So misogynistic it's almost laughable

[Ancien Régime]

http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

Basically, this article can be summed up in 3 or so points:

- Men have a right to female companionship (or just pussy)
- women need to get in the kitchen and make sammiches
- women are sluts who need to be reined in by society
- Men should go marry subservient Asian or Latin American women.

And other assorted misogyny.

Now, I do believe in traditional marriage roles and think that the traditional nuclear family is a worthy aspiration for both males and females. But this article is so laughably ignorant and resentful that I just had to share it.

 

[SkullCandy]

I've only read the first few paragraphs and I'm already appalled. I was brought up by my mum and I'm not a 'young man growing up being told that natural male behavior is wrong, and feminization is normal.'

I find this article so offensive and I'm not even a woman. My mum didn't 'ride a carousel of men', she left an extremely unhappy marriage at the age of 30 and had to bring up two children under the age of five by herself.

Great so we don't have programs filled with macho men who can do no wrong on T.V, but shows that depict the true nature of both men and women.

 

[Ancien Régime]

don't be appalled - shit like this doesn't merit contempt or disgust, it merits a "point and laugh" response. I'm still trying to figure out whether this wasn't a spoof or something.

 

[SkullCandy]

I really wish it was a spoof. That level of detail does seem to suggest that a bunch of ignoramus' spent a whole lot of time writing a whole lot of bullshit.

 

[mtr]

While a lot of it is over the top (honestly I skimread it, it's way too long), the author does have a few good points.

1) The current zeitgeist is very sympathetic to females, as seen by Oprah, divorce courts, advice columns, etc.

2) American women are becoming less and less worthy of male attention. They are fattening themselves up (this is undebatable), and in general not investing as much in their appearance as they should. Given that fact, it's worth it to go outside America for a proper wife. I know that I definitely will.

 

[cim]

2) American women are becoming less and less worthy of male attention. They are fattening themselves up (this is undebatable), and in general not investing as much in their appearance as they should. Given that fact, it's worth it to go outside America for a proper wife. I know that I definitely will.

That's far more misogynistic than much of the article. If you typed that sentence and thought it was a good point, I don't really think you're a fair judge of misogyny.

 

[mtr]

That's far more misogynistic than much of the article. If you typed that sentence and thought it was a good point, I don't really think you're a fair judge of misogyny.

Sexual preferences have nothing to do with misogyny. If you ask normal men, they don't prefer fatties. I'm not saying that fatties don't deserve full legal protection and equality, I'm just saying I wouldn't bone them.

IMO, women should bother trying to attract men, just as men should bother trying to attract women.

 

[popemobile]

mtr your post was so hilarious that I had to post it on another forum

 

[cim]

That's not what I was referring to in your post, though that's part of it. The strong sense of an entitlement for "a proper wife" as if she's some sort of property or an asset rather than a human being, combined with the idea that women in general should be aiming for their bodies to be as attractive to you as possible (apparently only skinny women are proper) is pretty much the basis of most modern misogyny. You can't say that's not prevalent in that post.

(Also, men that prefer larger women, or women of any shape, are not so far removed from the norm. A decent part of it is popular culture, combined with young male insecurity in admitting that they prefer a type of girl their friends might not be so into. But that's a side point...)

 

[mtr]

Maybe you're right, but I never saw it as misogyny. I always believed that misogyny was characterized by statements such as "hurr durr, a woman's place is in the kitchen". A desire for an attractive, demure woman is simply normal.

 

[evan]

The only misogynistic bit of mtr's post was that he said that women need to worry about being "worthy of" men, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that American men are just as bad, and probably worse, than American women about taking care of their appearance.

 

[Alan]

well in his defense women killed chivalry

 

[WaterBomb]

Also remember that "attractive" is an opinion term. Not all men find skinny women attractive. In fact, ironically enough, in earlier times (Pre-20th century) "healthier" women were considered the attractive ones, whereas the skinny ones held little worth. This is evident in the sculptures and other portrayals of women during the Renaissance, middle ages, Greek and Roman times, and before. Healthier women were seen as the pinnacle of womanhood, representing good mothers, wives, and housemakers. Really, only in recent popular times has the media focus turned to thinner women. Personally, I don't find super skinny women attractive at all. Give me a girl with a little meat on her bones any day (and I'm not a fat guy saying that either).

