Male Feminist Splits Hairs On “The Brutality of the Male Libido”; Men Aren’t Bad, Just Toxic Masculinity

Some additional Stephen Marche commentary by a lecturer of philosophy at Northeastern Illinois. I have nothing clever to add about the background of the author, Tyler Zimmer. Another male feminist crawling up out of the termite-infested structure of academia.

While bent over locking up my bike in Chicago a few years ago, I heard the all-too-familiar sound of a wolf whistle. I turned around to get a look at the jerks accosting some woman on the street, only to realize I was the one who was being cat called. A man passing by from behind had seen my long curly hair and tight jeans and mistaken me for a woman. When I turned around to face him, he was shocked and started apologizing profusely. In so many words, he was saying: ”This is an unacceptable way to behave toward a man.” And we both knew, if I were a woman, there would be no apology.

And if you were in the county lockup, there would not only be no apology, you’d have several more ‘admirers’ who were sincere in their affections because of long curly hair and tight pants.

This is the double standard at the heart of masculinity: Men are taught to regularly say and do things to women that they would never say or do to other men, that they would never want men to say or do to them. That is not due to some timeless “male libido” driving their behavior. It’s because masculinity is founded on the myth that men alone are rights-bearing persons and women are subordinate, passive, second-class beings who either need the protection of or deserve to be subjected to men.

Men are also taught (by who, these advocacy pieces are never clear on, possibly fairies or some other imperceptible being) to tolerate physical and mental abuse from females that they would not tolerate from any man. They learn it from their mothers (oh, that’s a girl! You can’t roughhouse with them! Their not like boys!) and from bluepill males (you don’t ever put your hands on a female!) So yes, double standards are at the heart of masculinity because females and men alike recognize that men are the stronger and more enduring of the sexes and the only reason they can dare to try and lay this double standard on men is because we are strong enough to bear it. It is not in our best interests as individuals or as a class to bear it in any circumstances, and certainly not in a gynocentric society, but that’s another story for another time.

And females can hold all of the rights of men when they bear all of the social and legal responsibilities of men.

Still waiting to hear back on that Selective Service thing. Females?

In a recent New York Times op-ed, however, writer Stephen Marche uses some outdated Freudian ideas about sexuality and gender and the recent explosion of allegations of sexual misconduct to argue that male sexual desire is inherently brutal and oppressive. Thus, there’s no use, as Marche puts it, in “pretending to be something else, some fiction you would prefer to be.” So, feminist ideas are practically useless. The only fruitful thing men can do to respect women as equals is repress their natural urges.

Marche didn’t just use some outdated Freudian ideas; he flat out accused men of inherently being monstrous, which puts him in lockstep with a great many revered ‘thinkers’ and agitators of the feminist movement (MacKinnon, Dworkin, Morgan, Daly, Brownmiller, Solanas, et al.)

In truth, the very problem with masculinity Marche describes in his op-ed is too much repression: The rules governing masculinity require men to be stoic, to repress virtually all of their emotions (except anger). This leads many men to severely underdevelop their own ability to analyze and communicate about their own feelings. Our culture, not men’s nature, has enforced this emotional repression.

Where might I find these ‘rules of masculinity’ in writing? Stoicism is not a state of being, it is a tool for interacting with the world and the people in it. Stoics recognized that universally any given man can control nothing but his own thoughts and his own actions. They also recognized that a man did not have any inherent right to control the thoughts and actions of anyone but himself. Stoicism requires emotional homeostasis, the subordination of emotion to reason, especially those emotions that arise from erroneous judgments. A Stoic man seeks to tame his Pathos so that he cannot be manipulated by others because, as pointed out before, Stoics believe that a man has the right to control only his own thoughts and actions; as a corollary, no man has an inherent right to control the Stoic’s thoughts or actions.

Indeed, every man can think of at least one experience where he was punished for failing—whether intentionally or accidentally—to obey the dictates of these masculine rules. I remember a playground game where my friends and I would re-enact scenes from Disney films. I volunteered myself for the role of Ariel from the Little Mermaid. She was the protagonist and, it seemed to me, the best character to be. My peers bullied and teased me for this failure to obey the rules of compulsory masculinity for weeks afterward, and “Ariel” became a standard go-to insult in arguments.

In a world where females largely control the household, the primary purveyors of this punishment for failure to obey dictates is a female, specifically, a single mother. Here is where the author inserts the obligatory sleight-of-hand that all feminist discourse demands: He conflates the petty cruelty of children to a ‘dictate of masculinity.’ It is a minority of people who cannot comb over their childhood and find some instance of childhood teashing, bullying, or shaming done to them by some beastly, non-Stoic child who wished to exert power at the expense of their target. The author fails to point out that the petty power plays of children are despised in men as we grow larger, stronger, and, hopefully, more rational. Men are expected to moderate their natural strength with reason, wisdom, and again, hopefully, mercy. Otherwise, we’re just clubbing each other over the heads with sticks.

