by Connie Chastain*
Since I have become a supporter of men's rights, I've noticed that there are folks who assume this means I'm a woman-hater. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't hate women; I'm just opposed to radical feminism -- that is, the man-hating, family-destroying variety.
Some anti-feminist men take exception to this, but I really don't mind women voting and participating in their community. I don't mind women working at an outside job once the little ones start school, as long as they're doing it to help a bread-winning husband, and don't neglect home and family in the process. Yes, I know sometimes circumstance forces mothers of small children into the labor market, and I think that's unfortunate. But I don't mind women getting an education so they can support themselves and their children, should the unthinkable happen to their husbands. In other words, I don't mind women having more choices.
But is it unreasonable to think the positive accomplishments of women in the latter 20th century could have been achieved without the destruction radical feminism has brought about in the Anglosphere? Look what we have now after three successive waves of feminism. Boys alienated in elementary and secondary schools, and foregoing college in greater numbers than ever before. The breakdown of the family by illegitimacy and/or easy divorce, resulting in whole communities of fatherless children experiencing some of the most damaging social pathologies known in our culture.
Then, there's the whole man-hating rape-culture meme. The most fundamental relationships between men and women have been targeted for change or destruction. There's the sexual grievance industry on the one hand and the domestic violence industry on the other that come together like giant, invisible pincers to mercilessly squeeze hapless men in an inescapable grip, remove him from the life he has built, separate him from his family, not to mention his bank account -- and literally make his life not worth living.
I feel nothing but contempt for a woman who would ruin so many lives, particularly those of her own family members, in such a manner, barring extenuating circumstances. I'm particularly disdainful of the whole apparatus -- government, academia, law enforcement, the courts, the popular culture -- that backs up the alienation of men in our culture.
But that doesn't mean I hate women.
I know there are some men who do. I sometimes encounter them on men's sites and blogs. Most MRAs who host or post on Internet sites are reasonable and level-headed. Even those who may have had bad experiences with wives or girlfriends, and by extension, cops and courts, exhibit remarkable fairness and judgement.
But there are those few who are going to hate women, no matter what. There is nothing good about women to these folks. Saying anything in the defense of women will likely result in a stunning burst of cynicism from that quarter. I can only imagine the hurt from which it grew.
Very often, the criticism is unfair and unwarranted, in which case, I find myself getting a touch defensive and angry on behalf of myself and my sisters. But I'd never challenge it, because I understand that the only thing behind such misogyny is likely an individual man's excruciating personal experience.
What lies behind most of the misandry I encounter, on the other hand, is a huge, well-organized, well-funded and government-protected industry known as radical feminism that permeates every level, aspect and corner of our culture. Millions of men and women fall under its influence without even realizing it. Some become useful idiots who help hasten the movement to its destructive ends.
There are many things causing the current decline of the United States, Europe and other western nations. Perhaps some of it can be attributed to the fact that no civilization lasts forever...they've been coming and going since Sumer rose and fell. But I can't believe we'd be nearly so far along in the decline if radical feminism had not played a such a crucial part in the changes of the past fifty years.
For most men, misogyny is personal. For feminists, misandry is institutional, political, cultural....and universal.
No, I don't hate women and I don't approve of misogyny -- but I will always be at enmity with radical feminism for its role in the destruction of my culture.
*Connie is a member of the FRS team whose column appears here every Friday. Her blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
40 comments:
"Since I have become a supporter of men's rights, I've noticed that there are folks who assume this means I'm a woman-hater."
I think everyone knows that anyone who suggests there is a false rape problem is accused -- disingenuously, of course -- of being anti-woman, as if the one has anything to do with the other.