As for the article itself, I think people are likely to focus on only a few parts of it rather than the points he is trying to make. Yes the article comes across as sexist (and it is), but the writer(s) have gone to great length to compile information from sources to make an argument. Regardless of your stance on the matter, you cannot ignore the fact that he(they) bring up some valid points. I fear, though, that these points will be lost because most people will react emotionally to the article rather than attempt to see and understand the writer's point of view.

 

[Trax]

Well the article is right about one thing: American women are a giant waste of time and energy, and no man with anything between the ears would marry one.

 

[Deck Knight]

http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

Basically, this article can be summed up in 3 or so points:

- Men have a right to female companionship (or just pussy)
- women need to get in the kitchen and make sammiches
- women are sluts who need to be reined in by society
- Men should go marry subservient Asian or Latin American women.

And other assorted misogyny.

Now, I do believe in traditional marriage roles and think that the traditional nuclear family is a worthy aspiration for both males and females. But this article is so laughably ignorant and resentful that I just had to share it.

I realize the article is long but there's no reason to be completely and utterly wrong about it. The first three points are completely fabricated bullshit, and the last one was ripped entirely out of context.

Honestly Ancien Regime do you even try anymore? As long-winded and possibly offensive as the article may be, no where does the author talk about "rights to pussy," or "forcing women into the kitchen." The bits about whoredom among women and the suggestion to marry women from less misandric societies is accurate, however.

However it is an inescapable fact that ever since the Sexual R(D)evolution, promiscuity has become a much more common trait among women. Otherwise it would not be called that. There is nothing logically inconsistent or factually incorrect about the premises set forth in that particular section. More contraception and access to abortion has reduced the negative aspects of sexual activity for women, therefore increasing the frequency of such activity. Making such a statement is common sense, not mysogyny. You are basically fulfilling "Futurist"'s prediction:

Shaming Language and Projection as a Substitute for Rational Debate : As discussed previously, any legitimate and polite questions about the fairness of anti-male realities in the legal system and media are quickly met with Pavlovian retorts of 'misogynist' and 'loser'. Let us deconstruct these oft-used examples of shaming language, and why misandrists are so afraid of legitimate debate.

[The link is actually fun since it's written by a woman, heh.]

I have always appreciated the vast majority of your posts. Where is the effort, man? I say this as your friend.

There's plenty of stuff (good and bad) to plumb from the article without having to lie about it.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Posting to say that I agree with Deck Knight.

The only thing that's even remotely misogynistic about this is the lack of acknowledgment that some men have similar problems these days, but the article is only writing about one topic so that isn't even a legitimate complaint. Your summation of the article is either a blatant strawman or you completely missing the point of the post.

The author brings up several good points. Women in America these days do have an unprecedented level of power over men, and the power is not in a bureaucratic sense so it is difficult to measure its true effects - especially since the topic has become taboo thanks to feminists screaming "misogyny!" every time it is raised.

Birth control alone takes away personal responsibility from women and it also makes men easier to exploit. I know of a few people who have been trapped into child support because "oh i forgot to take the pill, now you're stuck supporting me forever!" just conveniently happened.

Men do not have equal reproductive rights. They may request things from the women, but ultimately it is the woman's choice and the men have no say. You want to keep the child? Too bad, it's her body and she wants to abort it. You don't want the child? Too bad, she already has your sperm and you can't control what she does with it. Combined with our screwed up judicial system that almost exclusively favors women in custody cases, this is a very legitimate discussion for a man to be bringing up. Fathers are being devalued in our society more and more every day. If you want more proof of what they're saying, try being a man and going near a park where kids play. You'll get the evil eye from parents who think you're a pedophile even if you're just there to pick up your own kids.