Females, on the other hand, never grow out of childhood power politics. The same tactics small girls practice are mastered by adult women: Out-grouping, gossip, shaming, physical attacks, shunning. These tactics degrade comraderie and social cohesion in any group they are introduced in, but the feminist modus operandi can best be summed up by Robin Morgan in the Redstockings Manifesto: “We do not need to change ourselves, but to change men.”

This is the kind of masculinity that also teaches men they don’t have to ask permission to act on their sexual desires. They’re supposed to take charge and have no reason to respect women’s autonomy. This is what feminists mean when they say sexual harassment and assault are about power, not desire. It’s our culture, not our libidos, that shapes the way men act upon otherwise healthy, run-of-the-mill sexual desires. In itself, there is nothing inherently brutal in a man who is sexually attracted to a woman he works with—no more than there would be if a woman desires a man she works with.

But there is a difference between discreetly (or silently) deriving pleasure from someone’s presence, on the one hand, and imposing one’s desires on that person, especially if they’re unreturned or unwanted. The difference here, as the feminist philosopher Sandra Bartky puts it, is the difference between healthy eroticism and rituals rooted in toxic ideas about masculinity.

Antonio Gramsci called. He’d like his Cultural Hegemony back, if you don’t mind.

I don’t like doing this because after awhile, it just tastes sour, but the success of the 50 Shades of Grey franchise, among females, has largely put the lie to this claim of ‘respect female’s autonomy.’ Despite feminist whining about the nonexistent rape culture, females, not men, have defined what are and are not acceptable sexual customs and rituals. Females define these customs and rituals by the nature and actions of the men they choose to have sex with. 50 Shades is the most recent example but not the only. Books, TV shows, and novels have been gobbled up by females in which a bored, and usually boring, female is whisked off on an adventure by a man who is on the path to glory, fame, or self-destruction.

Females are the gatekeepers of sex. Men merely observe, note, and perform what is necessary to get through the gate.

If a man wants to act on his attraction, or sexual urges? Here, communication, the very thing modern notions of masculinity train us away from, is key. Genuine communication is a two-way street; it presupposes that both participants have an equal right to withdraw from the interaction or decline an offer. Men already understand this to some extent, because this is how men typically behave in interactions with other men.

So, relating to women as equals, as genuine peers, doesn’t necessarily require repressing desire. Instead, it requires coming to terms with the fact that masculinity trains men to have great difficulty recognizing women—or, indeed, anyone that presents as feminine—as persons, as agents, as authoritative and worthy of respect, and then making an effort to see and treat them that way.

Females actively repudiate agency when possessing agency does not benefit them. If men are always to be held responsible for their actions, why should men respect the ‘selective agency’ of females at all? If females are allowed to offer up their varying forms of ‘the Devil made me do it’, but replace the Devil with ‘culture’, ‘medications’, ‘stress’, ‘fatigue’, ‘post-partum’, ‘PTSD’, ‘I was afraid of a man’, ‘Patriarchy’ et cetera ad nauseum, then females are not agents at all.

A few years before my own experience with a catcall, I saw a young woman walking down a Chicago street with a milkshake in hand. A man watching her pass by shouted, “Titties!” at her. Without skipping a beat, she turned around, threw her milkshake at him, and continued on her way. Those of us on the street chuckled in admiration as the man stood dripping from head to toe with chocolate milkshake.

So, when one man assaults another man for words, that’s bad and evil and toxic masculinity. When a female assaults a man for words, you chuckle in admiration?

Yeah, fuck you, you hypocrite.



A Canadian White Ribbon Campaigner Wants Men To Risk Their Lives For Females

I am a lot of things. I am Rehtaeh Parsons’ father. I am an advocate for victims of sexual assault and cyberbullying. But most of all, I am sick of saying, “if a boy or man had done the right thing, a girl or woman would still be alive.”

For readers unfamilar with the Rehtaeh Parsons’ saga, Parsons was a Canadian teenager who, at the tender age of 15, got drunk and let four boys run a train on her.


It got out that she’s the type of chick who plays with trains. Males of a certain age thought, “if her standards are that low, maybe I have a shot” and texted her looking to get a piece of her kit-kat bar. The girls, being the cruel little beasts that they are, texted her that she was a slut (there’s nothing wrong with being a slut if done for honorable reasons).

About a week later, Parsons told her family that she had been raped. After a year-long investigation, the Mounties determined that there was insufficient evidence to lay charges. About a year later, Parsons decided to self-terminate via hanging.

I am sick of urging men and boys to prevent violence against women and then seeing familiar news headlines over and over. Reading about what happened to Kassidi Coyle earlier this year shook me to my core. I saw parallels between what happened to her and what happened to my daughter: A sexual assault that eventually led a young girl to take her own life.

Unless your name is Socrates, or you are a samurai, suicide is a personal decision.

And so I ask myself, again, why does this keep happening? I’ve been noticing a deadly disconnect between what Canadians say we want in theory versus what we actually do in practice … A disconnect that is literally killing women and girls.

