| Feminists Verbal Tactics. |
 |  |  |
From other men's sites:
" COUNTERING FEMINIST VERBAL TACTICS
Countering Feminist Verbal Tactics
By Nicholas Davidson
(Appendix to Nicholas Davidson, The Failure of Feminism (Buffalo,
New York: Prometheus Books, 1988), pp. 343-348)
[Kindly uploaded by Freeman 10602PANC]
Feminist activists don't fight fair. They are not interested in intellectual speculations or in
acquiring new knowledge, for
the feminist perspective has already answered all their questions. Legitimate
discussion of gender issues can only take place between members of the in-group, who
share a common belief structure. This eliminates most women from the discussion:
non-feminist women are seen either as potential adherents to be manipulated into a
correct understanding or as enemies to be outmaneuvered. It also excludes all men.
Men's role in feminist discourse is limited to the role of not-quite-legitimate spectators
and, above all, of targets. The structure of feminist belief makes it extremely difficult for
feminists to admit the possible legitimacy of points of view which do not arise from
their own ideology. Like other convinced believers in search of proselytes, they engage
in argument only for the purpose of winning people over. To this end, they have made
a sustained effort to develop and
disseminate rhetorical shock tactics designed to confuse, overpower, and humiliate
their adversaries. These tactics were popularized through essays like ``Verbal
Karate'' in the influential Sisterhood Is Powerful (1970). The mentality of this effort is
nowhere better expressed than in the title of Gloria Steinem's Outrageous Acts and
Everyday Rebellions (1982), which is laden with more such advice. Shocking people into
awareness is supposed to be fun, creating
an enormous sense of superiority over the unreflective masses of ``males'' and
``transitional women.'' Steinem advises that I now often end lectures with an organizer's
deal. If each person in the room promises that in the twenty-four hours beginning the
very next day she or he will do at least one outrageous thing in the cause of simple
justice, then I
promise I will, too.
Feminists should be aware that such ``outrageous acts'' can cut both ways. It might be
amusing to imagine ``outrageous acts'' directed against feminist orthodoxy: writing in
protest to the campus newspaper when it calls the university ``fascist, racist, and
sexist''; sending a copy of The Inevitability of Patriarchy [1973] to a feminist
acquaintance; enjoying sex in the missionary position. The revolutionary act for today's
woman is not to demand pay equity on the job. It is to go out on a date and leave her
wallet home. It takes little courage to run with the prevailing wind. In
an era in which feminism has been adopted as the official philosophy of Radcliffe,
Barnard, and Smith, and the New York Times promotes the unlovely epithet ``Ms.,''
outrageousness and rebellion clearly lie on the anti-feminist side in the world of Acamedia
[sic], although less so in the American heartland.
``Chauvinism'' and ``Sexism''
The feminist buzzwords which substitute a predigested ideology for independent thought
have had far too long a run. It is time they were tossed out of polite society. The most
important of these buzzwords are ``chauvinism'' and ``sexism.''
Chauvinism originally meant exaggerated patriotism. Chauvin was a Napoleonic officer
whose jingoism and xenophobia gave rise to the expression which bears his name. By
extension, a ``male chauvinist'' is someone who believes that men are superior to
women -- and since society in its ``present form'' is thought of as ``patriarchy,'' it follows
that any man so retrograde as to oppose any aspect of the feminist program is a male
supremacist and a misogynist. The feminist perspective, the belief that men's
oppression of women is the source of the world's problems,
made ``chauvinist,'' an abbreviated form of ``male chauvinist,'' the standard put-down to
be hurled at men who dared disagree, however timorously, with any aspect of feminist
dogma. In short,
``[male] chauvinist'' is an insult -- and should be treated as such.
Contemporary feminism, though, represents an authentic female chauvinism. Since men
are responsible for all the evil of the world, women are responsible for all the good. The
Pythagorean principle that associates men with good and light and women with evil and
darkness is stood on its head; men are seen as the villains, women as the redeemers
of humanity. Yet feminists continue to accuse any male opponent of ``chauvinism'' -- little
suspecting that the word applies far better to themselves.