For me it's a given that women ought to be able to do anything men can do. But we shouldn't pretend that because a majority of women want to have children and want to be the primary parent, that this doesn't have consequences in the work world. Everything has consequences. If you work less, you get paid less. No employer should have to pay because you wanted to raise a child. No consumer should have to pay more for a product because of your choice. The beauty of the current "women's movement," with its emphasis on equal pay, is that (1) women's choices -- to raise children to do more domestic while their male partners do more paid work -- are somehow a manifestation of gender oppression (which is the opposite of choice), and (2) women's choices should have no consequences.
I also take it as a given that men ought to be able to do whatever women do, without societal disapproval, and that includes be the primary parent.
I have viewed the whole thing as a pendulum , we had what the original suffragette style feminist felt was unfair, and unbalanced, and they fought for and rightly got things changed, but what we are seeing is instead of the pendulum balanced, it has swung in the favour of women and for a lot of the men we see here and elsewhere the hatred, albeit wrong has come from the same place that hatred towards men did , the question is , how do we avoid the mistakes of the past and find the balance?
Yes, there are plenty of misogynists in the men's movement. It's regrettable, but its no different than the women's movement. It was the misandrists who were the most motivated and became the leaders who pushed the movement forward. It was the misadrists who went to school, became educated, founded women's studies, wrote the books, and became the politicians, teachers, judges, lawyers, editors, and journalists. It was the misandrists who took over the sexual grievence indutry, the domestic violence industry, and the father deprivation industry known as Family Court. It was the misandrists who took personal grievences and made them political and institutionalized misandry. What the men's movement must strive for is preventing the misogynists within its ranks from doing the same. it won't be easy as these are likely to be the most vocal and most motivated and most active members.
TDOM
The charge of misogyny is almost always merely a ploy to shut down debate in favor of the vag-equipped party to the conversation. It is meaningless these days...I think even in the mainstream. Thus when I hear "misogynist!" yelled in an argument, I assume that it is being uttered by a feminist who is losing an argument to a man.
Hello TDOM,
Can you give a specific example of a 'Men's Movement Misogynist'?
Equality feminism is being drowned out by neo Gender / Raunch feminism. Attend a modern womens studies class at the university level, and it will look more like a gay rally than anything to do with ??? womens equality???.
In the typical womens studies classes; the composition of the classroom is upper white middle class women and gays. It would be interesting to study who universities see as more "oppressed"...Is the social and societal "sexual oppression" of homosexual white kids a more traumatic experience than what the blacks experience??
Who gets more funding (or victim dollars) for their groups at different universities..the gay "Sexually oppressed" upper, white, middle class kids, or black kids groups??
http://m.ktvz.com/w/main/story/14575380/
KEVIN DRISCOLL NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES
Driscoll's attorney, Ted Coran of Salem, confirmed what others in the courtroom told KTVZ.COM of the very unusual aftermath of the not-guilty verdict - that most of the jurors approached Driscoll to shake his hand, even offer hugs after the acquittal was announced.
Most of the 14 jurors and alternates then invited Driscoll and his lawyers to join them in going out for lunch together - a most unusual turn of events.
"It was a singularly enjoyable experience, immensely helpful to me," Coran said Wednesday night.
"I've never seen a jury reaction like this before," he added. "How smart those people are, and how great a cross-section of the community. ... I have tremendous gratitude for those people. Not all juries bring that kind of energy."
"I'm glad the truth came out," Coran said.
Asked about such a quick verdict after all that testimony, Coran said, "I was flabbergasted when they didn't come back that fast the first time," when the trial ended in what's often called a hung jury.
"I told Kevin, 'The longer they're out, the worse for you,'" he recalled.
"It wasn't that he was 'not guilty,'" Coran said. "The evidence was compelling ... Kevin Driscoll was innocent, and those people were happy to tell him that."
Coran added Driscoll has "solid plans for his life."
@ Anonymous 11:25:00 AM
I'm not going to turn this into a name-calling session. It wasn't the intent of my comment to start calling people out. This isn't my blog, so it's not the place. I'm only saying that I agree with Connie and I won't be baited into starting some sort of flame war.
