My sister posted about this earlier today and I find the website kind of a fascinating trainwreck. This was the initial video which is fairly brief, but I've spent a lot of the morning watching more from them.

I'm interested in what folk think of this site outside of my fairly political social circle.

Note some NSFW language/content.

http://www.manwomanmyth.com/video/misandry/men-dont-exist/

He's clearly spent a lot of time on this. I'm not sure I understand why.

That guy does seem pretty extreme.

But...

There is at least anecdotal evidence that society is becoming overly anti-men in relation to children:
Eek! A Male! - Treating all men as potential predators doesn't make our kids safer.

I happen to think that third-wave/post-feminism is toxic, vapid and lacks academic rigor. I will applaud almost anything that makes them look like Hitlers.

That said, this is a lot of noise about nothing. The reason there is institutional sexism in the media is because of market pressures. Traditional advertising is almost completely ineffective against men; because of social conditioning, men don't spend a lot of time/money comparing goods with perfect substitutes, while women do. Ads perform better when they're printed opposite an article about male inferiority, period.

The real story here isn't about sexism, it's about the destruction of a way of life.

Look at it this way:

Women are more likely* to go to university than men. At university, women are more likely to choose a 'soft' program, like English** or human ecology. When they graduate, women are more likely to choose a job that requires no education or skill, like HR or customer service.

It sounds worse than it is. These choices are completely rational in terms of economics: An undergraduate degree is the local extremum of earning power: any more or any less, and you make less money (amortized over a lifetime.) Furthermore, outside of STEM there are literally no jobs that require a specific undergraduate degree - they are literally interchangeable; it makes way more sense to get an easy degree because no employer is ever going to care.

There isn't anything stopping men from doing the same thing, but we don't. Why?

Footnotes:
* Actual enrollment statistics under-represent the social problem. It's an open secret that most universities have been maintaining sexist enrollment policies for decades, in order to maintain what they call an 'appropriate gender balance.' It's much easier to get into a university if you are male.
** English degrees were invented back in the 1960s as a substitute for Classics. Female enrollment was rising, but universities thought that women weren't intelligent enough to take a traditional program. They are, they're just too socially intelligent to bother.

Whenever I go to learn anything about feminism and the many movements, I end up getting a few pages into something I don't want to read any more because it's clear that the author is absolutely ****ing insane. Any suggestions?

Yeah: don't waste your time. It's all worthless trash invented by useless academics so they wouldn't have to get real jobs.

Why would someone even think that more than 5% of the offal squeezed out by the liberal arts is worth reading or thinking about? I don't care how pretentious you are, a 130 page phd thesis comparing and contrasting Faust to the semiotics of McDonald's advertising from 1975-1982 is not worth the paper it's written on.

@JediKirby: The best ultra-condensed synopsis that I've heard, and my personal brand of conscientious-yet-not-infuriated, goes something like: "Feminism isn't about having to burn your bra, it's about deciding for yourself if you want to or not."
I.e. it isn't about throwing off the varyingly illusory shackles of patriarchal dominance, but about consciously working towards social and personal empowerment, representation, and equity.

That said, I agree with Jon`C for the most part, though in my experience a lot of the outright xenocidal poison was spewed forth more from separatists and second-wave zealots (who I do in fact consider outright bat**** insane) like SCUM, Janice Raymond, and her disciple Germaine Greer, and third-wave has been in a broad sense a vapid spiral of ineffectual failure to connect with reality and their own point. (Not to say there aren't still the toxic xenocides in the new generation, as evidenced by eg Bev Jo's writings in The Magazine Project over the last year.)

If you want an overview, read some Wikipedia articles about it, but if you want to learn something worthwhile, educate yourself about the real damn world and take ownership of how you treat and act towards women, eg how often you catch yourself (or someone you know) ever justifying something based on gender vs merit.

For example, from this video, the guy is challenging how when male workers (or soldiers especially) are discussed, they are only referred to by their occupation whereas women are always mentioned specifically. He claims that this is a ploy to erase men from view and significance, and that (this part is accurate at least) unsexing job titles is a feminist tactic to do that. The point isn't to erase men, it's to designify gender from occupation. He uses examples where he is outraged that apples are different than oranges, eg that soldiers are just called soldiers but when women (and implicitly children) are killed in combat that is always noted explicitly. And yet the women killed in are predominantly /not/ front-line soldiers (since we aren't allowed to be, which at some point later he's confusing upset by also). I'm not sure if he'd rather have it reported like: "Men and women including civilians of both sexes also were killed in combat, many- but not all- of the former being soldiers, and probably none of the latter were."

