Check out this slightly altered Dear Abby column and see what you think.
Dear Abby: I think I have an abuse problem. I’ve been with my girlfriend for a year, and already I feel she is fed up with me. I don’t want to lose her.
When I was younger, my father used to abuse me. It was years ago, but I feel like I might have gotten that trait from him. In addition, I have a tendency to smack my girlfriend on the arm when she’s verbally abusing me. I just want it to stop.
I love this woman and I feel terrible after I do it. I keep telling her I’m sorry and that I have the worst tendency to act on impulse. Please tell me how to stop because I CAN’T lose her.
Sorry in Kansas City, Mo.
Dear Sorry: If you want your relationship to improve, you must realize it will take effort, not only on your part, but also your girlfriend’s. Neither of you handles anger or frustration appropriately. She shouldn’t verbally abuse you if something bothers her. And you need to find other ways than hitting her to make her stop.
Couples counseling could help you communicate more effectively with each other. Many licensed mental health professionals offer it. Please don’t wait.
We are living in a world of huge double standards when it comes to domestic violence and our men are on the bad end of the deal. When a man commits domestic violence he is punished very harshly. But when a woman commits domestic violence she gets cheers, chuckles or is all too often ignored.
Just look at what happened to Ray Rice.
The video of the incident showed Rice’s girlfriend (and soon to be wife) hitting him twice, once before getting on the elevator and once on the elevator. Then it shows her moving aggressively towards him in what appears to be an attempt to strike him a third time. (please note this not a defenseless woman cowering in the corner) Rice responds by hitting her in the face and she hits her head on a handrail which then knocks her out. The eventual response to this incident? Ban Ray Rice from his lucrative association with the NFL, and be fired from his team, the Baltimore Ravens. These two things obviously shame him, put a big DV on his forehead, cut off his income, his prestige, and his association with his friends and teammates. A very harsh and far too stringent response in my opinion. But wait. What would happen if we reversed the roles here?
Imagine this: Ray Rice hits his girlfriend before getting on the elevator and then again on the elevator. Then moves aggressively towards her in what appears to be a third attempt to hit her. As he moves in to hit her she hits him in the face and he hits his head on a handrail knocking him out. What is the response to this? My guess is she would get accolades and be seen as a hero, a woman who successfully protected herself from an abuser. She would likely be on talk shows and be held up as a role model for all women. Rice would likely be arrested for domestic violence while she is seen as a hero.
Do you see the problem here? For the same behavior she is a hero and he is shamed and banished.
So Ray Rice was not guilty of beating up on a completely defenseless woman. No. As we previously described this was not some cowering woman in the corner covering her face with her arms and hoping not to be hit, this was an aggressive woman who had already struck him twice and was moving in for the third blow. This is very different from a defenseless women. Yes, Ray needs to take responsibility for hitting her but doesn’t she need to take responsibility for hitting him? Isn’t she clearly guilty of domestic violence? I read quite a few articles on this incident and I simply don’t remember ever seeing her violence addressed. No one ever mentioned it. Just another example of the huge double standard we face. It is so powerful that the media simply ignores the violence of women. The youtube with this article shows numerous women who were violent in relationship and what was the response? Laughter and very little.
I think the NFL really blew it on this one.
The punishment he received was far from helpful. What sort of help might he get from being banished from his profession? What sort of help might it give his wife? None. The sad fact is that the NFL acted like a cowardly white knight who was more than willing to throw Mr Rice under the team bus in order to appear that they didn’t hate women and had uber concern about the issue of domestic violence. It just seems like one big disgusting play for image by the NFL. A play that ignores the humanity of both Rice and his wife.
What happens to the man on the street who hits a woman? Is he tossed out of his job as punishment? No. Is he banned from working in his profession? Highly unlikely. Is he offered some form of counseling or educational opportunity that might help him deal with his mess? Yes, usually, and in severe cases people go to jail but apparently the Ray Rice situation found that he was best served by this former alternative but the NFL stepped in and amped up the ante to an extremely humiliating degree.
Does the fact that she didn’t hit as hard matter? Not really. If a 5’ 7” 150 lb man came to me in therapy and said that he had hit a pro football player twice in an elevator and was moving towards him again to land a third blow and he got knocked out what would I tell him? Would I tell him that he should have the pro football player arrested and that he was a victim? Or should I tell him that his behavior was a part of this equation. Duh. Why doesn’t Mrs Rice get the same treatment? Because we are living in a gynocentric world that holds men accountable and fails to do the same for women.
