Disclaimer

By accessing this blog, you agree to the following terms:

Nothing you see here is intended or offered as legal advice. The author is not an attorney. These posts have been written for educational and information purposes only. They are not legal advice or professional legal counsel. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between this blog, the author, or the publisher, and you or any other user. Subscribers and readers should not act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

This is not a safe space. I reserve the right to write things you may agree or disagree with, like or dislike, over which you may feel uncomfortable or angry, or which you may find offensive. I also don't speak for anyone but myself. These are my observations and opinions. Don't attribute them to any group or person whose name isn't listed as an author of a post on this blog.

Reading past this point is an acknowledgement and acceptance of the above terms.

In Response to my Newest Fan

To the male feminist who copied the text of my consent post in its entirety, then re-posted it in your own blog intertwined with straw man arguments and denial:  
   
First: Accepting implied consent as consent can get a guy charged with rape. It has gotten and can get a guy kicked out of post-secondary school through the college or university's disciplinary system. This can happen and has happened even when consent is implied by active participation. This can happen and has happened even when the female initiates sexual contact. This can happen and has happened even when there are witness to the event who explain that. Giving your own definition of what constitutes consent is interesting, but it does not change how feminist advocacy has shaped the legal definitions which determine the environment faced by sexually active men. No matter how you feel about consent, the fact is that men as a group and individually are subject to the possibility of being accused on the basis of a woman's whim. Failure to account for that reality is a risk, regardless of your feeling or belief.

Second: What we are worried about here is not, as you claim, limited to consent in terms of a relationship. We are worried about the movement in modern western society to convince women that any time sex is later regretted, for any reason, even if there was consent at the time of the activity, the act should be considered rape of the woman by the man. MRAs do not consider consent to be a trap. The movement is in overall agreement that
  •  No means no
  •  Unconscious means no
  •  Incapacitated to inability to communicate or respond means no
  •  Underage means no
MRAs consider feminist advocacy regarding its definition and usage to be a trap. We consider social and legal perception and treatment of consent to be uneven and discriminatory toward men. Society and the law apply unequal standards of accountability and rights between the sexes when considering consent, and the differing treatment of the victim when addressing sexual assault. This is especially noticeable in the expectation that men must obtain explicit, verbal consent or be guilty of rape, while women face no such dilemma because physical response in an adult man's body is considered implied consent. It is further apparent in the disparity of social and legal assumption of free will between men who drink, and women who drink, when drinking is followed by sex.

Feminists attempt to move the target regarding what constitutes consent, arguing for the right to treat consensual sex as rape if the female partner chooses to withdraw consent at a later time. The movement has successfully convinced some judges to treat post-sex-act withdrawal of consent as legally binding.

The movement has successfully advocated adoption by universities of rule sets under which consent implied by active and willful participation does not negate allegation of rape because consent was not spoken. Discussion on this often includes selective quoting of more sensible policies, as when debaters quote from Vasser's definition of consent from the school's Sexual Assault Violence Prevention plan in order to advocate treating it as "A process, which must be asked for every step of the way; if you want to move to the next level of sexual intimacy" (in other words, asking permission before each new action, such as kissing, each area touched, and so on) while ignoring the admonitions toward women (contained in the same policy statement) to communicate, "Say 'no.' Say 'I want to stop.'" and even to take matters into their own hands if communication is ignored, "In a situation where the other person isn’t listening to you and you feel unsafe, you could pretend you are going to vomit. (It’s amazing how quickly someone moves away from you if they think you are going to be sick)." Highlighting the suggestion of obsessive questioning  as a means of ensuring consent while ignoring the empowering advice below it shows a determination in the debater to embrace willful helplessness. Too often, the same feminist advocacy which demands that women be treated as being as tough, strong, and capable as men in every other situation turns around and demands that women be treated as weak, helpless, and incapable of standing up for themselves in iffy, rather than overtly forceful, sexual encounters.

The movement has successfully convinced many women that consent withdrawn after the woman has participated in sex can change the man's status from participant to rapist. When the logic of this is questioned, it is never countered on its own merits. Instead, many feminist advocates move the goalposts, choosing instead to discuss withdrawal of consent during the act, and avoiding discussion of withdrawal of consent after the act and how that can criminalize the male partner's part in consensual sex. Some instead argue that consent is not valid unless it's enthusiastic consent. In other words, heterosexual sex involving a woman who is not naturally demonstrative? Rape. Heterosexual sex involving a woman who is interested but too tired to physically show enthusiasm? Rape. Heterosexual sex involving a woman who isn't naturally assertive in the pursuit of her desires? Rape.


It is one thing to argue that sexual activity should stop when one partner communicates discomfort or dislike, or cessation of desire or interest. That is reasonable - it's rape if someone says "stop" (or in the context of alternative sex acts, utters the "safe word,") and the other partner refuses and forces the issue. It's a whole other ballgame to argue that a partner is guilty of rape because the other partner has at a later date changed her mind. It is not reasonable to expect that an individual would know consent is withdrawn, without verbal or at least easily discernible nonverbal communication of discomfort, dislike, or cessation of desire or interest (such as pushing him away, turning away, dramatic, obvious reduction in physical participation from enthusiastic to nil.) Assuming the male has such knowledge in the absence of evidence is essentially a requirement that he be psychic.

Third: Feminism does not have to be a single standpoint to be held responsible for the practical application of the advocacy discussed. I'd explain to you why, but there's another woman who has all ready given the best possible explanation, and I recommend listening to her statement on the topic. If you don't take measures to rein in the advocacy which is actively chipping away at the due process rights of men, actively shaping post-secondary educational facilities' policy on handling allegations of rape in a way that criminalizes simply being male and accused, actively teaching young women to consider themselves victimized by a man whenever the decision to have sex leads to consequences they don't like, you have no business arguing that feminism is not a single standpoint. That advocacy is the advocacy which is getting results. If you choose to wear the label under which that advocacy is active, you choose to be associated with their assertions, their beliefs, their attitudes, and their reputation. If you don't like that, then don't quietly stand by while they fight for ideals you claim not to support. Speak up, condemn the behavior, and shape your movement. If you refuse to do that, then your attempt to dissociate yourself from the mainstream, most active, most applied brand of feminism is a bald-faced lie.