I'll also agree with EW, the "misogynist" label is all too frequently used bring a debate to a screeching halt. But it wouldn't carry much weight if there weren't so many in the movement.
TDOM
TDOM is right, and one of the worst things that we could do is to find ourselves excusing those for whome the challenge to get a balance between Males and Females is an excuse to spew hatred or to put us in a position where we are expected to justify hatred, if that becomes the norm then we find ourselves encouraging and breeding hatred , we have the chance to build this movement on equality , not superiority and that is what will differentiate us, the day i find myself starting a sentence with " thats not what a real MRA is " is the day we have failed in what we are trying to do .
I think the key sentence in Connie's post is this:
"For most men, misogyny is personal. For feminists, misandry is institutional, political, cultural....and universal."
Misogyny is a side issue, irrelevant, unimportant, a distraction, a diversion ... do not circle the wagons.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1318937/School-dinner-lady-grooming-row-allowing-child-biscuit.html
A dinner lady was warned she could be accused of 'grooming' a primary school pupil after she gave him a biscuit.
Pat Lavery, a catering supervisor, handed the boy a biscuit after he asked for one. The child and the woman are related.
But the following day, she was warned that her action could be interpreted under child protection legislation as 'grooming' the child for sexual exploitation.
Snark , read this one from the daily mail, have a look at the comments section .
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1318754/Hen-pecked-man-killed-partner-30-years-abuse-jailed-years-months.html#comments
Oct 8, 2010 4:38:00 PM
WTF???
Not being British, I'm not quite sure what a "dinner lady" does, but if her job involves serving food to people, then it sounds like that's exactly what she was doing.
It also strikes me as odd, besides being completely insane, because such insanity is usually only inflicted on men.
If being nice to children is abuse, and being mean to children is abuse, then England must simply ban children. Sure, eventually their population will completely die out, but at least we have Australia and Canada.
re Britain...
Couple of years ago there were some high profile cases involving female teachers/child care aides who were molesting kids in their care, filming it, and trading the images over the web.
It came to light at the time that their "working with children" checks gave a pass to women on the basis of their gender alone.
The government over-reacted absurdly. They have created a situation where parents can't even act co-operatively to drive their kids to sports days without getting formal checks done.
Nothing would surprise me where the UK is concerned. If ever anybody wanted proof that the state "owns" children they need look no further.
"Not being British, I'm not quite sure what a "dinner lady" does, but if her job involves serving food to people, then it sounds like that's exactly what she was doing."
Yeah. Somebody whose job involves serving food to people serves food to people, and this is taken as an indication that she is grooming children for sexual abuse.
"If being nice to children is abuse, and being mean to children is abuse, then England must simply ban children."
LOL! Such a suggestion is surely child abuse!
Although, the suggestion that we should NOT ban children is also surely child abuse ... I mean, why are you so keen on having children around ... EH?
As for those of you who are not making any statements on children, your silence certainly is suspicious ...
;)
I think the key sentence in Connie's post is this:
"For most men, misogyny is personal. For feminists, misandry is institutional, political, cultural....and universal."
Misogyny is a side issue, irrelevant, unimportant, a distraction, a diversion ... do not circle the wagons.
Snark, precisely. I was trying to show that, regardless of my liberal friends' namecalling, I'm no misogynist -- and that misogyny is something you only occasionally run across in the men's movement --like raisins in a muffin.
On the other hand, feminism IS misandry -- it's the whole muffin, the whole tin full of muffins. Feminists can drone on about "choice" and "equality" all they want to, but who do they claim has robbed women of choice and equality for millenia? Men. They may make exception for the token men in their lives, but animosity for men as a class, for masculinity, is at the heart of everything they do.
Thank you Connie for telling it, how it really is.
Your articles inspire me.
"On the other hand, feminism IS misandry -- it's the whole muffin, the whole tin full of muffins."
Ah .. if only feminists were as delightful as a tin of muffins!
