Anti-Feminist Page

by

Introduction

Welcome to the Anti-Feminist Page!

“Women’s issues” are so contentious and so difficult to discuss today in a way that takes actual belief and experience into account that it often seems easier to avoid them. Nonetheless, they are basic to the lives of all of us, so open discussion is necessary and we hope this page contributes to that. To begin exploring the issues feminism raises we include a short essay as well as a list of resources. We also have a spoken introduction (requiring RealPlayer).

The issues presented here can be discussed in our forum, and your participation is welcome. You can also email the author, Jim Kalb.

Feminism and Antifeminism

“Feminism” means so many different things that it appears to mean very little. Its theoretical advocates constantly contradict each other and themselves. In casting off feminine reserve and modesty they seem to have learned intellectual shamelessness as well. Rather than damaging feminism, its incoherence offers an easy defense against all criticism: whatever the complaint, the response is that it misses the mark because feminism is really something else.

It appears, however, that nothing can be called feminism that is not radically antitraditional and antinatural. What feminists call “gender”—the system of attitudes, expectations and customs that distinguishes men from women—has always and everywhere been basic to human life. To speak of “deeply rooted social stereotypes” is to speak of the centrality of masculinity and femininity to how we understand the world. Grammatical gender is one sign among many of that centrality. Although the detailed content of sexual distinctions has varied somewhat their general outlines have been stable. The men and women in ancient and non-Western literatures are immediately recognizable to us today as men and women like ourselves. Yang strikes us as masculine, Yin as feminine, just as they did the ancient Chinese.

The practical aspects of gender are no less universal than the symbolic. The ties among a man, a woman, and their children have always been fundamental, and dependent for reliable functioning on a generally settled division of responsibility among the parties and therefore between the sexes. More specifically, all societies have been patriarchal, at least in the very broad meaning of that term now accepted, with men mainly responsible for public concerns and women for domestic matters and the care of small children. Always and everywhere men, while exercising no general right of domination, have predominated in positions of formal authority.

The universality of these differences shows them to be rooted in biology and other permanent conditions of human life. It is hard to think of anything very different that would work, given the difficulty of building something that ignores universal human tendencies, and the need for stable and functional families and therefore role distinctions settled enough to stand up to the stresses and changes of life. A system as complex and subtle as human life cannot be reconfigured in fundamental ways merely at will. Nonetheless, opposition to gender as a principle of social order—to what is called “sexism”—is what unifies the things called “feminism.” Since the opposition is absolute and categorical, feminism is in no way reformist. It treats a fundamental and evidently necessary principle of all human societies, sex-role differentiation, as an oppressive arrangement that must be abolished at whatever cost.

The aim of feminism, therefore, is to create a new kind of human being in a new form of society in which age-old ties among men, women and children are to be dissolved and new ones constituted in accordance with abstract ideological demands. In place of family ties based on what seems natural and customary and supported by upbringing and social expectation, feminism would permit only ties based on contract and idiosyncratic sentiment, with government stepping in when those prove too shaky for serious reliance. There is no reason to suppose the substitution can be made to work, let alone work well, and every reason to expect the contrary. Feminism does not care about reason, however, or even about experience of the effects of weakened family life. It is in fact ideological and radical to the core. There can be no commonsense feminism, because doing what comes naturally gets a feminist nowhere.

The objections to anarchist and communist theory apply with yet more force to feminism, because what the latter seeks to eliminate touches us far more deeply than private property or the state. Like the other two theories, feminism can be presented as a lofty and necessary ideal set up in opposition to a long history of dreadful injustice. After all, things like gender that are implicated in all social life are necessarily implicated in all social injustice. Nonetheless, the practical implementation of feminism, especially by force of law, can only lead to catastrophe. Like anarchism it calls for categorical opposition to distinctions and patterns of authority people find natural, and like communism for ceaseless radical reconstruction of all aspects of life, and consequently for absolute bureaucratic control of everything. Both tendencies are thoroughly destructive, and their mutual opposition does not render them harmless.

The result of the victory of feminism has been a combination of disorder and state tyranny cascading from America throughout the world, from the most immediate personal relationships to high culture and international politics. Feminism has meant suspicion and hostility where mutual reliance is an absolute necessity. It has meant growing deceit, heartlessness and brutality in daily life, resulting in particular suffering for the weak. It has meant confusion and misery for the young, who have been deprived of stable family life and concrete ideals of adulthood. It has meant the destruction of local and popular institutions by ever more powerful and irresponsible state bureaucracies. It has set women free mainly to be low level employees and unattached sexual commodities. It must therefore be opposed as a destructive fanaticism based on a gross and wilful misapprehension of human life.

It is not surprising that feminists, who misconstrue so much, misconstrue the nature of the opposition to them. Since their position requires a comprehensive and minute system of ideological regimentation they assume antifeminists must also be aspiring tyrants. They thus recreate their opponents in their own image.

In fact, to be antifeminist is simply to accept that men and women differ and rely on each other to be different, and to view the differences as among the things constituting human life that should be reflected where appropriate in social attitudes and institutions. By feminist standards all societies have been thoroughly sexist. It follows that to be antifeminist is only to abandon the bigotry of a present-day ideology that sees traditional relations between the sexes as simply a matter of domination and submission, and to accept the validity of the ways in which human beings have actually dealt with sex, children, family life and so on. Antifeminism is thus nothing more than the rejection of one of the narrow and destructive fantasies of an age in which such things have been responsible for destruction and murder on an unprecedented scale. It is opening oneself to the reality of things.

Acceptance of the legitimacy and usefulness of sex roles is an exercise of ordinary good sense. Stable and functional families are necessary for a tolerable way of life, and they will not exist unless men and women each have something specific to offer that the other is entitled to rely on. Further, the natural tendencies of the sexes are different, and life is happier when social institutions somehow reflect natural human tendencies. Nonetheless, what is in itself good sense may be quite radical from the point of view that is conventional in public at a particular time and place. Such is the state of antifeminism today. To reject feminist claims is to put oneself outside what is said to be the mainstream.

The success of feminism has owed a great deal to the astonishing absence of open opposition to it. That absence has had a variety of causes, including masculine cowardice and the difficulty of communication between the sexes. Other causes include the extreme centralization of public life today, the absolute triumph of liberal ideology in our public and intellectual life, and the difficulty that ideology has dealing with issues relating to family life because of its tendency to base all human relations on arm’s-length bargaining or force.

The power of feminism despite its evident irrationality shows the strength and pervasiveness of the institutions, interests and ways of thinking that support it. Its triumph has been part of the triumph of state and market over all other social powers, the culmination of a trend that has been sweeping all before it for centuries and become horrendously destructive. Government and business are now uniformly feminist, ultimately because family life hems them in by establishing a principle of social order not reducible to money and state regulation. The media, the educational system, and even organized scholarship take their lead from government and business and are therefore feminist as well. No significant social authority takes an opposing view. Without exception the articulate and powerful benefit from absorption of the functions of the family by formal public institutions.

Circumstances thus favor feminism, and a restored system of sex roles will not be brought back by fiat. A system of sexual cooperation must be generally acceptable to both men and women, and reflect current conditions as well as human nature. What must be done now is to eliminate arbitrary ideological demands and open up discussion so that considerations fundamental to normal human life but at odds with today’s predominant institutional interests can once again find expression and play their necessary role in public and private life. Extensive discussion and experimentation will be necessary to that end, things now impossible because of feminist laws and censorship. Almost alone, the Internet retains its independence and holds out hope that resistance and free discussion may still be possible.

In the end feminism cannot win because it radically undermines any stable and productive ordering of private life. By disordering reproduction and childrearing and the most basic human connections it puts long-term social survival in question. It has done a great deal of damage, however, and will do much more before it destroys itself. The more explicit, articulate and successful its opponents the more damage can be prevented. Hence this page.

Resources on the Web

Here are resources on the web relating to antifeminism. The collection is not up-to-date, although I do try to get rid of dead links:

General

Science and Sex Differences

  • “What Sex Is Your Brain?” A condensed excerpt from the book Brain Sex, by Anne Moir and David Jessel, on differences in men’s and women’s brains and their consequences.
  • Study of responses of prominent feminists to evidence of sex differences.

Law and Public Policy

Sex and Family Life

Media and Rhetoric

Debunking Myths

Men and Men’s Movement

Dissenting Women

Religious Perspectives

Personal Reflections

Weblogs

They come and go, but a few must be mentioned. Find more from the blogrolls.

Egalitarianism Generally

  • The Anti-Inclusiveness FAQ is a discussion of the notion of “inclusiveness” and its implementation through civil rights legislation. The discussions of “stereotypes” and “discrimination” may be useful.
  • Liberal feminism is based on the notion that one’s body and in particular the sexual nature of one’s body is irrelevant to what one is. Since the liberal view of sexual morality has the same basis the discussion in The Sexual Morality FAQ may be useful.
  • The Conservatism FAQ develops an alternative to the notion, upon which most feminism depends, that it is possible consciously to construct a social order on principles thought rational.

Discussion Groups

Antifeminist and related issues may be discussed on:

Other Resources

Books

103 thoughts on “Anti-Feminist Page”

  4. well researched, good ideas, but

    well researched, good ideas, but very one sided and opinionated, why not let a feminist write a counter argument? That is if you aren’t to scared

    • feminists have already had too much of a say
      FEMINISTS ARE NOT KNOWN FOR THEIR OBJECTIVITY
      THEY ARE SCARED BUT NOT AS MUCH AS THEY WILL BE

      THE MEDIA IS TOTALLY BIASED AGAINST MEN
      THERE IS NO POINT IN DISCUSSING ANYTHING WITH FEMINISTS THEY
      ARE ALL LIARS THEY SHOULD BE IGNORED AND THE FIGHT TO RESTORE DEMOCRACY PURSUED
      Best Wishes Angry Gary
      checkout my bro’s website http://www.angryharry.com

  5. Thanks to Meban and D.

    Thanks to Meban and D. Schattner. As to Andrea, how am I keeping any feminist from writing a counter argument?

  6. I’m really gratified to see

    I’m really gratified to see men beginning to think about these issues. I’ve posted a url for a blog, He Said — She Said, which isn’t mine, but which I read and comment on a lot. It addresses many of the same issues as this, but in the form of dialogues between men and women, or a man and woman.

    All this qualifies as, Not a moment too soon, says I.

  7. You are the scum of

    You are the scum of the Earth. Men have lorded it over women since the dawn of history in every conceivable way and now that the tables are fractionally turned, you whine about your supposed second-class status.

    You are rapist-lovers and mysogynists, who try to disguise your perversions with pseudo-intelligent arguments. I hope you suffer for life and then go to hell. You are lower than paedophiles. I try to stay calm but websites like this make me despise men with all the poison in my heart.

    I shall donate even more money to rape crisis charities and devote even more energy to feminism as a result of your depraved propaganda.

    • Reply to You are the Scum of the Earth
      I’m confused. Who said anything about loving rapists? In what ways have you been oppressed in your life? I’d like you to give one good reason you have for hating men. It’s quite obvious to me that you have no foundation for these extremely hateful feelings and that is why the only defense for your argument is nonsense and name-calling.

      • I don’t know what you’re talking about,
        But I’m a feminist and I don’t hate men. As I’ve said over and over again in this thread…I. Don’t. Hate. Men.

        I have a boyfriend, for crying out loud… and I love him very much.

        I don’t want to re-type out all my rant from the last page so I will just be brief and to the point. I think the fight for equal rights is pretty much won in the U.S.(Yes, in the U.S… in other countries it’s still going on, and I don’t believe that fight should be given up either) The only thing opressing women in the U.S. right now is not really opression but media dehumanization and degradation. We aren’t being oppressed—we’re being insulted, plain and simple.

        I recently heard about a man who lives in New York and is having a hell of a time raising his kids because he has to take a long detour every morning to drive them to school JUST so they don’t have to be exposed to raunchy billboards advertising women like PIECES OF MEAT. You can tell this is a really touchy subject for me, hence my feminism. Well, anyway…I have to go eat dinner with my dad, we are having dinner and a movie for Father’s Day. ^_^ bye

        • Give it a rest
          If that’s you Gina: Give it a rest. Both men and women, teenagers and adults, everybody and almost everything can and will be sexualized, at one time or another, in this country. I’ve seen handsome men on billboards too, they aren’t rare anymore. The U.S. is a sex obsessed country.