If we are going to let women off and not hold them accountable for domestic violence than we need to do the same with men. If we are truly equal it is the only fair thing to do.
This is what you get when you swallow the blue pill.
Most men live under an invisible blue taboo. This powerful and cloaked prohibition discourages men in many ways, one of which is from letting anyone know if they might be feeling blue. But it goes much deeper. It’s not just about emotions, the blue taboo includes being needy or dependent in any way. Men find themselves automatically avoiding any communication that might portray them as dependent or needy. I have been watching this taboo for years and have marveled at men’s creativity in sidestepping this dilemma. Men have simply expressed their emotional pain and neediness in other ways. Some use actions, some use inaction. Most men have found ways around this prohibition and feel just fine about it. We should be good right? Wrong.
The taboo also impacts women (and other men) by discouraging them from listening to the man’s emotional pain, his neediness or his dependency. In my years of working with couples in therapy I have very rarely seen a woman who routinely listened to the emotional pain of her male partner. Think purple polar bear. Very rare. Women do often claim that they want a man who is in touch with his feelings but if you scratch and sniff you find that this means that he should be in touch with HER feelings. It is a rare women who can regularly sit with the man she loves and non-judgmentally hear him out on a feeling level. Yes, women will claim that men give them no chance to do this, that they are cold and unfeeling, but give her a chance in therapy to listen to his pain and what I have seen repeatedly is that she has a very hard time with this and often recoils.
Men have also found ways around not being heard in relationships. Again, they turn towards their strength of action and their powerful ability to utilize solitude. But that is not the end of this story.
The very same resistance to hearing men’s pain and men’s needs in relationship we can also see in our cultural structures. Just as a man’s emotional pain and neediness is taboo in relationship that same disinterest in men’s needs can be clearly seen in our culture. It’s the same blue taboo just on a different octave. Take the family court. How many times have you heard men clearly state that it was as if they were invisible. When his ex complained to the judge she would get swift and helpful responses. But when he voices what he needs he gets silence or worse yet, gets slammed for it. This is the blue taboo playing out in the family courts. Women’ needs are seen as a call to action and men’s needs are seen as his selfishness. In this arena, the blue taboo is deadly and there is no workaround for men. They are sunk and no one sees it. Only the men who are pummeled see it clearly. If these broken men try to explain this injustice the blue taboo works again to discourage anyone from really hearing their needs and injuries. So they had best not complain about it since that is, of course, taboo. And we wonder why men commit suicide ten times as much as women following divorce?
We see the same blue taboo dynamic played out in our legislatures. When women complain that they are in need you see the legislators jump and jump high. They are on a fast track to a solution. When men voice their needs what do you see? You see shaming and turning away. Men’s needs are simply not heard. We have a multitude of laws to help women including the VAWA, rape shield laws, affirmative action, and many many more. This is the blue taboo at work. Men’s meeds are routinely ignored. There is no workaround. But men had better not complain…
We see the same thing in the media. It fills its plate with women’s needs, women’s complaints, women’s feelings and on and on. Do you see many articles about the needs of men? Nope, there is that purple polar bear again. Feminism filled the welcoming media elite for 50 years. It has literally become the default voice. But what happens when men start voicing their needs? Just look at the media reaction to the latest AVFM conference. Men and women gathered to discuss the needs of men and boys and you know the rest. Hit piece after hit piece. This is the blue taboo, The needs of men are taboo.
One would think that our places of higher learning might not be so brainwashed by this taboo but anyone with eyes can see that our universities are about women and girls. Women’s studies, women’s centers, women health, blah blah blah. Ask for something for men and boys and you get a cold shoulder. It went so far in Toronto that campus groups were banned if they were about the needs of men. This is the blue taboo.
So men are in a huge bind. When men voice their needs they are routinely ignored both on a micro and macro level. When they complain about this injustice they meet the same taboo. They are ignored or shamed. There is no way out. Be a man. STFU.