Moving on: Your mischaracterization of the paragraph on female sexual liberation and slut shaming shows a lack of reading comprehension. The paragraph does not condemn the sexual liberation of women. It merely describes the activity of the movement... and there is a reason why "allegedly" precedes "male practice" in the introduction of that label. Ranting as if you didn't catch that is either disingenuous, or a sign of inability to keep up.

Your paragraph about cheating is a straw man. The last sentence states that applying the label "slut shaming" to the act of treating a female cheating on a male partner as a mistreatment of the male - in other words, a hurtful and harmful act committed against him by her - is an abuse of the label. Your response? "If a woman cheats, it hurts you, but it is no excuse to treat her as a slut." This would be a straw-man argument, as the sentence does not excuse use of the term slut, but condemns applying the label slut-shaming when a  male partner treats a betrayal as the betrayal that it is.

For the record, partner cheating is not treated equally between the sexes. Male cheating on female partners is considered abuse, condemned as the behavior of a selfish, uncaring and dishonest individual. Male cheating is blamed on the cheater, and on occasion, the other woman, but rarely on conflict with the female partner - that would be blaming the victim. The jilted woman has social and legal support behind her in expressing feelings of hurt, betrayal, abandonment, and being unwanted... and in seeking some measure of reprisal, even to the point of violent behavior. The lines drawn are clear. When a male cheats on a female, it's an abuse perpetrated against her. There is no outrage at how she chooses to treat him because of the incident. There is only support for the woman's effort to assuage her own feelings by whatever actions she chooses, up to and sometimes including assault. In fact, when a woman is seen abusing a man in public, the assumption that he deserved it because he cheated is sometimes even seen by the public, especially by other women, as an excuse for the violence. Notice the "You go girl" reaction. Notice in the narration of the linked video, it's explained that hundreds of people walk by. Notice women stating that the man probably deserved the abuse because (they assumed) he was cheating. Notice how only a small minority took any action to help the victim.

Conversely, when a female cheats, the perception often is that the cheater is the victim. It is unacceptable to assert that her behavior indicates selfishness, lack of caring, or dishonesty. Instead, the blame goes to the other man, who must have seduced her, or to her male partner, who must be abusive or neglectful of her needs. When she cheats with a woman, the blame goes to society, who kept her from figuring herself out (making up her mind about her sexuality) until too late to spare the man the experience. It's not treated as a betrayal, but a mistake which should be forgiven. When her male partner attempts to hold her responsible for her actions, that's considered treating her as if she's his property. If she's using the seduction excuse, then by claiming betrayal, he's blaming her for being tricked, as if she had no agency to consent or to withhold consent from the other man. If she's using mistreatment as an excuse, then by showing his hurt, he's blaming her for something he made her do, as if he walked her to the other man's bed and put her in it. If she's using sexual confusion as an excuse, then by feeling abandoned, he's blaming her for society's forced repression of her sexuality.

Your last sentence in discussing that paragraph is one of the defining characteristics of MRA complaints with feminism: If you treat an entire gender as jerks then you will always always be disappointed. That is what feminism does - treat an entire gender as jerks, only bigger. The feminist movement treats an entire gender as criminals waiting to happen, who must be ordered to not commit crimes, or expected to commit them.

Following that, thanks for addressing me as a man. (Have you ever considered that the problem with your dating strategy is you keep thinking that sex is something to be earned?) That's probably the most telling thing you did in your entire post. By not even bothering to read my sidebar, "Whose Blog Is This" to find out who you are dealing with, you let yourself fall into the oh-so-common feminist fallacy of assuming that the only people concerned with men's rights are men. In doing so, you have disclosed your sexist outlook.

Further, your whole argument relies upon treating your personal philosophy as being the reality in which dating takes place. It's not. It's not men who treat sex with women as a privilege, but sex with men as a given. It's women. It's even taught to daughters by their mothers and grandmothers, with inane adages like "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free," meaning "don't be promiscuous, or no man will marry you."
 
Your belief in male consent agency is great, but it's not backed up by legal handling. The assumption that consent and body autonomy are reserved for women is an attitude which permeates modern western society, leading to such myths as the idea that men can't be raped, or if he is, he's weak or gay. Many western laws still define rape as something men do, and women suffer. When a man's sexual boundaries are violated, if there is prosecution, lesser terms like "sexual assault" and "sexual imposition" are applied. Try using "Woman convicted of forcible rape" as a search term. It doesn't call up any stories on the topic. Instead, it brings up stories on convicted men, discussions on male rapists of women, and a few hypothetical questions with hypothetical answers. Take out "woman" and you'll get even more stories about male rapists. Is this because no woman has ever forced herself on a man?

No.

Recent statistics in the U.S., from which I hail, show that women commit rape (forcing men to penetrate) as often as men (forced penetration.) However, when women do it, it's not legally considered rape - merely an "other sexual offense." When a man forces sex on a woman, it gets the most serious criminal labeling. When a woman forces sex on a man, it gets downplayed as a more minor offense. Does that show equal treatment and value of consent?

Your assessment of the paragraph beginning "In the dating arena" is another strawman, taking the discussion out of the sex act and into minor interactions, ignoring the context in which the statement is made. Again, I see two possibilities. Either your reading comprehension is low, or you're once again attempting to move the goalposts because you can't debate the topic. The claim that emotional response to sexual advances keeps women from saying no, made in the context of date-rape allegations and affirmative consent discussions, amounts to exactly what it says in that paragraph. This is reinforced by the idea that consent may be withdrawn at any time. If consent is withdrawn, but the change is not communicated, the man hasn't changed his intent. He is not responsible for the woman changing her mind. However, college disciplinary boards and criminal courts do hold men responsible for that change. Once again, your personal philosophy on how dating should be does not define how things are.