          You only like men that you can control and dominate. Your boyfriend may agree with you so much because you tell him to. You are actually afraid of masculine men and it sounds like you have managed to find a weak-willed man that you have emasculated to some degree. That’s what Feminism is all about these days. It started out with some legitimate concerns, but it has been distorted. You just want to exchange places in the dominant and subjugated roles that SOME men forced on women, by making men second-class citizens. I don’t care how many men you find that are your version of wonderful. Wonderful to you means they won’t stand up to you.

          • …
            For the life of me, i don’t know why feminists continue to hold to a ‘self-evidently’ false notion that men & women are equal. Biologically & cerebrally, they are (& always will be) different.

            As a male, i’m all for ‘equal opportunity’ – a level-playing field where ‘merit’ will prove ‘whos right for the job’ (so-to-speak).

            What most feminists STILL hold as one of their major pillars of ideas is that ‘affirmative action’ needs to exhist. The mandatory 50-50 quota system where half of all institutions ‘must’ have half men & half women. Why?

            If men & women are indeed equal (as feminists would have you believe) – then there is no need for affirmative action.

            I see nothing wrong with exceptional females following fields that were once traditionally held be men alone, BUT – for feminism to ‘force’ these ideals down every girl’s throat has only dissillusioned many females that reach their post 30’s & found that feminism has cheated them, somewheat, in presenting a (supposed) utopia that all smoke & mirrors.

            Psychology has repeatedly shown that when little boys & girls are left to their own natures, the boys play the hero & protector – while females play happy familes & nurturer.

            In the last 30 (or-so) years, feminism just ‘wants it all’…. without the responsibility that comes with ‘pretending’ to be men. The minority of women who can sacrifice & accomplish these things should be applauded, but feminism should STOP telling every ‘feminine’ girl that she needs Germain Greer as a role model, or that they are better than men.

            Most women (repeatedly) DONT.WANT.A.SOFT.MAN.
            They want a man to be strong ‘physically’ & ‘mentally’ because when those moments come where her aptitude for these extreme circumstances.
            Men also want a woman who is strong too… that is, FOR A MALE & FEMALE TO KNOW THEIR PLACE.

            Feminists who extend this ‘equality’ notion in real life, have a rude awakening when things prop up that they are not capapble of acheiving as easily as men (physically or mentally.)

            Just 2 Scenarios:

            1:
            Family dog gets hit by a car & is still alive & needs to be put out of its misery so it doesn’t suffer. Who’s going to do it? – the wife?… i don’t think so.

            2:
            I’m sleeping lovingly with my wife in bed & there’s a noise outside in the middle of the night. Who’s going to go outside to check? The wife? – i don’t think so.

            Many feminists will argue, “but the guy is stronger”.
            In that situation, i can give my wife the baseball bat & say “you’ll be just as effective dear. Go & check” – Doesn’t sound right does it.

            Again – my gripe is feminist’s ‘wants’ for ideals – WITHOUT the responsibilities that come with them.

            I shake my head when i hear many females opposed to ‘cooking’ for their man (Not that i mean expecting food to be on the table) – but as a gesture of caring toward her man. His role is as the unspoken protecter of her, so why is she so repulsed to want to cook something for him. After a while, feminists are telling women that they need do NOTHING in a relationship. No wonder many men are finding women bringing NOTHING to the table because not only don’t they have any skills – but the ‘flatout’ refuse to contribute much at all.

            Feminism is making women more & more unappealing – the more women adhere to these unworkable ideals.

            BobbyN

            .

    • REPLY
      awesome…good to hear some feminist voices. men are narrowminded losers who refuse to see things from another point of view.

      • Who are REALLY the narrow minded losers…
        I have read this page with great interest. I cannot help but notice, that the “anti feminists” and their allies post arguements that are logical, cohesive and rely on facts, evidence and reasoned out thought to present their points. Their feminist adversaries cannot seem to write two words without degenerating into degenerating into spiteful, venomous ad-hominem attacks and male bashing. Do the feminists not see how they defeat their own arguments by resorting to the tactics that the anti feminists accuse them of in the first place? Jim Kalb is truely an isle of reason amidst an ocean of hysteria and nonsense. Great site!

  8. I’m going to throw a

    I’m going to throw a new perspective into the game here. As a society I see us degenerating at a rapid pace on all levels. Male/female relationships is but one of many malfunctions that has surfaced and grown over the last 50 years or so. The problem is faulty food. I have been researching this phenominon for the last 30 years or so. All of the scientific disciplines have compartmentalised themselves to the point that none of them exchange ideas outside of their own areas and thus can’t see the big picture. Physical, mental and spiritual wellness are INTERCONNECTED, not seperate. Further, they apply EQUALLY to men and women. When the soils of the Earth become depleted, they deliver food lacking in the basic building blocks of life which leads to physical, mental and spiritual sickness for the animals and people who eat them. We are eating more junk than ever before in history and we are reaping a cruel harvest of human beings whose behavior is becoming more aberrated with each generation. I have been watching it go downhill, brakes out of commission, for 50 years now and it continues to get worse. Men and women bitching at each other and vieing for control is just one of the many symtoms. The game for the 21st century seems to be, “How many nutrients can we remove from the food supply and maintain some semblence of normalcy?” Add to that the toxics we are forced to injest and its a wonder we can still function at all, physically, mentally AND socially. So the FIRST order of business in repair is to take an objective look at how we fuel ourselves. If we are overloaded with soda, coffee lattes, white flour, microwaved guumba and related junk, we lose our cool, interrupt each other in conversation before we get halfway through a sentence and can’t even debate in a rational manner. If you tell me you eat well and I am full of crap, do me a favor. Write down everything that goes into your mouth for a week and send it to me. Also send me the results of a polygraph test affirming that what you wrote down was complete and true and I’ll believe you. By the way, the Food Guide Pyramid is under fierce attack by REAL nutritionists and advocacy groups and will be revised. How soon depends on the food industry lobby and politics. The truth is out there but if we are looking for it on TV, we are screwed. Oh, there are a VERY FEW good programs on but they are usually on PBS and they air from 1:00 AM or later, not exactly prime time. Best regards, brothers AND sisters. R LaRue.

  9. Dear Jim, I forgot to

    Dear Jim, I forgot to mention how much I am enjoying the info on your site. When I am at the computer, the TV is always going. I have to keep abreast of the constant BS that flows from bitch control. It’s getting impossible to see a show that doesn’t show the omnipotent women, dysfunctional men syndrome. My wife and I watched Roma Downey et. al. in “The Survivors Club and laughed ourselves silly! Thanks. Robert.

  10. I am a ‘feminist’ in

    I am a ‘feminist’ in that I am taking care of myself. I don’t really want to get into an argument against you all because I feel everyone has a right to their opinion. However, I get alot of ‘gender bias’ in the work place, which I could do without. How about we try to UNDERSTAND each other, rather than fighting? I wanted to express this: I have no father, and my ‘relatives’ called me a ‘burden’ for lack of his financial support. I tried to support myself so I would not be a burden on ANYONE-relatives, government, a man. If I were a man I would not want a woman mooching off me. I went into a man’s line of work (science) because aptitude tests pointed me this way. I just wanted to work and not be a burden. I do not want to have children (can’t, actually) because I have an ulcer and an unusual blood type. Also, I have no experience with children. So what, exactly is wrong with me taking care of myself? I don’t hate anyone, I don’t hate men…..I see myself as an individualist——-and I don’t hurt anyone, so why I am wrong? Wouldn’t it be worse to have children I do not want and cannot care for? Just because everyone tells me to——I think this is whats truly wrong with the ‘conservative’ agenda-they try to pigeon hole you (women AND men) into a life you are not suited for. Think about the tall guy who was always badgered to join the basketball team…..Its not right or left, liberal or conservative-to me, its knowing yourself and not getting into things that are wrong for you. Is that so bad?

    • You started this war and you will pay
      You have said :

      “How about we try to UNDERSTAND each other, rather than fighting”

      Well, I don’t see it this way because you are takin our life and the only few nice things we have in this world. Your thinking is based over the “conflict Theory” of Marx and we should reply with the same and FIGHT BACK WITH STRENGTH AND HONOR until we have our freedom back.

      we are GLADIATORS

  11. Finally a web site with

    Finally a web site with resources for men and women who realize the damage done by feminism is further and more saturated in society than we are taught to believe. I agree that everyone should have the same oppurtunities in life, but I disagree that men and women are equal. There are important biological and psychological differences that cannot be dissproved by science. As a man, I embrace the differences of women as to be celebrated and complimentary, not equalized as feminists want. It seems more and more like the feminist is fueled by insecurities with being a women, and hatred towards men. Maybe this explains why so many of them are hideously ugly, fat, and homosexual. What man would want to be around a woman that insists life without a man is best?

    • great, how pathetic that men
      great, how pathetic that men have sunk so low as to critcize feminists based on their appearances simply becaus they are forced to realize that these womn are infinitely more intelligent, openminded, and productive than they are.

      • We Pathetic Men
        Yes we men do deserve some pathos considering the degree of scorn we are subjected to 24/7 in the media. For example, how many times have male movie characters been told their fights are caused by testosterone and therefore should be ashamed? This is a direct attack on men, as though testosterone and a male nature were things to be ashamed of. Without testosterone, there would be no human race and no victory in battle.

        Amazing is the number of scornful people, who contribute nothing and waste their time gnashing their teeth.

        Particular facts would be helpful in making the propositions here more understandable and therefore more debatable and, most importantly, more memorable and usable. This would require a drastic reduction in the number of interesting propositions unfortunately, but it might spark a much greater amount of debate, which the moderator could steer back to his point.

        For example, there is the proposition, feminism’s advocates constantly contradict each other and themselves. Some examples would be most interesting. Regular viewers are confident there is a basis for the proposition or it would not be proposed here; but we often can’t think of an example to make the proposition clear and memorable and therefore usable in the future.

        I suppose this is a call for proof or a mathematical derivation, that is, tedious teaching. (I am sorry if I sound like a broken record. I humbly appreciate this site and its improvements.)

        I’ll try to help by investigating propositions and reporting back with examples. I know how to research my field; but I am pretty ignorant about general research and efficient Web-based research, which is all I have time for. Perhaps some viewers have some suggestions. (I am not calling for a response by the excellent moderator, who is extremely busy.) P. Murgos.

        • Mark Richardson’s latest piece addresses feminist contradictions
          Mr. Murgos writes (7-30-04, 12:08 AM, “We Pathetic Men”):

          “For example, there is the proposition, feminism’s advocates constantly contradict each other and themselves. Some examples would be most interesting.”

          At his web-site, “Oz Conservative,” Mark Richardson happens to have a new essay up which does discuss exactly a few of the ways in which (as Mr. Murgos phrases it) “feminism’s advocates […] contradict each other and themselves.” It’s called, “Is Family a Valid Feminist Choice?,” and it’s up presently at the site’s home page (I couldn’t find a permalink). In it, after exploring whether or not “family is a valid feminist choice,” Mr. Richardson concludes, “It’s therefore misleading for Miranda Devine to thank feminism for creating choices for women, including the choice to be a traditional wife and mother. Feminism is always likely to try to close down this choice.” He unmasks a glaring contradiction in feminist claims which most of us have felt and been irritated by, but might not have known how to expose, exactly. ( http://www.ozconservative.com/ ) (Btw, am I the only one who didn’t know—until it suddenly dawned on me a couple of days ago—that “Oz” was a new nickname for Australia? I like it.)

          • Correction: There’s “Conservative Central” and “Oz Conservative”
            Excuse me: Mark Richardson’s overall web-site isn’t called “Oz Conservative,” but “Conservative Central” ( http://www.ozconservative.com/ ). “Oz Conservative” is the name of the site’s excellent companion web-log (up since April), which is linked near the top of the main site’s home page (or click here: http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/ ). Both are well worth regular visits.

