shows very clearly how little insight into the problem you do have.


This is really simple – simple gender equality – just make an effort to regard and assess female and male victims and perpetrators the same way, by the same standards, without special exemptions and excuses for rape. It is simple but very difficult, because it will mean jettisoning everything traditional society has taught you about gender relations and rape. And don’t be surprised to find a lot of those traditionalist assumptions embedded even in your feminism.

We can finally start to have some productive discussion about rape, but it is going to take some work. Some of us really have some trash to take out before that discussion can get under way.


THE FEMINIST PIMP HAND – Sororities and wolfpacks and silencing

It has become obvious that the Feminist Pimp Hand deserves a category of its own. It is quite obvious that it is an all too common policing tactic and that it needs to be highlighted and exposed. Here’s one we are highlighting this time.

The example we are highlighting involves a feminist wolfpack, the commentariat at Manboobz. This wolfpack tactic is typical of feminist groupuscules, which function more as social circles than as actual communities of thought and analysis. What matters is membership in the group above all else, and anything that challenges the group or any of its members provokes an attack from the wolfpack.

Commenter AC contributed this comment to this thread, linking to a thread at Manboobz:

AC on 2013-11-16 at 11:13 am said:
There’s quite a smack down taking place in their comments section on another post. Commenter Karin Sarr is thoroughly toying with those intellectual cowards. Here is where the “discussion” starts:

Sans-sanity replied with some excellent points.

Sans-sanity on 2013-11-18 at 12:38 am said:

I had a look. I got about five comments (by her) in, and she’d already been accused of internalized misogyny and been called a racist.

This to a black woman (judging by her facebook avatar).

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the feminist pimp hand!

(also she got told to go read 700+ comments if she wanted to participate. I think someone around here was discussing the whole ‘go read this ridiculous pile of largely unrelated writings if you want to comment’ silencing tactic recently)

And then followed up immediately with this:

Sans-sanity on 2013-11-18 at 1:00 am said:

Ooh Ooh Ooh, she addresses this point directly.

Reproducing in full:

”Just an observation about the behaviour of the people here in general. I’m not upset or anything, just pointing out:
Are any of you aware of how much your behavior here is just plain bullying? I presume you don’t think bullying is a good thing (correct me if I’m mistaken there). So why do you so readily engage in it?

Bullying is an abuse of power. In your case here, you know that almost everyone reading/commenting is heavily biased against any kind of dissenting viewpoint especially from an outsider. Knowing this, with an at least ten to one majority behind you, you are aware you can get away with bigotry like dismissing a valid argument as “trolling” or “misogyny” without being challenged by anyone other than me. You also know that such a challenge from the accused always starts from a weaker position than if it had come from a 3rd person.

I am being perfectly civil and always refraining from personal attacks of any kind. Yet I’ve been accused of being a racist, a misogynist, having internalized misogyny, being a troll, knowing nothing about the subject, saying nothing but “you’re wrong” etc. and all of those without the slightest basis in reality. It’s pure dismissal and suppression of criticism.

You know very well that a more neutral commentariat would never let you get away with so much bigotry unchallenged. Yet here you are piling it on while fully aware of that. Hence you abuse power just like bullies do.”

(Note about Karin Sarr’s racial identity – Futurelle claims that this picture used in the avatar has been used all over…..for what any claim of fact from Futurelle is worth…..)

Sans-sanity, welcome and thanks for that contribution! That was juicy.

That whole exchange is a perfect example of something that is wrong with a lot of feminist effort – it is too personal and social as opposed to being involved in actual analysis and making any kind of real contribution to the discussion of gender. By that I mean that it is more about belonging to the group and abiding by group norms – endlessly changing BTW in order to keep everyone anxious about their status – protecting group members and the group itself from criticism, and attacking outsiders to reinforce their membership and assert the dominance of the group. It has taken a lot of feminism from sisterhood to sorority. And to belong to the sorority you have to go through Rush Week and then stay on your toes at all times never to do anything, not one little thing, that could get you disinvited.