At one time in human history this may have been a productive path. For survival purposes we split up the roles with men doing the more dangerous work of providing and protecting and women the childbearing and child oriented tasks. This arrangement obviously set up a scenario where women would ask for what they wanted/needed in order to maintain the family life. There might be arguments over the details of this but the bottom line was the women would “ask for” and the men would then be responsible to get the provisions or the safety that women requested. His job of providing and protecting was directly related to her requests. She got very practiced at asking for what she wants and voicing her needs. Men got very practiced at providing for those needs and wants. Note that this is a one way valve. Women voice needs, men respond. There was no corresponding flip side where women responded to men’s needs.
This may or may not be the origins of the blue taboo. No matter where it came from we need to start dismantling it asap. We have spent 50 years dismantling women’s sex roles but have yet to even have a look at men’s. This is yet another spin off of the blue taboo. We work hard to change women’s restrictive roles but ignore those of men. Blue taboo anyone? Focus on women and ignore the needs of men? Yup. But how long can we afford to “empower” one half of the population while we continue to ignore the needs of the other half? Probably not much longer. Let’s not let that happen. Take that red pill.
Below is a list of nearly 70 soundbites that were suggested on a recent menaregood youtube. I wanted to open this list up to a vote and get everyone’s opinion about which ones might be the most useful for our purposes. You can vote for up to 25 soundbites.
What makes a good soundbite? It tells a story in very few words. The fewer the better. It is catchy and easy to remember and will leave an impression on those who hear it. A very good soundbite will help people see their own double standards.
I will paste in the original youtube at the end of the poll for those who may not have seen it.
This Salon article offered a paragraph about my part in the conference and I found it highly inaccurate. I thought I would take some time here to voice my side of things. I have been interviewed by the mainstream media many times over the years including The New York Times, Washington Post, CBS Evening News, CNN, and even the NFL Channel and ESPN. Each of these interviews was fair and accurate in their portrayal of the message I was trying to get across. The Salon article however fails in that regard and the writer seems to have a bone to pick with men and boys. Here’s the paragraph in question:
If one of the primary messages of the conferences was “feminists are bad,” the other was “men’s rights activists are good.” In the talk “Men’s Unique Way of Healing,” social worker Tom Golden covered every inch of the stage with his energetic pacing and pantomiming, opening the talk by holding his hands in the air and chanting, “Men are GOOD!” “How many of you have been told that you don’t know how to talk about your feelings?” Golden asked the crowd. His explanation: Men shouldn’t be expected to open up emotionally. They sit in a fishing boat all day without saying a word and then exit the boat as best friends. Michael Jordan emoted by crying for his late father after winning the championship. Men are “good” just the way they are, and need not bother with all of that “crying” and “talking about your feelings” stuff.
Okay. So let’s take the very first part.
“opening the talk by holding his hands in the air and chanting, “Men are GOOD!””
Now have a look at the very beginning of the youtube (about 2:40) and see if I hold my hands in the air and chant men are good:
So I hope you noticed my hands were behind my back and I said “men are good” exactly two times. Not much of a chant. But why would he want to portray me like that? My guess is that what I was saying went against the grain of his own belief system and he was trying to paint me as a fanatic of some sort. Perhaps he was thinking… “men are good? No, can’t be right. Men are the problem!” And when we don’t agree with someone and want to diminish their ethos what can we do? Say they are chanting! You know, who chants? Mostly religious folks who are far from the mainstream and often seen as fanatics. The default population views “chanting” with great suspicion. So let’s just paint Golden as a chanter! LOL Cheap. Whatever happened to Woodward and Bernstein? This writer actually reminds me of what I might expect from a middle school student who had it in for the person they were writing about.
But it gets worse. The article quotes me as saying “How many of you have been told that you don’t know how to talk about your feelings? Golden asked the crowd.” (the actual quote was “how many men in this audience have heard that? That you are not dealing with your feelings” – considerably different but close) But then goes on to say
“His explanation: Men shouldn’t be expected to open up emotionally.“
Okay now this one gets me. I have spent over 30 years sitting with men in deep emotional pain and have never said and will likely never say that men shouldn’t be expected to open up emotionally. He has missed the entire thrust of the talk. What I tried to say was that men have a very different way to open up and most people can’t even see it.
The article says:
“Men are “good” just the way they are, and need not bother with all of that “crying” and “talking about your feelings” stuff.“
Yet another horrible interpretation. What I have found and I hope what I said in the talk was that men have a different way to get at their emotions. I never said anything about them not needing to bother with the crying etc. The fact is that their actions and inactions will often move them to a place of tears. They are just much less likely, for a wide variety of reasons, to do this in public.