Also I can personally vouch for the university tack. Ultimately, (almost) nobody actually cares about your specific degree. I was working on an Associate of Arts and dropped out to work for IBM and am living debt-free. In many cases it really doesn't make any economic sense to enslave oneself to student loans for the rest of your life just so you have a "real/hard" degree.

Another point that really exasperates me is that he is so upset that there more stories about men committing crimes. This is not discrimination! He takes pains to point out that crimes are more likely to be the victims of crimes than women, but neglects to point out that the perpetrator is more likely to be a man than a woman as well. Men quite simply do commit more crimes, and are significantly more likely to be repeat offenders, and commit serious crimes than women. If a police officer pulls over three times as many Honda Civics in a day than Hummvs, it's not because he's profiling for Hondas.

Edit: I think really what I find most unsettling and insidious about this guy is he doesn't come off like a ranting chauvinist neo-Maddox, but is fairly composed and well-spoken until you really start paying attention and realize he's such a spiteful bigot.

That's not really fair. Maddox is a satirist and an internet comedian. He doesn't intend for anything he says to be taken seriously, while this guy obviously has an agenda.

I agree about the part that matters, though. The guy had me going for a bit (why gunman? It is sexist) but then he got to the part with Boeing engineers and, like... seriously? Engineering is 10-20% women.

Then I watched a different video, and he said something like "there is no chance for a woman to compete with a man" and it was pretty much done. Painfully sexist, probably sociopathic trying to manipulate people into something he knows is false.

About Maddox, I was intending that to mean the sort of guy who would take Maddox to heart and not realize it was intended as a joke.

There's a woman in that video clip.

But, just because he's a ranting lunatic doesn't mean there isn't a problem. I've never met a woman who wanted men to treat her the same as a man treats a man. Every single one of them wants to be treated better because they are a woman. Do you remember being told "don't hit girls", or to "help the old woman cross the street"? It is sexist, it's just not a feminism conspiracy.

meh. he seems to have a few points. but... well like i said, meh.

what bothers me is when people want to simultaneously be treated as equals AND have special exceptions made for them. although some exceptions to my opinion on that DO exist also.

They only say "don't hit girls" because they know asking boys not to hit each other is a lost cause.

(I'm kidding)

I always get a lot of **** because if a girl hits me I hit her back. She will always claim I hit her harder and it's rarely the case.

Nobody would say **** if I hit a dude back, but I can't possibly hit a woman back (remember, I'm not hitting anyone first, I never hit anyone first) because they're delicate and need special protection.

Bull****.

EDIT:That said, this guy is bonkers.

Sorry, don't know how to play this video :(
http://www.manwomanmyth.com/site-news/latest-video-misogyny-2/
The second half is about womens' awards and sports. It's spot on.

I'm curious to see a list of ways in which every woman you've ever met wants to be treated better than men. I.e, what constitutes "better" treatment?



When it comes to not hitting girls, I actually think CM about summed it up even if he was joking. However, traditionally that line and its ilk are propagated heavily by chauvinist elements. There's a comment on one of the videos that really sums up the viewpoint:


It isn't about women demanding to be treated better, it's about men saying that women can't and shouldn't be treated the same. Eg, men shouldn't hit- read "damage"- girls because they could one day be raising sons for them.

As to helping old women across the street, does the cultural morality really dictate that old men should /not/ be helped across the street just as well?

[Also with both women and/or widows there is a lot of biblical laws about treating them in these ways that have arguably formed the basis of many of these cultural ideals (eg not striking a pregnant woman and so forth); it far pre-dates any feminism.]

Females and males may both be humans, but there is a lot more differences physically and mentally, why should females and males be treated equally.

Females and males have different educational needs. Why should they attend the same classes?

I will say that there are a few points under the ****e, like especially with the second video: "bluh bluh men created the internets, women would only have mud" around "oh hey, actually, they're saying some pretty uncool ****, stop that, girls. Really."

But hey, I'm unresearched and uncaring. This stuff doesn't really interest me, although I got heavily nostalgic over the Brittas Empire.

I would agree that men and women should always be treated equally under the law(even though that does not always happen either) and should be treated as equals for the most part. But, it really bugs when people try and pretend like men and women are "the same" they are not. They are physically emotionally and psychologically different. I think it is a disservice to both sexes when they are lumped together as the same animal because of political correctness.