The same is true of your assessment of the one after, beginning "Complicating this environment." Your claim that no one is treating women as helpless is not backed up by criminal courts, nor is it backed up by feminist advocacy. Your next sentence attempts again to move the goalposts from discussion of incidents involving women who withhold communication and then accuse rape, to women who have been raped after saying no. The issue isn't that the circumstance described never happens. The issue is that you cannot address it without admitting that sometimes, rape allegations the woman believes to be true are false, and sometimes, a sexual encounter that a woman regrets experiencing is her own fault for choosing to not assert herself.
Following that, you add bigotry to your post, baselessly accusing MRAs as a group of having a love of "rapey behavior," which you fail to define. You've completely dropped all semblance of analysis and dropped into the realm of inarticulate denial and unmerited attacks.

Following that paragraph, you reply to the one beginning "This is taken to the extreme in the choice" with another attempt at moving the goalposts because you cannot debate the concept presented to you. With that, you level yet another straw man argument, attempting to debate an unmade statement of justification for sex with someone who is incapacitated. As previously stated, that is not a Men's Rights position.

Your answer to the next paragraph about the Gatekeeper to Consent argument is covered in my previous responses. The only thing I would add is that your reply is wandering and disconnected, and your dismissal is not a valid debate tactic.

Your response to the paragraph beginning "The answer is in how this combination may support the use of abuse" negates itself. I live in the western world - in the United States, where men are not considered able to be rape victims. Men do not have equal agency of consent here. Neither do they in Canada, or most of Europe. You can only believe otherwise if you ignore the entire first world's last few decades of legislative and legal history.

Your final paragraph is yet another straw man, choosing to argue against something much simpler and more benign than the topic discussed in the paragraph above it, the use of false allegations by women as a weapon. Attempting to retrain the reader's eye to the male rape discussion at that point is a sad stab at misdirection, considering it isn't even mentioned in the paragraph under which it is posted. You would do better to attempt to address the topic you brought up by placing that paragraph there.Your further choice to address the reply to MRAs as a group instead of the blogger at hand, leveling another ad-hominem attack on the movement instead of offering an actual point shows that your opinion is seated more in bias than knowledge.

Then again, maybe you would not. Your ability to stay on topic and handle tough questions with solid, well thought-out answers is seriously lacking. As you are a student, and as you write more like a person influenced than a person exercising reason, I suspect that you are still young, and have not had the chance to experience the level of discrimination and harassment some individuals in the movement you so hate have experienced. Perhaps after you have lived a little time outside the shelter of academia, you'll gain a better understanding of how things are in the real world. Until then, enjoy your delusions of practical equality while they last.

Effeminition: Feminist Logic, an editorial piece on reproductive rights and child support

Due to the number of choices possessed by women, the graphic could not be sized to fit this blog. To better read the text, right click on the image below and select "view image" from the menu. Use the magnifier to see the full sized image, or feel free to download by dragging it from the page to your desktop. My only stipulation for use is that it remain unaltered. This image is my work. If you want an altered version, make your own.

For those who do not understand why the male flowchart has no "yes" option for abstinence, click here.

Feminists tell me that the movement and its advocacy are about promoting female autonomy, independence, and strength... our right to make our own choices and live by them...

...until we get pregnant. Then, all bets are off. We're not autonomous. We're not independent. We're not strong, and our choices are meaningless. Instead of living by them, we're to demand that others pay for our decisions. We're to hold others responsible. Cry victim, and let loose the dogs of court!

The mental process behind this apparent change of heart is one of twisted and self-serving rationalization. How else can anyone, after making a broad series of choices, each along the way requiring the confrontation of an unwanted possibility, taking the path of greater risk with no preventative measures, ignoring the opportunity to eliminate the outcome, passing up multiple avenues of escape, then demand restitution from the person she left behind six or seven decisions ago?

Frequently, I'm confronted with the argument that if a man doesn't want to be saddled with a support order, he shouldn't have sex, should have his genitals surgically altered for birth control purposes, or should wear a condom. Feminists make these arguments as if the man somehow miraculously impregnated the woman without her participation. There she was, blithely going about her business, walked past the wrong horny asshole, and BAM! Where the heck did this baby come from?

My objection to the responsible man argument is one which I think should be readily apparent, but recent discussion has demonstrated to me that to many, it is not. In deciding to write about it, I struggled to come up with an artistic representation of how I see this, without graphic depictions which I see as unnecessary to the discussion. Huge thanks to my friend Mitschu for reminding me that flow charts exist and for the link to Lucidchart.com, where the charts in the graphic for this entry were made.

As the graphic shows, the process by which we arrive at the situation used to justify a court-ordered payment from the father to the mother is one which is predominantly controlled by the mother. By no means is the circumstance of being the primary caregiver for a child an involuntary circumstance for her. It is certainly not one which can reasonably be considered to be inflicted by the father, given the series of steps taken between the moments prior to participating in sexual intercourse and the moment when the mother files a support claim. How, then, do those who oppose the idea of a paternal parental surrender equal in effect to maternal "safe-haven" abandonment justify their position?

They resort to the same series of logic fails used to justify other feminist positions.

This begins with the Gatekeeper to Consent argument, which considers the pursuit of sexual gratification to be one directional. Men are assumed to have only the option of pursuit. Women are assumed to have only the option to refuse or relent, with relent being an inflicted condition rather than a voluntary one, as indicated by the perception not that the woman decided she was interested, but that the man talked her into it. This is the basis for beginning the debater's argument, "If a man has sex," rather than "If a couple has sex." The wording is designed to limit responsibility to the man right from the beginning.

It continues with the Appeal to the Helplessness Charge. The Helplessness Charge is the feminist requirement of assumption that during any given experience, the woman has no alternative option to letting events progress unchallenged. If options are acknowledged, feminists accuse the debater of blaming the victim. What they really mean by this accusation is that the debater is threatening the status of victim, as having viable alternatives to suffering a condition or experience moves the individual from the status of victim to the status of participant. No one feels sorry enough for a participant to give her any power or restitution for any suffering she might claim as a result of her participation.
The point at which the debater in this argument appeals to that charge is in only offering the admonition that the male should have used either surgical or prophylactic birth control. This is the use of misdirection to limit the perception of options. It focuses on the few options available to the male participant, while ignoring a wealth of more effective options available to the female.

