Thursday, 27 February 2014

Whispers of Dissent Within the Feminist Echo Chamber

Well, the article at The New Republic is up, and it's a mixed bag. Which generally means mostly awful (and offal, heh), but with a few pleasant surprises.

For my part, my over 42-and-change minute interview on a number of different topics was condensed into a single quoted sentence fragment, and a two sentence soundbite about false accusations.

If anyone is interested in hearing what Ms. Matchar and I actually talked about for over 40 minutes, feel free to click here.

Issues we discussed: 

Why I got involved in the Men's Rights Movement.

Whether culturally propagated rape myths (such as the myth that ordinary, otherwise decent guys will commit rape if they have the chance, an unwillingness to accept the empirical evidence that 90% of rapes of women are committed by a small percentage of men who are recidivists, and frequent comparisons between the attrition rate for rape with the conviction rate for other crimes ) coupled with a near-constant public emphasis on the "re-victimizing" of women by the system and how difficult reporting is, discourages women from reporting.

Whether men should be considered rape victims when women have sex with them against their will, through use of threats, force, or drug/alcohol incapacitation. Currently, in statistical data such as that gathered by the CDC, for whom feminist Mary Koss acts as a consultant, such men are not considered rape victims, even if they have been forced into sex. Previous year data in their latest NISVS showed an equal number of male and female victims of sex obtained through force, threats or incapacitation (and attempts, which they did not separate out in either case), and a significant perpetration rate among women, however, Koss (and thus, the CDC) does not consider a woman forcing a man to have heterosexual sex to be rape. 

Whether, given the large minority of (as I would define it) rapes and attempted rapes committed by women, feminist ideas around rape (that it lies on a continuum of normal male behavior within the culture, that it is tied to masculinity and patriarchal domination of women, etc) have any veracity. 

Whether dubiously framing rape as intrinsic or connected to masculinity serves a purpose for feminists.

My own experience as a victim of sexual assault, and why I chose not to report it.

Whether the predominant rhetoric around rape (of women) as the most heinous of crimes (some claim it is worse than murder) does victims a disservice when it comes to stigma and recovery. When the only message the culture (not just feminists!) tells you is that the worst thing possible has happened to you with an extreme focus on the (long term, often framed as permanent) harms, is there a possibility of victims internalizing this message to the point where recovery is obstructed rather than facilitated? 

Whether other voices than feminism have a right to a public opinion about rape and how to combat it. 

Whether we are treating women like children when we assign them victim status for making the exact same decision as a man--that is, if two people are equally drunk and both consent to sex while in that condition, is it demeaning to women to assign them all the agency of a piece of furniture by labelling them victims and the men rapists? (Incidentally, commend Ms. Matchar for not calling for James Taranto's head, and even defending him. How refreshing.)

Whether a calm and coherent national conversation about rape is even possible given the fact that posing such a question as the above will lead to 14 feminist articles vilifying you by misrepresenting what you said being published within 24 hours, and NOW starting a petition to have you fired from your job (James Taranto).

Whether there is any "good way" to deal with a crime that occurs mostly in private and without witnesses, mostly between acquaintances or within a dating/relationship context, and which is based entirely on two people's states of mind.

The false accusation issue was indeed part of our conversation (the only part that made it into Ms. Matchar's article), and something discussed at Ms. Matchar's request. Much of her commentary on the issue and the MRM's stance on it seems outright silly:

(The Hofstra case has become a touchstone in the MRM community, viewed as proof that a woman will ruin five men’s lives to cover her tracks if she needs to.)


Um...no. We don't "view" it as proof. It IS proof. If cases like Hofstra exist, that necessarily proves that such things sometimes can and do happen. On the other hand, I doubt that any MRA believes women who behave in this way are common, just like we do not believe that people who commit sexual assault are common, but Ms. Matchar seems intent on portraying us this way. 

As for the "2-8% of rape accusations are false" thing, on the one hand, I'm not sure why it matters. The biggest issue MRAs tend to have regarding false accusations of rape is that the punishment does not fit the crime, in terms of damage done to the victim. The system generally assigns punishments based on the degree of harm done, not on the commonness of the crime. If it didn't, first degree murder would be a misdemeanor while pocketing pens from your workplace or shoplifting would be capital offences. 

One can allow that rape is more common than false accusations of rape (in fact, it can be much more common, even if the false report rate is quite high, due to the low rate at which rapes are reported to police), and still consider false accusations of rape a difficult problem that ruins people's lives, and it's nice that the author acknowledges this. But her answer seems to be to convince progressives and feminists to take on (or rather, stop ignoring and minimizing) the issue. 

However, from what I've seen, feminists seem to have this idea that taking false accusations seriously will make actual victims fear filing a report, and they typically (and incorrectly) emphasize low prevalence rates for false accusations compared to rape prevalence as a justification for not taking them seriously. I don't think they, on the whole, are in a position to be convinced of anything different.

It is unfortunate that some actual victims of rape are not believed by authorities. I know of at least one case where a woman who, it was later determined, had indeed been raped by a serial rapist, who was fined for filing a false police report. That must have been a terrible situation, and no less terrible after it was discovered that the man had gone on to commit other rapes because her case was not taken seriously enough--a vindication likely more bitter than sweet for her. However, given the high proportion (relative to other crimes) of convictions of sexual assault that result in exoneration (usually through DNA evidence, though often through recanting), I'm going to assert that we fuck it up in the other direction a lot, too. 

Feminists tend also, as the author of this piece has done, to consistently misrepresent the statistics. 2-8% is the lower boundary, derived from rape reports to police that can be determined to be definitely false (or definitely unfounded) to nearly a criminal court standard. I could just as easily flip that around and say that "only" 6% of rape accusations are true, because that is the percentage of reports that result in conviction", however, I would never do that because it would be absurd and dishonest. Ms. Matchar (and pretty much any feminist I talk to) is lumping all reports that are not determined definitely false into the "true" category, when in reality, the vast majority of cases can't be proven either way. I suppose it's entirely possible that the false report rate is as low as 2-8%. I suppose it's entirely possible that it's as high as 94%. But I don't think so, either way. 

Even regardless of that, the rates she cites have no bearing on informal false accusations made to people other than the police, and which have led in some cases to accused men being assaulted and even murdered. I find it amazing how short American's memories are, considering that a hugely disproportionate number of the black men who swung from trees during the era of lynching were accused of sex crimes.

And I find it odd that Ms. Matchar thinks MRAs are obsessed with false accusations. There are many websites and forums largely devoted, for instance, to men who suffer domestic violence, or to male victims of sexual violence, etc, but as far as I know, only one (The Community of the Wrongly Accused, formerly The False Rape Society) that is devoted to false rape accusations. Most Men's Rights Websites are multi-purpose forums that discuss a wide variety of issues, including false accusations, and much of the conversation about false accusations revolves around how difficult it is to find reliable estimates of prevalence simply because of that large number of cases that cannot be proven either way. 

I also find it odd that Ms. Matchar thinks MRAs are inflating the problem of false rape accusations when men are collectively accused of rapiness by the likes of Jessica Valenti, who claims that even otherwise decent guys will rape if they get the opportunity. Given that only a small percentage of men ever rape, what is that, other than a false accusation levelled against an entire gender?

She goes on to condescendingly, indirectly dismiss Paul Elam's concerns over the new, still changing, processes colleges use to handle accusations of sexual misconduct. It's a gorgeous rhetorical trick. First, you state their position like so:



The way rape is dealt with on college campuses is another bugaboo of the MRM. “We have a problem with feminists hyper-inflating rape statistics, creating a kind of hysteria on campus over a problem that needs due attention from law enforcement,” says Paul Elam, the founder of A Voice for Men, widely considered the flagship website of the MRM. 
Then, you follow it up with something like this:
The site, which features essays pontificating on society’s supposed anti-male bias [emphasis mine]
In the space of one sentence fragment, you have just invalidated any claim made by the owner of said website, which is portrayed as just a bunch of people "pontificating" about things that don't really exist. Neat-o, huh?