1)Women receive a minority status and the protection/benefit that goes along with it for many purposes.
2)Women are able to retire earlier than men and have an easier time taking parental leave from work.
3)Women usually have preferential treatment during divorce cases, especially in the area of child custody.
4)Women in many countries are spared from being drafted to fight in wars.
5)Men have "perceived guilt", as evidenced by conviction rates, capital sentencing rates, false rape accusations, and bogus corporate policies.


The Bible is definitely not a feminist book though. Women are the equals of men before the Lord, but men and women have distinct Biblical roles. Colossians 3:18, 1 Peter 3:1-7, and Ephesians 5:22 all state that wives are subject to the authority of their husbands (this makes feminists rage, even though husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loves the church, ie self-sacrificially). Paul also wrote in 1 Corinthians that women are not to have authority over men in the church.

Yes that was my point. That the biblical guidelines for how to treat women that often persist today are not a feminist invention to get "treated better".


This one in particular, or a tangent from it, does sort of anger me in that if I /wanted/ to become infantry or other front-line soldier- as I have wanted to at certain periods- I am not allowed to because of this so-called "better" treatment.

Ah, I missed that. Yep.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+female+population

JM: Being treated as a minority and actually being a minority are different things.

does not compute

maybe you shud upgrade ur cpu to a duffrnt color lol

Until women are held to the same mental, physical, and socio-emotional standards as men (and vice versa), I find it silly to consider 'social equality' and 'same treatment' as even being possible.

Note the physical fitness and exercise/training requirements for men and women entering the US Army. Women have to do fewer repetitions of exercises that have been rendered less strenuous, removing emphasis on upper-body strength and the leverage that comes from longer limbs.
If a guy is required to do 10 sets of full press-ups, and a chick only has to do 8 sets of knee press-ups, and no pull-ups, it's making it easier (in the absolute sense, not in the subjective) for her to get into the army... but it isn't doing her any favours whatsoever on a battlefield that is dominated by men who HAVE performed those additional required exercises. She is held to lower expectations, and as a result, she is disadvantaged.

If something as fundamental as military doesn't hold same standards, why should civilian life?

Well, to be fair...

lol, get it?

To be fair, or maybe not fair, most women just don't have the same capacity for upper body strength that their male peers have. There are some, I guess. But for the most part, a man and woman of equivalent build (for their gender) pitted against each other in, say, a still ring competition will not be an even match. Granted, I'm pretty tall and have a similar leverage disadvantage that many women have, and I STILL could perform better on the still rings.

Physical fitness tests in the military take this into account largely because they figure heavily into promotion. What doesn't have a built in handicap are things like the obstacle course, ruck runs, humping up a mountain, or carrying someone else.

I'm not particularly big on barring women from service in ground combat units because of fitness requirements. If a woman can pass the fitness requirements, that's awesome, she can probably do all of the work. However, this faux chivalry we have been talking about results in some seriously reduced combat effectiveness. I have been in a ground combat unit in a combat area and every time women showed up, everyone started acting like total ****ing idiots. The type of men that populate our military are the type of men who put women on a pedestal, not just because of whatever biological drive you want to claim, but because that behavior has been ingrained since youth.

Until the majority of people joining the military are women, or the male population has been completely unconditioned of their drive to protect females, ground combat units should remain all male. The IDF, contrary to popular belief, has repeatedly learned this lesson.

would it be feasible to have an all female unit? honestly asking, cause i have no idea about this stuff.

I guess. The problem is that these units don't operate in a vacuum. Your adjacent units are still going to be all male and when they inevitably communicate or come into contact I predict things getting stupid. The Marine Corps has units called Lioness companies, which primarily exist to supply augments to other units to aid in the searching of women. That's great for units whose mission is not mainly combat, but in ground units that can expect to actively engage the enemy, history has proven that problems are caused. I have several bits of anecdotal evidence concerning medical personnel tending to an obviously beyond help female before a savable male who later died. Being anecdotal it's only marginally useful, but still demonstrates what I think is a phenomenon which is obviously present.

The bizarre combination of the unreasonable male need to protect all women and the accompanying lack of respect for women results in only stupidity, and we don't need infantry units further compromised by this phenomenon. Things like artillery units, I am less sure if this is a problem, because their mission is not direct, intentional combat.