Further, it ignores the very arguments in the debate over the feasibility and potential value of a male form of ingestible hormonal birth control. The idea of hormonal birth control for men was protested and dismissed under the thin argument that men would lie about being on it or forget to take it, and in doing so trick women into having unprotected sex. The proposal of a male pill has been treated as an attack on female reproductive control. Bloggers and commenters even discussed the topic as if the addition of a male birth control pill to the mix would somehow eliminate women's concurrent use of birth control. In the course of discussions on the topic, the thought that women shouldn't be expected or required to leave birth control up to men has been repeatedly expressed. 
In hypocritically stark contrast to that is the discussion on pregnancy, support, and parental surrender, where it's only the man who is considered responsible. This ignores the variety and effectiveness of available forms of female birth control in order to support the treatment of pregnancy as a malady inflicted upon hapless, helpless women by heartless, domineering men.

Arguing for male responsibility in the event of birth, but against it in the event of birth control options, is more than slightly hypocritical.

This takes us to the culmination of the sex act, when both sexes have had equal opportunity to prevent pregnancy. Each partner could have abstained. Each partner could have used birth control. Each even had the chance to make the use of more than one method a condition upon which consent was contingent. For the sake of argument, let's say that it doesn't matter what choices were made, because pregnancy can happen in spite of birth control. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that birth control was used and failed. It can reasonably be argued that at the moment of conception, neither partner is any more or any less at fault for the situation. Neither party is exempt from responsibility. If the options stop at this point, with no other chance to alter the situation, then it would be reasonable to expect both parties to bear equal culpability, and equal rights. Neither parent should be considered more or less responsible based on gender. If this was the circumstance being addressed, arguments against paternal parental surrender would have merit.

Since that is not how things are, they do not.

After the moment of conception, the father's options stop. Under the feminist "My Body, My Choice" argument, the father is given no right to decide whether the pregnancy may progress, or must be terminated. To this end, she has immediate options, short-term options, and surgical options. The father has no say in these options. He cannot prevent them, and he cannot enforce them. He may not make even minor decisions related to the impending birth of his offspring. The purpose of stating that fact is not as an indictment of it, but simply the establishment of an important understanding: The statement does not judge or condemn. It only points out that this is how things are.

Any decision made after the conception of a baby, whether that is to continue or not, is made by the mother, and only by the mother. The feminist argument "My Body, My Choice" deserves to be answered with, "Your Choice, Your Responsibility." If the father chooses to be in agreement with the mother in her decision, it's reasonable to expect him to back that up by offering equal support, sharing the expense and effort involved in whatever mutual choice is made, whether it be abortion or birth. If the two parties are in opposition, however, the mother's choice legally trumps that of the father. It is therefore unjust to assign him responsibility for that choice. If the mother chooses to be in disagreement with the father in his wishes regarding the pregnancy, it is reasonable to expect her to back that up by supporting that choice on her own. She should not have the right to demand assistance financing her choice from an individual who is in opposition to the choice she is making.

There are those who argue that not awarding the mother a child support payment would force her to have an abortion if she fears that she will be unable to financially support herself and the baby. This is a false argument, which depends on the person to whom it is presented being distracted by feelings of sympathy.

Having the right to make a choice does not equal having the right to have someone fund that choice. Lack of funds does not equal force. The legal choice is still there. No one is telling the mother that she is required to travel to an abortion clinic, go through the pre-op precess, sign her consent, pay for the procedure, and have it done. No one is telling her that she is not permitted to make a different selection from the available options following birth: claiming full custody, shared custody with or custodial surrender to family, open or closed adoption, or safe-haven abandonment. Feminist arguments in this area can be simplified to the following: But those choices are hard. Making those choices is emotionally challenging and can be emotionally painful. Backing that choice up financially will be hard work. A woman shouldn't have to go through all of that. You only want to punish her for having sex.
The same advocates who argue that men should be saddled with a potentially crippling, often arbitrary financial burden as punishment for their lack of forethought in having insufficiently protected sex with a fertile woman actually argue that women should be exempt from the emotional consequences of our actions despite an equal lack of forethought in having insufficiently protected sex with a fertile man.

Women are not entitled to force anyone to pay for our choices just because we are women.

Choice extends beyond pregnancy, after childbirth, when the mother's choices include four possible ways of not accepting caregiver status. The first possibility hinges on whether the father wants custody. Certainly, if the mother feels burdened by the circumstance of parenthood, and the father wants to step in and take responsibility, he should have that right. In fact, in a truly gender equal legal system, even if there is a custody dispute because both parents want to take responsibility, then from birth, both parents should start out with an equal chance of being awarded custody, and an equal burden of proof in determining which living arrangement would be more beneficial for the baby. In a situation like that, following a situation in which birth control and abortion choices were equal, and in which expectations and enforcement of support would be equal regardless of who had custody, it would be reasonable to expect a father who declines to take custody of his child to back up that choice with support.

Since that is not the case, as the mother does not have to recognize the father's choice related to birth, that is not a reasonable expectation. Further, the father is given little or no say in who does act as a caregiver. By creating a series of hoops for him to jump through, states limit the rights of fathers to challenge adoption or safe haven abandonment if the mother chooses to exercise either option without his consent. The father's rights are further limited if he and the mother are not married, and the mother chooses not to even tell him about the pregnancy. Under the My Body, My Baby fallacy, some women feel entitled to bypass fathers' rights to choose to take a caregiving role in their children's lives.

Even if the first two (relinquishing custody to the father or to family) are not available due to lack of willing participants, that still leaves two other choices. Given the removal of "relinquish custody to the father" as an option, there should be no challenge from him should she opt for adoption or "safe-haven" abandonment. In fact, even a father who wants custody may find it difficult to prevent adoption. Regardless, the mother is not legally required to claim custody and financial responsibility after birth. There is no outside entity which will make her choice for her. As with the decision to carry and give birth, the decision of the mother to retain or relinquish custody following birth is a unilateral personal choice. The making of such a choice does not entitle one to demand supporting funds from an individual who had no part in the decision.