If women decide to self-terminate, that’s their own decision.

Her body, her choice, right?

Take the latest Canadian Women’s Foundation survey, for example. This is the first time the foundation asked Canadians about the role of men and boys in ending violence against women. So what do Canadians say they want?

As Nietzsche once aptly described as the “mania for counting noses” (democracy) is embodied in the Western fetish for surveys and polls.

Please, Mr. Canning, tell me, what does the voice of God, as filtered through the people and the pollsters, say?

Ninety-three per cent of Canadians say they want men to take a more active role in ending violence against women. But how many people are working with men and boys to end violence in their own lives and communities? And how many people are talking to the boys in their lives about consent and how to safely intervene in a situation that they know is wrong?

There is no such thing as “safely” intervening in a potentially violent situation. Stepping into a conflict puts everyone at risk. Either be prepared to accept the consequences of intervention, call a cop, or mind your own business.

When Intervention Goes Wrong
Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

I’m not interested in intervening to save women, especially not if the woman in question played a role in creating the conflict.

I hate to say it, but I think we as Canadians often take an “Oh, he’s a good kid. I’m sure he’d make the right decision in a situation like that” approach. That’s not good enough anymore. It never was good enough.

His body, his choice, right? Or, do only women get to claim bodily autonomy?

Three quarters of Canadians feel that men don’t challenge other men when they witness inappropriate behaviour toward women in public (75 per cent) and in the workplace (74 per cent). When it comes to holding other men accountable, we can all agree it’s the right thing to do in theory. But it clearly isn’t happening in practice.

Women are strong and independent and don’t need no man. Let them defend themselves.

And it especially isn’t happening behind closed doors — I know that no one held anyone accountable when young men got into a room with my daughter, raped her, and then circulated a photo around her school. And what did one of the boys say when he spoke with a journalist? “‘I felt like if she didn’t want it, it wouldn’t have happened.” We are all failing our next generation if this is the way our 16-year-olds think about consent.

Remember now: Women are perfectly equal to men, except that it is impossible for them to give non-verbal consent or implicit consent.

Yay! Equality!

Speaking of accountability, thankfully 4-in-5 Canadians (79 per cent) feel “boys will be boys” is an outdated attitude. So that means, from a young age, we must hold our boys accountable for their behaviour. Our boys can be shown how to embody empathy and compassion. We must make no excuse for toxic masculinity to get embedded in our next generation.

84% of your provincial and territorial prison population are men. 93% of your federal prison population are men.

Canada is doing just fine holding the “boys” accountable.

Speaking of prisoners, why does the Social Justice crowd think it is appropriate to hammer boys with their moral condescension about “boys will be boys” and “toxic masculinity” but would not dare go after adult men who are actually guilty of the things they claim are problems?

And while 71 per cent of Canadians rightly say “locker room talk” is a big deal, I was disheartened to find out from the Canadian Women’s Foundation survey that almost half (42 per cent) of millennial men think it isn’t a big deal. Language matters. Language normalizes, justifies, and perpetuates a cycle that turns women and girls into objects for men’s consumption, rather than positioning them as equals.

If you demand someone’s protection, you are not their equal. You are either their superior or their inferior. They are either your patron (superior) or your guard dog (inferior).

Equals protect each other.

One last contrast from the foundation’s survey: 72 per cent of millennial men believe there is no reason for a woman to feel less safe in public than a man. Yet almost half (45 per cent) of millennial women report feeling unsafe because of their gender in the past 12 months. If that’s not a disconnect, I don’t know what is.

Feelings, nothing more than feelings,
Trying to forget my feelings of love.
Teardrops rolling down on my face,
Trying to forget my feelings of love.



I refuse to order my life around your subjective and irrational emotions.

So what is the one action I hope every Canadian reading this will take? Ask a teen boy in your life to imagine him and his male friends in a room with a girl, like the situation Rehtaeh and the boys were in. Ask him what he will do. Who will he stand up for? Prepare him for the sad reality that his friends might make fun of him for doing the right thing. Let him know you will be proud of him for it.

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?

No one should care more about your own well-being than you. Not random teenage boys. Not strange men. YOU. If you put yourself in position to get a train run on you, that’s your call. Men are not plastic rain ponchos that women get to grab, put on, and toss away when the storm has passed. We have just as much of an interest in our own safety as women do in theirs. And if these rapine, murderous men are such a threat to women, why wouldn’t they be a threat to a man? Do you imagine there is some special man hand-signal we put up to let each other know we are in the Man club? Here in the U.S., men are more of a lethal threat to other men than they are to women.

If women are strong enough and empowered enough to dig themselves into a bad situation, let them be strong and empowered enough to climb back out without crying for a random man to rescue them.


Jess Phillips and the Tyranny of the Male Feminist

My second-favorite Labour MP (second because there’s Jeremy Corbyn and the heterosexual white males always have to win) Jess Phillips attended the Edinburgh International Book Festival. While there, she had some interesting things to say about “left-wing men.” Compliments? Of course not. This is men we’re talking about. Nope, Jess wanted to complain about how left-wing men are the absolute worst.