The most popular feminist buzzword of all is ``sexism.'' The expression ``sexism'' was
coined in the sixties to suggest that distinctions based on sex are as pernicious as
those based on race. ``Sexism'' is said to be a system which oppresses women in order
to preserve the hegemony of men -- what feminists believe is the essential principle of
human society and history. In other words, ``sexist'' is a pejorative way of saying
``gendered.'' Since it is men who are held to be oppressing women, sexism also
equals male chauvinism. Women are therefore
rarely accused of being ``sexist,'' for who would accuse blacks of being racist? But men
are almost invariably ``sexists'': it
is indeed the rare male who has escaped a conditioning so crippling to the decent
side of his character. ``Sexism'' is the leading weapon in the feminist rhetorical arsenal for
belittling, besmirching, and befuddling their ``enemies'' -- ``traditional'' society and men.
It is time to recognize this word for what it is: a rhetorical tactic, not a reality. What began in
the sixties as an agreeably
outrageous neologism has been reified to the point where feminists now believe
there actually is such a thing as
``sexism.'' To use this word as if it referred to a factual reality indicates that the user
believes our society is built on
the basis of male oppression of women and must be overturned in its essential institutions
and replaced with a better order. The casual usage of ``sexism'' should therefore be
avoided, for it tends to co-opt the user into a point of view that he or she in all likelihood
does not espouse, or in many cases even understand. In reality, a good society
does and must make distinctions on the basis of sex. The expression ``unisexism''
consequently has considerable shock value at the moment against feminists. Whenever
a feminist uses the expression ``sexism,'' she should
be challenged, and pressed: As she struggles to justify this term she has long taken for
granted, the feminist perspective will out, in all its poisonous negativity. One should
always remember in a public discussion with a feminist that she is the one with something
to hide: namely, the true nature of feminist ideology.
The Tactic of Outrage
Holier-than-thou approaches have been the daily currency of believing feminists. One
should of course refuse to conduct arguments in such debased coin whenever possible.
But if it is necessary to do so, take the high ground. The most common such feminist
approach is the tactic of outrage, used with regard to day care, pornography, etc., etc.
You've got to have your facts straight and be quick on your feet to c~½aañ\fhe two-tiered
assault inherent in thk• technique, which seeks first, to overcome facts with emotion,
and second, to discredit the non-feminist individual attacked by making him appear to
lack moral compassion, thoughtfulness, and so on. Ideally, the assault actually
discredits him in his own eyes so that, confused and stuttering, he is reduced to the
apologetic vulnerability
required in the New Male. I say ``him'' advisedly in this discussion: the tactic of
outrage works poorly against women because as Carol Gilligan explains, they tend to
be ``morally pragmatic'' in the first place. Men's tendency to abstraction and
generalization makes them vulnerable to this technique, which turns that tendency
against them by making it seem pompous and ``insensitive.'' A good antidote is
therefore to claim compassion yourself (because it is too complicated to explain the
virtues of abstract reasoning in the context of a heated argument over, say, federally
funded day care centers): the anti-feminist position is the really compassionate one -- to
say nothing of being the fair one, the just one, the practical one, the cost-efficient one, and
so forth. The fact that all these things probably really are true of the anti-feminist position
won't hurt your case at all.
Another way to combat the tactic of outrage is to undercut it by refusing to speak to the
arguments presented (which are just a smoke-screen anyway for forcing us all to accept
a neutered society). For men, this requires that they discard out-of-place chivalry which
inhibits them from using their full aggressiveness and intelligence against feminists. (It
may help to think of oneself as a defender of the majority of women.) For instance, an
acquaintance of mine was recently attacked in a public gathering for referring to
prepubescent females as ``girls.'' Since they can be beaten and raped, he was informed,
all females are ``women.'' Unfazed, he shot back ``Do you spell that with an `e' or an `i'?''
(Some radical feminists spell ``women'' as ``wimmin,'' to avoid the hated syllable ``men.'')