The question that arises in my mind is why would this reporter write such a biased and inaccurate piece when all of the rest of the interviews I have done over the years have been markedly different in accuracy? I think it is a small jump to see that this was the first time that I had presented for AVFM in a public men’s issues setting. My normal setting is with mental health professionals or with hospices. In those settings people seem very receptive to the message but once you get associated with men’s issues you get slammed. I think what we are dealing with is a culture and a writer who is so gynocentric and so threatened by hearing the idea that men have needs that he fails repeatedly to be able to see and discuss those needs. He shuts down and attacks. This is what people do when they are feeling threatened. Be sure to read the rest of the article and you will see that his slant was not reserved just for me. The entire conference seems to have gotten under his skin.
I wrote a comment for the online Salon article to try to clarify what I actually said but I think it is falling on deaf ears. Read some of the comments and you will see Archie Bunker and worse. Archie was at least lovable. If you can detach it can actually be fairly entertaining to read through them. This is a brainwashed group that is vehement that their brainwashing is the only way to see things and anyone voicing a different viewpoint is seen as an idiot who can’t get dates. I mean really? I will paste in the comment I made here.
Here’s the comment:
Thanks for including me in your article. While I do appreciate being included I feel that you didn’t seem to portray the talk in an accurate manner. I thought I would post here and offer the basics that you seem to have missed. I would encourage everyone to have a look at the free video on youtube and judge for yourself the accuracy of this article. http://youtu.be/h7yaH-DVbYQ?t=2m34s Here are the main points:
You can’t say all men heal one way and all women heal another. It is much more complicated but it is fairly safe to talk about most men and that is what the talk considered as will this post.
1. Most men will process their emotions in a way that is very different from the cultural default. They will tend to use action, inaction, and honoring to do so.
2. Men do this for many reasons but the main reasons that were discussed in the talk were that a man’s emotional pain is taboo in our culture. The second reason of four was that men are expected to provide and protect and this expectation includes a powerful expectation that men avoid any form of dependency. When men are seen as dependent they are often judged as not being “real men.” Men are not dumb enough to fall for that trap.
3. There are physical reasons for these differences starting with the large levels of testosterone that boys (and about 18% of girls) receive at about 2 months in utero. We discussed the probable impact of this on the processing of emotions. The work of Shelly Taylor (The Tending Instinct) showed us that when stressed, men and women have different paths to cope. Men tend to fight or flight. That is, they tend to connect their stress with action or inaction while women do something very different. Taylor found that women will “tend and befriend.” That is, women will move towards INTERACTION when stressed. This contrasts with the men’s tendency to move towards action and/or inaction. This important bifurcation starts to help us understand our differences in processing emotions.
4. The talk then gave two examples of the way men heal. We discussed Eric Clapton and the way he worked with his loss following the sudden death of his young son. We also discussed Michael Jordan and his ways of coping following the murder of his father.
I have been working with men in emotional pain for over 30 years and having someone write that I said “Men shouldn’t be expected to open up emotionally” is pretty shocking and inaccurate. I said nothing of the sort. What I did say was that men have a very different way to process their emotions and we need to factor that in when we help them connect. The material I presented was a summary of what usually takes 3-4 hours to get across. Many details were left out due to time. If you have any interest I have written two books on the topic, Swallowed by a Snake: The Gift of the Masculine Side of Healing, and the more recent kindle book “The Way Men Heal.”
“Crass ideological opponents”
“Paranoia and vitriol”
“Violent Internet histories”
“A palpable distaste for women”
These men laugh at rape jokes.
Describing a Saturday Night Live sketch as if it attacked our beliefs—when it addressed none of our beliefs at all
Mentioning mass murderer Elliot Rodger
These are things Jessica Roy used in describing the International Conference on Men’s Issues and its readers and editors in her Time magazine article.
She went as far as describing a point during the conference when she got the vapors and had to leave the building! Interesting that she doesn’t tell us what content gave her this vaporous experience, nor does she tell us when and if she returned.
Here’s the way her article starts:
I went to the conference in suburban Detroit expecting a group of feminist-hating Internet trolls; I found much more.