A Labour MP has claimed that left-wing sexists are the worst of them all and that men on the left are the “absolute worst”.

Jess Phillips, the MP for Birmingham Yardley, accused left-wing men of benign neglect in the fight for sexual equality.

She told the Edinburgh International Book Festival the “well-meaning, left-leaning” men were worse than what someone else said are the “out and out sexists of the right”.

Benign sexism vs. Out and out sexism?

This is going to be better than any Clegane-bowl could possibly be.

She said: “They [the left-wing men] are the worst, the actual worst”. Men said they supported better female representation but, when it came to losing their own jobs, they would say, ‘Oh, you mean me? But I am so clever. I’ve got so much to offer the world’. They are literally the worst.”

Keep in mind that Phillips is the same woman who wanted to ban men from running for office under the Labour banner until women achieved “parity” with men.

Phillips does a good job exposing two Feminist lies about men and power and the type of man who supports Feminism from a position of power. The first lie exposed is that men in power are in business for their fellow men. This has been untrue since the beginning of civilization. Men in power are in the business of retaining their power, not to help other men.

There is no Patriarchy. But there is an Oligarchy and feminists have proven very useful tools of that Oligarchy to keep men without power from having a chance of getting power of their own. That is what Feminism is and has always been: Females who were part of the Oligarch class, but excluded from being Oligarchs themselves, demanding to become Oligarchs in their own right. To rule over inferior men as they saw similarly situated men do. Feminists became willing servants to tyranny for the promise of power.

These same oligarchical men freely support better female representation in government, in the C-suite, in Hollywood, in universities, in the military, etc. do so at no cost to themselves. They intend for someone else’s ox to be gored, not their own. The female representation in government will, by Phillips own admission, be paid for by excluding men who aren’t already in positions of power.

Ms Phillips told a tale of how a left-wing journalist at the Guardian had told her Harriet Harman was not good for women and that Jeremy Corbyn had “always voted the right way”.

Although it was thought she was referring to Seamus Milne, the Labour Party director of communications, both parties denied this.

The Labour MP said sarcastically: “So yeah, Jeremy Corbyn better for women than Harriet Harman, obviously,

“I remember him in all those meetings, there with his banners for [equality]”.

It might have been Owen Jones. I have no proof of this. However, Jones can hardly be stopped when it comes to fellating Comrade Corbyn’s Commie Cock.

She also said that while left-wing men think they want equality for women, “they don’t think of you on the same level”.

Of course they don’t think of you as on the same level. A beggar is never on the same level as a giver. So long as Feminists run around begging powerful men to give them things, then they are admitting that they are inherently not on their level.

Do for yourself and be treated like an equal, or beg and be treated like what you are.

“When they close their eyes at night and think of amazing people who have changed the world, it’s always some white dude that pops into their head,” she continued.

That…is a strange thing to think about before going to sleep, but this is Jess Phillips we are talking about. However, it is interesting that Phillips is objecting to men THINKING in a way she doesn’t like at the same time she is objecting to men not acting in ways she does not like.

Ms Phillips also added that women are completely missing from Labour Party industrial strategy because it was all about “men with shovels”.

Perhaps women ought to pick up some shovels if they want to be included in a conversation about industrial labor. Oh, wait, that’s not an air-conditioned, C-suite job or a ministerial post where a woman would get to order men around.

She said she is abused on Twitter a lot by “dunder-heided Neanderthals”, and revealed that after her friend Jo Cox MP was murdered she reported all the death threats she received to West Midlands police, and it was “quite a lot”.

That’s what the Block button is for. If a brutish, pussy-grabbing, evil male like Donald Trump can have someone manage his Twitter, you would think that a smart, empowered female like Jess Phillips could get one as well.

This latest spat between Jess Phillips and men in the Labour Party demonstrates the type of men in power that Feminists ally with: Those who already have their boots firmly placed on the necks of the supermajority of men who lack power and are looking for any excuse to press down even harder. The male feminist aspires to benevolent tyranny, to decide when any particular man gets to succeed over any woman.

And that is why Feminists are the Handmaidens of Tyranny.


Stephen Marche Tries to Shame Men into Being Feminists and Fails Miserably…AGAIN

I gave Stephen Marche some treatment last year after he took a swipe at the Manosphere in general and TRP in particular. Much as I dislike having to defend TRP, I will do it when confronted with Feminist acolytes clucking their tongues and wagging their fingers at men.

But Marche is back and like most of the Progressives, he is struggling through early-onset Trump Derangement Syndrome. Combined with his pre-existing Feminist sickness results in a very aggressive and likely untreatable form of TDS. He wants to shame men into his particular brand of politics.

Let me knock down a beer and get to business.