Next trick is follow it up with typical feminist black/white, all-or-nothing zero-summing:


 But the far more pressing issue in terms of the way that colleges address rape accusations has to do with the institutions ignoring or mishandling cases of sexual assault. Occidental, along with a number of other elite colleges, came under federal investigation last year for precisely this. The case was brought by 37 current and former students, including several men. According to the complaint, administrators explicitly discouraged students from coming forward with sexual assault reports. This is not unique to Occidental—similar cases have arisen at the University of North Carolina and Swarthmore, among others. This kind of discouragement, shaming, and victim-blaming is exactly why we need anonymous reporting and more stringent anti-sexual assault policies, say victims’ advocates.

Voila! You have just succeeded in deflecting the attention away from valid concerns over due process rights by pretending that there exists no means by which colleges can take accusations of sexual misconduct seriously while still being fair to those who are accused. And you can do it by implying that the solution to some colleges ignoring their own policies is not to require them to enforce those policies, but to bring in more stringent and draconian policies.


The MRM’s tirades and hijinks certainly don’t meaningfully add to the debate surrounding the way we handle sexual assault. But to totally ignore the issues that they raise does not further a productive conversation. 

I'd like to again invite readers to listen to my interview with Ms. Matchar, as well as Paul Elam's and Dean Esmay's, and get a feel for the "tirade-like" nature of our answers to her questions. Compare "hijinks" like Men's Rights Edmonton's "Don't be THAT Girl" campaign, with feminist "hijinks" such as this poster. Compare the calm and measured tone of a men's advocate like Warren Farrell, Miles Groth or Pierce Harlan with the feminist reaction of dishonestfurious, spittle-flecked moral outrage to James Taranto's article on drunk sex, or to a presentation about the problems boys face in society.

While I will not deny that tirades and hijinks exist within the MRM (Patriarchy Party, anyone?), the assumption that progressives are even capable of having a calm, reasoned, fair-minded and balanced discussion about rape is dubious at best, self-evidently false at worst, as Ms. Matchar indicates in her very next breath:


Unfortunately, it’s difficult to talk about these issues in progressive or feminist circles, where discussions of sexual assault prevention can quickly degenerate into angry hyperbole and name-calling. Among progressive media circles, to suggest that sexual assault and sexual assault prevention can be less than clear-cut is to court accusations of being a rape apologist.


Hell, I just got called a rape apologist by Naomi Wolf during a panel discussion last weekend for having the temerity to say that one reason so few rapists are prosecuted is because, given the nature of the crime, rape is difficult to prove or disprove. The only thing that separates it from a legal act is two people's states of mind--her lack of consent and his awareness of her lack of consent. Before I could even finish my thought, she turned to me and, face inches from mine, called me a rape apologist.

What I had said seems like a clear-cut statement to me, one that even agrees with feminist rhetoric on rape (that rape is about consent, and that rape is difficult to prove), yet if you're one of the "bad people", saying it apparently means you're a rape apologist.

I mean think about it. Feminists fought hard to eliminate such requirements as corroboration or physical evidence of resistance from sexual assault law. They fought and succeeded in making rape a crime whose actus reus is contingent on the lack of consent of the victim. 

And yet I got called a rape apologist by a feminist for saying rape is a crime based on consent. 

After the panel was over, I went up to her and said I couldn't believe she called me a rape apologist. She said I sure sounded like one, to which I attempted to reply, "For saying rape is about consent?" She interrupted me mid-sentence, claiming that as a rape survivor, it was too upsetting for her to discuss. 

And perhaps the most ironic thing about what she said is the accusation by a young feminist during the Q&A for my talk at Ryerson University, that Naomi Wolf herself is a rape apologist, who (allegedly) engaged in victim blaming regarding the Julian Assange case.

What a labia traitor you are, Naomi! Shame on you.

But back to Ms. Matchar:

So unless progressives want the MRM to lead the dialogue on these issues, perhaps they should start addressing them more comprehensively and less reactively. There will almost surely be more MRM rape campaigns in the coming year, says Dean Esmay, the managing editor of A Voice for Men: “We will continue to look for ways to stir things up.” Ignoring the matters these campaigns raise risks ceding the conversation.
And there lies the rub. MRAs want to have a conversation about rape. Feminists and other progressives, in the main, like Naomi Wolf, want to have a monologue about it. An "everyone else sit down, shut up and listen quietly" kind of monologue.


The term "rape apologist" is more a tactic than an assessment of someone's position on rape, intended to serve as a conversation ender, a way of either shutting someone up, or giving others moral permission to ignore what they say. It's also a way for feminists to separate the "us" from the "them", to identify and target an enemy and maintain their "vagina monologue" on sexual assault.

Naomi Wolf pulling the rape victim card was another attempted conversation ender, one which I gracefully accepted, not because such a tactic is effective in shutting me up, but because, like most feminists and progressives, she does not seem able to look at the problem in anything resembling an objective way. A discussion with someone so emotional they cannot handle a conversation they insist on having in the first place, the moment there is a difference of opinion is going to be pointless waste of time. 

Ms. Matchar warns progressives that ignoring the issues and concerns raised by the MRM may mean ceding the conversation to us. And here she's got it wrong, yet again. The feminist conversation about rape is not a conversation at all, but a one-sided, biased, moralizing lecture that does not permit any deviation from the party line, even by other feminists. 

Which makes me wonder how long it will be before Ms. Matchar herself has the scarlet letter pinned on her, merely for stating it's a bit of a stretch to characterize James Taranto's article on drunk sex "rape apology". 

If even Naomi Wolf can be labelled a rape apologist for being skeptical of what might well be politically motivated, trumped-up or inflated accusations against a man detested by the US government (among others), then letting Taranto off the hook for his "obvious rape apologia" could well get Ms. Matchar in hot water among the sisterhood. Feminists are all too happy to turn on each other over such things.

Which leads me to commend Ms. Matchar for defying, even in these small ways, the orthodoxy of progressive feminists, and to advise her to watch her back. The feminist sisterhood might not be too happy with her right now.






Monday, 17 June 2013

Okay, I really wasn't interested in doing this, but...

I kind of have to address it, because it's getting ridiculous.

For anyone who doesn't know, The Wooly Bumblbee (Kristina Hansen) is an internet atheist who found the MRM during the atheist/sceptic schism over Atheism+. She is on a rampage of epic proportions, determined to avenge her honor after being wronged by the MRM.

When she found the MRM, she started making videos (fairly accurately) bashing feminism. Or perhaps she started making those videos, and then the MRM found her.

Paul Elam at A Voice for Men liked her "in your face, I don't give a fuck" style. He published a few of her articles, embedded a few of her videos, then eventually offered her an editor position.

He did this despite several glaring red flags in videos she'd uploaded to her previous YT channel (TruthandOblivion, which got flagged down), where she used terms like, "you're the man, you have to be the adult" to a male DV victim, etc. Demonstrating she's not really sensitive to the issue of sexist male-shaming language. At one point, her husband got into a disagreement with Integralmath (Justicar) a non-MRA but MRM-friendly gay atheist YouTuber, and ended up calling him a "disgusting fudgepacker" or something of the sort. A lot of things that should have filled most of us with misgivings.

Apparently Paul wasn't aware of the red flags (he doesn't even have time to watch all MY videos, pfft :P), or ignored any tingling of his spider senses (or perhaps intentionally ignored the flags because he is constantly juggling multiple priorities). He promoted her (way too early for ANYONE, really, who was so new to the MRM) to senior news director for Canada. His rationale as far as I understood it was that the MRM needs doers as well as thinkers, and she was the former rather than the latter.