Compliments to Avoid
There is a set of expressions which feminist use to encourage men to conform to their
notions of nonsexist conduct. These should be avoided and resisted just like the
pejoratives. The pejoratives are the stick, the compliments the carrot. Both represent
attempts to divorce you from your authentic perceptions
by people who don't know any better. Words like ``sensitive,'' ``caring,'' ``warm,''
``feeling,''
and ``related'' all represent perfectly valid qualities for a man to possess, but in the
feminist lexicon they have acquired
special meanings. From girlhood on, many women periodically wish human males were
more of these things. Here's the rub: the feminist usage blends this ubiquitous and
ungratifiable female wish with the implication that the recipient of these seeming
compliments either lacks or doesn't care for the reverse virtues of toughness,
independence, and so forth, and consequently is less able to stand up for himself than
he should be. Many men wonder why they feel threatened by such apparent
compliments. You should feel threatened: these ``compliments'' carry
implications that the psychological distance with which each man must surround himself for
his basic well being (passim Gilligan, for instance) is unnecessary. Like a stranger
standing close to you on an empty bus, they represent a violation of personal space.
Preserve your right to be distant, skeptical, and unemotional: these are qualities too, if
not carried to excess.
``Sex Objects''
One hardy perennial is the claim that ``men see women as sex objects.'' Of course they
do. What sort of woman would not want men to see her as a sex object? When feminists
attack routine aspects of the human condition which they find offensive, it is often
effective to point out that your views are those of the majority. As, says the feminist, but
the problem is that men just see women as sex objects. This is a curious proposition, as
science has yet to uncover a single case of this bizarre delusion.
Arguing in Front of a Group
You have one enormous advantage if you are arguing in front of often generate sympathy,
interest, and covert admiration for the underdog. Even more important, your arguments
will have the virtue of novelty. May people, including most of your adversaries, will
literally never have heard them before, and even if they have, the impact of hearing a
fellow student, employee, family member, colleague, or other personal
acquaintance make points they had only heard in passing on TV will make them sit up
and take notice. Of course, all the above points continue to apply even if you are talking
on TV. Good luck.
" COUNTERING FEMINIST VERBAL TACTICS
Countering Feminist Verbal Tactics
By Nicholas Davidson
(Appendix to Nicholas Davidson, The Failure of Feminism (Buffalo,
New York: Prometheus Books, 1988), pp. 343-348)
[Kindly uploaded by Freeman 10602PANC]
Feminist activists don't fight fair. They are not interested in intellectual speculations or in
acquiring new knowledge, for
the feminist perspective has already answered all their questions. Legitimate
discussion of gender issues can only take place between members of the in-group, who
share a common belief structure. This eliminates most women from the discussion:
non-feminist women are seen either as potential adherents to be manipulated into a
correct understanding or as enemies to be outmaneuvered. It also excludes all men.
Men's role in feminist discourse is limited to the role of not-quite-legitimate spectators
and, above all, of targets. The structure of feminist belief makes it extremely difficult for
feminists to admit the possible legitimacy of points of view which do not arise from
their own ideology. Like other convinced believers in search of proselytes, they engage
in argument only for the purpose of winning people over. To this end, they have made
a sustained effort to develop and
disseminate rhetorical shock tactics designed to confuse, overpower, and humiliate
their adversaries. These tactics were popularized through essays like ``Verbal
Karate'' in the influential Sisterhood Is Powerful (1970). The mentality of this effort is
nowhere better expressed than in the title of Gloria Steinem's Outrageous Acts and
Everyday Rebellions (1982), which is laden with more such advice. Shocking people into
awareness is supposed to be fun, creating
an enormous sense of superiority over the unreflective masses of ``males'' and
``transitional women.'' Steinem advises that I now often end lectures with an organizer's
deal. If each person in the room promises that in the twenty-four hours beginning the
very next day she or he will do at least one outrageous thing in the cause of simple
justice, then I
promise I will, too.