Still, 'muffin' might be a good pet name for some of them ...
Unless you give that muffin to a child. Then your a suspected pedophile.
oops
"you're" not "your"
"Unless you give that muffin to a child. Then your a suspected pedophile."
But if you DON'T give the muffin to a child ... you might just be a pedophile.
Every movement has radicals. It may have been radicals who began the suffragette movent. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Stanton Cody. There were at the time, rumors that one or both were lesbian. Only both of them may have known. Women were granted the right to vote then granted the right to own proprty. IMHO, this is where "right to equality" ended.
The nineteen-sixties saw the very noticeable rise of what we now call radical feminists. There are still some of the original radical feminists still alive and spreading the messages of Andrea Dworkin, Catherine Commins, Catherine McKinnon and many others. Many of the radical feminists who coined the word "misogyny" did so while subvertly and overtly spreading misandry. My point is; feminism was highjacked from the get go by radicals.
The Men's movement has radicals but, they are being weeded out.
Connie have you ever read " The Red Stockings Manifesto"? It is the radical feminist blueprint for the future.
Because of it's radical highjackers', feminism has become damaged far beyond hope of repair.
"Yes, there are plenty of misogynists in the men's movement"
is that right, Connie Chastain and TDOM?
well let's have some names and evidence to back up that charge, shall we?
cause i've been part of the "men's movement" for a long time and, rather amazingly, i've encountered VERY few guys who -- often despite massive provocation -- are "misogynists" (even the word is barely rational given the gloating totalitarian misandry of western nations)
charges of misogyny by those awful "radical" MRAs (those calling spades spades) is a counterinsurgent tactic designed to further silence and marginalize voices that our matriarchies are already quite capable of silencing on their own, as proven over the past four decades
instead of supporting and disseminating those voices, this article attempts -- via the backdoor -- to quash those voices by defining only those acceptable to YOU as correct MRAs
(kinda reminds me of "Eqity" feminists LOL)
these are sentiments and behaviors i would expect from feminists and from the gubbermint "employees" who enforce and profit from our matriarchies
well done EW, otherwise, shameful
ray
@ ray
Seems to me Connie's point was that we shouldn't pay any mind to 'misogyny' in the MRM whether it's there or not.
Misandry is the pressing issue because it is actually defended by state power, and that's where our focus should be.
Nothing shameful about this - it's a statement against the kind of thing you're accusing her of, i.e. circling the wagons.
Ray, perhaps I did a poor job of making my point.
When I read pro-male websites like Men's News Daily (no longer a MRM site), Glenn Sacks, the Spearhead, MenWeb, The Elusive Wapiti, National Coalition for men, Misandry Review, etc., I don't see misogyny in their articles; thus, my belief that the writers of these articles are not misogynists.
There is criticism of feminism on said sites, but that is not misogyny. It is perceived to be misogyny by feminists and other leftists; that is why I'm called a misogyist in various chatrooms and discussion groups.
However, occasionally -- very occasionally -- in the anonymous comments on pro-male sites, I encounter comments that indicate animosity toward women; not just toward feminism; women, period. Any women. All women. Most of the time, they're posted under the same few anonymous handles -- a mere handful of them.
Because they are anonymous, they could be posted by anyone. Maybe they are men who had a terrible experience with a woman (some of them sound so sincere, I can't help but suspect this); but it's also possible they could be feminists trying to give the men's movement a black eye.
In any case, if folks in the discussion groups who call me a self-hating woman want to us "misogyiny in the men's movement" to defend against the charge that feminism is misandry, they have no case because, as I've noted, the misogyny is miniscule, and as Snark notes, misandry is backed by state power.
Hope this clears it up, and sorry I wasn't clearer in the essay.
This is a "Dogs vs. Cats" argument. As a solid dog lover, I think cats are trouble makers, ill tempered and start all the problems between dogs and cats.
Any cat lady who hates dogs feels exactly the opposite.