Almost immediately after that, she started making videos on her personal YouTube channel demanding that certain people (racists, homophobes, libertarians and misogynists) "get the fuck out of OUR movement", and calling out MGTOWs for being bitter, paranoid misogynists who want to blame all their problems on women (something even the most extreme MGTOWs don't really do--they blame men's problems on both men and women).

She managed to alienate so many people, Paul finally had enough and removed her from the masthead of AVFM.

At that point, she went on the warpath and released a video containing snippets of a skype call with Paul (which both parties recorded without telling the other, ha!), snippets that were isolated from any context. In response to the quote-mining, Paul uploaded the entire conversation to YT.

I had held my tongue through all of this, even having been in the position to see it coming the moment he offered her an editor's position. AVFM is Paul's website, and I'm not interested in telling him how he should run it. Several MGTOWs had asked me to make a response video to WBB over her accusations, and I declined. I know what kind of person she is, and I didn't want to step into the warzone.

But once Paul had severed ties between her and AVFM, I did make some comments--on Paul's video and on reddit--regarding how I'd seen this coming right from the start, and expressing my opinion of WBB, which I will crystallize here: 

WBB seems to thrive on attention (both negative and positive), has very sloppy impulse control, is emotionally unstable, and shows a pattern when criticized for anything she said of blaming the listener for not hearing her properly and then repeating exactly what it was she said that they took issue with ("Learn how to listen, moron. I never said X. What I ACTUALLY said was X. Idiot."). She takes up causes she thinks will get her admiration (such as the A Voice for Boys site, which she started and quickly abandoned--the URL now redirects to her personal website), and it's probably at least as much about external validation as anything else. I have watched her repeatedly engage in several of the tactics of abusive women--DARVO (deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender), especially--when people take issue with her attitudes or behavior. Witness the quote-mining she engages in, while simultaneously castigating her opponents for their "intellectual dishonesty" and "lies".

So anyway, I made some comments expressing these opinions about her and the debacle on that video of Paul's, and a few on reddit.

Paul then uploaded a 12 minute video that described the situation as he saw it, explained why he'd let her go from the site, reiterated his position that being apolitical means tolerating libertarians as well as more mainstream political philosophies, and confirming AVFM's support for MGTOW. I may have commented on that video, as well, though I really can't recall.

She uploaded a video of her and her husband playing that video, then pausing and attacking him, libertarians, MGTOWs, me, and anyone else they could think of, in one of the most infantile and incoherent examples of an ad hominem rant I think I've ever come across. You really have to listen to it to understand what I'm talking about.

I commented there, and my comments were heavily upvoted. 









When the bombardment of criticism from annoyed MRAs peaked, she disabled comments for a brief period. A day or two later, I went to see if they were still disabled, and there was a note in the lowbar that she'd uploaded the first of a new 7-video series about all that is wrong with the MRM. I thought it was odd, since I was subscribed to her and that video hadn't shown up in my subscription new upload list. So I went to her channel and discovered I was blocked (which automatically un-subs you).



The first five of her 7 videos are up. After listening to 1 through 4, I can understand why she preemptively blocked me from commenting--every other criticism (perhaps more) seems focussed on me specifically. Which means she either thinks I'm the biggest fish to fry in the MRM, or she has some personal girl-grudge with me. The latter seems a little silly and obsessive, but my comments about her probably stung, and there's not much a woman like her will not do to tear another (more popular, yes, I said it) woman down. In fact, she is so much the embodiment of every toxic woman Dr. Tara talks about in her Shrink4Men blog and Erin Pizzey describes in her material, I don't know how she passed the MRM smell test beyond her first dozen videos.

The number of logical fallacies in this series (and in her and her husband's comments on them) are too many to name: ad hominem, tu quoque, personal incredulity, slippery slope, composition/division, appeal to consequences, appeal to authority... Which is kind of laughable when one considers how often she claims to care about LOGIC and FACTS and how much she claims to hate BULLSHIT so much she HAS to call it out, good fucking grief.

Even the points they make that they have actually researched are pathetic and moot. At one point, for instance, they post a screenshot of one comment of mine on reddit where I posited that the more caesarian sections we perform today, the more we'll need to in the next generation and the next, as children who would have died will survive to carry the trait of an inadequate pelvis. They claim that because having narrow hips isn't one of the leading causes of C sections (which is true), the logic is unsound. Whether they are unable to grasp that any heritable trait that used to get you killed as a baby but which modern medicine can now help you survive is going to become more common, I don't know. But it doesn't matter how common or rare that heritable trait is now, or what place it currently occupies on the list of things that modern medicine can treat--all you need to do is ask, "Is that trait heritable? Did it used to kill your children? Can modern medicine now make it so your children survive to pass on the heritable trait?" This is not that complicated, people. 

Their "understanding" of my politics (soft-core libertarian) seems to derive from my one-time use of the term "John Galt" to describe many of the long-term MRAs who, along with mostly libertarian and non-mainstream political thinkers, kept the MRM embers burning over the last 30 years, something confirmed by Rod van Mechelen of The Backlash.


Kristina and her husband seem to think I'm in cahoots with the Libertarian Party of New York, despite me being neither a New Yorker, nor an American, simply because I spoke at their convention about radical feminism and men's rights--they claim that I'm a member or affiliated with what she calls "big L" libertarians (without ever really defining what she means, other than that it's a "bullshit ideology"). 

If I spoke at the annual convention of the Alberta NDP (which I absolutely would, if they invited me) would she claim I'm in bed with them, too? I wonder what she thinks of the fact that for a year, I was a member of The National Organization for Women (I was involuntarily signed up when I registered to attend their national conference last year). When someone in one of the videos' comment threads mentioned that I was speaking about anti-feminism and the MRM to libertarians after being invited, and would likely speak about such things to any other audience as well (which is true), and wouldn't Kristina accept an invitation to speak about atheism to a Christian group? Well, she said she'd never speak to a group with different beliefs, because to do such a thing would be prostituting herself. And then later denied insinuating I'd be a prostitute for being willing to speak about men's issues to a group whose political philosophy I disagree with. 



This, after making a huge issue of the fact that I receive money from YouTube ads (which she also uses), and accepting donations from people who value my content (again, I don't see her turning away money, even when it's been forcibly extracted from other people).

The ratings bar on most of her recent videos is nearly entirely gray, she's hemorrhaging subscribers like mad, and has deleted more comments and blocked more people over this than a young earth creationist on a rampage against Richard Dawkins. One of her new supporters is a Manboobz-wannabe radical male feminist who likes to call himself "Hannibal the Victor" who she seems to like perfectly well despite her oft-stated loathing of feminism and ideological thinkers, and she has mirrored videos made by libertarians, who she claims to detest, simply because in those particular videos they are critical of MGTOW. 





But she doesn't seem able to control her impulse to get back at people she thinks wronged her, myself included, perhaps especially. Her husband is only reinforcing her in what seems little more than an escalating vendetta against "those motherfuckers who made my wife upset". The two of them together are like, "Ms. Dunning, meet Mr. Kruger", and despite being edumicated in university, not only can neither of them construct a coherent argument, as far as I know, her husband's "job" is to collect disability, and her "job" is to collect child support and pop out kids (4 already, and another on the way). I've never been more pleased with Canada's heavily subsidized post-secondary education system than when I learned my tax dollars went toward ten years of taxpayer-subsidized education so she could earn 4 degrees that apparently qualify her to sit on lawn chairs, complain, gestate babies and live on other people's dimes. 

And as far as her criticism that AVFM has done NOTHING to help men, I'll just leave these names here: Joel Kirk, Vladik Filler, Gordon Smith. And I'd remind her where the $5000 of seed money she received for the Earl Silverman Center (a man who'd be spinning in his grave over her recent bahavior and her usurping of his name, holy shit) came from. Her criticism that I'm doing nothing to help men? Ask Tom Matty--$5600 in 24 hours from the very generous folks who subscribe to my channel (thank you all so much).