  12. ah, another paranoid with low

    ah, another paranoid with low self-esteem who just HAS to be the one on top. and not only that, but everyone like him HAS to be the ones on top. and the others HAVE to be the ones on the bottom. otherwise, things might get too scary.

    hey pal, 3500 bc called, and it wants its ideology back.

    lol i never get tired of that joke.

    too bad you and you’re kind are bleeding from a fatal wound. every day another woman becomes a cop, fighter pilot, doctor, or business owner. and her children, both male and female, are growing up seeing their mother not in a “man’s job” but just in a job.

    it must suck to have so much hatred about something you can’t do anything about.

  14. I prefer to look at

    I prefer to look at people as people rather than as males or females. If someone wants to work and is better at a job than their counterpart, it should not matter what sex they are. It is unfair to categorize all females in a certain role regardless of their individual wants and needs. This argument also fails to recognize that there are some people who don’t want to get married or anything like that.
    Having said that, this practice whereby females blame all of their problems on men/ oppression by males is a bunch of BS.
    Basically, if a woman wants to be different that’s fine, but it’s not fair for females to get special treatment because they were wronged in the past or so they say.
    I wish people would stop categorizing people and giving them certain traits based on other factors. Feminists do this too (the “all men are swine” stuff comes to mind). Imtellectually, I can’t think of a single thing that is common to ALL males exclusively (as a gender) or ALL females. They’re just all human.
    Oh, and I don’t particularly like the family structure. It’s difficult to be raised with such contradiction: in school you are tought that democracy rocks, but at home your parents become bloody tyrans. “This is not a democracy” is a commonly heard phrase about my house, and I never elected to give my parents tat much power. Their abuse of it is humiliating.
    Back on topic, I think that some people (myself included, I admit) see sex and marriage as not their ultimate goal in life, and would thus prefer if restrictions based on these supposedly not-mandatory-for-everyone institutions were not mandatory regardless.
    People should get to choose what they do w/ their life, end of story.

  15. Oops, I made a lot

    Oops, I made a lot of typological (new wrod, heh… I think) errors in that last post…

    I want to get off of this planet!

  16. Very nice page. Anti-feminism certainly

    Very nice page. Anti-feminism certainly seems to be growing and not a moment too soon. The absurdity and intellectual vapidity of feminism can only pretend to be working for so long. I think guys might be catching on, it’s hard to tell. But many more suckers will go through bi-polar feminist hell before they realize that there’s no “there” there.

  17. Thank you for having this

    Thank you for having this list up and available as a resource. I’ve been researching anti-feminism for a conservative group I am a member of, and the information you have provided is extremely well-put-together and helpful.

  18. This is the WORST site

    This is the WORST site known to HUMANkind. Women are to be treated equal to men not lower. For one thing the Bible said the woman was created last in an ASCENDNG creation. Whoever built this site is out of their mind. That’s my opion and I’m proud of it.

  19. Someone wanted a feminist counter-argument?

    Someone wanted a feminist counter-argument? Here it is, word for word!

    • Why don’t you accept it?
      Show me an example of a woman who changed the flow of history by using her brain not by using her sexual attractiveness! Women are only subtle not clever! A famous cotation for you ‘Behind a succesfull man is a woman.’ Never forget BEHIND!!!

  20. Carrying on from Michele’s post,

    Carrying on from Michele’s post, I hope the anti-feminism discourse/movement picks up. As others have expressed, it is long due. I really look forward to seeing something like “Anti-Feminist Issues” in universities curricula!

  21. The most ironic thing about

    The most ironic thing about this page is that Jim Kalb’s various accusers would high-five each other for being so much smarter than him, as proven by calling him a raping, stripper-watching fundamentalist. The closest thing to an attempt at refuting him, by Gina, unintentionally proves how right he is and how radical feminism is.

    She is, apparently, from the anti-porn branch of feminism. There is, of course, a pro-porn branch, illustrating that JK is right about how feminists contradict each other and themselves. Gina treats opposition to men getting their jollies from… well, anything as the essence of feminism; others see pornographic culture as liberating — and it is the result of modernism, not traditional sex roles. She flatters herself that feminists are a serious threat to pornography and strip clubs. The people who actually make their livings from such things know better. The threat to them is the very religious right she accuses Jim Kalb of belonging to.

    But she doesn’t just object to one particular byproduct of modernity.

    “I think it

    • sloppy logic
      What is “totalitarian” about taking issue with the questionable thought of the other? On these terms, your own argument can be deemed “totalitarian”, and my question is, on what grounds do you claim it is not? One does not feel oppressed by sexism consequent to the “mere possiblity of another mind” thinking a thought. This is because oppression is not “merely” a thought. It is a historical and material reality for many people in the world, and not simply women. Anyway—your logic is atroscious. Perhaps if you think through your own terms, you might make a more persuasive argument.

  22. The women are great. I

    The women are great. I love them because without them the life will be sooo boring.
    As I can see from this and other web-sites it seems that you have a bit of a problem out there in the western world. I don’t know how you get to the situation you are now, but I think that it’s not going to be well for you in the future. Gays, lesbians, feminists, travestits and other sick things. You must know that it was you who created the ways upon which those monsters arise and were first tolerated and then they flourished and are now powerful enough to lead and command your society and you in it. I’m very lucky to be rather far away from yours degrading and untolerable societies. There were some iniciatives from the embassy of USA in my country to propagate as they say “the rights of the sexual minorities”, but luckily they don’t succeed to have bigger implications on the public opinion. People in my country are satisfied with the way they live. It is a healthy enviroment and the opinion of the people here is that we don’t need any visible homosexual activities around us. Gays have a right do do whatever they want in the privacy of their homes, but they ought not to disturb or annoy or harrass us with their disfunctional problems.
    Second. I like sleeping with as much women as possible. I’m focusing only on the cutest and sexiest girls to have sex with, and to have conversation of course, because I found myself offended if an ugly girl tries a pass on me. I mean cmon, get real. So you may say that the ugly ones can be good for conversation or be a good friends, but I prefer slim, sexy women with whom I can talk. It is simpy nicer. Of course that we will not give a rat’s ass about the fat and ugly chicks, so they can freely get frustrated and upset and become feminists or lesbians or whatever. Also, another wrong thinking in the western world. That all of the people are the same, that there are no differences. That I should feel the same for every girl, and that feeling should be nothing? I’m not supposed to look at the beautiful girls as sex objects? The ugly ones are jelaous, I know, but they must accept the fact that the nature was ungratiful for them, but there are so many other places and men that can find them interesting and berable. Or if they are extra intelegent, yes why not talking to them from time to time. But, again, don’t tell me not to think about the women in a conotation with sex, because if I’m thinking about sleeping with them what makes the women interesting for me? To make me lunch, to do my laundry, yes of course. But the sex is on the top Once again to say that I never intend to visit or live in America, because that country has no respect for the human rights, it is an ill society, there is something fundamentaly wrong in the roots of that “free democracy”.
    Stay well, let the internet community grow. Internet is a great thing, information can flow around and people can say whenever they feel. It is much harder to implement censorship when you are facing with the free-speech might of the WWW.

  23. Mr. Kalb, I cannot thank

    Mr. Kalb, I cannot thank you enough for building this page. You have no idea how many man hating sites there are out there that spew venemous hatred against anything with a Y chromosome, no matter what their viewpoints on human rights are. This site is a voice of sanity among the growing group of psuedo-intellectual mouth breathers who wander around causing strife and trying to infringe on the rights of anyone who happens to be male in the name of “equality”

    With that said, let me state my opinion: I do NOT respect women cart blanche. I think that viewpoint alone probably makes me one of the fairest people in the world: you see, while feminism may not have any singular definition, it does have one singular goal: the complete nomialization of the male in order to facilitate female dominance. In almost every definition of feminism that I’ve read about, whether it be Socialist, or Liberal, or African American, or Radical, or what have you, it seems like there are two tenets: femininity, which is basically all good, and patriarchy, which is basically all bad. The main differences between all these flavors of feminism is how they wish to deal with the “patriarchy,” and how far they are willing to go. Some feminists want to be seperatists, some want violent revolution, some want to be super liberal. The list goes on, and yes, items in this list do contradict each other. One feminist thinks its perfectly ok to explore her sexuality and use it to her gain, another thinks it’s the root of all evil. One feminist thinks it’s ok for women to work and be the breadwinner, another thinks it’s abuse and oppression. No matter which side you choose, as a man you’re a automatically a chauvinist because there’s no middle ground among these flavors.

    According to feminism, since I am a male, a number of things apply to me:

    1) I am automatically evil, agressive, and intent on dominating the entire female sex whenever and wherever I can.

    2) I simply canot win or beat #1. Regardless of how I feel on the subject, since I am bound to disagree with someone else who is a feminist (and by it’s definition,implied or otherwise, basically good), I am evil and depraved by default.

    2a) If I disagree with any female over anything for any reason, I am automatically afraid of her sexual and intellectual superiority over me, and am merely trying to hold her down to my benefit.

    I could go on, but I’m not going to digress into those points. If you don’t believe me, go look up a couple links on types of feminism on Google or something, and see for yourself.

    That said, let me explain what I find so distasteful about feminism. Feminism is touted by many as the movement for equality between the sexes. Feminists will point out that women have been treated pretty much like sh*t all throughout history, and even now, are treated like second class citizens the world over. To quote one analysis of the status of women in the world today:

    “Women make up half the world’s population but do two-thirds of the work, earn one-tenth of the world’s income and control 1 percent of the world’s property.”

    (Gotten from http://www.kstatecollegian.com I believe Amnesty International did the original study)

    I don’t doubt the validity of those figures for the most part. While I would like to see how they got those figures, for all practical purposes, I won’targue with those figures. Nor will I argue with the fact that women have been shafted throughout history, up to and including now. Pretty much any factual claim a feminist wants to bring up about income and lifestyle, I won’t debate. In short, yes I agree that women have suffered, and are suffering every day.

    HOWEVER, true as these figures may be, feminism provides little explanation or solution to rectify them. Just about every definition of feminism no matter how varied can be summed up by this: “there is a problem with the world, and it is men.” Everything said after that is a flavor trademark. Women trot out the above quote, and then assume that since there are only 2 sexes in the world, and one of them appears to be getting the shaft, it MUST be the other half who is doing the shafting. This is a fallacy of the worst kind, and ad hoc reasoning of the blackest caliber. First of all, it is very dangerous to take a problem, and blame it entirely on one group. Not only do you risk unfairly accusing said group, but while you are focusing on the scapegoat,the real problem is going unsolved. Second, the numbers game cuts mutiple ways (not just two). Take a look at these four pages.

    http://www.stat.fi/isi99/proceedings/arkisto/varasto/poch0306.pdf

    http://www.un.org/events/poverty2000/backpp.htm

    http://www.ined.fr/englishversion/publications/pop_et_soc/pesa368.pdf

    http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp

    You can see all kinds of interesting facts on those pages, such as half the world’s population, male and female, living in poverty. My personal favorite quote was the one on the 4th page which goes “20% of the population in the developed nations, consume 86% of the worlds goods.” Think about that one for a minute: by feminist standards at least 10% of the population are consuming 43% of the worlds goods. What, are men holding guns to their heads and making them buy 4 big macs a day and a 4wd SUV for every house? By the feminist argument, I can accuse American feminists of being the cause of a lot of the worlds problems, since they live in a country where they are few, and yet they consume so much.

    “But what about the original facts I quoted above?” some feminist may ask. They’re not any less true, but I think the above links may help put things into perspective: worldwide pretty much everyone is being shafted, male and female. As for property, it’s actually about the same: here in the US it’s said that 10% of the people own 90% of the capital. I haven’t checked that out thoroughly, but with the fortune 500, Forbes 50 richest men, and etc, I tend to believe it. I don’t think it would be a small jump to assume the same for the rest of the world. No matter though, as it doesn’t strongly affect my argument.

