Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Blue The Nation | August 20, 2014

Scroll to top



“Women Are Sluts”: A Misogynist Defends Misogyny

“Women Are Sluts”: A Misogynist Defends Misogyny
Jonathan Nathan

So apparently the backlash of angry fedora-wearing nerds against my article about why men should be feminists has now moved beyond the arenas of Reddit and 4Chan and the comments section. There is a blog out there called Evil Weasel which claims as its mission statement “Calling out feminists on their bullshit.” Well. I wonder what this fine fellow will have to say about men being feminists…(trigger warning)

No, because that isn’t how IQ works. Also, that’s an improper use of “reducing.” You wanted a word like “dropping” or “falling.”

Right here, I just want to point out that “mangina” is a frequently used pejorative hurled at men like me. The people that use this term are the first to bristle at the suggestion that they are misogynists, yet they consider women and women’s genitalia so wicked, stupid, and weak that they use them as insults. How is that misogyny, fellas?

If feminism promotes entitlement for women, the movement is doing a horrible job of achieving it. Men still make more money, men are still in charge of almost everything, and there’s really no discernible advantage to being a woman in America. Subjugation? Persecution? If this is subjugation and persecution, then keep on subjugating! I’m doing great!

What you mean here, when you say “unfair outcomes for men,” is that the gains of feminism have made it slightly less awesome to be a man, right? Things aren’t quite as easy, so you’re whining about it. You want to talk about no-fault divorce? Let’s talk about no-fault divorce. Before the advent of no-fault divorce, the only way out of a crappy, loveless marriage was proving adultery or cruelty–which are famously difficult to prove, especially for a woman. When a man cheats, he’s congratulated by the bros. When a woman cheats, she’s a whore. Similarly, when a woman reports abuse, she is likely to be disbelieved or told that she must have done something to deserve it. That’s less true today than it was 50 years ago, but that only bolsters the case that no-fault divorce is and was important.

Worse still, it was completely possible that one party could file for divorce, prove his or her case of adultery or cruelty, but by stymied by the other party’s employment of a recrimination defense. If the judge in the case found that both parties were at fault for the failure of the marriage, the divorce would not be granted. So even if a woman could successfully prove that her husband had committed wrongdoing sufficient to allow a divorce, she could still probably end up bound by the marriage. And for decades in Alabama, a divorce required the approval of a state legislative supermajority. Yeah. Between 1819 and 1861, getting a divorce was harder than overriding a gubernatorial veto in the state of Alabama.

Moving on to “lifetime alimony.” I’ve got so much on this I wrote a separate article on the matter. Suffice it to say that alimony compensates for inequalities which are, at this point, still inherent in most modern marriages. Until those entrenched inequalities are eliminated, alimony should not be eliminated either. That kind of thinking is often branded “reverse discrimination” by people who aren’t good at thinking, but when you live in a society where bigotry is institutional as well as–if not more so than–individual, you’re playing on an unlevel field. The field of play must be made level. Affirmative action, alimony, reparations, these are all ideas for how we can do that. “Equality before the law” does not mean that context should be ignored. It means that in any situation in which a man and a woman are, in fact, equal, they should be treated as such, and in any situation in which a man and a woman are not, in fact, equal, the approach must take that inequality into account in an endeavor to create equal opportunities and rights.

Let’s talk now about “parental alienation.” This is a favorite canard of misogynist MRAs. They believe that mothers intentionally poison the minds of their children against fathers in during divorce battles, and cite as evidence the work of a Richard A. Gardner. Gardner was an otherwise unremarkable psychologist who made up a clinical disorder he referred to as “Parental Alienation Syndrome” to explain what he believed to be an epidemic of false accusations against fathers of sexual abuse.

He never produced evidence of this supposed epidemic and his made-up disorder has never been recognized by the American Psychiatric Association or the American Medical Association. As recently as last year, with the release of the DSM-V, the APA once again affirmed that Parental Alienation Syndrome would be excluded, as would any similar ideas. The whole notion has been savaged by just about everybody in the psychiatric and medical communities. To save time, I’m just going to link to Wikipedia’s subsection on the theory’s “Scientific Status,” not because Wikipedia is a good source, but because the subsection basically amounts to a cluster of links about why Parental Alienation Syndrome is a garbage idea. Predictably, Gardner himself was divorced by his wife. I wonder what made him want to invent a psychiatric disorder that could be used against women in family court?

Up next, “false rape accusations!” Do you notice a pattern here? All these misogynists are constantly claiming to be the victims of false allegations. They think they’re falsely characterized as misogynists. They think their gender is falsely accused of having privilege. One of them invented an entire crackpot theory about how men are falsely accused of child sexual abuse. And of course they’re all being falsely accused of rape. But this doesn’t jibe with reality. Only 8% of rape reports are classified by the FBI as unfounded, and many of those are still not actually “false” because of varying definitions of an unfounded report. And in Australia, the home of Evil Weasel, only 2.1% of rape reports are believed by the authorities to be false. By contrast, 54% of rapes in the United States aren’t even reported to the authorities.