Another good point he makes is when he talks about how unfair rape laws are against men. Men can now be brought to trial on nothing more than someone's word. People can now use anecdotal evidence in rape cases against the accused, but you can not use anecdotal evidence against the accuser (i.e. you can say "he's been accused of rape before!" but not "she's faslely accused people of rape before!"). When even conservative estimates say that 10% of rape accusations are false (some studies have placed it over 40%), something is seriously wrong at a societal level. Domestic violence cases are also stacked overwhelmingly in women's favor, despite the fact that over 40% of DV victims are men.

There are plenty of other things I could quote from the article that are legitimate points, but I think you get the point by now. This article is spot on, and the fact that you are encouraging people to laugh at it and call it misogynist without providing counter-arguments just proves the author's point.

But I guess this post makes me a misogynist too, so feel free to point and laugh.

 

[cim]

I think everything j7r mentioned is at least to a certain extent legitimate, and it's a damn shame that half the people trying to point this out are legitimately misogynistic or blame "the female gender" as a whole for gender disparity.

That's really where all hate starts - legitimate points or problems, then these problems are blamed on or assigned to a particularly broad group (women), then escalation, rinse, and repeat.

I'll tear into the debate if no one else breaks up j7r's post - I just think someone else will first....

 

[Chou Toshio]

I might post more as I get more into the article, but here's the take away:

Jack Bauer is a one man show in Hollywood

edit: Sorry Ancient Regime, but this guy is so dead on in regards to so much.

 

[Veedrock]

Yeah I've still got a long way to go but he's been pretty spot on so far. So far, while he has criticized females in general, I don't think he inherently means it applies to every woman; it's not so much a jab at women as it is a jab at what they're capable of, because society entitles them to it. I can't imagine him dropping the ball and going into mindless banter further on but I guess I'll see.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Well I didnt read very far into the article before I got bored and gave up, but as far as I got there was a lot in it that seemed like it actually was a long way from being spot on. Like the statistic that 90% of divorces are the womans fault, either because she filed or the man filed because she was adulterous or abusive. Which kinda implies that there are no divorces caused by men being adulterous or abusive (For instance if there is a similar proportion of divorces filed by women caused by men being adulterous or abusive as vice versa, then that gives us 56% of cases where the divorce is the fault of the male).

This isnt completely damning, if the person writing the article had not sucked at statistics they could have just said 70% of divorces are filed by women and it would have been impressive enough. But the problem with things like this is it makes me think the writer is stupid so I stop reading.

I was quite eager to hear how the economic decline of Detroit was attributable to feminism though, uhh, since some of you did read the article obviously could you fill me in on that.. Surely its more to do with american cars being kinda sucky..

Have a nice day.

 

[MrIndigo]

Another good point he makes is when he talks about how unfair rape laws are against men. Men can now be brought to trial on nothing more than someone's word. People can now use anecdotal evidence in rape cases against the accused, but you can not use anecdotal evidence against the accuser (i.e. you can say "he's been accused of rape before!" but not "she's faslely accused people of rape before!"). When even conservative estimates say that 10% of rape accusations are false (some studies have placed it over 40%), something is seriously wrong at a societal level. Domestic violence cases are also stacked overwhelmingly in women's favor, despite the fact that over 40% of DV victims are men.

This is incorrect on many points.

Men can't be brought to trial on someone's word. There is a requirement for the prosecution to have a prima facie case satisfied, i.e. they have to show that there is a minimum threshold of potential liability before the court will even hear the case.

Furthermore, because of the way sexual assault laws and trials are constructed, the trial itself is HEAVILY anti-complainant, pro-defendant, beyond even the normal criminal-trial bias toward the defendant's innocence beyond reasonable doubt. This means that the only time a prosecutor will take a rape case to trial is when they're almost certain that they will get a conviction.

You're also wrong about the admissibility of evidence; tendency evidence is almost NEVER admissible against the defendant, but it IS against the complainant. The example you give isn't even anecdotal evidence like you're referring to. A better example is "She has had lots of sexual partners" or "She often wears low-cut tops."; those sorts of evidence have been excluded from use against the complainant by recent amendments because they don't actually prove or disprove the case, they just create prejudice.