    Who is responsible for all the poverty in the world? The patrichary? Men? What, is there some big man club somewhere that gets together every 7th fullmoon and goes “god we hate women, let’s 90% of us go live in a ditch in Sub Saharan Africa and get AIDS so we can keep womyn down.” If there is I haven’t heard of it nor been offered membership. What, is there some secret dark order somewhere who’s prime directive is to subjugate the female species into oblivion? If so I haven’t recieved any marching orders from them. Let me answer that question in another way: with women being equal to men in all things, are they incapable of greed? Are they incapable of rage? Are they immune to hatred and envy? If you answered No all three times, then you’re one of the ones who recognizes the true problem with this world, and sees where I’m going with this. No women aren’t immune to any of the above, because they’re human, and guess what: it is our own shortcomings that hurt us. Whether male or female, greed is hurtful to those around you, as is hate, as is envy, as are a whole slew of weaknesses that humankind exibits. I have yet to hear anyone say something to the extent of “he was a murderous bastard, but he was a guy, so it was a good thing.” If you want to improve the world, step one is to recognize that you may very well be part of the problem, and that you personally must be the biggest part of the solution. I can respect most civil rights movements because most civil rights movements have evolved to the point where they can recognize the fact that blaming the other guy for every single mailase you may have doesn’t work. No such common sense check exists for feminism. To hear feminists tell it, pretty much every issue a female ever has or will have is because of male influence. If a woman has an overagressive sex drive, it’s because she was corrupted by men. If a woman is unable to orgasm,it’s because she was shamed and repressed by men.If a woman is violent and agressive,it’s because she was pushed into it by men. If a woman is too meek and quiet,it’s because of dominating men. Once again, the no win situation rears it’s ugly head;if a woman has a problem and she’s a feminist, the generic solution is to point her finger at the nearest man in the vicinity and blame him. In doing so, feminists themselves undercut women’s worth: since everything a male does will have an adverse influence on them, she is effectively reduced to nothing but a fleshy bag of hate. Women are never responsible for any adversity in their lives, but as such, they can never be first causes either.

    Once again, I find that assumption to be bulls*it and false. Women are perfectly capable of making their own decisions and initiating scenarios, good and bad. Feminists love to talk about boys pulling girls pigtails at elementary school, but you will never hear them talk about how girls form cliques and do everything from emotionally assassinate boys’ characters to goading and “convincing” playmates into assaulting specific boys for GP. You never hear of this from feminists:once again all males bad,all females doubleplusgood.

    If the feminists got their way, and men were just wiped off the face of the earth, assuming reproduction were taken care of, would the world really be a better place? Would greed suddenly disappear, would the desire for power over others suddenly wane? Better yet, would women’s sex drives suddenly disappear, thus reducing sexual competiveness and agression? No, the basic problems that drive conflict in this world wouldn’t disappear. The only difference between a world with men and a world without is that in the latter, the battlefields would be littered with both dead bodies and tampons.

    If feminists want to change the world so badly, they might want to recognize that opression isn’t a man thing it’s a HUMAN thing. If they want to sit around pointing fingers at men for the evils of the world, then in the USA, it’s their right. All I ask is that they first take that 6th bigmac out of their mouth, tuck in that triple chin, and hold off on buying that SUV with 3 gallons to the mile. A little thing I find infinetly more helpful and liberating than feminism (or any other civil rights tenet) is a little thing I like to call The Golden Rule. You know,

    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    That’s why I DON’T respect women carte blanche. Nor do I respect men, jews, gentiles, asians, blacks, whites, or anyone else. I respect PEOPLE carte blanche, until they give me reason to where I can’t. When you respect others as you would yourself, you don’t have to worry about going out of your way to respect X race, creed, color, or sex, because you’re doing it by default. Plus you’re living the meaning of equality: you don’t dog anyone out because of their heritage, but you don’t one up anyone either. That is fairness.

  24. Hi, this is in response

    Hi, this is in response to the posting by Gina dated April 13, 2004 on page 2 of the comments section. Her counter-arguments are so frivolous, irrational and indicative of her emotional and frustrated state of mind, that perhaps the editors of this site don’t think them worthy of being negated (that’s probably correct as most of them negate themselves). However, for the sake of the not-so-discerning reader, it is essential that her fallacious arguments be completely exposed.

    Firstly, “all” of the counter-arguments of Gina suffer from one or more of these fallacies:
     They misconstrue sex role differentiation (SRD) as male dominance and female subjugation. Thus in many counter-arguments against SRD, Gina reverts to equal rights for women. SRD doesn’t mean men and women are not equal- it just means they are not identical. If men and women perform the roles that come naturally to them that doesn’t means the man dominates and the wife becomes a slave.
     They partially or completely ignore the argument and throw ridicule and abuses (dickweed, moron, narrow-minded, etc) at the writer- a trait very common in feminists. This is also a glaring indicator of the differences in male and female rationality- where the former is mostly objective and based on reason- the later is mostly subjective and based on emotion.
     They either don’t understood the original argument or deliberately twist them to mean something else.

    Secondly, Gina’s counter-arguments are mostly repetitive in nature as she has divided the single argument of the author on SRD into many parts and given similar counter-arguments to each. This makes her response superfluous and repetitive and extremely irritating to read. If she had chosen to give one single comprehensive counter argument against SRD, that would have sufficed. Perhaps she doesn’t know the meaning of ‘point-by-point’ reply.

    I could go on and give a point-by-point rebuttal to Gina’s article but that would have:
     been repetitive as all of her arguments suffer from the fallacies I have already mentioned
     made this reply too long and boring to read
     If readers go over Gina’s response keeping the above fallacies in mind, they will clearly see the falsity of her arguments
     taken too much of my precious time 🙂

    However, if you people wish, I could post such a response some time in the future. Cheers.

  25. Hi, ice, here’s my response

    Hi, ice, here’s my response to your response.
    You said you didn’t want to waste your time refuting me word for word? Good, because I’d post an argument right back at you. So for starters, here is what I thought of your post.

    Posted by: N_Stanson at April 18, 2004 12:10 AM

    Hi, this is in response to the posting by Gina dated April 13, 2004 on page 2 of the comments section. Her counter-arguments are so frivolous, irrational and indicative of her emotional and frustrated state of mind, that perhaps the editors of this site don

  26. Oh, by the way, ice,

    Oh, by the way, ice, it wasn’t an “article”, it was a flaming. I feel sorry for your girlfriend or wife if you have one, and if you don’t, I hope you never get one. God forbid any woman should have to deal with your domineering mentality.

  27. Hi, Aaron. This in response

    Hi, Aaron. This in response to your post
    on April 17, 2004 01:58 AM.

    The most ironic thing about this page is that Jim Kalb’s various accusers would high-five each other for being so much smarter than him, as proven by calling him a raping, stripper-watching fundamentalist.
    —————————————————————
    Because he IS. And we *are* smarter than him.
    —————————————————————
    The closest thing to an attempt at refuting him, by Gina, unintentionally proves how right he is and how radical feminism is.
    She is, apparently, from the anti-porn branch of feminism. There is, of course, a pro-porn branch, illustrating that JK is right about how feminists contradict each other and themselves.
    ———————————————————————
    because feminists are all 1 person, a single entity, that contradict themselves much like a single person would. You fucking dumbass. Hypocrisy is something that a person holds, not an organization (in this case, the feminist movement). Thats like saying politicians all contradict each other because half are liberal and half are conservative. God, are YOU stupid!

    ————————————————————
    Gina treats opposition to men getting their jollies from… well, anything as the essence of feminism; others see pornographic culture as liberating — and it is the result of modernism, not traditional sex roles. She flatters herself that feminists are a serious threat to pornography and strip clubs.
    ——————————————————————
    Did I say anything of the sort? Moron. You flatter yourself by thinking you are actually making any sort of legitimate point with this pathetic excuse for a counter-argument.
    ——————————————————————-
    The people who actually make their livings from such things know better. The threat to them is the very religious right she accuses Jim Kalb of belonging to.
    ——————————————————————-
    That wasn’t my point, if you were even paying attention, you nit-picking retard. Whatever keeps the mindless, sick strip-club/pornography media machine running (which in my opinion, is the support of dumbasses such as yourself) was not my focus. My point was that it’s wrong. You know what that means? Wrong, you dumbass.
    ——————————————————————
    But she doesn’t just object to one particular byproduct of modernity.
    “I think it

  28. Great site, except for the

    Great site, except for the yappy feminists trying to prove female superiority. But thats not why I’m here.

    What are the two things a perfect woman says?
    1. Dinner’s ready.
    2. I’m ready.

    Enjoy them Gina, I made that one for you.

  29. Takeshi, you’re probabaly some 300

    Takeshi, you’re probabaly some 300 pound loser who plays EverQuest all day and night and couldn’t get a girlfriend if his life depended on it. Go fuck yourself.

  30. I would just like to

    I would just like to add to all the comments that I have been posting here in response to both Jim Kalb’s original statements and those of my fellow commentors. I feel like some things really need to be cleared up about some of the opinions expressed on this webpage. First of all, I hate that this has come to just a bunch of petty insults being flung by each side. I do not hate men. In fact, I have a boyfriend I have been with for 3 years and who I am happily engaged to. This guy truly respects women for who they are—individuals with the same rights and obligations as men. I am not vying for the “superiority” of women idea. I don’t believe that one gender is superior to the other, and my hatred expressed for men was only directed at those specific individuals who have tried to demean women or to portray them as “made for the purposes of men only”. I’m not totalitarian, and I’m not trying to make everyone think the same or have the same values. But I do think that a woman has the right to her own body and her own self-respect just like any person, and worldwide this right is being violated countless times each day. I’m not talking about the United States in particular really, because I consider myself a lucky girl to have been born in a country where basically, women and men have the same legal rights, and we have the right to wear, say and do anything we want, immoral or self-degrading as that might be in a lot of cases. If some woman decides to go work at a strip club, that’s her choice. I would look down upon such a person but not deny that she had the right to do so, even if there really is no excuse in this kind of a country to have to resort to that type of “work”. But there are places such as Afghanistan where a girl can get stoned to death for wearing nail polish, bearing her ankles, or even refusing to have sex with her husband. I think that is horribly wrong and should not be happening, unfortunately whatever moron(s) is/are in power right now in our country are completely ignoring such injustices while gleefully dropping bombs someplace else under the guise of “liberation”. It’s just sickening. But I digress.

    I hate that people stereotype feminists as being man-haters and fat butchy lesbians who are bitter at not being able to snag a man. That is not true for all of us, just like not every white person likes to eat tons of mayonaise. I am 5 foot 6 and 110 pounds. I think I am considered attractive by most guys I know, so I don’t fit you guys’ stereotype of a radical feminist. Still, I stand up for women’s rights to be who they are without having to be oppressed by men with the “cook my dinner, bitch” mentality. If you can’t see how wrong such a mentality is, you’re totally hopeless, but I think most people here do realize that it is very wrong to oppress a woman in such a manner. Oppression isn’t just physical either. I don’t get sexually assaulted 10 times a day, but I do suffer demeaning comments just by virtue of being a woman. My goal as a feminist is to bring this issue to light and hopefully someday such comments will stop being the norm; hopefully other countries will evolve to the level that the united states has, giving women equal rights. Hopefully people come to their senses for once in the history of *human*kind.

  31. This is in response to

    This is in response to Gina’s comments dated May 9, 2004. Sadly, her second attempt at reason and logic is as futile as her first. Anyway, since she boasted of posting an argument right back at me, to you Gina, here is a word-to-word reply (I have enumerated your points for easy reading):

    1. What do you mean that I ‘revert’ to equal rights for women? This is what feminism is all about, this is all we ask for. As we speak, women worldwide are being degraded and dominated over by men.

    Read my response one more time Gina. What is stated there is that many times in your comments, you mistakenly took sex role differentiation (SRD) as male dominance and female subjugation; thus the demand for equal rights. The following excerpt from your comments (dated April 13, page 2) is just one instance where u reverted to equal rights when the argument was about SRD:

    The author wrote: A system as complex and subtle as human life cannot be reconfigured in fundamental ways merely at will.
    Gina’s Counterargument: -What?? It isn’t reconfiguring “human life”, idiot, it’s reconfiguring peoples’ perspective of the role of men and women. In other words, bringing to light the way things should have always been—with men and women being seen as equals.

    See my point: argument was that SRD is imbrued in human life and cannot be removed. Your counterargument assumes SRD to be equivalent to inequality and argues that equality be brought back to family life. Thus you committed fallacy no. 1 stated in my original response: misconstruing SRD as male domination and female subjugation.