Under today's system of medicine, law, and policy, a woman's condition of custodial motherhood is a not just a choice, but a step-by-step series of choices, for the majority of which the father does not have anything even close to an equivalent. A woman's reproductive and custody options far outnumber those of a man. In addition, some of her rights are considered greater than his, and some trump or eliminate his. Men have traditionally had little recourse when their reproductive or custody rights have been violated by women. It is therefore inexcusable to assign blame to the man for the results of the woman's decision, and even more so to enforce upon him a financial payment to her for making that decision. This is why, in an unwed parenting situation, there needs to be an option for fathers who truly wish to walk away, have nothing to do with the mother or the child, and not pay any restitution to the mother. If true equality is what feminists seek, they should have no problem with the concept of parental surrender applied to paternity, where from any point prior to conception to the moment he decides whether or not to sign a custody and/or support agreement, the father could sever all paternal ties, rights, and responsibilities the same way a woman can when allowing adoption or using a safe-haven drop-off location.

On feminist denial of biological differences between the sexes

This is one of the ways in which feminism handicaps everyone. In advocating the social and legal enforcement of the denial of human biology, feminist activism creates a stifling and oppressive environment for human interaction. We cannot treat each other as equal humans if we confuse equal with identical. As soon as we allow that misconception to be layered over our handling of interaction, we force ourselves to choose between conflicting responses. Do we accept the perception of unequal treatment, as real, existing differences conflict with ideology which denies them? Do we enforce unequal treatment as we try to use artificial means to make up for the differences we're expected to deny?    
   
This, in turn, dramatically hampers the ability of the sexes to work together in team situations, by discouraging the recognition and use of strengths, and the recognition and transcendence of weaknesses... because we're not supposed to notice that most often, those strengths and weaknesses do run along gender lines. Feminist advocacy then further complicates the issue by compromising its own position in the most hypocritical fashion, refusing men the honesty of admitting that these differences exist when it would facilitate positive outcomes for men, but insisting upon highlighting those same differences when it would facilitate desired outcomes for women. Examples of the denial range from high impact hypocrisy such as the refusal to admit in the context of the work/pay discussion that overall, men are more heavy-labor capable, to lower impact obfuscation such as the "men never ask for directions" lament, which ignores the ability of men to utilize the more reliable tool available to them - a map. Examples of the highlighting range from the legally impacting claim of female inability to defend the self or escape in a domestic conflict, or the perceived inability of a woman to verbally communicate "no" when confronted with unwanted sexual advances, to subtle man-bashing jokes about lack of male empathy or the more observable state of men's reflexive responses, a socially accepted generalization.
  
By enforcing the false denial of an existing set of factors, and then manipulatively enforcing the exclusion of specific circumstances from that system of denial, feminist ideology impairs men's ability to relate to women. When physical differences affect interaction between opposite sexes, the man is put into a catch-22; he is not permitted to acknowledge or notice the difference, yet he is required to accommodate or defer to it. He may not treat the woman as less capable of performing heavy labor, yet he must make up for the heavy labor she does not perform. He may not treat the woman as more physically fragile, yet he is required to refrain from subjecting her to the level of physical testing to which he is accustomed. He is expected to display feminine empathy, while simultaneously crediting the woman with greater empathic intuition. He may not ascribe to her any level of caregiving capability, but he is not permitted to usurp her assumed right to claim superior caregiver status. How can one form a cooperative connection when the rule is that whatever one does is wrong? Where is the role to be filled, and how does one fit into it?




To women, the same attitude of systemic denial acts as a personal growth barrier.
In order to achieve personal growth, one must first be capable of discerning and assessing one's existing advantages and shortcomings. Self-improvement depends on the practice, honing, and benevolent exploitation of strengths, and attention to weaknesses with a focus on reducing or overcoming them. If one is expected by one's peers to ignore the influence of one's sex on those characteristics, it becomes rather difficult to address them. Do we admit to, and make use of, any stereotypically female virtues if in doing so we're betraying those who claim the right to pretend those virtues are not feminine? Do we admit to and strive to overcome stereotypically female faults if in doing so we're foisting that stereotype onto other women? By treating the acknowledgement that biological factors which affect human characteristics can fall along gender lines as a sexist attack on women, feminist advocacy robs women of the opportunity to be our better selves. We're asked to sacrifice our individual progress to feed the political power of the movement.

Of the many ways in which this unwritten order manifests itself, nothing is more damaging than the mandate of willful helplessness and the victim charge. The social advancement of the female sex should be dependent upon building a belief in our ability to overcome obstacles, our choice to embrace responsibility and own it, and our tendency to survive adversity and come back having sharpened ourselves for the next challenge.  
Go ahead, life. Make my day.

Instead, feminist advocacy tells the general population to expect us to fail. It says that when faced with confrontation, we aren't tough enough to stand up for ourselves. When faced with academic challenges, we aren't smart enough to compete. When faced with competition, we aren't determined enough to win. When faced with a bad situation, we aren't independent enough to escape. When we get knocked down, we aren't resilient enough get back up and keep going. We must have reparations. We must have concessions. Feminist hypocrisy says that though men must treat us as successful achievers, we cannot attain that condition on our own.

This rides on the treatment of the concepts Greatness, Success and Achievement as having only male characteristics, and assigning negativity to characteristics traditionally considered female. A woman who does great things without acting like a man cannot be recognized for her accomplishments without compromising the feminist "alike" concept of nondiscrimination.

When physical differences affect interaction between opposite sexes, the woman is put into a catch-22; she is not permitted to acknowledge or notice the difference, yet she is often expected to use it as a crutch. How can one form a cooperative connection when the rule is that one must ignore one's nature? Where is the role to be filled, and how does one fit into it?


It is not male sexism which refuses to place equally high value upon a great caregiver and a great scientist. It is female sexism which does that, by insisting upon identical, rather than equal standards to those of men, emphasizing the nature of the job over the quality of the work. It is not male sexism which condemns female sexual freedom. It is female sexism which does that, by insisting on treating sexual gratification as a commodity, and women who don't keep it guarded as scabs in a perpetual strike. It is not male sexism which holds women inside dysfunctional and damaging relationships. It is female sexism which does that, by insisting upon assuming the position of victim for the purpose of exploiting the power of blame.

