She got circled on on that thread. People condemend her notion of male disposability, her shallow concern about looks, her bizarre non-human concern more for the esthetic preferences of some hypothetical women over her own flesh-and-blood’s physical integrity (hypothetical son, too, probably; she didn’t really sound like she had a kid or had any idea of what having a kid was like).

Attitudes are changing, at least in some areas.

Suppose the second wife of a man that’s having his paycheck confiscated to support his first wife so she doesn’t have to work is looking for help/sympathy, and a feminist that wants to deny the legitimacy of men’s issues approaches her and tries to take her into the fold, so to speak.

What would that conversation look like?

Something like this:

W: the court system is confiscating my husband’s paycheck so his ex can live her life-long dream of not lifting a finger, and of minimizing her children’s contact with their father. I’ve never seen such injustice in my life, let alone experienced it. Who knew the system was so out of whack? ‘In the best interests of the child’ my ass. How can I fight this?

F: You and your husband should embrace feminism. For a long time we have been dedicated to helping men break the unfair gender roles that bind them.

W: You mean how men are expected to furnish a woman’s standard of living even after the marriage is over and that the kids go to her by virtue of her being a woman?

F: No I’m talking about the patriarchy that assumes that women can’t maintain their own standard of living and the unfair gender expectation that women are supposed to keep the kids because we are women.

W: Isn’t that what I just….

F: No you’re making it all about teh menz. What we are talking about is freeing women from the bonds of servitude that the patriarchy has held them under for ages. If he can get over his own “oppression” and see the suffering that women face he will see that feminism is the way to help him.

W: But what about his bond with his children?

F: Yeah there are some men out there that are mistreated but for the most part its because most deadbeat dads don’t want to be in their children’s lives and using the courts to secure child support is the only way to maintain the best interests of the children.

W: But he is not a deadbeat and is actually fighting to stay in their lives. How is using all of his money of child support and court fees in the best interests of the children?

F: If he would accept the fact that he has male privilege and embrace feminism he will see that maybe he should be trying harder to be in the children’s lives. And if you were to show him the oppression that you face every day as a woman he might be even more inticed to embrace it.

W: So in other words if he helps women he will help himself and other men in his situation as well?

F: Yes.

W: (headsmack)

I didn’t say it would work I just said they would try.

Jim:

I actually saw one commneter call a woman a “monster” when she said she would circumsize her son for cosmetic reasons “because women don’t like the look of an uncircumcized penis.” He called her a monster and she disappeared form the dicscussion - as a participant. She was a topic of the discussion for some time.

But if a father said he wanted to have something done to his daughter “because men like for women to look a certain way” there would be feminist outrage and the tanks would circle.

So much so that PHMT is widely used as code for just the kind of dismissal Danny is referring to. The one you very commonly see is “What about teh menz”.

This kind of attitude used to be a lot more common in discussion threads on circumcision, but increasingly there has been push back on that, so they have cowered down a bit. I actually saw one commneter call a woman a “monster” when she said she would circumsize her son for cosmetic reasons “because women don’t like the look of an uncircumcized penis.” He called her a monster and she disappeared form the dicscussion - as a participant. She was a topic of the discussion for some time.

Then there is the blank denials when men’s issues are broached on feminist boards - false rape accusations, child custody injustices, paternity fraud, the “garbage gap”, a long list. The denials take the form of shaming language, ad homs, endless sophomoric requests for documentation and proof, on and on and on.

So feminists have a long way to go to build any crdibility when it comes to helping men.

After that theywill still have a long way to go towards developing any kind of actual competence at these issues.

Do you think that feminists would try real hard to take these women into their movement under the banner of “patriarchy hurts men too” and hold them up as proof that feminism does fight for men as well as try to silence men who bring these issues up?

I am having a hard time picturing that process.

Suppose the second wife of a man that’s having his paycheck confiscated to support his first wife so she doesn’t have to work is looking for help/sympathy, and a feminist that wants to deny the legitimacy of men’s issues approaches her and tries to take her into the fold, so to speak.

What would that conversation look like?

W: the court system is confiscating my husband’s paycheck so his ex can live her life-long dream of not lifting a finger, and of minimizing her children’s contact with their father. I’ve never seen such injustice in my life, let alone experienced it. Who knew the system was so out of whack? ‘In the best interests of the child’ my ass. How can I fight this?