    More on this point:
    Who said SRD doesn’t mean equal rights? Infact, in many traditional families (i-e male breadwinner female homemaker) the wife is the dominant one: thus the adage- if man is the head the woman is the neck. For centuries women have been living happily in traditional families and in majority of cases there have been no dominant partner- both have been equals. Its just that the final decision making lies with the husband- so be it: its only logical because:
     He is the person dealing with the outside world. Thus having a more thorough grip on issues relating to that
     There has to be one final authority- otherwise there would be conflict. Think of it as a sports team. There has to be a captain to make the decisions. This doesn’t make the rest of the teammates as subservient and not equal. No, they are all equal; its just that one has been given the final decision making power in return for the additional burden of responsibilities.
     Its not as if the wife has no say in decisions or doesn’t make any decisions. Many decisions, specially those relating to household matters, the final decision making is with her. Its only the issues relating to the outside world where the husband has the final word- and that too after ample consultation. This division of decision making further proves the argument that under SRD, there is equality not identicality.
     Even in families where the man is the dominant figure; its mainly because of the choice of the wife. Many wives take pride in making their husbands look BIG and be the MAN of the house.

    2. And, oh yeah, there isn’t one particular set of roles that a man and a woman immediately fall into once they start a relationship. Otherwise, every couple would be the same. I thought this would occur to you, but I guess not.

    Yes, there is one particular set of roles…. If u believe in biology, history of societies, smooth functioning of families, etc.
    And why would every couple be the same? Surely there are other things to marriage/relationships than division of responsibilities. What about lifestyles, preferences, attitudes, communication patterns, etc that differ from couple to couple. In terms of responsibilities, YES, more and less every couple would be the same. But so they have been for thousands of years. And so is essential for a stable and functioning family.

    3. “Women perform the roles that come naturally??” cooking and cleaning and being raped is not something that any reasonable person would say comes naturaly to a woman. Perhaps being the CEO of a major company comes naturally to a woman, and perhaps cooking and cleaning would come naturally to a man.

    What comes naturally to women is to ‘nurture’. If cooking and cleaning is part of the job, they do it gleefully. And rape! Surely u don’t mean that marital sex is equivalent to rape. If that’s correct: u are an illegitimate child (I assume yr. parents were married).

    Being CEO of a major company comes naturally to a woman? Are you out of yr. senses? Being CEO of a major company is one of the most difficult jobs in the world. It doesn’t come naturally to anybody- men or women. It requires years of experience and training.

    Perhaps cooking and cleaning would come naturally to a man? Well, Its been a generation since feminism has destroyed our families: till now cooking and cleaning hasn’t come naturally to men. I wonder how many more generations will it take?

    4. You are sexist for a start and have the mindset that women are put on this earth for that reason. You should wake up and realize we’re no longer in the Victorian Era.

    Again, fallacy #2. Refer to my original comments.

    5. Excuse me, but this is exactly why I hate you anti-feminist men so much. Right here, you assume that all men are rational and reasonable, and that all women are irrational and emotional.

    Please read my comments carefully Gina. Where did I say ‘all’ man are rational and ‘all’ women are irrational. Here is what I said:
    This is also a glaring indicator of the differences in male and female rationality- where the former is “mostly” objective and based on reason- the later is “mostly” subjective and based on emotion.
    And this too in the context of gender issues.

    6. Your kind is exactly the reason that is keeping women down despite civil rights and affirmative action.
    How is my kind keeping woman down? Moreover, where are these ‘downed’ women? Not in America, I guess.

    7. You expect me to be nice and pretty to someone who is obviously trying to bring down feminists, being a feminist myself? Think again.

    Nopes, I don’t expect you to be nice and pretty..its apparent u don’t have the capability. Wt I do expect, and jot just from u but all feminists… is to be dignified and logical.
    If our kind is trying to bring down feminists, than your kind has already brought down our society, our family structure, our children and what not. See how much hatred and despair our kind feels for your kind. Despite this, does our kind use abuse and ridicule as an evasion strategy in response to your kind’s arguments?

    8. Oh yeah, and if you can find some real, legitimate meaning in that anti-feminist essay by that total dickweed, then feel free to let me know what it is.

    Well, yes I did find plenty of real, legitimate meaning in that dickweed’s essay. The following are the major points of the essay (I hope I do justice to it):

    1) There is no single definition of feminism- feminists use this a guard against criticism.
    2) Gender or sex-role-differentiation is:
    a) basic to human life
    b) existed in all societies
    c) rooted in biology
    d) must for smooth functioning of family life
    3) Feminism aims:
    a) to reject SRD
    b) base human relations on contract and idiosyncratic sentiments
    c) bring govt. into family life
    4) Effects of feminism
    a) suspicion and hostility amongst sexes
    b) confusion and misery for young
    c) destruction of family life by state intervention
    d) creation of a society where govt., media, educational & legal systems are all feminist
    5) Definition of Anti-feminist: one who believes that
    a) men and women are different and rely on each other
    b) SRD is essential for stable and functional families
    6) Reasons of success of feminism: Lack of open opposition because of
    a) masculine cowardice
    b) lack of communication between sexes
    c) strict feminist censorship on media
    7) What to do now:
    a) eliminate arbitrary ideological demands
    b) open up discussions
    c) use Internet as a viable tool

    Hope u and other readers find the above summary useful.

    9. Perhaps *you* don’t know the meaning of point-by-point reply. I can only GIVE a point-by-point reply if that guy’s essay actually had several points, but it didn’t. *he* repeated himself over and over in the essay, but with different wording arrangements. It was getting really tedious, but SOMEONE had to post a reply to that utterly worthless crap.

    That guy’s essay did have several points, as proved by my previous answer. He didn’t repeat himself; he was simply elaborating on the different aspects on the issue of SRD. Its ‘you’ who repeated yourself over and over by committing fallacy # 1.

    10. If you found my response boring to read, idiot, why did you even bother reading it?

    Again, read my earlier comments carefully. I quote from there:

    “Hi, this is in response to the posting by Gina dated April 13, 2004 on page 2 of the comments section. Her counter-arguments are so frivolous, irrational and indicative of her emotional and frustrated state of mind, that perhaps the editors of this site don’t think them worthy of being negated (that’s probably correct as most of them negate themselves). However, for the sake of the not-so-discerning reader, it is essential that her fallacious arguments be completely exposed.”

    Got yr answer?

    11. You already wasted your “precious” time by even posting your argument, because I just bashed it. Thank you very much.

    Let the readers decides who bashed who.

    12. Oh, by the way, ice, it wasn’t an “article”, it was a flaming. I feel sorry for your girlfriend or wife if you have one, and if you don’t, I hope you never get one. God forbid any woman should have to deal with your domineering mentality.

    Maybe, to people with your mindset, it was a flaming; to others an article.

    You feel sorry for my girlfriend…well she feels more sorry for you!! Specially after posting of these comments.:)

    Why do you assume I have a domineering mentality. Throughout my comments, I have talked about equality between sexes. Believing in SRD doesn’t make one domineering.

    —————————————————————————————————————————————————-
    Well, this was a “word-to-word” reply to your comments, Gina. You noticed how I replied to “each and every” of your points- unlike you who chose the arguments for which you think u have the answers and ignored ones which u don’t.

    Moreover, my earlier offer of a word-to-word reply to your original comments on the Editors essay still remains intact, pending on requests by other users.

    Well, my girl friend is saying that’s enough for now. Perhaps she does feel sorry for you 🙂

    P.S. Only reply if you have some concrete, logical arguments this time.

  32. You really are biased, you

    You really are biased, you know. How can you assume that every woman thinks like that? I said nothing about sex-role differentiation. Oh, and did you even bother to read the last post I made? In it I basically stated all my opinions clearly and logically. Maybe you should take the time to read that. You are looking at men and women from a very symbolic point of view instead of just accepting that there is no “breadwinner” and “homemaker” most of the time, just two people helping each other in a mutual, caring relationship. Is there anything wrong with that?

    How dare you assume every woman likes to cook and clean?
    Actually I know many men who like to cook and who are really good at keeping themselves and their rooms tidy. Maybe you’re not inclined to keep tidy, and that’s why you are arguing that ALL men are like yourself.

    5. Excuse me, but this is exactly why I hate you anti-feminist men so much. Right here, you assume that all men are rational and reasonable, and that all women are irrational and emotional.

    Please read my comments carefully Gina. Where did I say

    • This Person is dead wrong (feminazi)
      1- Teach my sons/daughters that it’s not okay for boys to hit girls (later on this will prevent domestic violence)
      2- Teach my kids to be proud of themselves and that boys and girls are the same and one shouldn’t be treated as inferior
      3-Take every step to help make sure that my children grow up with this feminist mentality.

      Response:
      (1) How about it’s not okay for “EITHER” to hit one another, you Twit.
      (2) Boy’s and girl’s are NOT the same, But certainly, neither is inferior.
      (3) With your feminazi mentality? I fear for your Son’s. And Mine.

  33. Well, that’s just what I

    Well, that’s just what I expected. The minute I attempt to actually have a real discussion with my critics, they vanish into thin air. I guess it just proves once and for all that all they really want to do is sling crap and insults to try to discredit feminists because they feel threatened by them.

  34. Gina, I’ve just got to

    Gina, I’ve just got to this website, so forgive me for not knowing you any sooner (“The minute I attempt to actually have a real discussion with my critics, they vanish into thin air.”).

    Let me introduce myself: I am a critic of the posts you have made on this website, having now read all 4 pages of comments.

    I have very simple questions to ask you. Please answer them:-

    1. Do you support equality in the family courts? (i.e. women are as liable as men to pay for child support? Custody default as 50/50 and worked out from there?)

    2. What do you suppose is the number 1 factor in the high divorce rates around the west? (clue: n*-f***t)

    3. What are your views on paternity fraud?

    Just a few to start on.

  35. Hi Andrew, here are my

    Hi Andrew, here are my answers to your questions.

    1. Do you support equality in the family courts? (i.e. women are as liable as men to pay for child support? Custody default as 50/50 and worked out from there?)

    Yes, I do support equality in the family courts, a woman should pay her share for child support if she makes more money or as much money as the man, I think there should be an equal burden on both sides. They are both parents’ children after all.

    2. What do you suppose is the number 1 factor in the high divorce rates around the west?

    I can think of a number of factors, such as the financial independence of women. You see, in earlier decades, women usually had no job besides staying at home and spending their husband’s money (mostly because of job discrimination and the fact that women rarely ever had jobs b/c they weren’t allowed to work at modt of them). So basically lots of them were VERY dissatisfied with their relationships with their husbands, but couldn’t do anything because without their husbands, they’d be helpless. Now, all of that’s changed. Now if I’m sick and tired of my sloppy, cheatin’ husband then I have every ability to drop him like a sack of potatoes and move on with my life. Thank god for civil rights. That’s not the only reason for the high divorce rates though. And in fact, the number 1 reason for such high divorce rates is that people just don’t give enough time to get to know each other enough before they take that headlong plunge into “lifetime commitment”.

    3. What are your views on paternity fraud?

    I think it’s wrong. A man shouldn’t be forced to pay support for children that he did not father. I’m not a closed-minded man-hating person, and when I say I hate people who lie and cheat, that goes for women as well as men.

    Thanks for giving me questions to answer instead of just trying to rip apart my arguments. Hope you reply!

  36. Curiously enough, Carolyn Graglia’s “Domestic

    Curiously enough, Carolyn Graglia’s “Domestic Tranquility” and a number of other books discredit much of what Gina says about the reasons for the high divorce rate.

    That women “rarely ever had jobs” is an absolute joke—tell that to my grandmother and great-grandmother, both of whom had jobs, thank you very much.

    And the women who did stay home did so largely because they wanted to, not because their evil misogynist husbands chained them to the kitchen.

    But that’s all I’m going to say about the subject. I am only 17 but I know enough about the modern feminist movement to have overwhelmingly negative views concerning it, and it’s probably not going to change anytime soon.

  37. Wow talk about missing the

    Wow talk about missing the entire point of an argument for feminism! Well what’s your excuse for being against feminism? And what types of feminism are you against, or are you against all types? anyway yeah I admit I don’t know much about earlier decades but that’s my take on it, hey he asked me a question I had to answer right? if not lack of women’s rights back then, it is pornography that also plays such a major part in today’s divorce and infidelity rates in the u.s.

    • You have to be kidding…
      Quote:
      “..it is pornography that also plays such a major part in today’s divorce and infidelity rates in the u.s.”