A woman's greatest disability is in feeling obligated to hold to the feminist standard of being dominated, and feminism's greatest dependence is on the laywoman never figuring that out. When we know that we don't have to lay down and cry for help instead of living our own lives... when we realize that the phantom oppression to which feminist leaders claim we're still subjected after over a hundred years of radical activism is not real... we are free to determine the courses of our own lives, define success for ourselves, and reject the controls imposed upon us by the only system of oppression we have left: Matriarchy.


You Asked For It

No, this isn't a post about rape. In fact, it's about the opposite. It's about walking away, maybe running away. Specifically, it's about the right to run; men's right to decline to trust, eschew focus on relationships, and refuse to open themselves to women beyond anything but the most superficial levels of interaction.  

Why?

Because the same folks who advocate for false accusers, who rail against due process for men in criminal and family court, who claim both moral superiority and the right to turpitude with impunity, who push men around, knock them to the ground, step on them, and kick them when they're down - those same folks have the screaming audacity to act shocked and appalled when these maligned men get fed up, pick themselves up, turn their backs, and walk away. My opinion of that response is simple: Kwitcherbitchen, ladies. It's your own damned fault. You have no business complaining.

In recent weeks, I've been part of more than a few discussions on the topic of the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) movement. In the process, I'm learning that women with any understanding of the evolution of a man going his own way, who are willing to acknowledge why we aren't justified in complaining about it, are few and far between. What I've heard from other women is often hypocritical at best, coming in the form of "encouragement" like "not all women are like that," and "don't let a few bad eggs spoil your opinion," empty words, when offered to survivors of habitual or chronic abuse. At worst, there is hurling of denial,  accusation, and resentment, with complex versions of "how dare you withdraw respect," "how dare you reject our judgement" and "how dare you deny our control," the likes of which are nothing more than a demand that men not learn from experience. Most of this response seems to stem from a sense of ownership which feminist advocacy claims over the realm of relationships, social interaction between sexes, and most emphatically, over sexual interaction.

The general social and legal treatment of males has begun to remind me of a book I studied in a high school literature class; Richard Wright's Black Boy. The passage that comes to mind as a highlighting parallel is the recounting of Wright's first job interview.
"Do you want the job?" the woman asked.
"Yes, ma'am," I said, afraid to trust my own judgment.
"Now, boy, I want to ask you one question and I want you to tell me the truth," she said.   
"Yes, ma'am," I said, all attention.   
"Do you steal?" she asked me seriously.   
I burst into a laugh, then checked myself... I had made a mistake during my first five minutes in the white world. I hung my head.
"No, ma'am." I mumbled. "I don't steal."   
She stared at me, trying to make up her mind.   
"Now, look, we don't want a sassy nigger around here."   
"No, ma'am." I assured her. "I'm not sassy."
Wright goes on to describe his incredulity at the senselessness of the woman's expectation that he would honestly answer such a question, but I remember at the time that I read the story feeling outraged at the woman's implied assumptions in asking. The question suggested that being black meant he was suspect. The rest of the discussion demonstrated that sense of superiority among racist whites which lead to the treatment of all blacks as children, as mentioned in the text following the conversation. Further, the candid presentation of the insult represented by the initial question, "Do you steal?" struck me in its callousness, cruelty, and elitism. This woman felt entitled to treat Wright as an inferior being simply because of the darkness of his skin. To her, his ability to form and adhere to a moral code was questionable, and his emotional response to mistreatment and misjudgment irrelevant, all for no better reason than because he was black. I left the discussion with a sense of impotent disgust and anger at the folks who chose to embrace such a heartless, barbaric outlook. I wondered, what the hell was wrong with these people, that they could live this way, think this way, talk this way, right to the faces of their fellow human beings?

In the past, the treatment of minorities in this manner was widespread and overt, supported in society by political writing full of made-up reasoning and lame excuses, well exemplified in a quote from John C. Calhoun's February 6, 1837 Senate Speech.
I may say with truth, that in few countries so much is left to the share of the laborer, and so little exacted from him, or where there is more kind attention paid to him in sickness or infirmities of age. Compare his condition with the tenants of the poor houses in the more civilized portions of Europe—look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poorhouse...
The statement overflows with condescension. The hypocrisy of a politician in the service of a nation begun with one group's quest for freedom from the control of others who viewed them as inferior, arguing for the control of others he views as inferior, shines a glaring light on the arrogance and pomposity of the culture of supremacy. One must assume oneself to be grand before one may consider one's acts of aggression against and oppression of others to be a kindness. One must fully immerse oneself in the murky bog of intellectual bigotry before one may presume to hold others with such falsely benevolent contempt.

I see the same thing in today's feminist attitude toward men, shown by the treatment of them as borderline animals with violent tendencies and barely contained sexual impulses, instead of as fully established human beings. Wright's white employer treated him as dishonest, stupid, and lacking in either the emotional makeup to be offended at the assumption, or the right to act on it. Feminism universally paints men with equally sweeping, bigoted generalities. Males are treated as potential criminals; batterers, muggers, mashers, molesters, rapists, murderers; portrayed as inept, as deadbeats, as lacking emotional maturity and sensitivity, and as intellectually inferior, all for the purpose of excusing subjecting them to the very same disdainful and authoritarian treatment from which the civil rights movement has actively sought to relieve minorities throughout history.

Feminist advocacy has pushed men into a corner, restricting them to narrowly defined, impossible to fulfill roles. In conflicts between men and women, men are designated by various western laws as perpetrators, presumed guilty until proven innocent. In family court, men have become nonpersons, nonparents, interlopers begging for any share in the existence of their children - for crumbs from the table of parental involvement - seen as undeserving of regard or relationship, yet fully responsible for the well-being of the families from which they have been expelled. In education and the workplace, males of all ages are targets for both harassment and persecution, using female-centered human resource and behavioral policy to give women control over even the most minute aspects of interaction. Literally, everything they say, and everything they do not say, can and will be held against them. In daily life, men are subjected to disparaging humor which women need not tolerate, treatment with suspicion which women would not abide, shaming of natural behavior in ways which women have fought to escape, objectification which women refuse to accept, and pressure to conform to standards of instinct control and self-denial which women have been protesting for generations. Every exposure to female scrutiny and behavior, from the simplest everyday interaction to the complexities of various relationships, presents men with the threat of unwarranted censure under the feminist rules of intersex engagement.