By the way, this in-group/out-group dynamic probably accounts for a lot of the gynocentrist self-absoprtion of feminism, and the disregard for the issues of any women not in the privielged social category, see also “the underlying racism of white feminism.”

Commenter AC left a summed up with a comment that describes the whole pattern:

AC on 2013-11-18 at 12:01 pm said:
I think Karin is absolutely awesome. She brings up some really interesting points. I read through the whole thing (though there’s LOADS of mutual accusations of lying and stuff like that). I left her a supporting comment but it might never make it through.

I think her question about political representation really gets to the bottom of the problem. She argues that men aren’t better represented in politics than women just because more men are doing the representing. And then she asks all of those manboobz believers, if they believe that men are inherently less able or willing to represent women just because they’re men.
None of them have the guts to answer even though she repeats it over and over. They make up one stupid excuse after the there to avoid it.
And it’s a great question. Because if they say no, then there’s no reason to care about how many of politicians are male or female. And if they say yes then they admit to being sexists and have to explain why being male necessarily makes men unable to represent women (funny what that says about male feminist).

There are also some really funny blunders by the manboobz believers.
Here’s a cool exchange:

pecunium: “Liar. You did make it. Had no one challenged it then it would be standing as an, apparently, valid; acceptable, claim.”

“THAT is your evidence? That HAD no one challenged it, then I (according to you) WOULD have used it as a backup for a different claim? You’re funny.
So now apparently I must own up to fallacies that would but didn’t emerge, if I made a claim that Pecunium believes I would but didn’t make. And for not doing that, I’m called a liar.
It really is time for you to concede this one. The ship isn’t only sinking, you’re practically trying to lift the titanic and say it’s unsinkable. But thanks for being so amusing.”

Or this one:

“provide actual evidence that women have all the power?”
Karin: “Why should I provide evidence for something I never claimed?”
Pecunium: “You did claim that women have more representation than men.”

What a mindless crowd of liars.

Indeed they are.


ACTIVISM – One Piece of Advice at a Time

“Is cunamh mór comhairle mhaith” – “Good advice is great help.”

It is also a form of activism.

Someone getting ready to marry was presented a really lopsided prenup and didn’t know what to think of it, so he asked the Reddit community on r/Mensrights. As far as he’s concerned, they came through for him.

This is what he was wondering about:

My future in-laws want to talk to me about a pre-nup and they want to add a few extra clauses in it. I have not spoken to them yet, but I suspect the clauses are: 1. My fiancee will keep all of the inheritance (probably during the marriage too, not just in the case of a divorce). 2. Assets will be split 75%-25% (75% paid by me of course) On top of this: – My fiancee will be a stay at home mom – I will probably pay an obscene amount of spousal support, especially considering the stay at home mom part.

As others pointed out, the mandated SAHM part and the weird split of assets as well as the presumption of spousal support are all big throbbing red flags. Even the part about the way her inheritance would be handled is a red flag, because it means she reamins financially separate in a way he doesn’t. In all it makes him look less like a husband and more like a live-in sperm donor.

Anyway, this is a form of activism, because after all the personal is political.

Family law is unequal in the US as are the cultural expectations around marriage. The only way to make permanent change is to work at one marriage at a time, one parenting agreement at a time, one DV case at a time. Of course there will be times when some broad institutional action is needed – an unfair law or policy has to be overturned, a bigoted judge has to disciplined or even taken off the bench. But in the end, it’s the eaches that make the real difference.

TALES OF THE RED PILL – Hogpunk’s Journey

Commenter Hogpunk contributed a comment in my thread about sons of feminists that I found so to the point that I asked if I could post it as an article, and he has graciously assented:


Hello Genderratic,

Gingko asked me for permission to post this comment I made on your blog; this is a cleaned up and very slightly altered version which I am more happy with.


I came to a lot of very similar conclusions that MRAs hold as a young boy, having grown up in a few different households. One of which was a militant feminist household. I became aware of the guilt I felt simply for being a man. I was also worried about being a man as opposed to a child as I was quite aware of the women and children first ideal, and how that protection was only temporary for me. This happened somewhere in my pre to early teens. I also noticed the uneven balance of power in the dating game as I approached sexual maturity (teens), particularly the double bind of the expectation to make the first move whilst also only being allowed to make that move if it is desired, whilst having to guess when that desire was present.