It is clear that Roy had very strong preconceived ideas about this conference prior to even setting foot in the venue. In other words, she was prejudiced. In her mind, she seems to have thought that these were her enemies, these were violent and vitriolic opponents who said things so vile that she had to leave the building. It’s little wonder that her article is desperately biased as she clings to her outdated, half-the-story ideological-feminist indoctrination.
Roy peppered the article with examples of how men are indeed in need of services at times but implied that the “paranoid” and “vitriolic” leadership was not doing a good job of getting them the help they need. Presumably, from her perspective, the conference also failed in that regard.
At some points during the article Roy related content from the conference and then immediately offered a refutation. In most good reporting, I have seen the reporter report what transpired and then, when it is an important point, seek out other expert opinions as a counterpoint to help the reader see both sides. In Roy’s case, most of the time she simply saw herself as the expert and worked to refute the claims of the conference speakers. This shows us clearly that this was personal to her; she wanted to refute what was being said. There was “her side” and then the side she was writing about. Her stance as a journalist was biased and far from neutral.
A very strong indicator of her defensiveness and brittle worldview:
Still, being surrounded by men who belly-laughed at rape jokes and pinned evil elements of human nature wholesale on women was emotionally taxing at best and self-destructive at worst. Once, during a particularly upsetting segment of the program, I had to excuse myself from the auditorium to seek refuge on the bug-filled bank of Lake St. Clair. I kept wondering why I had volunteered to fly 600 miles to attend the conference alone, to surround myself not just with crass ideological opponents, but with people with violent Internet histories who believed my very existence oppressed them. But to emerge on the other side of this with both my sanity and a worthwhile story, I would have to actually adopt a grain of their advice. I would have to stop feeling like a victim, and in turn cast aside all of the humiliating and unfair and devastating experiences I had collected as a woman.
Of course “belly-laughs at rape jokes” were hardly the norm for anyone there, and all evil elements of human nature were not pinned wholesale on women; women were just held to be as culpable as men by most of the presenters. And men must not experience humiliating and unfair and devastating experiences as men just because they couldn’t immediately rattle them off for her when prompted.
As an example of the distorted lens Roy sees things through, when Dr. Tara Palmatier showed a slide in a presentation on clinical narcissism, rather than trying to understand or to expand on what Dr. Palmatier was saying about it, Roy decided instead to try to disprove the assertions of Dr. Palmatier without discussion, by claiming it was about how attire causes rape. This is the work not of a journalist but of an ideologue trying to promote their own view of the world. Give them an alternative viewpoint and they go bonkers.
The question does arise: Why would Time magazine send a reporter who was so biased and closed-minded to cover this conference? Maybe like sending an “earth is the center of the universe” proponent to cover a Copernicus news conference. What would you expect from that? Then again, maybe Time doesn’t hire unbiased reporters anymore?
Time magazine is not the only culprit here. The Washington Post also sent a reporter who had strong biases and training that focused more on women’s issues and had left out men and boys. The article she wrote is not unlike Roy’s. It’s biased. Both were obviously steeped in the wrong-headed, half-truth feminist dogma that has been the default of the media for many years. If only either could have listened carefully to the presentations they might have seen the damage their thinking and writing has been doing. Compare either of these articles with this USA Today story on the conference. Note the contrast and that it lacks the bitter hatefulness seen in the other two.
My wife, who attended the conference and is sympathetic to the views expressed at the conference but who could not be described as an “activist,” read the Time magazine article and said, “It’s hard to believe that she related in the article the way she did. It is just bizarre … her perceptions of the situation, it’s way off base.”
I must wholeheartedly agree, having been there myself.
Now it’s your turn. All of the presentations at the conference are now online and linked below and free for viewing. Have a look and decide for yourself whether you agree with my wife or with Jessica Roy. I am betting strongly on my wife.
If you missed the International Men’s Issues Conference in June of 2014 you missed an astounding event. Lucky for you it is now online and viewable. (links at the end of this post ) The consistent theme that was heard repeatedly during the event was that the old narrative is woefully inadequate and is being replaced with a new one that improves the focus of compassion and choice to everyone, not just a select few. Exposing this old narrative came from almost each speaker and was described in a wide variety of ways.