The situation has, in one sense, simplified enormously. The elaborate labyrinths of identity politics have crumbled and left behind basic questions of fundamental human decency. Trump’s actions as president, more than his demeaning behavior on the campaign trail, are deliberately keeping women from power and attacking programs that promote their health, both in the US and globally. Feminism as humanism – the very basic idea that women are people – is now under threat. Any man who claims to possess a shared sense of humanity with women must stand with them.

Demeaning behavior on the campaign trail, including calling one-quarter of the electorate “deplorable”? Demeaning behavior like firing up a rumor that the front-runner in your party’s primary isn’t a natural-born American citizen in order to undermine his entire campaign? Or circulating a photo of Obama in a turban to emphasize the point? Demeaning behavior on the campaign trail like using party apparatus to limit debate and sandbag Bernie Sanders’ efforts? Spare me the disingenous gasping and clutching of pearls. Hillary Clinton is one of the dirtiest, most hardball campaigners in American history.

The Mexico City Policy is much simpler: He who pays the piper calls the tune. If you want Big Daddy Government’s money, guess what? You dance to the tune he calls. Don’t like it? Get your private money donation game up so that you don’t have to live and eat off of federal grants. Simple, yes? I guess it’s not simple for Progressives. They have this peculiar idea that they are entitled to spend other’s money on things they don’t support (Americans are split on abortion), to say nothing of the propriety of taking money from Americans and sending it abroad.

The evidence has become too glaringly obvious. Who could embody more perfectly “rape culture” than a man who was elected president of the United States while boasting about sexual predation?

Let’s see: A choice between a guy who said that “And when you’re a star they LET you do it. You can do anything.”

Notice the words of permission, there.

On the other side, we have a woman who brags about destabilizing foreign nations (Libya), resulting in the deaths of thousands, and exacerbated the “refugee crisis” by adding Libya to the mix.

President Warmonger vs. President Consensual Pussy-Grabber.

Not even a close choice.

What more proof do you need that women face structural disadvantages in their work lives than Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and still losing?

Today I learned that Andrew Jackson, Samuel Tilden, Grover Cleveland, and Al Gore were women who faced “structural disadvantages.”

Two contradictory processes are at work. One is the rise of women to dominance of the middle class; the other is the intractable continuation of male power at the top. Since 2000, women have increased their workplace participation in most countries in the world. Across the OECD, the pay gap declined significantly between 2000 and 2011. In the United States, the number of households led by women has been increasing since the 60s and currently stands at around 40%.


But I thought dominance was a bad thing? I thought “Feminism means equality”?

Oh that’s right, dominance is only bad when men do it.

Got it.

At the same time, women are kept from the top positions. There are any number of ways to register this fact, from a comparison of the salaries of male and female movie stars, to the number of women who are full professors, to the scandalously few women who are equity partners in law firms.

Women are kept from the bottom positions. There are any number of ways to register this fact, from a comparison of the sex-ratio of workplace fatalities, to the number of women in dangerous or high-risk occupations, to the scandalously few women who are loggers.

But what am I saying? “Feminism means equality” and “equality” only matters in the C-suite, not on the back of a garbage truck.

We cannot shape men until we have some kind of critical understanding of the mechanisms of masculinity. And simply put, we do not have that understanding. The first graduate program devoted to masculinity studies in the US began in 2015.

Here’s the money quote, right here. For the last 50 years, Feminists have raised a mighty howl, that no man should even dare to entertain the idea of telling a woman what she ought to do. Meanwhile, Feminists have waged a campaign by which they not only have the privilege, but the duty to alter, shape, mold and change men into something that suits their purposes: New Soviet Man…I mean, NEW FEMINIST MAN.

There have been calls for men to join in the feminist movement from its beginning, with two main difficulties: the first is that feminism is inherently about women. And so feminism’s message to men has always been pretty simple: behave better to women.

While creating no similar obligation of women to behave better to men.

The other problem is that men do not talk explicitly about their own gender.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Is this guy for real?

Men talk about their sex. We talk about it and matters pertaining to it. The problem that Feminists like Marche have is that when we talk about it, we proceed down lines of thinking towards conclusions are in no way useful to Feminism.

See Men’s Rights.


See The Red Pill.

And to Feminists, men discussing manhood in the absence of Feminist supervision is not acceptable. Can’t have the proles engaging in Wrongthink or the slaves discussing freedom.

Those facts, in themselves, reveal how far the way we talk about gender has deviated from its reality in American life. During a campaign stop for Hillary Clinton early in 2016, Madeleine Albright declared: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!” – a line that has appeared on Starbucks cups. Forty-two percent of American women felt otherwise, as did 62% of non-college educated women.

A comment for which Albright was roundly and rightly blistered. Albright reserved her own seat in hell by sponsoring a war that led to thousands of deaths and the raping of hundreds of women.

Gloria Steinem famously declared that women’s liberation will be men’s liberation, too. Trump has clarified that the opposite – women’s bondage, men’s bondage – is also true. It is men who need to say “this is not us.” But then we would have to think about who we are.

“Liberation” from what?