These realisations became semi-dormant throughout a lot of the rest of my teens as I was too distracted by my raging hormones to think clearly for a time, I also started to idolise women, I suspect as a result of being so incredibly infatuated with them. After that I finally escaped the madness of puberty somewhere around the age 17 or
18 it felt like I had taken a huge breath of fresh air and could think clearly again.

At this point I gained an interest in gender, specifically gender dimorphism as it seemed to me that the mantra of men and women being exactly the same except for their genitals didn’t make a lot of sense and I had always valued reality and truth very highly and firmly believed in an objective reality. I was primarily interested in physical differences as they couldn’t be confused with socialisation and I came to the conclusion that men were essentially built for work, but also very much disposable.

At this point I’m at uni studying comp sci, but I was mostly hanging out with people studying arts and social sciences, a lot of the debates I would have with them were over the virtues of objectivity vs subjectivity, social problems with the world etc. A few of them were (and still are) feminists and these are people I still consider my friends and regard them to be intellectually sound. But I found that whenever I broached the subject of male disposability with them, they would immediately steer the conversation away to another issue or outright ignore me. I was also less than impressed with the responses they had for my questions about exactly how women were at a disadvantage in the west in the ways they claimed (mostly I was referring to things like unfairness in work/education affecting women). Particularly as I had witnessed on my own course that there were very few women that were on it, but huge efforts to get women interested, and I perceived little interest in the vast, vast, vast majority of the women I met. Simultaneously I was very unimpressed by the behaviour of the few girls who were on my course, as they would regularly get the boys to do their work for them with the mere hint of sex as a reward (these guys by and large were not getting laid). And the fact that when they came to me with the same sort of nonsense I was willing to offer to help them become competent enough to do their own work they would just draw the conclusion that they could easily enough get another guy to just do the work.

At this point I’ve had a few girlfriends and am feeling fairly disillusioned with women as a whole, as they weren’t really the women feminism had promised me; capable, intelligent, self-reliant etc. with a few exceptions who to this day I admire for actually bothering to become awesome when they really have no need to.

Anyway, a couple of years down the line I’ve now concluded that men are disposable and questioned feminism a fair bit (although in a very soft way, I wasn’t exactly anti-feminist, more feminist skeptical) and I’ve been talking to people about these thoughts, and one day a friend points me to feminism and the disposable male, a GWW video, I pretty much agreed with it, and it also helped formalise a lot of the thoughts I had been having throughout my life. I especially realised that there was no way a man could get away with saying this sort of shit and that it could only really be delivered by a woman, which is of course completely fucked up and was an eye opener for me. I don’t really associate my identity as being a part of the MRM or MRA, but I am extremely sympathetic to its cause, and am fascinated by a lot of the writing on gender that comes out of it, in particular the stuff written by GWW and TyphonBlue.

MISOGYNY – Misogynists Are Made, Not Born

The MRM gets called out for misogyny a lot, and it’s a valid complaint in a lot of cases. I started noticing something a while ago – many of the most misogynistic, even toxic MRAs were men raised by feminist mothers. How could that be? Why wouldn’t feminist mothers, of all people, be raising the best adjusted, most gender-egalitarian, woman-affirming men ever. What gives?

Well, we may be set to find out. There’s a new sub-reddit, r/ Sonsoffeminists. So far there are only two posts but I am hoping to see many more. This post is an attempt to help that happen.

The first post I read was heart-warming. A guy got raped twice, both times by women. He confided in his feminist mother, she seems to have said all the right healing things and then pursued tthe matter with the police, who blew her off. He says it broke her heart. Now that’s the kind of feminist that feminists insist really do exist.

But there surely is the other kind, and we can expect to hear from their sons too.