At a certain point, gentlemen, with absolutely no research supporting your view that you are all being falsely accused of all these things, wouldn’t a rational person step back and ask himself, “Is it me?” How many awful–and ultimately very similar–things must you be accused of before you stop blaming the world and start looking at yourself?

Next we have male homelessness and male deaths in the workplace. First, homelessness. While the majority of homeless people with children are women, it is true that the majority of homeless individuals are men. Why is that? A good explanation comes courtesy of the now-defunct male feminist blog No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz?:

First, it is necessary to consider aspects of the male gender role that might make men more likely to be homeless: for instance, men’s greater likelihood of being veterans, or the tendency of men to not seek treatment for their mental illnesses and substance abuse…Second…homelessness is a lot more gender equal than a lot of people present it…Third, it is important to note that there may be reasons why women are more likely to be housed than men that still don’t mean the women are in a particularly good situation. For instance, women are more likely to participate in survival sex in exchange for housing. “Survival sex or homelessness,” however, is one of those dilemmas that really leaves no one in a particularly good situation.

There are similar aspects to the issue of men dying in the workplace. It’s true that 93% of Americans who die on the job are men, but the reason for that is probably that the industries with the highest death rates are mining, agriculture, forestry, fishing, and construction. Those are not industries that welcome women, and women are not socialized to aspire to work in them. I think it’s time for me to use some MRA logic against the MRAs here. You know how misogynists are always telling women that if they don’t want to have kids, they should keep their legs closed? Try this on for size: If you don’t want to die on the job, don’t work in an industry where you’re likely to die.

Beyond that, why are these things somehow the fault of women or feminists? Can one of these MRAs please explain how feminists are responsible for this stuff? Whenever you challenge them to do that, they get defensive and deflect. Instead of coming up with an answer, they just yammer about how feminists don’t care about equality because they don’t care about men’s issues. But that’s a really flawed way of looking at it. Feminists “don’t care” about male homelessness or male workplace casualties the same way environmentalists “don’t care” about them. Which is to say they absolutely do care, but these issues are not feminist issues any more than they are environmentalist issues. Furthermore, when we realize that both of these issues stem from the same problematic gender roles that feminists are fighting against, it becomes clear that feminists are addressing the root causes of male homelessness and male workplace casualties.

To prove this mathematically would be very difficult because it’s pretty hard to identify something as subjective as feminism. I would point to the fact that rape has steadily dropped since 1992, a period which roughly corresponds to the increasing influence of feminist thought, but that’s a correlation at best.

At any rate, Evil Weasel is wrong about my “obvious inferences.” I’m beginning to suspect that he didn’t even read past the boldfaced type. I actually stressed the point that almost nobody is a “rapist looking for a target.” I fully agree that the vast majority of men are “non-rapists who would never consider raping a woman.” The problem is that the majority of men–and women–also do not know the complete definition of the crime of rape. (By the way, for a guy who thinks most men would “never consider” rape, Evil Weasel and his type do an awful lot of fantasizing about it.)

I’ll cop to that. Conventional masculinity conditions men to view women as subhuman, so yeah, I think that needs to be destroyed. And sure, that might be the masculinity that “allowed men to bulid society as we have it today,” but have you noticed how much the world sucks, Evil Weasel? I know you’re aware of the homelessness issue. There are wars. There’s a massive gap between the rich and the poor. Gay people can’t get married in much of the world, and in some places they can be killed just for existing. And the more patriarchal and male-centric a given society is, the more pronounced all of those issues are! That’s the society I’m supposed to be proud of?

Men don’t expect women to change their concept of femininity to suit men? Really? And here I am reading Evil Weasel and WhoIsM3 and all these other MRA sites, and I constantly see condemnations of “slutty” women (which is funny, given that it comes from guys who avowedly sleep around.) And I also see condemnations of women who don’t “give it up.” Interestingly, that makes a lot of sense, given that most women feel like they’re constantly being told that they are simultaneously too slutty and too chaste. Who’s telling them that? Unicorns? Gremlins? Or could it be that men, and a society built around men, are telling them that?

I don’t think that being a woman makes you automatically good at everything. I do believe that the very few women who have reached positions of power have done so because they had to strive twice as hard to get there. As a result, most of them have ended up doing pretty well. But go ahead, keep on non-misogynistically implying that women should never be in any position of authority.

Oh that is just precious.

It’s true that no one forces a woman to have consensual sex, although it can often be pretty hard to define “consensual” when 54% of rapes go unreported. But even beyond that, doesn’t it strike you as weird that the very same guy who gets angry at women who don’t sleep with him also condemns them for sleeping with people? Again, it’s the insane double standard of the misogynist: all women should have sex with me, but they should never have sex with anybody else.

Hold up, what? Women were not treated as property of their fathers or husbands for most of human history? Women did not give up the right to own property upon marriage for most of the history of civil marriage? Women were not barred from voting in the United States until 1920? Women have not been treated as criminals for being raped in numerous cultures for centuries? Are you seriously out of your mind?

You barely had to think about it, you don’t say? I wouldn’t have guessed that not much thinking went into this. You do seem brain-damaged, I’ll give you that much.