Women don’t owe men anything. Conversely, men don’t owe women anything. Not time, not attention, not labor, not blood, and not happiness. Consequently, I don’t “need” to do anything on the behalf of any woman.

They are our equals. Let them do for themselves.

Archived Source

A Feminist Dissents From Ryan Gosling; Women Are Not, In Fact, Better Than Men w/ a Shout-Out to r/MensRights

Stop the presses folks! Somebody in the media just criticized Ryan Gosling for saying “women are better than men.” Finally, one lone woman, a single voice crying out in the wilderness actually says “hold up. I thought feminism was supposed to be about equality?”

If pop feminism had a mascot, it might very well be Ryan Gosling. From the actor’s outspoken comments about respecting women to the ubiquitous “Hey Girl” memes created in his honor, Gosling has graciously taken on the role of feminism’s modern-day poster child. And who better to be the face of female empowerment than a good-looking, rich, white man?

He’s practically the George Francis Train of the 21st century.

Without all of that pesky racism.

Unfortunately, Gosling’s vagina-worshipping brand of feminism doesn’t always, you know, help women. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that his latest remarks actually set women back.

In case you missed the many headlines this week, the Gos sparked a media frenzy when he said the following in an interview with Britain’s ES Magazine.

I think women are better than men. They are stronger, more evolved. You can tell especially when you have daughters and you see their early stages, they are just leaps and bounds beyond boys immediately.

On the surface, these comments seem harmless, if not commendable. And indeed, most media outlets ate them up as “One more reason to love Ryan Gosling,” tee-hee-hee! To many fans, Gosling comes off like a highly evolved male who has simply come to realize what we females have always known: that we’re awesome.


But Gosling didn’t say “awesome.” He said “better”—and given that he has come to be viewed as a feminist spokesperson, that’s where the problem lies.

We live in an age in which “feminism” has become a dirty word, at least for people with vaginas. Female celebrities including Katy Perry, Shailene Woodley, Kelly Clarkson, and Kaley Cuoco have all said they’re reluctant to call themselves feminists because doing so would mean they somehow hate men—which, for the record, they don’t. As Clarkson told the Huffington Post in 2015, “I feel people have associated the word ‘feminist’ with ‘bitch’ and ‘man-hater’ and all these things … And I’m definitely not that girl.” That’s great, Kelly. I don’t hate men, either, but I’m still a feminist.

Take a step back from the conclusion of “I feel people have associated the word ‘feminist’ with ‘bitch’ and ‘man-hater’ and all these things…” and ask the question (or two, if you want to break it out as such): How/Why?

How/Why did “feminist” develop an association with “bitch” and “man-hater.”

Surely it had nothing to do with these will-travelled comments:

I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.

– Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor

Only when manhood is dead – and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it – only then will we know what it is to be free.”

– Andrea Dworkin, “The Root Cause,” speech, 26 Sept. 1975, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (published in Our Blood, ch. 9, 1976).

“Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex.”

– Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto

“The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness…can be trained to do most things”

– Jilly Cooper

Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear”

— Susan Brownmiller

“Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family- maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.”

– Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981.

“No women should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Women should not have that choice, because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one”

– Simone de Beauvoir, Saturday Review, June 14, 1975

“Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole…patriarch!”

– Gloria Steinem

I can keep beating this dead horse but you get the idea. Men didn’t make this stuff up. Men didn’t invent this. Feminists have said all of this, and more. Of course, the typical feminist dodge is this or something akin to it:

Well, I don’t believe that.

Which is just a head-fake at the No True Scotsman (or No True Feminist) Fallacy. The problem is most women, as is true with this author, are nobodies. Don’t get offended when I say you are a nobody. I am an anonymous blog on the internet complaining about stuff i.e., a nobody. I write this blog whenever I get a wild hair up my ass about something. The point of me saying you are a nobody is that you are not Gloria Steinem. You are not Catharine MacKinnon. You are not Germaine Greer, or Andrea Dworkin, or Jodie Foster. You are not taught in the schools, you are not held up in the feminist university covens as an exemplar of feminism. Your writing, how ever profound, is not going to be analyzed as Third or Fourth or Fifth Wave Feminism. As such, you not being like “those feminists” (call them academics, radicals, dominance-theory, whatever the fuck) more likely makes you the exception than the rule.

Indeed, the notion that feminists believe women are superior to men is one of the biggest misconceptions about the movement. Feminism is not about taking power from men—it’s about equality. Still, too many women say they #DontNeedFeminism because they don’t understand what feminism is—that and because they don’t want to be called horrible names on Twitter.

Which makes no sense. I’m not referring to the Twitter stuff because well, it’s Twitter. It has a block function I hear. If there is only 100% of “power” (by power I assume you are referring to policymaking/policy-executing power such as legislators, bureaucrats, etc.) then men, as a class, and for females, as a class, to be “equal,” must surrender 50% of their “power.”

Gosling, meanwhile, can easily associate himself with feminism because, as fellow feminist heartthrob and actor Matt McGorry can surely attest, feminists with penises are showered with praise—while high-profile feminists with vaginas are too busy sorting through death threats.