GENDERITIS – Oops, Wrong All Along

Oops – it looks like the study back in the 1940s that so many have based their notions of higher male promiscuity on for so long was botched from the beginning. Using the best methods of the time it produced results – that promiscuity gave male fruit flies and advantage that it did not give females, ergo males fuck around and females keep their legs crossed – that no one has been able replicate since. Nonetheless it has become conventional wisdom that males fuck around and females keep their legs crossed. Well now someone has gone back in and done the experiment over, this time with DNA analysis to establish actual parentage, and found the original conclusions are wrong.

Several lessons:

  1. Remain skeptical. Doubt everyone’s, including your own, data and certainly doubt all conclusions, and when new methods become available, go back and review the conclusions to see if they still hold up.
  2. Don’t overgeneralize your conclusions. Don’t blithely assume that the same evolutionary constraints work on species separated by over 400 million years of evolution. There are universals, yes, but there are lots of them, and one is that a species faces new situations with all its past solutions hanging around in its DNA, not as a blank slate, and those old mutations are themselves new evolutionary constraints. A marine mammal species is not free to just suddenly lose the lungs and develop gills, however much more advantageous that might be. (And it doesn’t take 400 million years for this kind of disparity to develop. Don’t blithely assume that chimpanzee sexuality is necessarily any kind of model of human sexuality.)
  3. So pay some attention to detail. Look at the totality of the constraints a species faces. A species with long childhoods requiring high parental investment probably does not derive the same evolutionary benefit from promiscuity as one who just sows eggs broadcast into the passing currents might.
  4.  Expect those disparate constraints to challenge your intuitions. Here’s a species of antelope where the females pester the males for sex, and the males play hard to get. And this arrangement benefits the females. How would a study on fruit flies predict such an outcome, or even be able to predict it? Who says gender roles are not malleable, even at the genetic level?
  5. Sometimes if you look carefully enough, you get exactly the opposite results. Look, here’s another species of fruit fly for which the indications are that female promiscuity enhances species survival in general. Oops, that study on fruit flies would indeed have gioven the same result as the one on topi antelopes.

Scepticism is the sword that destroys certainty, delusion and superstition.

It’s Shit Like This Feminists…

Recently a video of several south african youths allegedly raping a mentally disabled girl has gone viral. Women’s rights activist Lisa Vetten has this to say about the matter:

“Rape is a young man’s crime. It’s a bit of a performance for them, showing off to each other how macho they are. We need to teach our young men that you can be masculine in ways that do not involve violence and degrading women,” she said.

In a possibly related matter a 2008 study found the following:

Two out of five male South African students say they have been raped, according to a study published yesterday suggesting sexual abuse of boys is endemic in the country’s schools.

The survey published in BioMed Central’s International Journal for Equity in Health showed that boys were most often assaulted by adult women, followed closely by other schoolchildren.

Could there possibly be a link? A connection between boys being victimized in an epidemic of (completely ignored)sexual violence and some of them going on to victimize others?

Nah. Just a coincidence. It can’t possibly be something wrong with how boys are treated; it has to be something wrong with boys.


Here’s some more from that BioMed study:

Some 9% (weighted value based on 13915/127097) of male respondents aged 11–19 years reported forced sex in the last year. Of those aged 18 years at the time of the survey, 44% (weighted value of 5385/11450) said they had been forced to have sex in their lives and 50% reported consensual sex. Perpetrators were most frequently an adult not from their own family, followed closely in frequency by other schoolchildren. Some 32% said the perpetrator was male, 41% said she was female and 27% said they had been forced to have sex by both male and female perpetrators. Male abuse of schoolboys was more common in rural areas while female perpetration was more an urban phenomenon.


68% of the boys were victimized by women. That means 30% of South African boys have been raped by women. Is it any wonder that South African boys have some really skewed beliefs regarding sex?

MALE DISPOSABILITY – Remember My Forgotten Man

One night SSG Robert Bales got up and went off by himself and murdered 17 sleeping civilians in two villages in Afghanistan. The news in the US has been full of it.