I do hope that those who attacked this conference and unsuccessfully tried to shut it down by sending death threats to innocent people will take the time to listen to these presentations. I think if they take the time to do this that they will find that the speakers all offer a similar message of wanting the best for all people, not just a select few. They are truly humanitarians. How could anyone want to shut down a humanitarian event?
I am reminded of a book I read many years ago. It was a book on human evil by Scott Peck. The title was People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil. In it, Peck explained that evil was most often practiced by those who would attack others rather than deal with their own failings. This sort of attack would then leave what Peck described as the hallmark of evil, it would leave a huge amount of chaos in its wake. Of course I won’t need to remind anyone that men’s issues consistently focus on events and problems where men and boys are facing huge amounts of chaos whether it is the family court traumas, the domestic violence industry, or some other misandrist avenue.
I couldn’t help but notice that the First International Men’s Issues Conference had a number of speakers addressing the idea of evil. Sen Ann Cools, the first black female Senator in North America started off the conference by openly asking how anyone could actually believe the feminist narrative that has been thrust upon us all for the last 40 years. Senator Cools told stories of her experience in the Canadian Senate that exposed the half truths and the gynocentric majority that turned their backs on the needs of men and boys. Erin Pizzey then gave a remarkable presentation about the plight of men and boys. She labelled what has been done to men and boys, particularly in the domestic violence arena as done by “The Evil Empire.” Then Tara Palmatier, PhD eloquently and humorously pointed out the lopsided nature of acceptance of the narcissism of girls and women and the shame, blame, and lack of acceptance for boys and men on so many levels. The conference started off with three women who very eloquently and powerfully labeled the state we are in and the impact this has on boys and men.
The presentation where I learned the most was from Karen Straughan. I would highly recommend you check it out. I had been duped by the idea that feminism in the beginning was actually for equality. Karen rid me of that notion. She went into detail about the Seneca Falls Convention and showed clearly how the feminist narrative, even in the 19th century, was clearly blaming men for the ills of the world.
There were so many other presentations that were simply excellent. I can honestly say there was not one presentation I heard that didn’t get an A. Barbara Kay did a great job in exposing the misandry in the media. Mike Buchanan brought to life the political reality and shared his experience in starting a political party in England to focus on boys and men. Fred Jones inspired us in laying out what it takes to win a fight that may be stacked against you in the start. Golden did okay talking about men and their unique ways to process emotions and Paul talked about the importance of honoring our blue collar men and the fact that the world functions due to their often unappreciated efforts.
Warren Farrell started off day two with a ten point summation of the most important issues we need to address in order to find success. As usual Warren is thinking ahead of the curve! Carnell Smith told the story of cupcake and had us all laughing and inspired to keep any eye peeled for the soul crushing impact of paternity fraud. Robert Franklin exposes the partnership of feminists and family court lawyers and their goals of keeping fathers out of families. Terry Popp focused on the huge problem of suicide in the military and showed the excellent video Purple Heart’s Final Beat. Then Stefan Molyneux spoke and began by looking at evil and how it starts and stops, moved to circumcision and then beyond. He really kept us all interested and laughing.
What a great group of presentations. This conference was truly an astounding event.
At this point day two is online on youtube. The present video is a number of hours long and difficult to navigate and find the beginnings and ends of each section. For your convenience the links below will take you to each presentation.
Part one went over the basics of brainwashing and began to look at some of the similarities that male feminists seem to share with those who were brainwashed by the Chinese. We discussed how the parallels we were drawing were not precise and were general though striking and eye opening. I think a similar situation can be seen when we turn to the similarities of the feminists with those who were doing the brainwashing, the communist Chinese.
We saw how the Chinese first depended on attacking the identity of the captives and added the prolonged use of guilt and shame. This was all done within an environment where they (The Chinese) were held as infallible. I think a good case can be made for some strong similarities existing in the way feminism has attacked men and boys. It is a curious question why they would do so. Let’s start there.
So why did feminism attack the identity of men? Well, it’s pretty simple really. Telling the truth that women suffered and faced discrimination due to rigid sex roles just wasn’t that sexy and the media and politicians would fail to be interested. But, if you can find a bad guy, you know, someone to blame, then the ordeal becomes sexy and interests the press and those politicians knowing they need something to get re-elected. We will just blame men and claim they are the problem. Hey, we could juice it up even more and call them oppressors!
And that is just what they did.