Feminists should be aware that such ``outrageous acts'' can cut both ways. It might be
amusing to imagine ``outrageous acts'' directed against feminist orthodoxy: writing in
protest to the campus newspaper when it calls the university ``fascist, racist, and
sexist''; sending a copy of The Inevitability of Patriarchy [1973] to a feminist
acquaintance; enjoying sex in the missionary position. The revolutionary act for today's
woman is not to demand pay equity on the job. It is to go out on a date and leave her
wallet home. It takes little courage to run with the prevailing wind. In
an era in which feminism has been adopted as the official philosophy of Radcliffe,
Barnard, and Smith, and the New York Times promotes the unlovely epithet ``Ms.,''
outrageousness and rebellion clearly lie on the anti-feminist side in the world of Acamedia
[sic], although less so in the American heartland.
``Chauvinism'' and ``Sexism''
The feminist buzzwords which substitute a predigested ideology for independent thought
have had far too long a run. It is time they were tossed out of polite society. The most
important of these buzzwords are ``chauvinism'' and ``sexism.''
Chauvinism originally meant exaggerated patriotism. Chauvin was a Napoleonic officer
whose jingoism and xenophobia gave rise to the expression which bears his name. By
extension, a ``male chauvinist'' is someone who believes that men are superior to
women -- and since society in its ``present form'' is thought of as ``patriarchy,'' it follows
that any man so retrograde as to oppose any aspect of the feminist program is a male
supremacist and a misogynist. The feminist perspective, the belief that men's
oppression of women is the source of the world's problems,
made ``chauvinist,'' an abbreviated form of ``male chauvinist,'' the standard put-down to
be hurled at men who dared disagree, however timorously, with any aspect of feminist
dogma. In short,
``[male] chauvinist'' is an insult -- and should be treated as such.
Contemporary feminism, though, represents an authentic female chauvinism. Since men
are responsible for all the evil of the world, women are responsible for all the good. The
Pythagorean principle that associates men with good and light and women with evil and
darkness is stood on its head; men are seen as the villains, women as the redeemers
of humanity. Yet feminists continue to accuse any male opponent of ``chauvinism'' -- little
suspecting that the word applies far better to themselves.
The most popular feminist buzzword of all is ``sexism.'' The expression ``sexism'' was
coined in the sixties to suggest that distinctions based on sex are as pernicious as
those based on race. ``Sexism'' is said to be a system which oppresses women in order
to preserve the hegemony of men -- what feminists believe is the essential principle of
human society and history. In other words, ``sexist'' is a pejorative way of saying
``gendered.'' Since it is men who are held to be oppressing women, sexism also
equals male chauvinism. Women are therefore
rarely accused of being ``sexist,'' for who would accuse blacks of being racist? But men
are almost invariably ``sexists'': it
is indeed the rare male who has escaped a conditioning so crippling to the decent
side of his character. ``Sexism'' is the leading weapon in the feminist rhetorical arsenal for
belittling, besmirching, and befuddling their ``enemies'' -- ``traditional'' society and men.
It is time to recognize this word for what it is: a rhetorical tactic, not a reality. What began in
the sixties as an agreeably
outrageous neologism has been reified to the point where feminists now believe
there actually is such a thing as
``sexism.'' To use this word as if it referred to a factual reality indicates that the user
believes our society is built on
the basis of male oppression of women and must be overturned in its essential institutions
and replaced with a better order. The casual usage of ``sexism'' should therefore be
avoided, for it tends to co-opt the user into a point of view that he or she in all likelihood
does not espouse, or in many cases even understand. In reality, a good society
does and must make distinctions on the basis of sex. The expression ``unisexism''
consequently has considerable shock value at the moment against feminists. Whenever
a feminist uses the expression ``sexism,'' she should
be challenged, and pressed: As she struggles to justify this term she has long taken for
granted, the feminist perspective will out, in all its poisonous negativity. One should
always remember in a public discussion with a feminist that she is the one with something
to hide: namely, the true nature of feminist ideology.
The Tactic of Outrage
Holier-than-thou approaches have been the daily currency of believing feminists. One
should of course refuse to conduct arguments in such debased coin whenever possible.