The neighbors said at first that there had to have been more than one person for there to have been that much killing. Some of that may have been Afghan pride; after all it’s a little embarrassing that one foreigner could take out so many men and their families by himself. And maybe he really didn’t do it all by himself. It will all come out in the trial. Something else the neighbors said later makes sense too, that the attack was an act of revenge for the killings of some US soldiers in the area. In a diffuse way it was. (Although now the Army says this is the first they’ve heard of these Army deaths or any such attack.) And if the Army had been willing to be completely cynical, it would have gone with that explanation, because it would have made sense to people in the area and the rest of the country and fit their moral code, specifically the tenet badal. But the act was an atrocity and a war crime and thus, and this is the telling point, a breach of discipline, so it has to be punished, and in a suitably public way so that discipline can be reinforced. Like the old saying goes, “the needs of the Army.”

The News Tribune in Tacoma has the right take on this. The nation is grinding up its Army. It is that simple. And the nation doesn’t know and seems not to give a shit. So much for all those conscience-salving, CYA yellow ribbons on bumpers.

This is what SSG Bales’ lawyer, John Henry Browne has to say:

“Browne told NBC: “I think the war is on trial.”

 He told The Seattle Times: “These people are broken, and we’ve broken them.”

We have had ten years of overseas wars fought by a tiny fraction of the citizens of this country, often with several deployments. We have been sending people off to be broken and then act surprised and disgusted when they come back that way. Families and childhoods crumble, returning soldiers and Marines melt down and commit suicide, suffer from PTSD and commit crimes of violence, and the reaction is either indifference or dismissals – “Well, those are trained killers anyway.” The reaction is some halfwit at Madigan Army Medical center impugning PTSD diagnoses.

This is about the stage of the conversation where someone chimes in with “Well, that’s what we pay them for, isn’t it?” Money will buy anything – this is how a consumer or a whore thinks. It is not a serious comment, but it does indicate that the commenter is a consumer (of government services) rather than a citizen of the society. Oh, and all that concern about the taxpayers – the taxpayers wouldn’t have a pot to piss in in this oil-based economy if almost our entire military effort and defense budget weren’t focused on protecting the flow of oil. Everyone in this economy owes every cent they have to these people we treat as so disposable.

In this time of disposable soldiers and veterans and manufacturing workers I happened upon an old movie on Turner Classic Movies.

Gold Diggers of 1933 is a cultural icon, and a big art of its power is the political statement it makes. The title makes it sound like fluff when in fact it is anything but that. There are references to the Depression all through it and after all that it winds up with a poleax to the mid-section of a number about ignored WWI veterans and working men in general.  Just rent it and watch the whole thing – it’s almost 70 years old now and it is still pretty devastating. In that last number Joan Blondell recites Remember My Forgotten Man and then Etta Motten sings it, and then there is a really moving dance number, I guess you’d call it.

Remember My Forgotten Man


 I don’t know if he deserves a bit of sympathy

Forget your sympathy, that’s all right with me

I was satisfied to drift along from day to day

Till they came and took my man away


 Remember my forgotten man

You put a rifle in his hand

You sent him far away

You shouted: “Hip-hooray!”

But look at him today


Remember my forgotten man

You had him cultivate the land

He walked behind the plow

The sweat fell from his brow

But look at him right now


And once, he used to love me

I was happy then

He used to take care of me

Won’t you bring him back again?


‘Cause ever since the world began

 A woman’s got to have a man

Forgetting him, you see

Means you’re forgetting me

Like my forgotten man

I remember how even late into the 70s my grandmother would recall bitterly how GEN Macarthur had followed orders from a civilian, non-veteran president and fired on the men of the Bonus Army who came to Washington to claim the pensions they were owed. She said she had gloated over him when Truman fired him for insubordination in Korea. What an idiot Macarthur was, who couldn’t tell which orders to obey and which to disobey.

I almost forgot this part: 

He used to take care of me

Won’t you bring him back again?

Even when you are asking for trhe most basic consideration of man’s humanity and human needs, you have to couch it in terms of his utility to a woman to get any kind of hearing. That was true in 1933 and not much has changed. Has it?