Aaaaaaaaaaanyway, they just uploaded their 5th video in the series, so I figured I'd go see if there was anything they could talk about that wasn't me. HA! It's not even a minute long--nothing but a marked up screencap of a comment exchange I had on reddit, where someone asks what my education and credentials are, and WBB's added notation, "Funny how she never answers this."



Well, this conversation happened a month ago, so I didn't recall the specifics, but knowing the kind of person I am (someone who would have answered honestly) and knowing the kind of person WBB is (someone who likes to quote-mine to make her opponents look like douchebags), I scrolled ALL the way back in my comment history on reddit to a month ago, then scoured through them looking for the comment.

And wouldn't you know it? I didn't bother answering the commenter's question, because when I returned to the conversation, I noticed that they already knew the answer. And knew it, evidently, before they even asked the question: 




Imagine, someone as "intellectually honest" and who cares so much about FACTS and calling out BULLSHIT as the Wooly Bumblebee not showing you that! Honestly, this is getting retarded. 

Incidentally, one of the most interesting little coincidences in this entire thing is that after listening to a lengthy diatribe on how I have no post-secondary education and therefore am not S.M.R.T (as Homer Simpson likes to say), I happened to be listening to a CBC radio interview with someone representing Guild Software. This transgendered woman who is Stanford educated in neuroscience said that Google, after intensive internal research into the markers of excellent employees, concluded that the quality of the school an employee attended, or even whether they were credentialed at all, was no indication of how talented and effective they would be. In fact, what this woman described as "degree-seeking" was negatively correlated with the positive value of an employee because it indicates a need for external validation rather than an inner passion and drive, and an employer was better served looking primarily at "what code have you written?" when choosing new hires. 

I'm not raising this issue because of what reflection this may have on me, as someone who is not credentialed. The reason I raise it is that despite 10 years of state-subsidized education and four degrees, Kristina Hansen's accomplishments include 1) following her hind-brain into the weeds to her own self-destruction, 2) being a rabid joiner with little follow-through, as evidenced by A Voice for Boys, 3) whining about people who she claims "do nothing" a month after they handed her $5000, 4) alienating three quarters of the people she claimed she was serving, 5) squeezing out babies, 6) collecting child support and social welfare despite having milked the system for god knows how many degrees between her and her husband, and 7) throwing public temper tantrums because no one appreciates her. 

Money well spent, by all measures. Let's pay people to get educated so we can pay them to sit on their asses and generate more burdens on society. Again, I'm so glad to know I helped pay for those four degrees she's using to sit in a lawn chair and gestate a fifth fetus with. A fifth child who makes me weep for the future of humanity, because regardless of whether you're a biological determinist/reductionist or whether you think it's all environment, you have to admit those are five fucked up kids about to be unleashed on the world.

And now, in another coincidence arriving as if by divine intervention, a notable and award-winning documentary film production company has decided to make a film about the MRM and AVFM. Oh, if only, Kristina. If only you'd just kept your mouth shut long enough and kept a lid on your personality disorder batshit fucknuttery [EDIT: Kristina has taken issue with me using the term personality disorder, as this is a psychiatric diagnosis that has not been applied to her. In the interests of accuracy, I have amended this wording in such as way as to avoid implications of a clinical diagnosis, but which still conveys my intended meaning. Thank you], you could have been one of the people interviewed for that. A shame, since everything you've demonstrated so far about what you're all about has been about promoting yourself to acquire external validation, and lashing out at people who don't give you what you're after. 

Poor Wooly. You could have been famous, if only you'd just waited it out. 

Kristina, I just want to say, I avoided raising my concerns with Paul primarily because it might have been construed as me being catty--me being one of those women only concerned with monopolizing male attention and being top dogette. Given how quickly he promoted you, I figured he was smitten and would be even more prone to draw that conclusion if a shopworn old bird like me raised concerns. And I wasn't interested in turning anything into a cat-fight over market share over this movement's mostly male cheerleaders. 

And however much power you seem to think I have over AVFM (given your statements to that effect), and how much practical power I might actually have (given my reach), I choose not to involve myself in the inner workings of AVFM, and always have. Paul has actually made more decisions based on your counsel than on mine, because I would never think to tell someone how to run their own goddamn website. Even when they hire sociopathic, toxic, abusive people like you.

You've gone off the reservation, Kristina. You're operating on emotion. In fact, I don't know that there's any other way that you can operate. And whatever your actual motivations, I can tell you what it looks like to outsiders and disinterested parties: it looks like you're the misfit attacking the popular girl for getting more attention than you. It looks like you're grinding a man (AVFM) into the dirt because you were scorned by him. You're living up to every single goddamn negative stereotype of women out there, which is all the more ironic considering your constant NAFALTing to MGTOWs. 

You are the female nature that drives feminism, even if you're not a feminist, even if you hate the ideology or what it's done to something you care about (atheism). Because when it comes to what it's done for you? You're all there. Anything that will benefit you, even if it comes at the expense (or destruction) of others, you're in. Not just in, but all-in. Even as your subscribers abandon you, even as people who used to be sympathetic to your position abandon you. You'll scream you're right until your dying breath. 

You blocked me from your channel before uploading those videos either because you wanted the attention a video response from me would get you, or you wanted free rein to attack me without any rebuttal. You wanted me to seriously engage or be silent. And I didn't bother engaging, until video #5 was uploaded, obsessing entirely about me, with nothing resembling a concrete argument, nothing defensible and nothing remotely honest. 

I resent having to address this, the way I resent having to tolerate another person's screaming infant at the next table in a restaurant. I really did not want to get into this with you, but you've left me no choice. You've got one giant hard-on for me. Given my looks, how could blame you? :P

Bu there is no way you can win. And it's not even a you vs me thing. There is no possible way you can salvage yourself from the situation you've orchestrated by continuing to engage. Your credibility in both of the communities you called your own is virtually gone. I'm just the person burdened with the task of telling you.

My advice to you is to step back and let things rest for a while. You haven't demolished your credibility completely yet. There are still positive things you could do with that $5000 you got from AVFM's readers, which I'm sure they'll be eager to keep closer tabs on now. There is still a chance that you could redeem yourself for the memory of Earl Silverman. But if you keep this up--attacking people and then escalating when they criticize you--you're only going to dig your own grave. 

Your involvement with the MRM, and this petty, childish display, is even costing you your credibility among atheists. Fuck sake, let it rest.

If you have any coherent arguments against ideologies, then make them. Make them logical and back them up with evidence. It's not enough to say, "it's a bullshit ideology". It's not enough to shout, "Ayn Rand was a racist, and so are you because you follow her!" to people who don't even follow Ayn Rand. It's not enough to say, "I'll address that in another video," and then upload a video with quote-mines taken out of context. 

Good grief, get a grip on yourself. As I said in one of my comments before you blocked me, I'm embarrassed for you. Stop acting like a toddler and show some self-control.



And for any of my subscribers or followers, if there are any concerns raised in WBB's videos that you'd like me to address, please PM me and I'll deal with them. But at this point, I'm done. I'm not going to address WBB or her apparently brain-damaged husband's criticisms concerning, "Waitresses can know things!" any further.

Edited to add:




Annnnnd here she is insinuating that I have made some claim to being an academic. While I do describe myself as a gender theorist (considering that I analyse, and theorize about, gender, and considering the title is no more exclusive or protected by some accrediting or licensing body than, say, "feminist" or even "therapist"), I would challenge anyone to find any statement of mine where I have ever described myself as an academic.

Kristina Hansen, professional "bullshit caller", calling out all the lies that exist in her very own imagination. Good grief.