But if it is necessary to do so, take the high ground. The most common such feminist
approach is the tactic of outrage, used with regard to day care, pornography, etc., etc.
You've got to have your facts straight and be quick on your feet to c~½aañ\fhe two-tiered
assault inherent in thk• technique, which seeks first, to overcome facts with emotion,
and second, to discredit the non-feminist individual attacked by making him appear to
lack moral compassion, thoughtfulness, and so on. Ideally, the assault actually
discredits him in his own eyes so that, confused and stuttering, he is reduced to the
apologetic vulnerability
required in the New Male. I say ``him'' advisedly in this discussion: the tactic of
outrage works poorly against women because as Carol Gilligan explains, they tend to
be ``morally pragmatic'' in the first place. Men's tendency to abstraction and
generalization makes them vulnerable to this technique, which turns that tendency
against them by making it seem pompous and ``insensitive.'' A good antidote is
therefore to claim compassion yourself (because it is too complicated to explain the
virtues of abstract reasoning in the context of a heated argument over, say, federally
funded day care centers): the anti-feminist position is the really compassionate one -- to
say nothing of being the fair one, the just one, the practical one, the cost-efficient one, and
so forth. The fact that all these things probably really are true of the anti-feminist position
won't hurt your case at all.
Another way to combat the tactic of outrage is to undercut it by refusing to speak to the
arguments presented (which are just a smoke-screen anyway for forcing us all to accept
a neutered society). For men, this requires that they discard out-of-place chivalry which
inhibits them from using their full aggressiveness and intelligence against feminists. (It
may help to think of oneself as a defender of the majority of women.) For instance, an
acquaintance of mine was recently attacked in a public gathering for referring to
prepubescent females as ``girls.'' Since they can be beaten and raped, he was informed,
all females are ``women.'' Unfazed, he shot back ``Do you spell that with an `e' or an `i'?''
(Some radical feminists spell ``women'' as ``wimmin,'' to avoid the hated syllable ``men.'')
Compliments to Avoid
There is a set of expressions which feminist use to encourage men to conform to their
notions of nonsexist conduct. These should be avoided and resisted just like the
pejoratives. The pejoratives are the stick, the compliments the carrot. Both represent
attempts to divorce you from your authentic perceptions
by people who don't know any better. Words like ``sensitive,'' ``caring,'' ``warm,''
``feeling,''
and ``related'' all represent perfectly valid qualities for a man to possess, but in the
feminist lexicon they have acquired
special meanings. From girlhood on, many women periodically wish human males were
more of these things. Here's the rub: the feminist usage blends this ubiquitous and
ungratifiable female wish with the implication that the recipient of these seeming
compliments either lacks or doesn't care for the reverse virtues of toughness,
independence, and so forth, and consequently is less able to stand up for himself than
he should be. Many men wonder why they feel threatened by such apparent
compliments. You should feel threatened: these ``compliments'' carry
implications that the psychological distance with which each man must surround himself for
his basic well being (passim Gilligan, for instance) is unnecessary. Like a stranger
standing close to you on an empty bus, they represent a violation of personal space.
Preserve your right to be distant, skeptical, and unemotional: these are qualities too, if
not carried to excess.
``Sex Objects''
One hardy perennial is the claim that ``men see women as sex objects.'' Of course they
do. What sort of woman would not want men to see her as a sex object? When feminists
attack routine aspects of the human condition which they find offensive, it is often
effective to point out that your views are those of the majority. As, says the feminist, but
the problem is that men just see women as sex objects. This is a curious proposition, as
science has yet to uncover a single case of this bizarre delusion.
Arguing in Front of a Group
You have one enormous advantage if you are arguing in front of often generate sympathy,
interest, and covert admiration for the underdog. Even more important, your arguments
will have the virtue of novelty. May people, including most of your adversaries, will
literally never have heard them before, and even if they have, the impact of hearing a
fellow student, employee, family member, colleague, or other personal
acquaintance make points they had only heard in passing on TV will make them sit up
and take notice. Of course, all the above points continue to apply even if you are talking
on TV. Good luck.