      If you wanted to talk of one of the major causes of divorce – it’s feminism. The idea, that an institution (like marriage or any for that matter) – should have (under feminist rhetoric) – NO hierarchy.

      It’s unworkable.
      Its roots (like most feminist ideas) – are based on a ‘fairytale’ utopia that discounts human nature, biology & reason.

      While, we’re at it, women working alongside men in the workforce contribute to divorce rates to a great deal. A survey conducted by a “woman’s” magazine (Top Sante), showed that 28% of working women admitted to having sex with a coworker. It also mentioned that over three-quarters of the women admitted to flirting on the job, which is the equivalent of throwing out a fishing line, as opposed to actually pulling in a fish.

      Feminism is (whether they know it or not, but thats hardly surprising – is it?) – at opposition to a harmonious societial structure.

      Feminism is Ego – interested in the gratification of ‘Me’.
      Feminism is SO concerned with the ‘right’ to self, that it negates reality, like sacrifice, biology & self-evident realities.

      Having separate roles in society, & structuring ‘workable’ ideals in relation to it IS fundamentally in opposition to feminism.

      Feminism is like Communism. ‘Sounds’ nice – but negates reality.

      BobbyN

      .

  38. Oh and by the way

    Oh and by the way where did both your grannies work? Probabaly not a cushy office job thank you very much

  39. Gina, everytime you go off

    Gina, everytime you go off on a shrill rant you bolster the view of feminists(really anti-feminine female supremacists) as hateful, bitter and full of venom at men, and even hating the fact they were born with feminine traits that differentiate them from men. You hate yourselves, and your inborn traits, more than any man could ever hate you.

  40. Hi guyz, Im back. Sorry

    Hi guyz, Im back. Sorry for the delay but have been very busy lately with work. So..where were we…….oh ya….I was just bashing Gina

    • hm?
      I don’t boast. Ice, you are the one boasting about my comments not being worthy to even reply to. Fine, I won’t reply to yours either. Obviously you aren’t interested in sensible, friendly discussion and instead choose to continue mudslinging. That’s fine. I don’t know your real name and probabaly won’t ever hear it and that’s fine also. So for now, goodbye.

  41. When men nervus in

    When men nervus in the feminists world then they ought to stay in their world start a domestic against women they don’t like it they should jump off the tall building or any one of the oceans as their hearts desires stop battering women that’s my comments. P.S. men are soo jelious they probably have nightmares over it Thanks.

  42. On one hand, Josephine, you

    On one hand, Josephine, you say men should stop battering women; that’s true, of course. But, on the other hand you say “men should jump off buildings, or the nearest ocean”, or whatever you typed in your Pidgin English, because they simply disagree with Feminism.

    Your post just goes to show there are as many stupid ‘Feminists’, like yourself, as there are Misogynists, like men who beat women.

  43. Jim, nice page. My

    Jim, nice page. My wife is a regular at a great site called “ladiesagainstfeminism.com” which I did not notice on your page. I will pass your page along to her as I know she will be interested in the articles and links.

  44. Feminists – Awake!
    This should be at the top of page 1 in every newspaper in America! The following set of facts recently popped up in my e-mail; I sent it to a few of the feminist web pages and asked them to comment on it, just to see what they had to say. [Please COPY AND SEND THIS OUT! Send it to anyone who you may think of, that might have some way of getting things straightened out and perhaps, back on track.]
    Sincerely,
    Bruce D. McKay, Elijah
    _______________________

    Feminism  A Note To Feminists, Everywhere

    From: NewsWatch Weekly Newsletter
    Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 11:13 AM
    Subject: NewsWatch Weekly Newsletter message
    Written by: David J. Smith

    June 5, 2004

    Dear Newswatch Magazine Listeners/Readers:

    With an all out assault on the Second Amendment, sometimes we wonder who is behind this assault. This is too large of a subject for a simple article; however, we can look at just one segment of this giant subject  feminism.

    Just about all historians agree that the advent of modern feminism began in 1963 when Betty Friedan published her bestselling book entitled The Feminine Mystique. She claimed her marriage had become “a comfortable concentration camp.” As a result, in 1966 she founded the National Organization for Women (NOW) and became its first president. Friedan said she wanted to break free from the routine of housekeeping and childbearing as an example to other women.

    However, her story was very misleading as to her true motivations. In 1999, Smith College professor Daniel Horowitz published a book called Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique. It gave details of Friedan that only a small circle of hard-core leftists, [as in communists,] (her) friends knew of her. [It revealed that she had never been a normal housewife or normal in anything.]

    When she entered college, her maiden name was Betty Goldstein. [She was already a hard-line Stalinist — communist, very active in the communist movement.] Even though she was Jewish, she supported Stalin’s 1939 nonaggression pact with Hitler. Orders were sent out from Moscow to all Communist Parties of the world to treat Hitler as a friend. Friedan was among the loyal few who obeyed Stalin.

    [Goldstein later married a fellow leftist, Carl Friedan, and devoted the remainder of her life to the cause of Marxist revolution.] She spent her married years as a professional propagandist for the Left (Communists.) Carl Friedan later noted that his wife had the maid do all the housework and was “seldom a wife and mother.”

    Betty Friedan had always been a women’s libber. She held firmly to the Marxist doctrine that women were to be equal to men. [This teaching was a standard feature of the Communist Manifesto written in 1848, but was advocated by Francis Wright in 1829 in a meeting in New York of the Order of the Illuminati which founded and still controls — Communism.]

    Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, writing in the Communist Manifesto, shocked the world by calling for the abolition of marriage. They viewed marriage as an oppressive institution which needed to be destroyed. They wrote: “What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property. It exists in all of its meaning only for the bourgeoisie (middle class) & and will vanish when capitalism vanishes.

    Are you accusing us that we want to END the exploitation by parents of their children? We confess to that crime & The bourgeoisie (middle class men) sees in his wife nothing but an instrument of production (having children).”

    [Marx and Engels argued for free love, in which everyone would have sexual access to everyone else.] This was a rehash of the Order of the Illuminati’s plan divulged in 1829 in New York by Francis Wright of England. The program was free love, emancipation of women from the home, equal rights and equal opportunity. Little do people today realize they are falling for the Communist plan to destroy the family unit! What does this have to do with the Second Amendment RIGHT to keep and bear arms? We’ll see!

    [A deep hatred toward marriage and family was instilled in every Marxist mind.] During the 1920s, it was frowned upon among communists to have any children. After all, family respon- sibilities might dampen one’s revolutionary zeal. Therefore, the good communist
    did not want to be viewed as “reactionary” by having children. As the years raced by with no American revolution, many communist became frustrated with the situation and began to have families.

    David Horowitz wrote in his autobiography, Radical Son, that his parents were part of that generation. Horowitz recalled his parents always being on guard against something they referred to as [”male chauvinism”] in the 1940s. [This was a communist buzz phrase that has now entered the mainstream as most communist doctrine has, without the people knowing from where it came.] Horowitz was taught to view men as oppressors and women as victims.

    So called progressive ideas about the family and having children caused havoc with marriages of these communists. Men and women became at odds with each other because the man was the oppressor and the wife the victim. It caused resentment by women when their husbands showed no emotions to them in childbearing. The same sort of “progressive” ideas underlay Betty Friedan’s 1963 bestseller The Feminine Mystique. The genie of “progressive” thought was now unleashed to work its black magic upon mainstream America.

    Many women who have fallen for this “progressive” lie are having rude awakenings. Freelance writer, Kay Eberling, made enemies with many left-wingers when she wrote an article entitled “The Failure of Feminism” that appeared in the November 19, 1990, issue of Newsweek. She wrote: “To me, feminism has backfired against women. In 1973 I left what could have been a perfectly good marriage, taking with me a child in diapers, a 10-year-old Plymouth and Volume I, Number One of Ms. Magazine. I was convinced I could make it on my own. In the last 15 years my ex has married or lived with a succession of women. As he gets older, his women stay in their 20s. Meanwhile, I’ve stayed unattached. He drives a BMW. I ride busses.”

    Eberling had accepted the feminist teaching that men were disposable, easily replaceable, and perhaps not even necessary at all. But in practice, it turned out to be women who were left out in the cold once men were released from the traditional obligation to protect and provide for them.

    For nearly all women, feminism proved to be a disaster. But for the left-wing communist ideologues who invented the movement, [their suffering is irrelevant.] The communists have a saying  [”WORSE IS BETTER.” The more depressed, alienated, and unhappy people feel, the more susceptible they are for recruitment into the revolutionary cause.] For that reason, many leftists-communists deliberately promote policies that they KNOW will cause misery, suffering, and chaos.

    David Horowitz gives an example in his book Radical Son. He recalled a discussion with `60s activist Tom Hayden (who married “Hanoi” Jane Fonda), in which the Chicago Seven conspirator revealed his true motive for inciting riots during the 1968 Democratic Convention. [Hayden said: “If people’s heads got cracked by police & it `radicalized them.’ The TRICK was to maneuver the idealistic and unsuspecting into situations that would achieve the result.”]

    [In short, the Chicago Seven deliberately lured their followers into situations where they could be hurt or killed. The bloodier things got, the better for the cause.] This is exactly what Dr. Martin Luther King did after being trained by communists at Mount Eagle, Tennessee.

    A conference was held on April 7, 2000, entitled “The Legacy and Future of Hillary Rodham Clinton.” It was held at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. Betty Friedan was one of the panelists. She said “Modern feminism has transformed our society for the better.” She said women had equal degrees with men, equal pay on most levels except midlevel management. She said equality broke down at the top ranks. Why was that? She said the gap widened beginning with childbearing years and could not be made up. What could now be holding women back was motherhood. [Her solution was to create a vast state-controlled and managed day care system. Babies of six weeks and up could be left while their mothers worked. This is what is done in EVERY communist country. She said this is the next step.]

    During the question and answer session, a woman made the following statement (paraphrased). [Since this great women’s movement to change the face of America started, we have witnessed for 30 years the total deterioration of the American family and the absolute ruination of the American child. Friedan made her point that the skyrocketing divorce rate and the rise in single-parent families were not bad things at all. They represented more choices for women, which was a major step in the right direction (acording to communists).]

    Any child of divorced or separated parents can tell you that the dissolution of a family is a heartbreaking tragedy. But for the radical Left-communists, their power grows as the family declines. Marx and Engels said the building block of the “bourgeoisie” (middle class that had to be destroyed) was the family. [Wherever communist regimes have taken power, middle-class people have been systematically exterminated by the millions. The middle-class is the strength of a nation, the stabilizing force.]

    LEFT-WING communist strategists have long understood that the “bourgeoisie” (middle) classes oppose them. Therefore, the DISARMING of the “bourgeoisie” has been a longstanding project of the Left  thus gun control legislation that violates the Second Amendment Right to bear arms. This goal was clearly expressed by the socialist writer H. G. Wells in the 1930s. Wells believed that mankind was moving inexorably toward a global, socialist government
    that he called [the “NEW WORLD ORDER.”]

    To ensure the success of global socialism, Wells advised that all potential pockets of resistance be disarmed. DIVIDE AND CONQUER is a time-honored tactic of the communist-Left. In a stable society it doesn’t work, so there must be a breakdown of values. Enter Betty Friedan. In a society where men and women are locked in ideological combat, the system breaks down. Energies are consumed in power struggles, infidelities, divorce, and child-custody battles and
    finally in managing the parade of lovers, therapists, and angry bill-collectors who enter one’s life after divorce.

    This is bad news for the families involved but good news for the communist Left. Remember, “worse is better” when seeking revolutionary change. Frightened, lonely, aging divorcees, or soccer moms who fear divorce, since they see it happening all around them, make far better recruits for the communist Left than women who are in happy, stable, loving families. The communist said long ago they would use women without their knowledge to ensure their successful programs.

    Mike A. Miles of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice at the University of California, Santa Cruz, reported that school shootings by white children can be traced back to 1974. However, ten times the number can be found among minorities such as blacks and Hispanics,
    but the news media has been told not to report these routine killings. WHY? It is the “bourgeoisie” (middle class of whites) that needs to be disarmed.

    Because of the feminist movement, our boys are growing up without a masculine father figure. There is a masculinity crisis in America that is preparing our younger generation to conform to a belief they are inferior to women. Every nation where this has occurred lost the art of self-defense for themselves and their nation. The nation was disarmed and subjugated. Thanks Betty!