The widespread female attitude of superior contempt, combined with activism which has successfully advocated the bypassing the human rights of men in the pursuit of female interests, and the application of double standards in every aspect of male-female interaction, has pushed some men beyond the point of reasonable tolerance. In response, they have chosen to withdraw from the arena of male-female relationships in every way, opting out of collaborative personal investment in any woman. Such vulnerability could result in being used, abused, accused, adjudged, and enslaved. Why face the risk? 

Now, after heaping pressure, resentment, bitterness, anger, hatred, blame, shame, and lies upon men as a group, after bawling first for equality, then for preferential treatment, now for absolute power, after shoving men to the side in the pursuit of self-interest, the femosphere has the gall to be offended at the rejection represented by MGTOW.

The basis for protest seems to be the assertion that just by virtue of our existence, men owe women some level of regard. It's not supposed to matter that currently, women are abusing feminist-won power, successfully using various false allegations as a weapon in disputes, a means of shutting down fathers seeking to maintain family relationships following divorce or separation, as a tool to control every minor interaction with men, and even as a means of garnering attention and sympathy from other women. Men are expected to ignore the very real danger of being subjected to anything from public censure to prosecution and imprisonment with no recourse against lies and other misconduct.

Even though men are all treated as perpetual suspects, and despite abuses they may have encountered in past interactions, they're supposed to presume innocence for every woman they meet. Even though they've been objectified, marginalized, and devalued, they're expected to offer social respect for our sex, acting on the assumption of altruistic nurturing and higher moral disposition, with no supporting evidence other than the difference in genitalia. After decades of feminist protest against traditional relationship roles and demands for sexual equality, men are required to accept a set of rules of engagement imposed for the purpose of treating female sexuality as a commodity, while simultaneously ignoring the mercenary, exploitative motive behind the hoops through which they're being ordered to jump.

Somehow, despite feminist assertion that women are entitled to pursue sexual gratification with the same enthusiasm and indifference they've attributed to men, men are still expected to make all of the effort, leaving women free to approach interaction with the attitude of, "What's in it for me?" While feminist advocacy has fought to free women from the presumption of female sexual consent within a relationship, the same group continues to assert the demand for male consent to relationship in response to sexual interaction. The choice of men to ignore these expectations, to refuse to cater to the rapacious nature of female dating criteria, flies in the face of the existing entitlement franchise. Far from acknowledging the iniquitous degree to which women, under modern social norms, have taken that entitlement, feminist advocates treat this resistance as a form of insubordination, claiming that by withdrawing their much-abused trust and intimacy, men are somehow denying women control over our own sexuality. The argument, reduced to its basest level, is that in order to ensure female sexual freedom, men cannot be allowed equal right to say no. Feminists claim total, uncompromisable proprietary ownership and control of consent agency. This, broken down to its simplest form, is a demand that straight men submit their will and become nothing more than slaves.

Ladies, what honest, compelling reason can you offer to counter the existing circumstances which provoked this defensive movement? Would you seriously advise anyone to place his heart back into the meat grinder that human courtship has become under the management and regulation of modern feminism? What reward potential can you possibly offer which has not been previously ruined by other women? What protection can you assure which has not been eradicated by feminist activism? What comfort do you have that is greater than lip service to an empty room? My answer to all of the above, the only honest answer I can form, is none.

This is a bed we have made, not a circumstance inflicted upon us by men. If our concern over the growing distance between us is genuine, if we have any motivation at all to regain the regard and interest of men, we need to realize that it's not men's job to address that. It's on us. If we don't want men going their own way, we should quit pushing them around. If we can't quit pushing men around, we need to accept that eventually, "around" rightfully evolves into "away." We are faced with a choice: Make the effort to earn back the regard, the trust, and the consideration to which past generations of women were accustomed... or accept the adversarial role into which feminists have unceremoniously shoved us, and give up the privilege associated with being "the fair sex."

Effeminition: Consent




One of the most convoluted, fickle, and hypocritical aspects of feminist dogma is the variety of stated positions on sexual ethics and accepted sexual norms. This is an area where feminism just can't seem to make up its collective mind whether to claim authority or affliction. Instead, advocacy and dissertation on various points within the topic wanders all over the grid, depending on which answer to the subtopic best lends itself to achieving the desired rights to responsibility ratio of all to none.    

This is blatantly evidenced by feminism's meandering promulgation of advocated social and legal rules governing consent to sexual contact.

Early on it was argued that women were being held back from experiencing sexual equality by falsely applied moral and social rules. The assertion was that women, as independent adults, are entitled to pursue sexual gratification in the same manner and with the same moral abandon attributed to the behavior of men. The truly liberated woman, it was argued, has every right to casually partake of the smorgasbord of available partners at her leisure, without fear of loss of reputation or status as a result. Society has no right to tie morality to one gender. Therefore, in the name of equal rights, women must be allowed to be equally promiscuous. One tangent to this is condemnation of the allegedly male practice of "slut shaming" (castigation and devaluing of females who engage in casual sex.) The label of slut shaming may be used honestly, as in response to the treatment by either sex of female participation in casual sex as misbehavior, or it may be abused, as in response to the treatment of female cheating on a male partner as mistreatment of the male partner. 

Contrasting the sexually liberated woman position is the gatekeeper-to-pursuit position. This depends on the treatment of women as perpetually reluctant and men as perpetually ambitious toward sexual interaction. For this treatment, the hard-won position of female independence and entitlement to obtain pleasure is abandoned in favor of that of "gatekeeper" to the male's role as purser of sexual gratification. Despite claiming privilege and power under the sexual freedom umbrella, the gatekeeper-to-pursuit position designates gratification as a commodity, women as proprietary owners who must always be persuaded, and men as forever seekers who are required to persuade. It leaves no room for the idea that the female might desire gratification and therefore choose to initiate, or that the male may not desire contact with a specific female or at a given time. Males are assumed to be in a constant state of implied consent, based on that assumption of perpetual sexual ambition, combined with a denial that they may have a standard of attraction. This combination is used to excuse women from ever having to obtain male consent, while simultaneously requiring men to always obtain female consent for sexual interaction.