Part - 2-
An article from Men's sites:
"...Misogynists are not born they are made.
On the political side, things were just as bad if not worse. About the same time I started
becoming the target of violent physical attacks by individual women for what I perceived
as courtesy, I also became the target of vicious verbal attacks by women collectively - just
for being a man.
I remember the first time I saw the slogan "A woman without a man is like a fish without a
bicycle", I knew knew my face had just been spit in. Men were not just useless to women,
we were irrelevant. We had no purpose in a woman's life, and did not belong in her world
at all. It was a message of hate, dismissal, and refutation. But, I also saw it as a warning
of what was to come. It was like seeing clouds on the horizon, and knowing that it is time
to get under cover because a storm is brewing. And, since it was obviously smearing shit
in my face, it was going to be a shit storm.
Soon it became apparent that women could say any damn thing they wanted about men -
no matter how wrong, no matter how hateful, no matter how unfair - and that was fine, but
every time I stood up to that and said "no, that is wrong, there is another point of view" I'd
get some little fem-bot harpy in my face shrieking the same old tired slogans, like a
mindless Chatty Cathy doll, about how I was threatened by losing my power, wanted to
keep women "in their place", was probably violent, and was a misogynist. The dull
predictability and regularity of it all was only kept from being terminally boring by the
shrillness and sheer vehemence of the attacks.
There is a belief among those who believe in magic that one must speak a spell 3 times
in order for it to become binding and true. It took being called a misogynist a lot more
than 3 times to become true, more like 300+, but in time it did become true.
I began to see women as vicious creatures whose only agenda when it came to me, or
any man, was to see how much they could get from the man - then when he had nothing
left to give because they had taken it all, toss him out with yesterday's garbage. In short -
as nothing but users. Feminist author Wendy Dennis came out with a book in the early
1990s called "Hot and Bothered: sex and love in the 90s." Among many other astute
observations in the book was that nothing was more classically typical of the state of
male/female relations than the woman who complained bitterly about every aspect of men,
then couldn't figure out why she couldn't get one of these awful creatures to fall madly in
love with her. I had observed the same thing so many times that I had simply concluded
that such women were simply not very bright. In stark contrast to the mythology of how
socially adept women are, I was baffled that such women were so stupid that they didn't
realize that no living thing will respond to such projections of distaste, contempt, and
hatred with anything except return animosity.
I took to avoiding women, particularly groups of them, because I could never sit quietly and
put up with the bashing and would always challenge it, which ended me up in a lot of fights
and added greatly the count of times that I got called "misogynist." I noticed that women
seemed to do it habitually, without thinking, and would confront my female friends over and
over until they learned not to do it in my presence.
And, after 3 decades of listening to it, and hating it, and trying to keep the animosity which
had been building in me over it - when the husband of a woman friend of mine (who had
been very dishonest about her motivations for our friendship and had been trying to
harass me into turning our friendship sexual) threatened to kill me and she said "I don't
know why you are making such a big deal about it", I caved in and began to really hate
women.
Most of the time this hatred lies dormant. I figure that the best thing I can do for myself and
for women is to keep the contact I must have with them to a minimum, and to keep as
much distance between them and myself as possible. It is rather like hanging a sign on a
fence that says "Beware of VERY bad dog." Stay outside the fence, and everything is
fine. But, come through the gate at your own risk. Leave me the hell alone and I will leave
you alone.
Misogynists are not born, they are made.
I am still baffled at all the women who seem to expect men to live on a steady diet of
hatred and man bashing, and somehow magically metabolize this toxic diet into "love" for
women and a desire to see good things come to them. When I work real hard, I can make
the anger cold and take no joy when bad things happen to women, simply regard it with
indifference. When I hear a woman whine about being victimized, I simply tune her out
and go elsewhere.
When a woman smiles at me, I think of an old ethic bashing joke - "What does a ______
say instead of 'fuck you'?" answer "Trust Me."