    [Written by: David J. Smith]
    __________________

    P. S. Now, after reading this evaluation of modern society by David J. Smith, go back and read the first few lines, one more time. What word, or what phrase would you now use to define . . . feminism? What would you say feminism actually is? What does feminism mean in any of the other languages of this modern world?

  45. Yet another book debunking feminist myths…
    I would like to direct Mr. Kalb to a new and very interesting book by Dr. Steven Rhoads called Taking Sex Differences Seriously. Using a wealth of evidence, Dr. Rhoads proves that differences between the sexes are rooted (or “hard wired,” as he puts it) in biology. The website for the book is:

    http://faculty.virginia.edu/sexdifferences/

    It is ironic that books are now being written that reveal truths that would have been as clear as day to the vast majority of Americans only a few generations ago.

  46. Great Site
    Dear Jim,
    Thank you so much for making this site. I truly hope that other men out there will wake up. I really want to recommend the book “Spreading Misandry: Teaching contempt for men in popular culture.” This book was recommended by Orson Scott Card and is the first in a three part series exposing misandry in hollywood films. I use ‘exposing’ but really what the book does is wake the reader up to the implications of the already very exposed messages.
    “The feminist Gospel” is a free online book which covers the history of feminism, very good on showing how their doctrine twists things. http://www.cbmw.org/resources/books/feministgospel.pdf
    To all my brothers out there who love women but hate feminism, I want you to know that I feel you and will do my part in helping expose the lies.
    I love you all, brothers and sisters.

      • No, it’s no joke, Mysterious Stranger. I wish it were!
        “This is a joke, right? You must be joking!”—Mysterious Stranger

        It’s no joke, Mysterious Stranger. And unfortunately for your side, neither is this:

        “1 Blessed is the man who went not in the council of wicked men, and stood not in the way of sinners, and sat not in the chair of pestilence.
        “2 But his will is in the law of the Lord; and he shall bethink on the law of him day and night.
        “3 And he shall be as a tree, which is planted beside the runnings of waters; which tree shall give its fruit in its time. And its leaf shall not fall down; and all things which ever he shall do shall have prosperity.
        “4 Not so wicked men, not so; but they are as dust, which the wind casteth away from the face of the earth.
        “5 Therefore wicked men rise not again at the Judgement; neither sinners in the council of just men.
        “6 For the Lord knoweth the way of just men; and the way of wicked men shall perish.”

        — Psalm 1, Book of Psalms (Wycliffe) ( http://sbible.boom.ru/wyc/psa1.htm )

  48. Interesting Views
    On your website you repeatedly say that feminism is unnatural, and that it will be the undoing of our society. However, your evidence is quite slim. You sight the problems in today’s world, which are, in perspective, quite like any other time, with more technology and more effective legal systems to expose crime. Not to mention more people in higher densities than, oh, say 200 years ago. Your only other defense is that “it’s normal”. For many centuries it was ‘normal’ for people to believe illnesses were caused by evil spirits and sorcery. We now know better. A little over a hundred years ago Africans were slaves, or at the very least obviously ‘below’ Caucasians. We’ve altered our views. It’s time to join the 21st century. Women ARE equal(though no one would balk to admit, different from men) get used to it.

    • A little over a hundred years
      A little over a hundred years ago Africans were slaves, or at the very least obviously ‘below’ Caucasians. We’ve altered our views. It’s time to join the 21st century.

      Speak for yourself. The black and white races are different due to their different evolutionary histories. People centuries ago didn’t believe in evolution. We’ve altered our views. It’s time for you to join the 21st century, and come to a better understanding of genetic differences.

      Women ARE equal(though no one would balk to admit, different from men) get used to it.

      I’m quite used to it. Yes, women are equal in a moral and ethical way. But that fact doesn’t negate the libertarian right to free association; just because you’re equal doesn’t mean my freedom should not be legally protected. We will leave the philosophical triumphs to you; leave the laws and constitutions to us.

  50. They should be dead
    F hate men so bad that men should kill them all and we should not allow them to share this life with us as long as they hate us and assume that we are evil. Well, if they think that, then let’s be so.

  51. No it is not a damn jock
    We will have our right back and women would stop giving this world stupid ideas and let us lead it with rationality and logical mind.

  52. headcovering for women
    Should women wear head coverings during church gatherings or at other times?

    Thirty to forty years ago in the United States, it was considered respectful for women to wear head coverings in church and disrespectful for men to wear them during church (even though men almost always wore hats then). Nowadays, women rarely wear hats or head coverings of any type during church, although it is still considered disrespectful for men to wear a hat in church or while praying. Were those customs of the past mere cultural preferences of the U.S. at that time, or was there originally a more compelling reason to follow them?

    In fact, there is a biblical basis for women wearing head coverings (hats, scarves, etc.) during church gatherings (or while praying or prophecying), and for men not wearing head coverings (hats, scarves, etc.) during church gatherings (or while praying or prophecying). In I Corinthians 11:2-16, Paul commends the Corinthians for one of the few things they were doing right- they were carrying out his instructions regarding head covering while praying or prophecying. Paul goes on to explain to them WHY women should (and men should not) have their head covered while praying or prophecying. Apparently the Corinthians were simply carrying out Paul’s directions without a complete understanding of why they were to do it (vs. 2, first part of vs. 3).

    Head covering is not a cultural practice applicable only in certain times or places. Paul says that the reasons for head covering were rooted in the way God created man and woman. The head covering is a sign of the place of subjection that not only the woman has, but also all mankind (vs. 3-4, 7-10).

    Similarly, the woman’s long hair is given as a sign of subjection, as naturally, women typically have longer hair and men typically have shorter hair. The head covering Paul speaks of, however, is not the woman’s long hair, but rather another covering that the woman puts on her head. If a woman does not wear the head covering while praying or prophecying, she might as well shave her head also. It is not appropriate for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered (vs. 5-6, 13-15).

    If Christ, the Lord of the universe, himself became subject, cannot a woman take the place of subjection given to her by God (vs. 3)?

    It is important to keep in mind that no cultural situations at Corinth came into play in Paul’s directions to the Corinthians in this direction. The reasons for the head covering are given in the chapter, and they are rooted in the creation of God, not in any social circumstance of that time and place. The head covering is to be done whenever a woman is praying or prophecying. This would include times when the assembly is gathered (as well as other times that she prays or prophecies privately), since the whole company is praying, and therefore it is appropriate for the women to have their heads covered. The assembly is a place where women should exhibit their place of subjection in not speaking as well as in having their heads covered.

  53. See them spit fire when confronted with evidence
    Very good site. I especially liked the link to feminist refutations of scientific evidence of difference between the sexes. Feminists are the most damaging human virus going around these days- I have studied feminism, been taught its inner workings at college, and would you like to know what one of their objections to liberalism is? It favours REASON (a male norm) over EMOTION (a female norm) in discourse. HAHAHA! Imagine that! In the enlightened age, tears running down a cheek are preferable to epiphanies. Good luck with your hategroup ladies, it had a good run, but we’re fighting back now- feminism is going the same way as the KKK, where it belongs.

  54. euro liberals want to bear more children!
    Churches Encourage Couples to Have Children
    Synod Worried About Low Birth Rate – Germany Lags Behind USA

    Magdeburg (idea) – The main line Protestant Churches in Germany are encouraging couples to have children. During its recent meeting in Magdeburg the general synod, representing 26 million church members, made a public appeal for an environment more conducive to children.

    Germany has one of the lowest birth rates in the world. On average, every woman of childbearing age has 1.3 children. In this respect Germany is lagging far behind other industrial nations like the United States, Sweden and France with a rate of 1.9. A birth rate of around 2 would be necessary to maintain the current German population of 82 million. As it is, the country is facing a severe demographic crisis with declining birth rates and a continuously aging population. If this trend continues it will jeopardize the complete social system, as more retired people will have to be supported by an ever-decreasing work force. The churches are subject to a similar decline. The synod deplored that Germany has become a country with a child deficiency, although many young couples want to have children. They find it difficult to combine children with their professional or academic career. Children, the church Parliament emphasized, should neither be a poverty risk nor a career risk. In France, for example, “working mothers” were the norm. Men and women ought to have the freedom to organize their families according to their own choice. Employers – including the churches – should offer more flexible jobs, provide crèches and kindergartens and create more part-time positions. The synod also refers to the Bible, which contains “visions of hope” for the generations. Not only do the Scriptures regard a long life as a blessing, but also children. Some of the 120 church delegates criticized that the declaration makes no mention of abortion. It is estimated that approximately 260,000 unborn babies are killed in Germany every year.

    Author: Evangelische Nachrichtenagentur idea

  56. Men, Men, Men,
    really need to grow up. I know humans have a hard time adjusting to change but this is actually really funny. Chances are most of the men(sorry, boys) in here are just commenting because they’re sore about girlfriends or wives that they just can’t get along with. Maybe we should look at why feminism was started. Did you ever think that it was because men are no longer pleasing to us? I think there is your answer. We no longer need men. You are just there for our sexual pleasure and to get kids. Women should be put on the throne because we take care of the children, we go through childbirth, we go through a week of hell every month and we have to listen to your whining about feminists. Hmm wonder why we rebelled. Men should be taking the woman’s name because men no longer matter in a marriage. And no, we are not destroying families. My children are probably going to lead a fuller life because of my family situation. They are much smarter because I took care of them(actually one of them is getting their doctorate in computer science…a girl i might add), I was the bread winner while the husband sat around in the house thinking about things to whine at women about. My recommendation to men is to finally suck it up and move on with life. Face it, women are the future and you’re eventually going to suffer some more so get used to it. Amen sisters out there responding and keep on the fight against chauvenist men! P.S. I am also a devout christian that doesn’t listen to bible versus that were from the mouths of the men and reflect the social standards of the time. AFter all, we have the Catholics to thank for destroying half the bible so we couldn’t see what the women had to say about this.

    • There, there, Melissa — it’ll be all right.
      Melissa, poor dear, apart from having married a wet-noodle instead of a real man, what else are you so frustrated about?

      Perhaps we can help in some way?

      Tell us all about it, dear …
      ________________________

      “If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

      • YOU must be a wet noodle your
        YOU must be a wet noodle yourself since you can’t seem to keep women in their place. If you were the man you should be, then women wouldn’t find it necessary to rebel. Think on that.

        • I agree
          with Melissa that men are the cause of our rebellion. After all, if men were out there doing their jobs, we would have no reason to complain. If men would 1) do their jobs as a male and 2) let us do in our life what we want to do(just as you get that choice) then there would be no reason for a feminist movement. But here are these men in this forum just griping about it instead of doing something about it. I feel awful for their wives. I bet they aren’t even allowed to talk. Instead of replying to this because you are upset your ego is hurt, go out and do something about it! Treat us like we deserve for once and maybe you will get your wish. Until then, you can curl up and die for all I care.

          • Sherri can you be more specific?
            Can you explain in what ways, exactly, you want men to treat women differently? Your comment seemed a little vague.
            ________________________

            “If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

          • I see a lot of cry baby men i
            I see a lot of cry baby men in this forum that are having a difficult time handling the fact that women are just as good as them. It’s sad to see men who cannot handle that as years go by, social standards do change. I suggest that if you can’t handle the American way of changing with the times that you go live in India or the middle east where you can get away with treating women like crap.

            Maybe Sherri will answer this in her own way but let me give my opinion on the matter. All we want is an equal opportunity to live out our career dreams without interferrence with men’s prejudice against women working. Obviously we are smarter than men because there are more women in colleges now and most of them are better succeeding. If you think I’m just making this up, then go research it or whatever because I spent many years looking into these types of statistics and social changes. If we end up in a job that we can do as equally good as a man, then we deserve to be paid the same. I could care less if women don’t want to have a mind and live with men like you. That is her decision. But you need to respect women like me who just want to live life to the fullest. I was unhappy as a domesticated woman. I went through depression so heavily that I almost committed suicide. I am the happiest I have ever been now that I am a successfull business woman. To get to my point, you are shortchanging women like me who aren’t happy in that kind of situation. I would respect you if you wanted to be a house ‘man’ or whatever you would be called. Each man/woman for themselves is my motto in life and there is no reason that you shouldn’t respect my wishes to live the way I want. My lifestyle would never affect you. Deal with the woman in your life and stop trying to push your beliefs off on the rest of us. If you aren’t comprehending this example, then the only other way I can describe this is that if you were a buddhist trying to enforce your way of life on a christian, how respectful would that be? Do you really think that if that christian is so hard core in their beliefs, that they would be happy conforming just to make you happy? What happened to their happiness? Do you really think it is better to make that person unhappy just to keep your ego inflated? I’m glad that men really think this is the way to their own happiness—by making women miserable. This really shows what a husband should be. Wow I am glad I got away from my husband while I had a chance before he drove me to my grave. Thank you for confirming my feelings about that. Not every woman is happy being ‘domesticated’.