In the dating arena, this has led to an environment of expectation wherein men must ask permission for each and every step along the path between introduction and orgasm, handling their partners' supposedly cripplingly fragile emotional and mental states as if they are courting soap bubbles which might burst and expire upon the slightest deviation from The Rules.

Complicating this environment is the treatment of the female as helpless. It is never to be expected that the woman might voice her feelings in the event that a male's advances are unwanted. The treatment of women as capable of self-assertion would rob the female participant of her freedom from responsibility for her own sexual behavior. Therefore, it must be assumed that the otherwise strong and liberated woman's disabling psychological weakness may prevent her from verbally refusing sex. This leads to the capability among women to use withholding information to transfer the responsibility for their own sexual decisions to their partners. Simply by not speaking up, a woman may imply consent through physical reciprocity, while reserving the right to later claim defilement and injury due to lack of stated consent.

This is taken to the extreme in the choice by mainstream feminists to treat even slight intoxication as an incapacitating condition when determining female ability to consent. While it is accepted that society, and in particular, the legal system, will hold any individual responsible for his or her intoxicated actions in any other area of behavior from drunk dialing to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, feminist advocacy expresses the expectation that women who have consumed any alcohol will be exempt from responsibility for choices they make related to sexual interaction.

The gatekeeper-to-pursuit argument also uses the assignment of sexual roles to impose the status of consent upon males without offering them a choice. In fact, domestic abuse victim advocacy returns entitlement to women by treating a man's refusal to consent to sex as an act of abuse against his female partner. This advocacy applies the label "withholding sex" to rob men of consent agency, effectively requiring them to perform upon demand.

The contrast among these assertions appears senseless as it ranges from treating women as proactive and empowered to treating women as withering and powerless. Until one looks at the larger goal which is achieved by doing this dance, it is difficult to understand why a political faction would handicap itself in this manner. After all, the contradicting arguments are easily pointed out and played against each other. Why, then, are they used this way?

The answer is in how this combination may support the use of abuse and rape labeling to control every nuance of male-female relationships. Under feminist doctrine, women have the right of indiscretion with impunity coupled with proprietary ownership of consent agency and an implied entitlement to male consent. Be it "No" or be it "Now," feminism demands immediate obedience by males without question. The combination denies male choice under the guise of female empowerment, while simultaneously placing every responsibility related to interaction squarely upon the shoulders of the man and enabling the woman to criminalize his part in the experience at any time, including after the fact. The ability to retroactively apply the abuse label or the rape label is a powerful weapon, with applications ranging from excusing oneself from relationship rules to vengeance following a break-up to leverage in custody and property disputes.

Feminist activism has made the terms rape and abuse into sacred and untouchable concepts, the wielding of which may be used to constrict the options of an opponent. To varying degrees, it has become socially and even legally unacceptable to question the veracity of any such allegation no matter how wild it is or how sparse the evidence. In this context, having license to apply those terms to circumstances which are devoid of genuine injury, exploitation, or assault provides women with an incredibly destructive legal force; the power to assert, and not be contradicted; to demand, and not be denied. These rules of engagement which feminism applies to sex and relationships are not about protecting women from victimization at the hands of men. They are designed to provide women with a trump card for use in the pursuit of female power over men.


Also see the response post to the "fan" who copied the text of this post in its entirety, (but not the cartoon) then re-posted it in his own blog intertwined with straw man arguments and denial.


Effeminition: Equal Work




One of the more oft heard complaints of the radfem brigade is the touting of the wage gap myth in support of the "equal pay for equal work" battle cry. This continues despite the fact that said myth has been debunked. This is the highlighted by questions introduced by the Consad report, which indicates that much of the difference in average earnings can be attributed to the worker's life choices and willingness to sacrifice other perks in life for the benefit of higher earnings.

It is also especially important to note the collective effect of anything that can be considered hazard pay on the numbers used to support the wage gap myth. The hazard pay effect is attributable to the difference in job choices between the sexes. Among the higher paying items in the job market are The Most Dangerous Jobs. These are not jobs which women are being kept out of due to discrimination. These are jobs women are not actively seeking to take. On top of the prohibitive risk factors, this is in part due to the time demands. Seasonal jobs often mean daily work for weeks or months, with long hours, hard labor, and no days off in between. Further, the labor demands for these jobs require physical strength, labor endurance, fatigue endurance, and a brand of emotional toughness which is beyond what most women possess or seek to test within ourselves.

Among the results of the discrepancy in representation between the sexes in the most dangerous of jobs is what I would refer to as The Risk Gap and The Death Gap. The first thing that stands out in these statistics is the huge difference in the number of male workplace fatalities, versus female fatalities. While this accounts for only a segment of the whole workforce, it skews the numbers on both sides of the argument, creating an apparently higher average pay rate for men, and an apparently lower average injury and fatality rate for women overall.

In addition, this effect spills over into the regular workforce, including professions more evenly populated by both sexes. Higher injury and fatality rates in first responder professions can be attributed to greater risk-taking by male first responders. Higher rates in the private sector can be attributed to heavier workload requirements given to men, including higher weight assignments and riskier positions in manufacturing and construction, and even in hourly, bottom-rung positions such as retail sales and health care aide positions. Right or wrong, employers and coworkers in general do have higher performance and labor expectations for men.

Taking into account the various factors affecting women's earnings, can we honestly continue to use the phrase "equal work" to describe women's contributions in the workplace? In light of the body of work which women will not do, whether that discrepancy is caused by life choices or unwillingness to risk, or inability to perform, are we really justified in demanding legislation to artificially boost our pay? Is the feminist concept of fairness in this case not incredibly biased? How does the assertion that pay should be artificially evened out via legislation not add up to ungrateful beneficiaries of risk-takers and hard-laborers demanding to be handed undeserved recognition and rewards on the basis of sex?

Addendum: Speaking of the body of work that women will not do, I just ran across the following related article. I want to tell you a story







google-site-verification: googlefdd91f1288e37cb4.html