I will not allow most women in my house unless I have known her a long time and she is old
enough to have escaped being infected with the plague of man hating or is escorted by
someone I trust, nor will I enter theirs except on the same conditions. If I pass a woman
stranded on the road, I will not stop to help her because it is as likely as not that she will be
afraid of me. That's fine. She's a fish without a bicycle - I have no place in her world, nor
her in mine.
Man bashing and man hating harms women, because it makes men hate them back -
eventually. A puppy returns love for love, but if you beat it will eventually turn mean and will
one day turn on you when you raise your fist or your stick (or the club of words) to hit it.
Men are no different. When women talk about treating men like dogs, I wish they would. It
would be an improvement. Most women treat their dogs far better than they treat their
men.
Somewhere along the line, I went through a metamorphosis. I changed from a man who
loved women and thought they were just about the greatest thing in the world, to a man
who can't stand them, or anything about them.
I'm sick and tired of the lies that women tell about men, I'm sick and tired of their victim
games, I'm sick and tired of hatred and bashing I have to put up with when I am around
them. I am sick and tired of the arrogant contempt in which they seem to hold me and all
other men. I am sick to death of the way that some of them feel the need to seek me out
to piss me off. A couple of years back, at the funeral of my uncle, as fine a man as I have
ever known, some woman felt the need to start a conversation with me as I sat with my
private grief. She wanted me to agree with her that men don't ask for directions.
How could anyone be so stupid and socially incompetent? When men came up to me to
talk, it was always with something like "Your uncle was a fine man", not "aren't men
headstrong and stupid?"
Invariably, when I tell a woman about all this, she tries to argue with me and say something
like "get over it", or "why don't you take the gender out of it?" In return I ask, "why the hell
don't you women get over it, and take the gender out of it?"
I would like nothing better than to be left in peace, and allow women to enjoy the absence
of my company which they find so annoying and unpleasant. Every day, a few more men
got through the transformation and become like me. We don't get our guns and shoot a
few women; we don't beat them up; because what women have been saying about us all
these years is just flat wrong. But, there's no point in trying to tell women that because
they have become so certain of their superiority that the best way to deal with them is to
leave them to it, and the company of their other fishy friends
An article from Men's sites:
"...Misogynists are not born they are made.
On the political side, things were just as bad if not worse. About the same time I started
becoming the target of violent physical attacks by individual women for what I perceived
as courtesy, I also became the target of vicious verbal attacks by women collectively - just
for being a man.
I remember the first time I saw the slogan "A woman without a man is like a fish without a
bicycle", I knew knew my face had just been spit in. Men were not just useless to women,
we were irrelevant. We had no purpose in a woman's life, and did not belong in her world
at all. It was a message of hate, dismissal, and refutation. But, I also saw it as a warning
of what was to come. It was like seeing clouds on the horizon, and knowing that it is time
to get under cover because a storm is brewing. And, since it was obviously smearing shit
in my face, it was going to be a shit storm.
Soon it became apparent that women could say any damn thing they wanted about men -
no matter how wrong, no matter how hateful, no matter how unfair - and that was fine, but
every time I stood up to that and said "no, that is wrong, there is another point of view" I'd
get some little fem-bot harpy in my face shrieking the same old tired slogans, like a
mindless Chatty Cathy doll, about how I was threatened by losing my power, wanted to
keep women "in their place", was probably violent, and was a misogynist. The dull
predictability and regularity of it all was only kept from being terminally boring by the
shrillness and sheer vehemence of the attacks.
There is a belief among those who believe in magic that one must speak a spell 3 times
in order for it to become binding and true. It took being called a misogynist a lot more
than 3 times to become true, more like 300+, but in time it did become true.
I began to see women as vicious creatures whose only agenda when it came to me, or
any man, was to see how much they could get from the man - then when he had nothing
left to give because they had taken it all, toss him out with yesterday's garbage. In short -
as nothing but users. Feminist author Wendy Dennis came out with a book in the early
1990s called "Hot and Bothered: sex and love in the 90s." Among many other astute
observations in the book was that nothing was more classically typical of the state of
male/female relations than the woman who complained bitterly about every aspect of men,
then couldn't figure out why she couldn't get one of these awful creatures to fall madly in
love with her. I had observed the same thing so many times that I had simply concluded
that such women were simply not very bright. In stark contrast to the mythology of how
socially adept women are, I was baffled that such women were so stupid that they didn't
realize that no living thing will respond to such projections of distaste, contempt, and
hatred with anything except return animosity.