Sunday, 16 June 2013

Happy father's day

I have to leave for work in half an hour, to serve ribs and steak to all the fortunate fathers out there whose loved ones are treating them on their one day a year. This is an especially hopeful father's day for me, considering how well the fundraising efforts for Tom Matty's appeal on the grounds of institutional bias went (thanks so much again to everyone who donated).

My own father, who is trekking around NY right now with his cell phone turned off to avoid roaming charges, is one of the most amazing people in my life, I love him dearly, and wish I could wish him the best of the day in person. Here's hoping the text I sent to my luddite mother to relay to him didn't make her hair turn whiter than it already is (she's completely oblivious to how texting works, and the chime probably threw her for a loop).

Love you, dad. Happy father's day. And for all the other dad's out there, I wish you all the best.

Saturday, 27 April 2013

My address to the NY state libertarian party convention




Hi, everyone. Firstly, I want to thank Gary for inviting me to speak here, and thank all of you for being open to the different perspective I'm hoping to present to you.

Some of you--maybe all of you--might be asking yourselves, what on earth is an anti-feminist gender theorist doing speaking at a libertarian party convention. What the heck does gender, or feminism, have to do with libertarian politics and philosophies? The answer to that question is at once extremely complex, and very, very simple.

The simple answer is this: Gender influences everything. Including the size, scope and decisions of government.

And now, to complicate things a little.

On the microscale, gender affects the way men and women think, how they feel, how they process their interactions with the world, what motivates them, what influences them, what is important to them, what incentives are going to affect their behavior, and how. It affects how we perceive other people depending on whether they are male or female. It impacts on what we feel is appropriate, regarding both the behaviors, responsibilities and roles we expect of others, and the behaviors, responsibilities and roles we feel are appropriate for ourselves. It affects what roles and vocations, on average, a given person will find themselves suited to or interested in.

On the macroscale, gender affects the way society feels about people, depending on whether they're male or female, what expectations society has of them, what obligations society is prepared to place on them, how, and how much, society cares about them. It influences whose voices society is prepared to trust on what issues and in what situations. It affects society's willingness to punish or forgive, who society is interested in holding responsible and accountable for wrongs done, who society is prepared to devote resources to help or protect, and who society is prepared to cut loose.

So gender is kind of a shortcut societies and governments use when sorting priorities. Who is deserving of our help, support and protection--socially, legally and governmentally--and who is less deserving, or perhaps not deserving at all? How should that help be implemented, and how should it not, how much are we willing to spend, and how much institutional power and scope should government have to involve itself in the lives of citizens?

To demonstrate these effects of gender I'm talking about, I'm going to make a few statements, and I want you all to pay attention to how you feel when I say them. They're statements I've culled from published books, newspapers, or the speeches of politicians, though you'll notice I've flipped the genders for effect:

Men can do anything women can. And do it better. And do it with one hand tied behind their backs. --Barack Obama

When a woman strikes a man, she strikes all of society. --Hillary Clinton said exactly that about violence against women.

Women CAN stop false allegations of abuse and rape. --The "Men can stop rape" poster campaign is making an appearance on campuses across the US and Canada.

It cannot be assumed that women are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of mothers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion. --This gem, about how unnecessary fathers are, is from UK equalities minister Harriet Harman. She might be forgiven this sentiment if it wasn't grossly inaccurate.

mall roof caved in yesterday, killing 23 people and injuring more than 100. Tragically 4 men and one child were among the dead. --all right, that's from any newspaper story about any tragedy. We hear about women and children because that makes a tragedy more tragic.

I want to see a woman beaten to a bloody pulp with a workboot shoved into her mouth like an apple in the mouth of a pig. --Change woman to man and workboot to high heel, and you've got second wave feminist Andrea Dworkin's attitude.

Or even this: "It is an amazing thing to see in our city the husband of a laundress, or a fishwife, or a housemaid dressed in velvet with chains of gold at the throat, with silver buckles and boots of good value....and then in contrast to see his wife washing the clothes, chapped and bedraggled from the day's labor, poorly dressed.... but whosoever considers this carefully will find it reasonable, because it is necessary that the gentleman, even if low born and humble, be arrayed in such fine form for his natural excellence and dignity, and the woman be less adorned as if a slave, or a little ass, born to his service." --And this is perhaps the most interesting of all, since a gender-flipped version of it was written by Lucrezia Marinella, and published in her book "The nobility and excellence of woman and the defects and vices of men" in the year 1600.

Feels kind of weird, doesn't it? These are statements you would NEVER hear or read in mainstream culture as I changed them--not even in the year 1600--some of them because they'd be repulsive to us, and others because it would just never occur to us to think or feel in those ways. All because of the way we as humans perceive, and have always perceived, men and women.

And while feminism claims to have worked very hard to dismantle all of these individual and society-wide assumptions about men and women, if you scratch the surface of their ideologies and their efforts, what you find is all of those assumptions human societies have always held, dialled up to 11. Not only has feminist activism manipulated and exploited all of these age-old perceptions about gender, for political, legal, economic and social gain, it has only amplified them in the cultural zeitgeist.

It is very much a case of, "Say hello to the new boss, even more sexist than the old boss."

I've been asked before to describe what exactly I'm doing with my blogging and video lectures and it's a difficult question to answer. I'm an advocate for the issues of men and boys, certainly, but first and foremost, I'm an anti-feminist. My task, as I see it, is to try to uncover the nature of things, and then deprogram as many people as I can. To encourage people to think from a different angle, to entertain thoughts that are forbidden in our politically correct culture, to educate as many as I can about the hidden nature of society, gender and ideological feminism.

Among those of us who talk about these issues, it's called "taking the red pill".

As for why I'm here, hoping to convince libertarians to think from that different angle? Well, there's a strong libertarian streak that runs right through the center of the men's movement, and there's definitely a reason for that.

Canadian libertarian philosopher Stefan Molyneux once described feminism as "socialism in panties."

As I'm sure any of the men here will attest to, anything, no matter how destructive or unprincipled, is probably going to look more appealing and less sinister if it has a female face and you put it in a pair of panties.

I'm not going to bore you with a detailed history of the marriage of feminism and marxism. For that, I'll refer any who are interested to a lengthy but fascinating lecture by Soviet ex-patriot Valdas Anelauskas, who describes a courtship between two ideologies that began in the mid-1800s and has now become the foundation of feminist thought. I will simply note that Karl Marx, in his communist manifesto, emphasized how very important women would be to any communist revolution, and that the best way to secure the support of women would be to convince them of the plural nature of their oppression--as workers, they were oppressed by the elites, and as women, they were oppressed by their husbands, fathers and even sons. In essence, he posited that if a system that respected the concept of property rights oppressed the male worker, this same system that placed economic authority in the hands of men doubly oppressed the wives and daughters of those male workers.

Though radical feminism has never severed its ties with communism, as early as the 1920s, feminism had essentially co-opted and repurposed Marxist theory to describe the structure of society relating to the interaction of the sexes. The intellectual backlash against feminism that began within the marxist community around the turn of the 20th century, with E Belfort Bax and Robert Briffault, was quashed through intimidation, censorship and skilful use of emotionally charged propaganda.

By the 1960s, when the western world's love affair with communism had begun to fizzle, communism's red-headed stepdaughter, feminism, was only growing in popularity. The sexier, less threatening, more benign-seeming Trojan Mare upon which marxists had relied to sneak their ideology past the gates of the western world had outgrown its helpmeet role, and taken on a life of its own.

By this era, a discrete and quintessentially Marxist theoretical model of gender had become entrenched in the intellectual sphere, a model based on class conflict theory and postmodern discourse. While communist thought was confined to a small pocket of what the mainstream mostly thought of as misguided weirdos, feminist thought, slapped together from the exact same bricks and mortar, became not only fashionable, but had spawned its own branch of academia, sponsored and enabled by unwitting democratic governments across the west.