F: Come join the feminist struggle. The patriarchy hurts men too. We are having a protest tomorrow against the fact the women earn 75 cents on the dollar that men do.

W: How exactly does that help me, my husband, or his children?

F: Well I suppose it doesn’t. But if you think about it, men have all the power. Women didn’t cause this. Perhaps he should talk to some other men about this.

W: He has. The judge is a man. He can’t seem to give away my husband’s money fast enough.

F: Let’s just forget I ever spoke to you, OK?

But I wonder. Do you think that feminists would try real hard to take these women into their movement under the banner of “patriarchy hurts men too” and hold them up as proof that feminism does fight for men as well as try to silence men who bring these issues up? The reason I ask is because of the many times I’ve seen feminists who shrug off men trying to bring such things off with a bit of lip service that is basically meant to shut them up because they are non feminists.

Second wives have been in on the father’s rights movement form the beginning. It quite often takes a seciond wife to point out to a man just where the first wife lied, is full of shit, used her gender to get pity, etc.

Mothers and aunts - there is a woman who calls herslef SGT Mom who comments on The False Rape Society ; she is a very full-throated advocate for young men who get rail-roaded on false rape accusations.

I also place great faith in mothers. They want there sons to succeed and they will not put up with schools or universities that have an anti-boy mentality.

I feel the same way, and use this same touchstone to keep perspective when I am confronted with the argument that women as a whole could actually work against men as a whole.

I can’t imagine all the mothers I know consciously putting up with any anti-male programs.

I wonder if the recent awakening of the men’s movement isn’t driven in large part by the participation of women who are fed up with their sons, husbands, brothers, and fathers getting the shaft.

One notable example: The recent landmark case in California (about the man denied services from state-funded DV shelters for the abuse he suffered at the hands of his wife) was brought by the man’s daughter.

It may be that the societal bias against men complaining is so strong that the only shot the men’s movement has at being broadly heard is to have women at the front lines doing the complaining.

I’m not so sure. Here in Sweden, the only member of parliament that has spoken up against feminism is a woman, and a fairly young one at that. It is also a woman who has received media attention for criticizing the “research” of gender study departments (again, a fairly young woman). I’m in contact with a third Swedish woman who runs a highly controversial blog that investigates how unfair family courts can be towards men. And there’s a fourth woman that I’ve been in touch with who has put her career on the line to challenge the feminist perspective on intimate partner violence.

I still believe that men need to stand up for themselves and do the bulk of the work in showing what a disgraceful movement radical feminism is. But I think that women will increasingly be our allies.

I also place great faith in mothers. They want there sons to succeed and they will not put up with schools or universities that have an anti-boy mentality.

Let’s also remember that Christina Hoff-Sommers is a woman, and she has written two tremendously important books that show what radical feminism and gender studies are really about (in a nutshell: manhating).

Still, I get what you mean amortas. A lot of women really enjoy the privilege that radical feminism affords them, and they love having their cookie and eating it too. So there will be a lot of resistance when those privileges are stripped away.

I agree, Pelle. My podcasts on ‘Deliberately Lying about Domestic Violence in Australia’ which I sent to you recently shows such a challenge and what we are up against. When Governments lie and so many organisations and people, predominantly women , have a financial incentive to believe the lies, the prospect of women becoming increasingly fed up and changing their view and the system is remote. At the very least, painfully slow. Meanwhile small children die, as I gave an example in the second part of ‘Give a Dog a Bad Name’.

I still believe in telling the truth, but I would make a distinction between telling the truth and being timid. It’s entirely possible to challenge radical feminists in a direct way, while still using nothing but the truth. For example, it’s not uncommon for radical feminists to want to have their cookie and eat it too (in fact, it is built into their rhetoric). So when a woman who is a self-proclaimed (radical) feminist expects her boyfriend to support her, we can be very direct with her and call her on her inconsistency.

We can also show how history contradicts the theory of an oppressive patriarchy, and how the natural sciences contradict the theory that all gender differences are culturally constructed.

It’s also important to remember that most women are not radical feminists, and women are increasingly becoming fed up with their rhetoric. Mothers want their sons to do well in school, young women don’t want to date young men who have been deflated by feminists, etc. Over time, women and men together will start resisting feminism.