They did this with the benefit of a gynocentric culture that has always jumped to attention when females claim they are tied to the tracks. If you don’t believe that just look at our laws. Time and time again the laws protect women but less so men. The Violence against WOMEN Act, Sexual Harassment Laws, Rape Shield laws, affirmative action, and on and on. The protecting is all for women and little for men. Men are disposable.
It didn’t take long to find that the tactic of blaming men as oppressors was actually very effective and very lucrative. The more they did it, the more media attention and funding they would get. And no one complained!
Of course, the obvious truth was that women were restricted not by oppressive men but by rigid sex roles. These roles had been the norm for many, many years and would likely still be in effect except that women became aware that their options were limited by their sex roles and they wanted more options in their lives.
But didn’t women have options? Yes, they had many options but simply not the same as they saw men getting. (of course men have never had the options that women had but they have yet to complain, you know, like not dying in wars, or getting to stay at home with the kids while someone else works and supports you, or actually getting compassion and emotional support) What many people don’t realize is that in 1960, prior to feminism, women were 32.3% of the workforce. That’s right, one third of our workers were women. With all that our gynocentric government has done since then it is now at 47%. That’s up only 15%. Women had jobs and worked outside the home. And how about college? Again, what most don’t realize is that in 1960, prior to feminism, women received 35% of the college degrees. Does this sound like a group that is oppressed? No. Let’s compare them with a group that was oppressed. Slaves. Slaves were 0% of the workforce and 0% of the recipients of college degrees. See the difference? One group is limited by a rigid sex role and faces discrimination that keeps them out of some professions and some top positions etc and the other group is actually oppressed and forbidden to take part in society. Huge difference. There is no comparison. Women have made gains in many areas including getting more jobs as professionals such as lawyers and doctors. They have also surpassed men in obtaining college degrees. In fact at this point women are getting more degrees than men at the same rate that men had gotten more degrees than women in 1970. But guess what? The 1970 figure for women is seen as a sign of discrimination/oppression against women while the 2010 figure for men is seen as a success for women! A part of that misandry is due to feminists and their cronies having gotten away with painting men as the problem and of course we simply don’t care so much about those who are the cause of the problem. We ignore their pain and suffering. Sound fair to you? Again, this is just more evidence of our living in a gynocentric world.
The attacks on men’s identity were basically a global false accusation. The feminists took the low road and falsely accused their own partners, the opposite sex, in order to get what they wanted. These false accusations likely worked on the feminists in the same ways that we saw brainwashing work on the men who betrayed their own origins. When we betray, we will tend to detach from that which we betray. The feminist betrayals of men likely moved them farther and farther into a detached position. We will also likely be more motivated to collect evidence that the betrayal was justified. This may give us a clue about the extent the feminists have gone in betraying men. Could it be that the more the feminists betrayed men the more detached they became to men?
And what happens when someone is falsely accused? The first thing the accused does is often deny that the attack is very important. From their perspective they know that it is false, it is bogus. They know it is untrue. They figure that in a short period people will figure this out and all will be well. They trust that that common sense and compassion will prevail. A part of this early denial is the minimization of the impact that such a false accusation can have. It seems to me that this is just how men responded to the early false accusations. They laughed it off and figured such nonsense would never have much impact. They were wrong. What is the worst thing about a false accusation? It is almost impossible to disprove. Individual men could say that they were not oppressors but there was no way for men to speak as a group and disprove the false accusations of these constant attacks. And they started to spread.
So the feminists/women had made a choice: Insure more stuff for women by attacking men’s identity and integrity. They frankly seemed like naturals at this tactic. Labeling men as every sort of bad meme one can imagine. Men were pigs, men were rapists, men were greedy and unwilling to share with women, men were violent and bullied innocent women in relationship, men were insensitive, men were oversexed, men were testosterone poisoned, men never grew up and the list goes on and on. Men were bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Not some men, but men in general. Just try and imagine someone saying similarly negative things about women as a group. I bet you can’t even imagine it.