While historical views on the sexes had maintained that men and women were distinctly different but complementary partners--role mates, as Dr Warren Farrell has described it--this new feminist model cast all aspects of society as oppressive and exploitive systems wherein men embodied the Bourgeoisie, and women the Proletariat.

Most of this model--The Patriarchy--and its sub-theories are little more than post hoc rationalizations based on emotional reasoning, easily swallowed by the well-meaning public because of the evidence that stands out most starkly to us given our natural, evolved views of gender. Humans have always been more emotionally reactive to the harms, injuries, injustices, complaints and perils affecting women, and more likely to see women as nurturing, benign, kind, well-meaning and deserving of protection. We have always been more likely to see men as strong, sturdy, capable of self-sufficiency, potent and potentially threatening, and these perceptions inform our reactions when men suffer harms, injuries, injustices and dangers, and when they dare to complain about them.

Because of these innate perceptions, when feminists pointed up toward the top of society and showed us mostly men, we didn't bother to direct our attention down to the bottom of society so we could see the mostly men there, as well. We all saw a glass ceiling, but not a glass cellar, and allowed feminists to convince us that all aspects of society, the formalized and the informal, were male-dominated and male-controlled, and that women, as a class, were utterly powerless and subjugated under this system.

Marriage was redefined under this model, from a partnership where both parties contributed and benefitted, to a form of sexual slavery and unpaid drudgery for women where wives were subjugated and exploited for their husbands' express benefit. Under second wave feminism, family was reinterpreted as an institution based on exploitation--instead of all members working together for the benefit and shared success of all members, women were recast as powerless subordinates, providing unreciprocated labor toward the raising of HIS children, and the keeping of HIS house, labor that freed husbands to pursue economic and social power outside the home.

It didn't matter that most men had little more access to economic and social power than most women, or that what power men achieved they were expected to share equitably with their families. Feminists were too busy pointing upward at the congressmen, bank managers and CEOs and crying injustice, to show us the taxi drivers, garbage men, plumbers, loggers, fishermen, miners, construction workers, factory laborers, field workers, roughnecks and janitors. They envied the power of generals and statesmen, but spared no thought for the thousands of young footsoldiers dead in the trenches. They were jealous of the self-determination that made an industrialist rich beyond dreaming, but when that self-determination produced a different outcome for the mostly male population of tramps, beggars and hobos it was invisible to them.

They focus solely on the men above and don't even notice the men below.

The 23 cent average, apples to oranges, annual wage gap is STILL, in their minds, the height of sexist injustice, but the greater than 90% workplace death gap is...well, who cares?

Traditional ways of providing for and protecting women that were necessary in the pre-industrial past, were reinterpreted by feminism as male oppressors keeping women down all through history, for men's benefit. Domestic violence--a social problem that has ALWAYS been gender-symmetrical--became synonymous with violence against women. A husband's historical right to conjugal relations was redefined as marital rape, while a wife's *identical right*--one that for centuries if denied was legal grounds for divorce and could even get a man excommunicated from his church--that part of history was essentially erased from modern scholarship, even as it is upheld and reinforced by feminist activism. In fact, according to current feminist theories on domestic violence, a man withholding sex or affection from his female partner, whatever the reason, is a form of domestic abuse, and a man in France was recently required by a judge to pay his ex-wife over $10,000 in punitive damages because he didn't give her enough sex during the marriage.

The traditional obligation of a woman to defer to her husband's authority was defined as "oppression", but her husband's obligation to die in a trench to protect his country and family...that became "male privilege" and when enough people protested the hubris of that assertion, it became "Patriarchy hurts men too."

Under The Patriarchy, all men are privileged by their maleness, and all women oppressed by their femaleness. And if men are, as a class, the privileged Bourgeoisie, if men hold collective power over society, then all men are culpable for the oppression and exploitation of all members of the female Proletariat, and any discrimination a man might face in society is just his own privilege backfiring on him.

According to radical feminists, the drastic technological and economic changes that occurred during the last century--medical advances that virtually eliminated deaths in childbirth and drastically decreased infant and child mortality rates, changes that rendered the workplace as comfortable and safe as your living room, safe and reliable birth control, industrialization, automation, prosperity, plenty and an unprecedented level of individual security--none of this has anything to do with anything. Even prior to those changes, during a history in which a woman might spend half her adult life pregnant or nursing children, where most labor was gruelling, dangerous and simply beyond the physical capabilities of women, where life was often brutal and brief, and where men bore a legally enforceable obligation to provide for the material needs of all family members, the fact that men bore the economic authority as well as all the economic burdens of a family was a system specifically designed to disempower women.

According to radical feminists, your grandfathers and great grandfathers were rapists and slave-masters who exploited, subjugated and violated the women who were nearest and dearest to them--their own mothers, sisters, wives and daughters. According to radical feminists, every atrocity ever committed throughout all of history can be laid at the door of normative masculinity, but every male-generated advance--calculus, alternating current, the telegraph, the transistor, radio, penicillin, the number system, hydro-electricity, microwaves, fiberglass, the theory of relativity, the periodic table, trigonometry, insulin, canned foods, vaccines, fire retardant, teflon, wireless communications, the microchip, the birth control pill and even tampons--is a result of men intentionally holding women back, keeping women down, refusing to allow women to achieve, and hogging all the power and glory.

You see how this all works? All the evils of history, admittedly committed mostly by men are evidence of men's oppressive natures. And all the advances of civilization, because they were generated almost exclusively by men, are equally evidence of men's oppressive natures. Even the exceptional and wonderful things men achieved that have benefitted all of us, are not evidence that men embody anything good. In fact, they demonstrate the opposite. They are evidence that the "old boys' club" modern feminists complain about today dates all the way back to the pleistocene, when women would have eagerly hunted mastodon with babies strapped to their breasts, and carved back a jungle filled with leopards and bears, if only men had not enslaved them and thereby deprived them of the opportunity to do so.

This is what they believe. This is what ideological feminism IS. It describes women's experience through all of history as identical to the experience of blacks under slavery. You know, actual oppression, subordination and exploitation without any compensatory benefit.

To clarify, what were the "upsides" to being black in America during slavery? Can anyone here name a single white slave owner who ever died to save the lives of his black slaves? Who ever gave up a space in a lifeboat to his black slave and chose himself to go down with a ship? Who ever stood with a rifle between his black slaves and an enemy to defend their lives, rather than his right to own them?
Can anyone even imagine a white slave owner working 16 hours in a field while his black slave stayed inside most of the day and kept his house tidy, then coming home and sharing the fruits of his labors with his black slave?
Did a black woman who was the sexual partner of a white slave owner have any expectation of respect, lifelong provision or shelter, or of sharing the benefits of his quality of life and his social status? Or was she just an object of the moment, free to be used and cast aside at will? Did a black man who was obligated to obey his owner's wife have any legal right or recourse when she pointed a finger and claimed he raped her? Or was he swinging from a tree within hours?
Can anyone imagine a reality where a white slave owner would perform physically gruelling or dangerous work because his black slave was incapable of it? Or would he simply set more slaves to the task, or work his slave to his death, or discard his used-up slave and buy a better one? If women were truly oppressed by men, would they have been spared the most onerous and dangerous work because they were less physically capable of it, or would men have simply assigned more women to the task?
Can anyone here name a single black person, man or woman, who rose to a state-sanctioned position of serious political power during slavery? Off the top of my head, I can name a ton of women who have been heads of state, going as far back as Ancient Egypt. The greatest and most notable black leaders emerging from Jim Crow America and apartheid South Africa rose to influence by opposing the government, not rising within it, because they had no avenue to power within a system that oppressed them.