David Brooks moves in to forestall the natural and self-serving urge to demonize SSG Bales and somehow anyhow separate ourselves from and disavow this atrocity with a reminder about the reality of the basic human tendency towards homicidal violence. He is right on the money – there has been no end of attempts to smear SSG Bales as some kind of monster – domestic abuser (which his wife angrily rejects) , ooooh look, he had financial problems as a failed financial consultant – all self-serving demonization.

You are not going to wash this mess off yourself that easily.

MISANDRY: Feminist Gay-Bashing

Have you noticed how much hatred feminists direct at MGTOW guys? Is it just because they can’t or can’t be bothered to distinguish between PUAs, MRAs and MGTOW guys, or is there more to it? I think there is. I think if we look at feminism’s record on gay men, the Ultimate MGTOW guys, we can see what’s really going on.

A while ago I found out from Daisy Deadhead about the Redstockings. They did some good and some of their stuff makes sense, but they had a nasty streak of man-hating gay-bashing and it wasn’t incidental, it flowed from their basic premises. So maybe all their good was really no good at all. And they were not some fringe group and they were not the only feminists of their period to use gay-bashing rhetoric and weave on man-hating and gay-bashing principles into their work. It turns out all kinds of very prominent feminists in the late ’60s and early ’70s went in for this kind of bigotry.

John Lauritsen gave a talk back in 1976 that lays this all out in great detail. He cites a widespread pattern of vilification of gay men and gay organizations by feminists of that time. Feminists conducted a campaign of disrupting gay events and undermining gay organizations. As they say, read the whole thing. It is a very ugly history. If you have never heard about it in your courses in Women’s Studies, go back and ask why. Bring back the answers; I bet they will be hilarious.

Here he quotes Carol Hanisch where she explicitly enunciates the homophobic claim that male homosexuality and male separatism are misogynist. Oh that’s it! It’s all about the wimminz!

 “Men’s liberationists always bring up ‘confronting their own feelings about men’ by which they mean homosexuality. Male homosexuality is an extension of the reactionary club (meaning both group and weapon). The growth of gay liberation carries contempt for women to the ultimate: total segregation. The desire of men to ‘explore their homosexuality’ really means encouraging the possibility of homosexuality as a reaction against feminist demands. This is the reason the movement for “gay rights” received much more support only after women’s liberation became a mass movement.”

There it is: men ignoring women is contempt. Even when we do nothing we are guilty of harming women, because we owe them attention and it is violence when we “deprive” them of it. Talk about a rape culture – they are entitled to our sexual attention.

So men have a duty to have sex with women and not with men. That is rape culture and it is feminists demanding it. Oh, and forced heterosexuality for men. Can you see the difference between these people and Sarah Palin or Rick Santorum? Me neither.

Or maybe there’s no intention of there being any sex – men are just supposed to marry and support women – because they “deserve” it like all the advertising is constantly telling us. Female privilege much?

Lauritsen gives Kate Millett special attention for her hatred of male relationships. She comes across as both stupid and dishonest. For instance she equates homosexuality and Nazism, which is an especially obscene piece of stupidity in view of the actual history, and a pathetically transparent piece of dishonesty in view of how well-known that history is.

He also details these feminists’ hatred of drag queens too. That hatred came as no surprise either.

This bigotry is not some little splinter thing in feminism. It is foundational. Millett’s Sexual Politics was seminal to the movement and Hanish was a founding member of the radical wing of the movement. She edited the Redstockings Collective’s book the Feminist Revolution and coined the phrase “the personal is political”. These were not marginal people or marginal views. It’s no good whining how feminism is not a monolith when every pebble of it shares this theoretical underpinning.

Speaking of the Redstockings, we are going to look at their manifesto in the next post on this subject. Even if you have never read it or even heard of it, none of it will be unfamiliar. You see it in every feminist space on the net and you hear it in every gender studies class.

Lauritsen says it best:

 “We must recognize our enemies wherever we find them. Nobody’s ideas and nobody’s actions should be exempted from criticism.”

Gay men in solidarity with feminists against hetero men? That may be attractive to someone coming out of high school and all that trauma, but  alliances with people who despise you are just sick.