In order to maintain this lie of men oppressing women they needed to paint men as more and more terrible oppressors. They proceeded to create oppressors at every street corner. Men were oppressing women and keeping them from getting jobs, they were sexually harassing them on the job, men were oppressing women and keeping them tied to the home, men were oppressing women via domestic violence and beating them at home, men were oppressing women by raping them, by keeping them out of schools, by limiting their pay, by keeping them out of boardrooms and top jobs. Men men men. Bad guys. This was drilled into the consciousness of a receptive and gullible public who cheered on the poor dears who had been so oppressed by these evil men. And the funding flowed. The agencies created. The bureaucracy begun. The American public loves an underdog and hates a bully and that is just how this fight was painted, the men were bullies and the women were underdogs. The American public still thinks this way to this day due to these lies.
Bullies don’t deserve any special treatment. In fact people tend to hold the attitude that bullies should pay for their bullying. Things like affirmative action might disadvantage men but they have been bullies/oppressors and have “had it all” for years. The prevailing attitude is that now it is their turn to suffer. Add that to the fact that men are already seen as disposable and these things create a situation where men are much less likely to get any compassion and more likely to have people nod and accept that they experience disadvantage. No compassion for them.
This drill went on for years and as it progressed the media and academia picked up the bull horns and started to attack men just as it had been started by mostly feminists. This eventually expanded to nearly every sphere of American life. The media, academia, the courts, the legislatures everyone had gotten in on the act of blaming men. Now it was common for all of these factions to beat up on men. No one cared. Men were fair game. They were oppressors, they were egocentric bullies. All things masculine were seen as a problem, all things feminine were seen as a solution. The men were the oppressors and deserved it. The fact that so many others were now carrying out the attacks on men’s identity relieved the feminists from having to do so. You rarely hear the men are pigs line or other degrading comments much any more but it is there. After years of attacks the entire culture has taken on the anti-male attitude. It is automatically assumed by most people and because of this it simply does not need to be voiced. The negative stereotype of men has become a part of the cultural fabric.
Along with the attacks on male identity came the guilt and shame. This could be seen in all of the name calling and identity attacks but was additionally related to attempts to demean both men and masculinity with blame for the problems of the world. This was not an attempt to make men feel guilty for a specific behavior or something they had done in their lives. No. It was more an attempt to have men BE guilty. To be and feel guilty simply for being male. You were guilty not for something you had done, but for something you were. You were male. This is quite similar to the communist Chinese tactic of having their captives live in a world of shame and guilt over who they were not only what they had done.
There were some places with a much higher density of male hate and contempt than others. Probably the area with the most hatred espoused was academia. The women’s studies departments were run by radical feminists who voiced this message repeatedly. Anyone who disagreed would face a great deal of hardship from the university administration. Accusations of misogyny were used as weapons. Entire faculties started living in fear of appearing in any way to be anti-woman or being pro-male. They were petrified and even to this day the people I know on college campuses are afraid of the gender politics of the feminists. Very few will speak up even a little in opposition to women and feminists. Everyone knows to stay silent and not draw attention to oneself. These people have been known to be ruthless and consider themselves infallible. People live in fear of them. This of course is very similar to the Communist Chinese brainwashers. They routinely attack the identity of men, shame and guilt them as being misogynists and do so from a place of infallibility. Two peas in a pod.
I think that this high density of man hatred has been at least partly responsible for the lack of gender diversity in resources on today’s college campus. Almost every place you look are more things for women but there is almost nothing for the men outside of huge mega-buck athletics that doesn’t really help the average guy. Women’s Centers, women’s safety, women’s groups, women’s health. etc.
The density of the male/masculinity hatred on campus must also mean that our college campuses are one of the more effective brainwashing centers. All those that pass through, both males and females, get indoctrinated into the anti-male stereotypes from their freshman introductory welcome workshops to their last day on campus. It is little surprise that on college campuses we tend to see more male feminists.
It also dawned on me why feminists are so quick to call males misogynists when they are simply talking about the needs of men. I have noticed this for years that simply mentioning men’s needs will bring on an accusation of hating women. They are very quick to point out that what is being said is misogynistic. But why would simply voicing men’s needs be misogynistic? Well, it can’t be, but what I have assumed over the years is that feminism has a very old habit of voicing the needs of women while at the same time attacking men as the problem. Could it be that they are simply expecting the same hatefulness they have practiced for years to come back at them from those who start to voice the needs of men? Seems like a possibility to me.
Tremendous damage has been done to both men and boys and women and girls over the years. It is going to take a long time to start to shift these hateful attitudes. Men and boys deserve both choice and compassion. At this point they are getting very little of either.