Slavery and oppression are defined as obligation and disadvantage without compensatory benefit. Does anyone here think women, who were a tiny minority, tenths of a percent, among the 10 million military personnel who died during WWI, derived no benefit from the traditional system? Heck, one of the few ways a man could duck conscription was to be married--a man could literally avoid mandatory military service if his wife would be inconvenienced by it. And yet this system existed to benefit men at the expense of women?A system of top-down oppression, according to feminists, that is no different from the experience of blacks under slavery?

If you perceive the history of gender relations as being remotely similar to the history of slavery in the US, it's no shock to hear feminist Robin Morgan, editor of Ms. Magazine, claim, "Man-hating is an honorable and viable political act. The oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."

Yet as childish, simplistic and absurd as this model was, it wasn't long before it had become firmly entrenched in academia, in the humanities and the arts--in sociology, anthropology, psychology, history, women's studies and gender studies, the very faculties and programs associated with education, social work, journalism, the law and political science. The very branches of society most able to influence public perception. And because of all those things I was talking about at the beginning of this presentation, public perception was vulnerable to the half-truths presented to it, disguised as the whole picture.

And the really awesome thing about this model is that as long as enough people believe it, even just a little, as long as enough people can be convinced to see men as the Bourgeoisie who have always unjustly benefitted from their exploitation of women, and women as the Proletariat who have always been forced to toil and slave without benefit under the boot-heel of those privileged men, you can justify anything.

If men are believed to have always collectively held power and economic privilege through the enslavement of women, if all of men's authority since the dawn of time was ill-gotten through the unreciprocated exploitation and violation of women, then women are entirely justified in stealing it back, and the state is justified in assisting them. It becomes acceptable, justified and appropriate for women to expropriate men's undeserved and unearned power by any means necessary, including state coercion.

And this attitude is not confined to family law, domestic violence law and sexual assault law--the primary areas where men's interests conflict with women's interests, and where the state has been quietly at work, eroding due process protections and equal treatment under the law, and building bloated and ravenous mechanisms that suck up dollars and power while curtailing civil liberties. It's everywhere. It informs economic and employment policy, health spending, criminal law, everything.

According to Dr Warren Farrell, the government has passed more laws to protect women in the workplace from dirty jokes than it has to protect men from injury and death due to faulty rafters on construction sites. And nearly everyone in society, especially women, seems to feel this is an appropriate allocation of resources.

One need only watch the Life of Julia, Obama's most naked and blatant appeal to the natures of women--especially young, single women. Julia has no father, and no husband--she needs neither of those things. The state will take care of her needs from birth to death, and will support her when she decides to have a child of her own--a child that, in Obama's narrative, is also fatherless. The man in Julia's life, the one who will perform the roles--provision, protection, support--historically performed by husbands, brothers and fathers, is more powerful than any man she'll ever meet, more able to provide for her, and one she need make no compromises with.

Julia will never have to pick up this man's dirty socks, or put up with him snoring or farting in bed, or consider his needs, or provide him with respect, love or affection. He is the ultimate provider and the ultimate protector, and he will ask nothing of her in return but her vote.

And he'll give her all those benefits through a system that coerces net taxpayers and net tax-generators, of whom a disproportionate number are men, to surrender their productivity while offering them neither mutual benefit nor voluntary association. This feels right and just to feminists, because the state is merely assisting Julia in stealing back what was wrongfully taken from women, as a class, by men, as a class. This feels like a great deal to Julia, since all she has done is replace a man with whom she would be required to bargain freely, with a state that provides her all the same benefits without the messy business of having to trade anything valuable for them.

If women today in the west can be said to be married to the state, in a very real sense, men are married to it as well, and the obligations expected of them are the same as they always have been. In this marriage, men pay at least 75% of the tax revenue into the system, and reap a disproportionately tiny percentage of its protections and benefits. In this marriage, the state enforces the obligations of husbandhood after divorce, and the obligations of fatherhood even when men did not consent to become fathers, and even when they are allowed no meaningful role in the lives of their children.

In this marriage, the resources men put in are diverted toward the additional protection of women through the erosion of men's legal protections and civil rights. In this marriage, men are expected to pay for a system that not only does not serve them, that not only offers nothing back to them, that has not only made a mockery of due process protections for them, but one that even handicaps their ability to perform these obligations by favoring women in the prioritization of education and employment, and by facilitating the removal of fathers from the lives of children who need them.

The state is, essentially, forcing men to finance a system that disenfranchises them. And the state is, essentially, paying women to disenfranchise men, and handicap their own children. Social responsibility is enforced on men through penalty of imprisonment, while for women, social irresponsibility means a check in the mail every month.

A lot of people have wondered aloud why there aren't more female libertarians. If there's a reason, it might lie in a lack of incentive. Big government costs the vast majority of men--their wealth, their civil liberties, their autonomy, sometimes their freedom--but for most women, big government represents an insurance policy and a perpetual subsidy of their personal choices, good or bad. Men pay, women benefit.

If women sprinted down the aisle to offer their hands in marriage to the state, for men, it was a shotgun wedding, coercive by its very nature. And the influence of radical ideological feminism on government and legal policy has ensured that this marriage is as abusive as they come.

When Gary told me about his experiences with family court and its affiliated agencies, I told him, "If you weren't a libertarian before all of this, I can certainly see why you're one now." What used to be a voluntarily accepted obligation on the part of men, is now extracted from them at the point of a gun, and often there is no way for them, no matter how well they comply, to avoid being shot.

One example of what men's tax dollars disproportionately support, which lies in direct opposition to the interests and rights of men, would be the institutionalization of the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence.

This model is the feminist conceptual framework of family violence, and it is one that has been discredited by hundreds of studies across cultures--from the most modern western democracies to countries like Jordan and Namibia. According to Duluth, family violence is overwhelmingly male-perpetrated, and is motivated by men's and women's relative positions in society--by male social and political dominance and the expectation of female subordination. A man who batters his wife is not just asserting his dominance over her, he is expressing normalized masculinity. Abuse and coercive control of women, according to this model, is a not a pathology, but a natural function of male identity within a Patriarchal culture. Simply put, it's just what men do.

Every piece of legislation, every government policy and every publicly funded treatment program in the US regarding family violence, and the vast majority of them worldwide, employs this conceptual model.

Too bad it's bunk. As hundreds of studies demonstrate, in at least half of cases, partner violence is reciprocal. It involves men and women hitting each other, and what motivates men and women is pretty much the same: anger, poor conflict resolution skills, jealousy, a desire to control or discipline a partner, drug and alcohol problems, and external stress such as poverty. Women are as likely as men to report abusing their partners for all these reasons, and are more likely to engage in coercive control of a partner. More than that, they are more likely to be the one to initiate physical violence, and in cases of severe unilateral abuse against a non-violent partner, women are the perpetrators up to 70% of the time.

For every 8 women seriously injured by domestic violence, at least 5 men are also seriously injured. And perhaps most damningly, considering feminism's unwillingness to address women's perpetration of violence, the number one predictor of serious domestic violence injury in women is their own initiation of violence. It is when men are hitting them BACK that women are most likely to be hurt.

What all this means is that patriarchal terrorism--the Duluth model of intimate partner violence--is the most rare form of all--and yet the patriarchal terrorism paradigm informs all of our government funded mechanisms for intervention and treatment.

But it doesn't end there.

At least 35% of spousal murders are men murdered by their female partners. I say at least, because if a woman engages a hitman, boyfriend or relative to assist her in murdering her male partner, it is classified statistically not as spousal homicide, but as multiple-perpetrator homicide. Because of this, there is no way to know how many men are killed by their female partners each year.

More than this, women are the most likely demographic to perpetrate child abuse and neglect, even controlling for time spent with children, and the majority of young children murdered are murdered by their mothers. Biological fathers are, in contrast, the least likely demographic to abuse or kill young children, less likely than both biological mothers and stepfathers.

Statistically, the environment in which a woman is MOST safe from violence is in a stable marriage, and the environment in which children are the MOST safe from violence is one in which their parents are in a stable marriage.