CULT OF THE MOTHER: The Solomon Metalwala Affair

This whole case is a prime example of why it is ignorant and misguided to blame “feminists” for everything that oppresses men in modern society. It is “feminists” who formulated and articulated to solution to these problems – sexual equality.

A 2-year old boy goes missing in the Seattle area. The last person to see him was his mother, who left him in the car when she ran out of gas and went off to get more.

Bottom line: What is going to come out of this is that the mother, Julia Biryukova, has a severe mental illness and deserves our sympathy and care. What she got instead though was the full power of the state on her side to separate her children from their father. I can’t really blame her because of her condition. I can and do blame the social welfare authorities for enabling her and for their pretty obvious gender bigotry which motivated their decisions to enable her.

Bottom line: From beginning to end the authorities both in the social welfare system and in the family court system have based their decisions on traditionalist gender expectations. This whole case is a prime example of why it is ignorant and misguided to blame “feminists” for everything that oppresses men in modern society. It is “feminists” who formulated and articulated to solution to these problems – sexual equality.

The police suspected foul play – the boy is missing and someone knows where he is – but they charge no one, not even the parent who last had the boy in her care or the non-custodial parent who has a motive for kidnap.  

This article also mentions the issue of spousal abuse and mental illness. Extracted from the article:

“A psychologist who evaluated Biryukova wrote in July 2010 that she was dealing with a “severe form” of obsessive compulsive disorder. But the psychologist determined Biryukova’s condition did not interfere with “her ability to be a compassionate, effective parent to her children.”

Earlier this year a social worker reported that a doctor found Biryukova to be in good mental health and an appropriate caregiver for the kids.”


“”Severe form” of obsessive compulsive disorder” – Solomon Metalwala was interviewed on KING 5 last week and he talked about what this was like. He said that often they would be trying to leave to go somewhere but couldn’t leave the house because Julia was obsessively cleaning and cleaning and cleaning some surface. He said that she would often forbid the family from using the bathroom. Yet the psychologist found her capable of being an effective parent.

Indeed. Effective – but no specifics on what the effects of such parenting would be on a child.

Wait – the family was forbidden to use the bathroom? Why did the father acquiesce to such an order from his wife. It is as if he thought she had some kind of authority in the house to make these demands. He probably would have spent the night on the couch to if she had gotten angry with him over something. What a patriarch!

Ah, but it was not only spousal abuse that was alleged.

Julia alleged that Solomon has struck the daughter, Maile. And the boy, Sky, had unexplained bruises. But notice something – it was a social worker who made the determination that, not the police or a court. Why didn’t the social worker refer this to the police if it was true? 

The mother, Julia Biryukova, convinced a judge to grant her a protective order against the father. There was apparently no evidence of any abuse, yet he was forbidden any contact with his won children.

From the article:

“In court documents, Biryukova alleged that Metalwala abused the children; Solomon insisted that Biryukova made up the allegations, that she was suicidal and mentally ill, and he voluntarily took a polygraph to clear his name.

Nevertheless, Biryukova succeeded in winning custody – and a protection order keeping Metalwala from the children. “

Translation: Here was a case of countervailing allegations – she alleged he was an abuser, he alleged she was mentally ill. And the court favored her. Rampant misogyny in the family court system!

Now it turns out there was no basis to her accusations of abuse. So what? Of course there will be no repercussions for making a false statement, and it won’t be perjury because no sworn statement was needed to get such a restrictive protective order, so there is no disincentive at all for a wife  (husbands can’t get protective orders like this) to counter-balance the obvious incentive to make this kind of false accusation.

So after the son went missing the daughter was placed in foster care, rather than returned to her father.

Note that even at this point no criminal charges were pending against the mother.

So now in the end he is finally getting to raise his daughter.

What kind of legal and cultural climate is something like this occurring in? Can it really be called a patriarchy? The fathers are in charge – really? But if not, what do you call a system that works on these assumptions, where the women run the house and raise the children, no matter what, and the men run the world, no matter what?

What we call it doesn’t matter. What we do about it does.  The first thing is to denounce it.