The truth is, there are really cool dogs, and really great cats in the world.
There are evil cats and psychotic dogs, probably in equal numbers if one takes the time to research.
Basically, it's not about "men" or "women" or dogs or cats who are "mostly" to blame.
Power corrupts. It corrupted men. Women are running amuck proving they are equally as corruptible.
No surprises there.
Round and round it goes.
http://www.365gay.com/news/time-catches-up-with-woman-posing-as-teen-boy-to-seduce-underage-girl/
This article is interesting because of the comments that follow.
A woman posed as a 14 year old boy to seduce high school girls, and got off with a very light sentence in spite of the repeated and predatory nature of her crime.
The commenters are lesbians, and they are NOT pleased about the inequity this woman was shown by the justice system. "If this had been a man..."
I'm not so sure lesbians are as responsible for misandry as it's presumed...
Connie, my name is Robert. I post at the spearhead using my real name. I am not a misogynist and I do honestly tell you that I do not perceive or consider you to be misandrist. I do, however believe you have great potential to be a counter-feminist. I am a student and a budding agent of counter-feminist change. I am also a humanist.
Archivist said...
"Since I have become a supporter of men's rights, I've noticed that there are folks who assume this means I'm a woman-hater."
Oct 8, 2010 6:48:00 AM
Archivist, you will encounter that alot, especially from both radical feminists and their followers/supporters. They are struggling to keep their chokehold on feminism, which gave birth to them, and anyone who threatens their desire for absolute power and control. Feminism is N.O.W. a sinking ship that is doomed to sink.
Connie:
"Ray, perhaps I did a poor job of making my point. . . .
Hope this clears it up, and sorry I wasn't clearer in the essay."
quite the opposite, upon re-reading your post i see i erroneously folded your sentiment in with this statement by TDOM, which irked me---
TDOM:
"Yes, there are plenty of misogynists in the men's movement
It's regrettable, but its no different than the women's movement"
again, there are by NO means "plenty of misogynists" in the movement, tho there are quite a few righteously pissed off guys, wiht much more than adequate justification
... and the MM is v different than the massively deceptive, malevolent, utterly selfish, and govt.-financed women's movement
the two are not even close to comparable
however, connie, i would characterize your advocacy of women voting and working as, well, let's say naive at best
the disatrous evidence of this aspect of women's "liberation" is all around us, will get far worse, and is irreversible, and it is overwhelmingly boys and men who have suffered, and will continue to suffer, in the amerikan police-state matriarchy
thanks for your gracious response and my sincere apology for mis-characterizing your statements and mistakenly joining them to those of another
ray
"The commenters are lesbians, and they are NOT pleased about the inequity this woman was shown by the justice system. "If this had been a man..."
I'm not so sure lesbians are as responsible for misandry as it's presumed..."
Assuming the commenters are gay because it's a gay site, means they could also be gay men.
Anonymous vs. Anonymous
In regards to a linked article about a woman posing as a boy to seduce a teenage girl (and the posted commentary), one anonymous poster posits - ”I'm not so sure lesbians are as responsible for misandry as it's presumed..."
To which a subsequent anonymous poster responds - ”Assuming the commenters are gay because it's a gay site, means they could also be gay men.”
While I think both posters have a point, I’d like to offer a third perspective. Within lesbian circles, it’s fairly well known that there is a substantial amount of lesbian rape – especially of teenage girls by older women. [or, in the words of Eve Ensler, “good rape”] But, they prefer to keep it quite, so as to not expose their lifestyle to public shame brought on by the acts of certain of their number.
I’d point to this comment by Rebeca -
• I love this website but I think it’s odd that news about a pedophile is in the front page of a GLBT site…why?? I don’t want to hear that because it was a woman attacking a girl it is somehow related to our community. Please stop posting these type of news as if it were relevant to us.”
As being indicative of how the gay community would prefer to silence the existence of same-sex rapes within their communities.