But I take less issue with our culture’s glorification of male feminists than with Gosling’s actual message. When the Gos says women are “better,” he hurts women by reinforcing our culture’s fear that feminism seeks to overthrow men. For proof of this fear, look no further than the male community on Reddit called r/Mensrights—it’s one of many devoted to the topic—that believes women are out to destroy men and used the Gosling quote to demonstrate how brainwashed and pussy-whipped men these days have become. Oh, and it has more than 100,000 members.

So what do you take issue with? What Gosling said? Or how bad it looks on paper? The Men’s Rights Movement didn’t emerge out of a vacuum. 100,000 didn’t just show up one day and say, “you know what? These females are really doing too well. We need to pump their brakes.” Many MRMs are the casualties of a gynocentric society: Alienated fathers, child support debtors, men financially or emotionally ruined by divorce, bastard sons raised by single mothers who never had the benefit of a man to teach them how to be men, men who saw their own fathers destroyed by marriage/divorce, men currently trapped in the family court labyrinth with no escape in sight.

There are a lot of Men’s Rights visitors who used to have on their rose-tinted glasses when it came to woman qua woman. Then some woman came along, slapped the glasses off of their faces and stepped on them like a playground bully.

Not to mention, while I’m sure many ladies would disagree, I found Gosling’s comments about women more patronizing than empowering. In the ES Magazine interview he also said, “I think [America] needs a woman’s touch,” in explaining why the country should have a female president. And in a previous interview with ABC’s Good Morning America, he described living with his girlfriend, Eva Mendes, and two daughters like some sort of dreamscape:

It’s heaven. It’s like walking through a field of flowers everyday. I live with angels.

Don’t get me wrong, I would much rather have a world full of Goslings than a world full of Michael Bays. And Gosling is by all accounts a very nice guy who loves his wife and daughters. But as a public figure and influencer, there’s a way to express love and respect for women without describing them like magical unicorns. The sentiment that the White House needs a feminine touch implies that a female president would be drastically different than a male one—which is a problem, because that’s the same argument men who don’t want a female president give. Would he have said that Barack Obama can give the White House a “black” touch? I think not.

Ha ha, Michael Bay! Because we hate that guy! Because explosions!

Anyway, leaving off the Obama stuff, the point about being patronizing is interesting because it seems like the 80/20 Rule in full effect: When a man is in the top 20% of attractiveness to women can say or do goofy, corny, hokey things and still get female approval. If the guy who looks like Barney Fife told women they were better, most women would not be swooning. They’d probably call him that preferred female slur “creepy.”

The truth is, by comparing women to angels and flowers and saying we’re better, he’s putting us up on a pedestal that feminists don’t need or want. He’s also reinforcing “benevolent sexism“—a form of sexism that holds women back by perpetuating the idea that men should be chivalrous and women should be worshipped because we’re so pretty and fragile and nice—like dolls. As Scientific American put it: Benevolent sexism is “insidiously dangerous.”

I have to give author her standard-issue golf clap here. She understands the pussy-pedestal concept very well (if she’s been on r/MensRights, she’s seen it before).

The problem is, feminists make an appeal to “benevolent sexism” or emotion, every time they pose the question “What if it was your daughter/mother/sister/granny/whatever?” When it benefits feminists, they will gladly put on their skirts, pick their bras out of the ash-heap, and appeal to powerful men for their protection against “creepy” men, which is how the First-Wave Feminists made any headway to begin with. They appealled to white men for their protection from the rapine hordes of freed, enfranchised former slaves, who would undoubtedly use their newfound right to vote to rape white women.

So what would be a better message for Gosling to deliver? How about that he and Mendes love each other, that they share the housework and child rearing, and that she’s just as strong, intelligent, and capable as he is; that their relationship is a team effort.

As for all the media worship coverage he’s getting as a result of his comments, well, let’s just say I find it off-putting that the moment a hot white dude says women are amazing, every media outlet drools over his sparkly blue eyes and declares him man of the year. Puh-lease.

We need equality, not pandering. To paint broad strokes and say all women are better is bullshit, because women are people and some people are assholes.

I can’t disagree with or critique this part. As I showed in my previous post on this topic, most of the media lined up single-file to each offer praise to Ryan Gosling like the Three Magi presenting gifts to baby Jesus. If the author actually belongs to that endangered species of female known as the Equality Feminist, let me stand up and applaud you for calling out this blatant sexism against men, which is more common than not in the Anglosphere.


Archived Source

Hoes Gon Be Hoes: Featuring Meghan Murphy

Meghan starts with a grandiose condemnation of the “bepenised ones.” I’m guessing this is feminist-speak for men. Because we are really just walking dicks, sort of like how women are just tits and vaginas. That’s how this thing works, right? She moves to decry the #RefugeesWelcome groping, molesting random women on New Year’s Eve. She waves off the fact that:

The German authorities on Friday tied asylum seekers for the first time to the wave of violent assaults on women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve as debate intensified over whether the country had made a mistake in opening its doors last year to more than a million migrants.