Yet our entire system of family law, and our entire response to domestic violence, from the VAWA to local police department policies, is designed to encourage and facilitate divorce, to favor sole maternal custody arrangements, and to protect children from the very people least likely to abuse them.

Mandatory arrest policies coupled with predominant aggressor policies based on Duluth, ensure that 1) somebody gets arrested in any domestic violence incident, and 2) that regardless of who was assaulting whom, the person arrested will almost always be the larger, stronger, male partner.

A judge in Florida recently estimated that 80% of all temporary restraining orders granted in the context of divorce or child custody cases, requested almost entirely by women, are either fraudulent or unfounded. Divorce lawyers have called false allegations of domestic violence and sexual abuse of children, and the abuse of TROs merely part of the "gamesmanship" of divorce--a method by which a wife can secure automatic custody of both the children and the marital home, and leave an ex-partner scrambling to defend himself often without access to necessary documents or even a change of clothes. The average length of time it takes for a woman to obtain a TRO in an ex parte hearing is under 3 minutes. She need provide no evidence of prior abuse. All she has to tell the judge is that she feels afraid of her husband. The first any man might hear that such an order has been issued is when the police arrive to remove him from his home.

The advantages to a woman of abusing the system are many and myriad, and the disadvantages virtually nil. By the time a man has cleared his name, the children are often completely alienated from him. Family court judges will go so far as to admit that a mother has abused her own children through her abuse of process, but will hesitate to penalize her in any way. She will almost always retain custody because it would harm the children to place them in the care of a man they've been wrongly taught to hate and fear. Because she retains custody, if she's prosecuted, the children will suffer. If she's financially penalized in the divorce settlement, the children will suffer. If she's forced to pay him damages, the children will suffer. In some extreme cases, judges have completely, permanently stripped a man's rights and access to his children, explaining that the mother's persistent combativeness, false accusations and abuse of process had made it so that upholding that man's parental rights would only subject the children to more of their mother's abuse.

And while not every woman is going to take advantage of a system weaponized specifically for her use, the ex-wife of a friend of mine recently told him she was proud that she'd never availed herself of such measures during their divorce, despite three court-appointed officials encouraging her to make a false claim of domestic violence and thereby gain the upper hand in the process.

Feminist models of gender and domestic violence have institutionalized the assumption that all men are batterers or potential batterers, that dominating, controlling and abusing their female partners and their children is just part of what it means to be a man. They've institutionalized an assumption of non-culpability on the part of women even when they openly abuse their husbands, ex-husbands and children, and even when they use the court system to do it.

In 85% of divorce cases in the US, mothers receive primary physical custody. The remaining 15% represent sole paternal, and shared physical custody arrangements. The average cost to a man in a contested custody battle in the US is over $200, 000. It can take up to six years of expensive court battles for a man to secure even regular access or shared custody, let alone primary physical custody. He may be required to pay his ex-partner's legal bills in addition to his own, and pay for the court-ordered assessments and services required for his case. Through this battle, he will also be required to pay maintenance to his ex-partner in the form of alimony and/or child support, and in some cases, even pay the fees of the third party required for supervised visitation with his children.

Is it any wonder that in the year following a family break-up, men are 11 times more likely to commit suicide than women?

According to the Michigan chapter of NOW, fathers' rights groups are an "abuser's lobby", and the official stance of the chapter is to oppose reforms that would normalize equal or near-equal shared custody after divorce if neither parent is unfit. They oppose these measures in part because it would put women and children in danger from abusive and controlling former spouses, and in part because it would have an unintended negative impact on child support awards. This, despite the oft-stated feminist claim that cultural assumptions that women are automatically better caregivers are sexist against women, and despite the fact that the environment in which a child is at the highest risk of suffering abuse is in the care of a single mother.


This is the influence of politicized ideological feminism in the areas of domestic violence and family law. And while society has always placed a greater priority on protecting women than men from violence and abuse, feminists have managed to rewrite history and public perception of human interaction, in order to justify ever more intrusive government mechanisms that protect women from even their own criminal behavior, and curtail the rights and civil liberties of the men who find themselves at the mercy of the system after having done nothing wrong.

Over the last 40 years, a growing number of researchers have challenged feminism's theory of gender conflict and the conceptual framework of Duluth. These researchers have been subjected to blacklisting, career sabotage, intimidation, professional shunning and even death threats. Family violence researcher Suzanne Steinmetz had a bomb threat called into her daughter's wedding. Erin Pizzey, the woman who established the first battered women's refuge in the world, lived for years under police protection due to threats to herself, her children and grandchildren, and finally fled the UK after her family dog was killed. All for daring to say that women are as violent as men within relationships, and that partner abuse is not a natural function of masculine identity, but a gender neutral social problem primarily caused by experience of abuse during childhood.

To prove women are not violent, feminists have engaged in campaigns of violence and threats, and to prove society is male-dominated, feminists have engaged in a pattern of malfeasance that has silenced all other voices, allowing feminism to remain the dominant authority in all gendered issues. And they evidently see no irony in any of that.

The fiscal, social and human costs of these policies are staggering. We treat every domestic violence accusation, indeed even the hint that a woman is afraid of her partner, with a better safe than sorry strategy that engages multiple bureaucracies. Taxpayers and beleaguered men pay thousands upon thousands of dollars for investigations, assessments, psychiatric evaluations, lawyers, expensive legal proceedings, incarcerations and prosecutions, a growing number of which end with the discovery that a woman was lying for revenge or for personal gain. Children are mercilessly fragged by combative mothers, deprived, often permanently, of what may be their only stable parent. Fathers are ground into the dust.

Intervention programs, run by government funded agencies, apply a single, ideologically tainted treatment to a multifaceted problem, "curing" citizens of diseases they don't have, while allowing their actual problems to fester untreated. Cumbersome legal procedures, no-drop policies, predominant aggressor policies, institutional, legal and informal biases, all contribute to a bill that is increasingly impossible for taxpayers to afford, and that is handicapping the ability of children--those future taxpayers who will be stuck with the growing mass of red ink generated by this system--to shoulder the debt.

Fatherless children--an epidemic of whom we are creating with these policies--are more prone to a whole host of social maladies. They are at two to ten times the risk of being physically or sexually abused, becoming teenage parents, dropping out of school, being behaviorally disordered, becoming involved in gangs, being addicted to alcohol or drugs, being expelled from school, committing suicide, not going to college, committing crimes, being incarcerated, requiring welfare or food stamps, contracting sexually transmitted diseases, and being victims of violence. In fact, if you control for fatherlessness, the race disparity in the US prison system all but vanishes.

If we're expecting our children to bail us out of the fiscal and human mess we're creating, we're in for a nasty surprise.

This is a problem of snowballing costs that will only worsen with each generation, as government gets more bloated and top-heavy while simultaneously crippling the ability of future generations to support it. It is a system where we examine the reading scores of 8 year old boys not to determine how to help boys stop falling behind in education, but to determine how many new prisons we need to build. It is a system wherein a man who is laid off and temporarily unable to pay his child support is systematically stripped of his driver's license and professional licenses, thrown in debtors' prison and saddled with a criminal record, rendering him permanently unable to pay it. Where we will metaphorically chop a man's arms off, and then tell him he'd better still shovel for all he's worth or he'll be sorry.

And behind all of this, you will find radical feminist lobbyists pushing for further "reforms" for women to undo millennia of oppression of women that never existed as they believe it did, and regardless of the collateral damage to other members of society. They do this in the name of "liberating" women from the oppression of their historical dependence on men, by constructing enormous government bureaucracies, ever-growing in power and scope, funded disproportionately by men, and upon which women in general have become just as dependent a they ever were on any man. 

All for the purpose of "ending oppression", because, as we all know, no government anywhere has ever oppressed anyone.