I took to avoiding women, particularly groups of them, because I could never sit quietly and
put up with the bashing and would always challenge it, which ended me up in a lot of fights
and added greatly the count of times that I got called "misogynist." I noticed that women
seemed to do it habitually, without thinking, and would confront my female friends over and
over until they learned not to do it in my presence.
And, after 3 decades of listening to it, and hating it, and trying to keep the animosity which
had been building in me over it - when the husband of a woman friend of mine (who had
been very dishonest about her motivations for our friendship and had been trying to
harass me into turning our friendship sexual) threatened to kill me and she said "I don't
know why you are making such a big deal about it", I caved in and began to really hate
women.
Most of the time this hatred lies dormant. I figure that the best thing I can do for myself and
for women is to keep the contact I must have with them to a minimum, and to keep as
much distance between them and myself as possible. It is rather like hanging a sign on a
fence that says "Beware of VERY bad dog." Stay outside the fence, and everything is
fine. But, come through the gate at your own risk. Leave me the hell alone and I will leave
you alone.
Misogynists are not born, they are made.
I am still baffled at all the women who seem to expect men to live on a steady diet of
hatred and man bashing, and somehow magically metabolize this toxic diet into "love" for
women and a desire to see good things come to them. When I work real hard, I can make
the anger cold and take no joy when bad things happen to women, simply regard it with
indifference. When I hear a woman whine about being victimized, I simply tune her out
and go elsewhere.
When a woman smiles at me, I think of an old ethic bashing joke - "What does a ______
say instead of 'fuck you'?" answer "Trust Me."
I will not allow most women in my house unless I have known her a long time and she is old
enough to have escaped being infected with the plague of man hating or is escorted by
someone I trust, nor will I enter theirs except on the same conditions. If I pass a woman
stranded on the road, I will not stop to help her because it is as likely as not that she will be
afraid of me. That's fine. She's a fish without a bicycle - I have no place in her world, nor
her in mine.
Man bashing and man hating harms women, because it makes men hate them back -
eventually. A puppy returns love for love, but if you beat it will eventually turn mean and will
one day turn on you when you raise your fist or your stick (or the club of words) to hit it.
Men are no different. When women talk about treating men like dogs, I wish they would. It
would be an improvement. Most women treat their dogs far better than they treat their
men.
Somewhere along the line, I went through a metamorphosis. I changed from a man who
loved women and thought they were just about the greatest thing in the world, to a man
who can't stand them, or anything about them.
I'm sick and tired of the lies that women tell about men, I'm sick and tired of their victim
games, I'm sick and tired of hatred and bashing I have to put up with when I am around
them. I am sick and tired of the arrogant contempt in which they seem to hold me and all
other men. I am sick to death of the way that some of them feel the need to seek me out
to piss me off. A couple of years back, at the funeral of my uncle, as fine a man as I have
ever known, some woman felt the need to start a conversation with me as I sat with my
private grief. She wanted me to agree with her that men don't ask for directions.
How could anyone be so stupid and socially incompetent? When men came up to me to
talk, it was always with something like "Your uncle was a fine man", not "aren't men
headstrong and stupid?"
Invariably, when I tell a woman about all this, she tries to argue with me and say something
like "get over it", or "why don't you take the gender out of it?" In return I ask, "why the hell
don't you women get over it, and take the gender out of it?"
I would like nothing better than to be left in peace, and allow women to enjoy the absence
of my company which they find so annoying and unpleasant. Every day, a few more men
got through the transformation and become like me. We don't get our guns and shoot a
few women; we don't beat them up; because what women have been saying about us all
these years is just flat wrong. But, there's no point in trying to tell women that because
they have become so certain of their superiority that the best way to deal with them is to
leave them to it, and the company of their other fishy friends
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|