  • MOWaterhouse

    One look at this guy is all I need to know. He wasn’t breast-fed long enough, his mother didn’t love him enough. He’s terrified someone will find out about his teeny tiny penis. This is a man who both hates and is terrified by women. He can say what he wants about men who are feminists not being “real men”. I can tell you without a doubt – the men I know who are feminists never worry about who is having sex, being ‘oppressed’ by women… they just love women. And women love them back. Men who are feminists don’t have to “force women” to have sex, women give it to them freely. Ask my feminist boyfriend.

    • JonathanNathan

      To be fair, that image is not of the guy who wrote all this garbage. It’s just from some stock B-roll footage of an angry guy with a beard.

  • Brosie Waith

    Hah, you hit the nail on the head! Thank you!

  • DLZ

    Oh lawd. Please don’t start crying yet again about MRA’s. Shaming us does not work, or haven’t you figured this out yet?

    • JonathanNathan

      And leaving dumbass comments doesn’t stop me from exposing you people for what you really are. Haven’t you figured that out yet?

      • daboys1215

        Ha! We’ve been exposing worthless twats like you for decades. We will continue to do so until your bigoted hate movement is nothing but a distant memory in the waste bin of history.

    • Ana

      Seems to be working to me, from my humble, detached and amused perspective. You lot are among the biggest hypocrites and misogynists I’ve ever seen. The way I figure: you’re either too stupid to understand what feminism actually is, or you’re upset by the fact that any self-respecting woman wants nothing to do with you (and your resounding smallness; take that as you will).

      Men like Jonathan threaten men like you because he simply understands one very simple concept (that’s evidently too “complicated” for ignoramuses like those self-proclaimed “MRA”s who’ve expressed the opinions posted above): if you want someone to have respect for you, you in turn have to give them respect. And, chew on this: “respect” does not equate to someone simply being whatever you tell them to be and giving you whatever you want whenever you want it, sh*t-for-brains. :)

  • miasopapia

    I would likely have objected to number 3 as well, but for different reasons. Yes, there might be something to be said about how hard women have to work to get to higher positions as some proof of productivity, but have you ever heard of, say, Margaret Thatcher (who, admittedly, did a really freaking awesome job at being capitalist, conservative scum)? Some men will do amazing jobs in positions of leadership and power and some men will do terribly or even just so-so. The same is true for women. This isn’t because women are women, it’s because women happen to be people.

    Otherwise, your points and retorts were spot on. Thanks for being an awesome feminist male!

    • Zoë Hudson-Rose

      Margaret Thatcher was known as “the best man in the cabinet.” She wasn’t a feminist, she admitted to hating feminists, and she’s really not indicative of the majority of the female population. She removed all the other women in her cabinet, she did nothing for the good of her gender.

      That said, I don’t like what she stands for, but some of her policies made sense. The mines, for example, were working at a loss before she closed them down.

      • miasopapia

        Kinda missed my point…

  • salome0431

    It seems this did not post the first time, if it shows up I apologise for the double post.?

    Dude, ableism is not acceptable. Mental/physical impairments/disorders are not the cause of, nor symptoms of, misogyny. Other than that, fabulous article.

    • JonathanNathan

      Come again?

  • Bastet

    Im a feminist woman and I agree with most of what you have said here but not all of it.

    I live in a country that does not have any alimony. I think we need it but I am against lifelong alimony. On this, I have to agree that lifelong alimony is gender discrimination against (predominantly) men. To my way of thinking, fair alimony would equal lost earnings during pregnancy and child rearing, retraining costs plus time and regaining work position equal to what would have been expected if had no children been had by the couple. This takes into account that children are the benefit, joy and responsibility of both parents while also recognizing female agency. Child custody and child costs, given two caring and loving parents should be 50/50

    On the matter of male refuge and male deaths at work I think these are issues. As such, they need to primarily addressed by men and supported by women in the sane way as the gendered pay gap needs to be primarily addressed by women and supported by men.

    On homelessness, there are gender based different experiences such as a homeless man is more likely to be the victim of beating, a homeless woman is more likely to be the victim of rape. So, yes gender issues exist within it however I believe the problem of homelessness does not need to be addressed by helping only male or only female.

    On balance, fantastic article, well written, very good points made. I look forward to reading more.

  • Bastet

    Hi again,
    I just wanted to add to claim “Men don’t expect women to change their concept of femininity to suit men?”
    It goes FAR, FAR beyond slut-shaming and prude-shaming.

    *Lads Mags
    *Hair (every single strand of it on every part of the body)
    *The commodification of youth and disregard of older (not even old, 35 and over) women as valueless and ‘had it’. Aka: extreme ageism.
    *Expectation to never ‘demand’ any kind of standards of behaviour from men lest one gets called a ‘feminazi’. Another way of saying ‘put up & shut up or be publicly humiliated’.

    Women are very much expected to conform to a male fantasy version of femininity. The fantasy of sex object, always sexually available, stupid but caring and nurturing and always puts her mans needs ahead of her own. Dissapears after having children or showing ANY signs of ageing.

  • Philip Bralich

    read pbralich’s “On Women in the Workplace” at