The Interior Ministry said 18 of the 31 people identified so far as suspects in the violence in Cologne had applied for asylum in Germany. The disclosure further stoked fears about security and culture clashes between the newcomers, mostly from Muslim countries, and Germans who are confronting the costs of assimilating them.

Meghan bemoans that mayor of Cologne would dare make the positively misogynistic suggestion, that strong, independent women who “don’t need no man” be careful, sort of like how men have had to mind their own safety for millennia and still are the primary victims of violent crime in the world. How dare he give women the same advice that men receive.

She then peddles a little more fearmongering, in case the her vegetative readership didn’t fully get her point. Women are scared. Scared at home, scared walking, scared at parties, scared in their cars, scared at the bus stop. It’s a wonder women manage to put on skirts (or pants) without worrying about a random dick attack.

Meghan then calls for a “feminist revolution.” What would this revolution entail? Who knows because she certainly doesn’t disclose HOW it will come about, but she does have an amusing list of expectations:

• “Real consequences for men who rape, harass, and abuse women” (because….prison isn’t a real consequence?)

• “Ensuring women are financially independent and that they are able to leave abusers safely” (women with jobs and their own money? Sounds like a plan.)

• “A cultural shift that addresses male entitlement” (Translation: Send men to reeducation camps since the already feminized education system isn’t indoctrinating men sufficiently)

• “Porn culture” (My body, my choice…except when it’s time to take dicks on camera for money)

• “And the objectifying male gaze” (Unless you’re Christian Grey or Magic Mike. Then you can objectify her all night long)

• “An end to masculinity” (Feminists don’t hate men. Honest guys. Feminism is for you too. Don’t you trust Emma Watson?)

• “And more broadly, gendered socialization that says men are actors whereas women are passive recipients (It would be nice if women got off their asses and stopped expecting men to do all of the relationship work)

She goes on to denounce “liberal feminists” for their counterrevolutionary refusal to regard men as the spawn of Satan and reminds the readers that, well, women are scared of stuff and adds cabbies to the list of things she checks under her bed for. Amusingly, she thinks men have free reign to behave how the wish, disregarding the hundreds of thousands of men who did what they wished and landed in prison for their trouble.

With all that said, she finally gets to her “modest proposal”: a curfew for men only. Because a minority of men break the law, Meghan decides it is appropriate to deprive ALL men of their freedom based on their sex. Her reasoning is that it would “send a message.” What message? That despite all of the feminists 140 years of howling that they are equal to men and that men are unnecessary to women, when the rubber meets the road, you have little Meghan running to the front of the class demanding that the teacher do something about mean, yucky boys? That feminism once again exposes itself to the world as a cult of female supremacy which regards the penises the same way slaveowners regarded black skin as the mark of a cursed, servile race? Who would implement this curfew? Who would enforce it?

Now, this is the usually the part of the program where the less bloodthirsty adherents of the feminist cult claim “oh, she doesn’t represent feminism.” My answer to this is, she is a graduate of Simon Frasier University with a Master’s Degree in Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies (i.e. useless shit). Her credentials in said useless shit make her better indoctrinated and more in tune with the academics who rule and direct the feminist cult than even the most devoted Jessica Valenti reader.

When confronted with usual feminist talking point that “feminism is about equality/unity/puppies & rainbows & sunshine” Meghan quickly slaps down the bepenised LukeReddin and reminds him that he is guilty of original Patriarchal Sin and that violence suffered by men is of no concern to her.


Question: If feminists don’t care about violence suffered by men, why should men care about violence suffered by feminists?

When asked how this male only curfew to be enforced, she is surprisingly honest in her expectation that men with badges will threaten violence other men with violence in the name of feminism (which is technically true, but still pretty damned appalling):


If by “plenty of men” she means male feminist quislings, there isn’t enough fortitude among them to enforce order at a Middle School boy/girl party, let alone enforce an extended curfew across any given municipality.

Of course, this isn’t the first time when feminists have had the perfectly rational idea that the only way to protect the holiest of holies known as The Vagina was to strip men of their right to travel. In 1991, when false rape accuser Janet Berger claimed that some skateboarders had raped her, feminists helpfully provided support in the forms of flyers and graffiti containing helpful ideas like “Dead Skaters Don’t Rape” and “A Curfew For Men.”

The most amusing part of this is that “curfew for men” and its rationale sounds suspiciously similar to a policy once enshrined in several states and municipalities that established a “curfew for Negroes.” Notably, Mobile, Alabama, in 1909, passed an ordinance forbidding black residents from leaving their homes after 10 p.m. the reasoning being that blacks roaming around after dark, apart from being hard to see, would make all kinds of mischief, including violating the most sacred white vagina via rape. It’s good to see that feminists are still the handmaidens of tyranny and the enemies of liberty, even in the 21st century.

If you want read Meghan’s nonsense for yourself, here’s the link.