“Women Are Sluts”: A Misogynist Defends Misogyny
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.