I’m certainly not suggesting that their efforts to hush-up the prevalence of same-sex rapes of underage children and teens has any role in furthering the histrionics WRT “rape culture”, but I do find it exceptionally hypocritical that any lesbians who would try to cover-up lesbian rapes would also complain about such )possible) issues as the (supposed) under-reporting of rape. Their own efforts at concealing rapes is a part of that very issue. I have to wonder what percentage of those supposed unreported rapes are, in fact, lesbian rapes (which they help to keep unreported). My “gut” tells me it’s not an insignificant percentage – much like the very high incidence of DV in lesbian relationships (which is also “suppressed” from the public).
women don't have any right to vote because they are never obligated to defend that right by fighting in a war. You cannot have the privileges of a man without the responsibilities. Women don't have a right to vote or own property because they are never conscripted or considered to fight in a war to defend those rights. Women just want the privileges and want to give men the responsibilities.
Oct 11, 2010 12:28:00 PM
I agree.
Also, many of the comments, especially at Jezebel, are defending her. Although the funniest are those saying if the alleged perpetrator was a man he would have received even less of a punishment.
However, let's not be to quick to attribute the Jezebel article or any comments from supposed lesbians as evidence of a lack of misandry (as I notice that "misandry" isn't a word according to my online spell-checker, but misogyny is), because the this story his has a female victim. If this was a story about a man posing as a female to seduce teenage boys, I doubt it would have received the same reaction.
Also, while lesbians have the highest rate of domestic violence, it doesn't fit the men as violent oppressors of women narrative.
Connie's piece is fatally flawed.
1. first-wave "suffragette" feminism was a fraud, just like every wave of feminism. There was no 'patriarchy' in the Victorian or Edwardian era, but in reality, full frontal legal feminism.
read about the first-wave fraud by reading Belfort Bax's 2 works.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Ernest_Belfort_Bax
2. Connie's own admittance that her "liberal friends" consider her a misogynist, only proves to us our point about many, and maybe most? women. The fact is, most women like feminism because of the PRIVILEGES. Isn't it perfectly right to *hate* women who clandestinely, and secretly protect feminism while pretending to be "not like that"?
3. her own friends call her a misogynist. This is the attitude that many women have whenever you criticize women about the evil they do. We're all 'misogynists' for pointing out how women are evil feminists using feminism for their own advantage by screwing over men in many ways.
4. men don't protect other men who do evil against women. Women protect other women who do evil against men. You see the difference?
5. men look out for the well being and fairness for everyone, most women look out for the well being of themselves. See the difference?
6. women want the privileges and rights of being a man, but never the responsibilities. See the difference?
7. *most* women expect to be catered to by men. Do men expect to be catered to by women? no they don't. See the difference?
8. isn't it perfectly reasonable to hate *most* women, who have quite clearly pushed and supported and protected feminism???
so you see, Connie is just protecting women, and wanting us to think that "most" women are not crypto-feminists and don't "think like that."
I think what Diogenes is trying to say is that we're tired of being served meatless hamburgers on Fridays.
You'll have to admit however that Chastane has come a long way since all that sugary gunk on Sept 10.
Let's give her a few more weeks.
I'm 42 years old and I've developed a growing awareness of the anti-White, anti-man, anti-heteronormative, globalizing, socialist forces destroying White, Western civilization for the last 15 or so years. In all those years I've yet to meet a heterosexual man who hates women. And I've striven to find one. The overwhelming majority of the men I talk to, simply don't believe that women are capable of doing anything wrong at all.
Men are both genetically designed and socially programmed to serve and protect women. I simply don't believe "misandry" exists.
I need to clarify the above comments - I was typing too fast. I meant to say that my awareness has been growing over the last 15 years not that the destructive forces have been at work for the last 15 years. They've been around much longer.
And the last sentence should have read, "I simply don't believe misogyny exists."
Post a Comment