I don't know where you get the domestic violence figures from, but the stuff that I've read during my law degree pegs it more like 90+% towards women, not 60-40. Furthermore, your statistics on sexual assault being faked are also incorrect; rape is actually one of the LEAST falsely-accused charges; it has roughly the same rate of false accusation (upper estimates of about 5%) as most other crimes, except that rape is statistically the most underreported crime so the number of actual rapes is higher, bringing the ratio of false accusations to rapes down.

Most of the rest of your post is accurate, but this part reflects a pretty clear absence of knowledge about the legal system and the way it works.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Men can't be brought to trial on someone's word. There is a requirement for the prosecution to have a prima facie case satisfied, i.e. they have to show that there is a minimum threshold of potential liability before the court will even hear the case.

Furthermore, because of the way sexual assault laws and trials are constructed, the trial itself is HEAVILY anti-complainant, pro-defendant, beyond even the normal criminal-trial bias toward the defendant's innocence beyond reasonable doubt. This means that the only time a prosecutor will take a rape case to trial is when they're almost certain that they will get a conviction.

I may have misspoken, I can't find anything directly saying that it could be brought to trial based on hearsay, but it is definitely possible for a man to be arrested without any corroborating evidence from the accuser. This might give more info:

That wasn't enough, they said. So we enacted Fed.R.Evid. 413 and many states adopted similar laws. Unlike any other criminal charge, including murder, assault, even planning the World Trade Center attacks, a rape trial in federal court and in various states allows evidence of the defendant's commission of prior offenses (specifically, his prior offenses of sexual assault) to show that he has a propensity for committing the crime at issue. This rule, which is unique in all of American jurisprudence and widely condemned by legal scholars, allows the jury to hear about the defendant's prior acts whether or not the defendant takes the stand. Even accusations of prior sexual offenses that occurred years before -- and even crimes for which the defendant was acquitted -- are admissible if the alleged act is proven by just a preponderance of the evidence (far lower than beyond a reasonable doubt). This is sometimes all a jury needs to convict the man or boy of the crime at issue.

Because of rape shield laws, the victims anonymity is protected, but not the anonymity of the accused...meaning that the accused party never even has to face their accuser.

FBI statistics for the annual rate of false reporting of forcible assault across the country have been a consistent 8%.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#cite_note-0 A study from the UK found that of the approximately 14,500 cases of rape reported in 2005/2006 9% were classified as false allegations.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#cite_note-1

Nearly 10% of rape accusations are found to be false...obviously people like to jump the gun when charging people. Rape is a devastating charge, and even a mere accusation can ruin a man's reputation and career. That's why prosecutors are more likely to go after them: they provide free scapegoats for the media, the accused are more likely to settle and keep numbers where they want them. There are actually cases of British lawmakers making stricter laws in the late 90s because rape allegations were at an all-time low.

You're also wrong about the admissibility of evidence; tendency evidence is almost NEVER admissible against the defendant, but it IS against the complainant. The example you give isn't even anecdotal evidence like you're referring to. A better example is "She has had lots of sexual partners" or "She often wears low-cut tops."; those sorts of evidence have been excluded from use against the complainant by recent amendments because they don't actually prove or disprove the case, they just create prejudice.

The unfortunate part about not being able to use "she's a slut!" as evidence is that you also can't use "she explicitly told me that she wanted to do this!" as evidence. Because of the elimination of mens rea, a woman can change her mind at literally any time before or after the fact about consenting to sex, whether or not the sex was intended to be consensual from the beginning.

I don't know where you get the domestic violence figures from, but the stuff that I've read during my law degree pegs it more like 90+% towards women, not 60-40. Furthermore, your statistics on sexual assault being faked are also incorrect; rape is actually one of the LEAST falsely-accused charges; it has roughly the same rate of false accusation (upper estimates of about 5%) as most other crimes, except that rape is statistically the most underreported crime so the number of actual rapes is higher, bringing the ratio of false accusations to rapes down.

I've never seen anything say >90% of DV victims are female, even from horribly biased sources. Here are some sources that back up my claim of a 60-40ish spread, and that's not counting cases where violence was reciprocal.