Things get pretty ridiculous in places like the architecture studio, where we femmes are well aware that if we even get licensed, we will be in the extreme minority within our profession. I've been told at least twice that "You're the only girl in our class who isn't a complete b*tch."
Chicks go into this major thinking they have something to prove, and they try to prove that by being type-A control freaks; their grades suffer, and the males in the class, not carrying the 'minority stigma', work brilliantly as subordinates or co-equals within group projects, reaping benefits to a degree that ticks off the chicks and just makes them try harder to gain control. It's annoying and a little bit pathetic, especially now that I've watched it happen two or three times every semester.

The biggest attempted-leader femme in my class dropped arx in favour of history today. Frankly, I'm relieved, because she was nothing better than a massive source of stress for everybody who had to work with her on a project... but it's unnerving to see the numbers dwindling so rapidly, while most of the male population from freshman year is still intact. I fully expect by grad school to be one of only two female grad students (assuming of course that my grades stay up for that long).

I can't say I know how it is for other majors, but at least in the school of architecture, there is a strong self-perceived inferiority in my female classmates, and aside from their behaviours stemming from that self-perception, there is literally no disadvantage. We have more female profs than males this year, and none of them show clear bias for gender... *shrug*

Girls are crazy.

I'm trying to understand your stance here. I keep reading it as: "until the majority of people joining the military are female, females shouldn't join the military (specifically should not be in ground combat)."

So if males in ground combat never become accustomed to females being added in, they will never be ready for females in larger numbers to join? Even so, I do doubt it would ever become a case of females being "the majority", but even if it's like 20% would that ever be feasible? (And if only 10 of them are righteous?)

A better summary would be "until we can reverse the roles and have enough women to compose our combat units of entirely females, females should not be in ground combat units." Like you say, it's really more of a hypothetical situation for any time in the foreseeable future.

Buy you basically summed up my point with the phrase "So if males in ground combat never become accustomed to females being added in, they will never be ready for females in larger numbers to join?" Except I have absolutely no problem with women joining the military in most roles. While there are plenty of social problems there, the impact on effectiveness that some of these women have on units is not nearly as dire as it would be in a combat unit.

Keep in mind, my stance isn't an argument against the capability of women to fight so much as it is a commentary on military culture.

I'd make an argument against the capability of women to fight.

Men are larger and physically stronger. They are able to carry more of the armor, batteries and equipment that make a modern soldier more effective than mud-and-sticks brown people. If the military consisted only of women you would need more soldiers to maintain the same operational capability.

I'll also make an argument against being insane and stupid enough to enact this sort of plan:

Our culture might be willing to bear funding and televising athletic performances that are, frankly, unimpressive, irrelevant and more than a little embarrassing, but in spite of how insane and stupid foreign dictators might be, they aren't insane or stupid enough to give up the huge advantage of male-dominated military forces. The quantifiable reduction of military effectiveness would be entirely unilateral and therefore profoundly stupid.

I don't mean to disagree, but I think that as time goes on, it is become arguable whether "big and strong" is advantageous on the modern battlefield. The main advantage this brings is, as you said, being able to carry more equipment and armor. However, equipment may be getting more plentiful in many cases but it is also getting lighter and more efficient. Same with armor. Not only that, but one of the major advantages our enemies in the field have over us these days is small size and mobility. It's a major issue. They pop up, take some shots, and run away before our ground troops can ever catch them. We find them primarily with police techniques, not combat techniques. I'd say it's possible to reasonably argue that strength and size have less impact on police techniques these days, and are sometimes and possibly often a liability in many modern combat situations.

What's the cause and effect? They have learned not to directly confront our troops, even in close quarters...is this primarily because of our advanced equipment and training or because of the strength and size of our troops? I'm just saying that while for a long time "women aren't as effective in combat" might have been a valid point, it is much less clear whether that is still the case. I'd say that if you want to use that as a basis these days....you've gotta work to prove it.

What interests me is whether women are as willing to kill as men.

I've heard statistics cited that only 1/5 soldiers aim to kill in a generic live combat situation. The rest aim high or whatever. I'm curious if there's a gap between the sexes, and if so, how much. My gut says that if it's 20% among men, then it'd only be like 5-10% among women, but I might be surprised.

I don't know if there has ever been a study like that differentiating between the two genders. But I can tell you that our modern training ensures that it doesn't much matter what they're naturally inclined to do.

lol

I didn't delve into that argument past my basic reference because I think it doesn't matter in light of my first argument.

The shoot rate is supposedly 90 something percent these days.

I blame conditioning by video games: you miss, you don't get the frag.