And I have a problem with people saying that "rape (or anything) is the most underreported crime". How could you possibly know that, and how could you possibly quantify that with the varying definitions of rape? People saying things like that without supporting them are what creates the anti-male attitude that the author in the OP was advocating against.

I don't mind this little side-tangent, but I'm personally more interested in what other people think is misogynist about the article in the OP considering the initial reaction to this thread.

 

[Ancien Régime]

I noticed that we've started to cherry-pick the few legitimate points in the article without noticing things like "unspoken sexual contracts between males and females", conspiracy theories about "pro-female social engineering" and "some mass murderer guy is justified because he couldn't get any (granted, it's a different article, but the author of the piece I linked to agrees wholeheartedly) or "pseudo-anthropological analysis of the institution of marriage".

No, I'm not a big fan of pretty much everything jrrrr mentioned (of course current law unfairly penalizes males because of feminist lobbying, who is disputing that, and I think modern feminism is a really, truly appalling ideology), but that wasn't the main thrust of the article - the main thrust of the article was a psuedo-anthropological view of male and female relations that seeks to elevate a certain view of said relations from mere preference to something that appears sacrosanct, while justifying the failings of unattractive males by presenting the majority of Western females as sluts. No really, this stuff has a startling resemblance to stuff I've read on 4chan.

For example:

Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'.

And:

In the past, the steady hand of a young woman's mother and grandmother knew that her beauty was temporary, and that the most seductive man was not the best husband, and they made sure that the girl was married off to a boy with long-term durability. Now that this guidance has been removed from the lives of young women, thanks to 'feminism', these women are proving to be poor pilots of their mating lives who pursue alpha males until the age of 34-36 when her desirability drops precipitously and not even beta males she used to reject are interested in her.

arranged marriage fuck yeah (btw this guy is from india)

In India, for example, it is normal even today for either the bride's father to pay for the wedding, or for the bride's family to give custody of all wedding jewelry to the groom's family. The reason for this was so that the groom's family effectively had a 'security bond' against irresponsible behavior on the part of the bride, such as her leaving the man at the (Indian equivalent of the) altar, or fleeing the marital home at the first sign of distress (also a common female psychological response).

And then, his trumpeting of the "Venusian Arts". I think the ridiculousness of the idea of a step-by-step process for "seduction" speaks for itself.


I will admit he makes quite a few good points, like the idea of social conservatives ignoring the effect that the legal regime (as well as subsidized single motherhood) has had on the institution of marriage, but if nothing else, he presented a somewhat valid thesis in a way that makes it extremely difficult for anybody to take him seriously.

 

[Objection]

I am actually in the process of reading this and I suspect that the article is trying to extract reactions more so than to convey the truth, mostly because of the reactions I have had so far, and partly because of the bit about Tiger Woods' wife (I don't actually know if that story is true or not). Here's hoping that I myself do not witness examples of what this article is claiming.

I also had to look up "cuckolding". It would've been nice for the article to define it when it first appeared in there since, now that I know what it is, it appears to be a key concept.

EDIT:

This is pure evil, ranking right up there with the evil of Nazi Germany, Al-Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein.

Nazi comparison. If you have to make a Nazi comparison, your argument is failing badly.

 

[Miscellaneous]

I also had to look up "cuckolding". It would've been nice for the article to define it when it first appeared in there since, now that I know what it is, it appears to be a key concept.

Nazi comparison. If you have to make a Nazi comparison, your argument is failing badly.

Anyone who's studied Shakespeare (aka anyone over the age of 14) knows the word "cuckhold". It's a brilliant word as words go, there's no other verb quite like it. I'm not familiar with any Nazi memes or what have you but I don't think any factor can sum up an argument as "failing".

I don't have anything against feminism, but I do see that feminism is somewhat overly accepted nowadays, and any anti-feminism articles (like this one)
no matter how misogynistic or sexist are usually shunned. I think it's wrong that some principles are disregarded before there is really any discussion to be had. Feminism is far from unfair however, and the article is ridiculous, though not utterly ridiculous. There's some logic behind the discriminative bullcrap. Some. well, a bit.