            If you want a return to traditional values then I suggest you go out and help young men stop being so lazy and actually make it through college. I also suggest you turn over your modern clothes and start wearing the old shag robes that they wore back in Jesus’ day because you are obviously still living in that time. I also suggest that you need to treat a woman with respect and that means letting her do what makes her happy. Do you honestly think men would take up nursing, teaching, secretarial jobs, factory jobs, day care, and other female dominated fields just to get the women back home? I don’t think so. Think about your anti-feminist logic before you start beating or raping your wife next time. Think about the fact that other human beings deserve happiness besides you.

          • Cry Babies
            I hope our female contributor does not leave us because of a false perception. Most of us like intelligent, strong women. Heck, how much you want to bet the people that contribute have mothers that fit the bill? Of course men are spoiled by their mothers. Nothing new there. Yes we want women to treat us equal to their children, which is goofy but true. So don’t come down too hard on us when we say insensitive things; that is what spoiled people do.

            Most intelligent men and I welcome an equally intelligent or a smarter woman. The problem it seems comes in when men and women change after marriage. The infatuation is gone. So it seems the answer is not competition between men and women but role-playing and commitment to a heavenly goal, which dissolves competition. Separation might even be needed in certain cases, but divorce just seems wrong. Longer courtships, among adults, might help some.

          • Tisk Tisk, you keep proving t
            Tisk Tisk, you keep proving the point that the conservative christians are trying to force their religion on others. If Ron believes in abortion as part of his faith(which I do not assume this, you do) then how is he wrong? How are you right? Since when did God tell you that everything you believe in is right? How do we know that Jews aren’t the right ones in this world? If you take a look at communism, the leaders saw the flaws in what they believed, so they had to take the upper hand. Whether or not they were right, they h ad to keep that ego inflated. You as a so-called christian are doing the same thing. You are afraid to lose the upper hand so therefore you try to force your beliefs on everyone else and you won’t be happy until that happens. You still haven’t responded to this. Maybe we have struck a chord with you and you don’t know how to respond to the truth. Oh Wait, you must be right about everything because you play God. Ok God, tell us how you got the torch handed to you? Tell me why it is your job to force your religion on everybody else in this country. I thought christians were to respect the beliefs and rights of others no matter how wrong you believe them to be? As a christian, you can only try to inform us what you think is right and wrong. As a christian, it is not your job to ‘force’ it on others. Where does God say in the bible to ‘force’ chrisitianity upon others? I would like to hear you quote that biblical verse oh Holy One. I think that since you claim to have christian morals and beliefs that you need to actually open that dust covered bible and stop reading the selected passages that just so happen to benefit you. If you had actually read the bible, you would understand what I mean when God says respect others for their beliefs.

          • Why shun religion when it alone gives us answers we need?
            Myst. Str. (12/10, 8:35pm), what you don’t understand is where the normalness that, perhaps without knowing it, you depend on comes from. It doesn’t come from things like “homosexual marriage,” unrestricted abortion, or everybody just doing whatever the hell they damn please at every turn. There are important things, dealing wherewith is called “religion.” Calling it that name doesn’t make it unimportant or somehow disqualify it. These things needed addressing and religion addressed them first. That’s all that happened. They still need addressing and religion is what’s been most successful at giving us the wherewithal to address them. Just because the answers you need in order to turn away from nothingness are called “religion,” you’ll turn toward nothingness?
            ________________________

            “If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

          • Just for the record(before yo
            Just for the record(before you accuse me also), I find you too unintelligent in your ideas to even consider registering. Why would I want to be associated with uneducated middle class ignorant citizens? I find it increasingly interesting that once a person attends a university, they tend to have increasingly liberal views. This is something to ponder. If education is opening one’s mind to new ideas, then why should we let uneducated people vote? I’m sorry, because I know you fit this bill. Copying and pasting from other anti-feminist websites does not cut it. I know you are doing this so don’t even bother trying to come up with an excuse(i’m the author). I work for a network of feminists that research a multitude of websites run by men that have the goal of destroying feminism. I have noticed that even the seemingly bland comments have spurred outrage from the opposing men in this forum. I really think this website should be a waste of your time because you are going nowhere with it. Maybe instead of sitting on the internet all the time you should be out there correcting these so-called atrocities to men by feminists.

            There is something called separation of church and state in this country. I know that you ignore it because of your extremist christian beliefs. No, this country was not founded or started by christianity. If you look at the founding fathers, there was only one that was a full christian. George Washington wrote many pamphlets and letters regarding the separation of church and state. Before you criticize me, I suggest you go read it. Benjamin Franklin was a womanizer and refused communion at the church services that he actually attended. I’m not going to even go into those who owned slaves and raped them on a daily basis. To summarize my point in general terms so you can understand, take your f*ing religion and shove it. When religion enters politics there will be problems. If you had been actually educated and looked at the history of countries run by religion, you would have known this. I’m sorry that your male ego is too large to comprehend what actually happened versus what you have decided happened. I am a working woman with three children. I have a wonderful husband who primarily takes care of them. My eldest was just accepted to harvard law without a bachelor’s degree. She had a perfect SAT score. My husband has been the one raising them, not me. I had an abortion because it was medically needed. If I didn’t, then I would probably be dead. I’m sorry that you wish me dead. I’m sorry that you value a fetus over my life which was saved. If I needed this procedure now, my GN told me that I would not have lived because they can’t legally save my life over that of a fetus. They would have let me die. I hope to God that you have daughters that get in this situation and die. I hope that they blame you for forcing a law into effect that gives no medical necessity clause. Thank you.

          • Are men writing posts ostensibly by women in this thread?
            In the middle of preparing a detailed reply to Gina (12/11, 2:26pm) it dawned on me that Ron was likely the author of “I see a lot of cry baby men” by M.S. (12/8, 10:55pm) (a post which pretended to be by a woman and that was how I took it in replying to it) and “Tisk Tisk you keep proving” by M.S. (12/10, 8:35pm) (which pretended to be not by Ron). I don’t think Gina’s post was by Ron (and Melissa’s definitely wasn’t) but I’m not so sure Gina’s was by a woman. I don’t know what’s going on here, whether men are writing comments ostensibly by women, or perhaps women are getting husbands or boyfriends to write big parts of their comments for them, or write drafts for them using ideas they themselves supply, but until it’s clear, I’m not replying to any more of these suspicious comments. I oppose the misrepresenting of their sex by forum participants in most kinds of discussions, since for most of these discussions subtle but important information is communicated by what the commenter’s sex is, information usually having quite a bit of relevance to the overall discussion, so that where the commenter misleads as to his sex important falsehoods are implicitly and/or explicitly expressed. (Melissa’s post which started this thread appears to have been written by a woman.)
            ________________________

            “If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

          • For my part, I am a woman and
            For my part, I am a woman and I am insulted that you think I am so low as to have a boy write my opinion for me. You continually show chauvenism and disrespect towards females.

            Of course I could also be some transsexual, being neither male nor female. You never know on the internet. Unless you are some kind of psychic then you will never know the real person behind these posts, so go ahead and post away little boy.

            P.S. I haven’t been on this site since I posted last so sorry for not responding to your ‘reply’s because I do not have the time to play with little egotisical boys.

          • Amen, sister. To add to Sher
            Amen, sister. To add to Sherri’s comment, I would like you to notice the fact that some of us don’t care enough to rewrite our names and just leave the ‘mysterious stranger’ in the post. I find men such as yourselves a minority in this world—especially a minority in the accelerating decline of the roman catholic church(There is a God!).

          • I stand by what I said
            I never doubted Melissa was a woman. In what I said I also wasn’t thinking of Sherri at all, and it’s now a bit confusing because, though I never had any reason to think she wasn’t a woman, she now misspells chauvinism the same way Ron did.

            Needless to say, I don’t run Turnabout and the preference I expressed as just one commenter to my fellow commenters here, that commenters not misrepresent their sex, was merely my personal feeling which I threw out there as a suggestion. Others may take it or leave it. I think when they misrepresent themselves in that way it detracts from the quality of discussion and if I suspect any are doing it I for one will withdraw from that thread. That’s all.

            A few weeks ago in a Turnabout thread totally unrelated to this one I suggested to what was clearly a man signing as a woman that he not keep doing that. He denied he was a man and went on to sign an additional post or two as a woman (all excellent posts, by the way). So, denials aren’t necessarily believable. The same thing happened with a poster at the old FrontPageMag.com forum a couple of years ago—he flatly denied it at first, then admitted it (and insisted on trying to justify it).

            If you sign as a woman but are a man you communicate false information merely by so doing, regardless of what’s in the post itself. This detracts from the quality of the discussion where many, in fact most, topics are concerned. (It wouldn’t detract from the quality of purely technical discussions.)

            If I’m wrong in the present instance I apologize to all. Whether or not I’m wrong remains to be seen. For now I stand by everything I said.
            ________________________

            “If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

          • Abortion & Registration
            My exercised commentator meant to shoot at Mr. Scooby and hit me instead. I didn’t mention abortion. But he is pursuing an interesting issue: do people have the right to impose their religious beliefs on others?

            The answer is yes, and they do it with thousands of laws. Ten examples should suffice. For centuries, all of the Ten Commandments either have been enacted into law or are moral standards that most people would be ashamed to fall short of.

            The idea that no one but a liberal can impose their beliefs on others is part of the incoherent framework of liberalism, which does nothing if it does not impose its beliefs on others. Why should anyone care if I use a vacuum to suck the brains out of someone that cursed me or struck me or inconvenienced me by making me quit college so I could work to pay back a loan I chose to agree to instead of taking a serious of inconvenient buses for four years? I would sneak up on him of course so he would not know what he was in for; after all, I am not a Nazi, many of whom were sadistic. I would not be bothering anyone but an inconvenient person. He is an orphan with no close friends.

            The examples of imposing beliefs on others are so numerous and obvious, a belief that people do not have the right to impose their religious beliefs on others can only be part of a religious dogma, which requires faith instead of reason. The ranting tone of the comment is evidence of religious fanaticism.

            Why do so many belligerent people fail to use a pseudonym? Are they emotional cowards who wish to avoid being ignored because of their vitriol and their often-moronic ideas? Or are they just evil sociopaths who wish the freedom to lurk so they can spit their venom and run?

            I am so sick of these creeps that I urge Mr. Kalb to require registration.

          • why give trolls the time of day?
            Why should we even bother to engage in dialogue those who don’t actually listen to, and ponder, what we discuss here, and simply slam us with the leftist indoctrination they received in public school? I guess my solution, both to irritating ranting leftists, and some of our own traditionalists who try to bait me, is just to ignore them. Maybe I should be hoping to try to convince them, but as far as I’m concerned, unless they have a change of heart independently, it’s not my job to try to convince haters. Those who have a huge chip on their shoulder, either leftists or our own traditionalist brethren, aren’t going to listen to anything we have to say, so let’s ignore them, is my opinion, anyway… I only answer some charges, if I feel there’s a point – if it seems useless and hopeless, I just ignore them…

            So anyone, left or right, who wants to accuse me of being a bigot, a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, an anti-Semite, a cold-hearted Calvinist who doesn’t care about evangelization – fine, I’m all of these (not really, but you’re not listening anyway, so to heck with you), you win, congrats, but I’m not going to speak to you or acknowledge your presence. I’m serving notice – if you don’t have anything constructive to add, I’m going to ignore you as I’ve probably already done, or I’m going to start now. To heck with you. Especially if you can’t even speak English properly, but want to criticize – don’t get me wrong; I welcome the participation of non-English speakers who want to constructively participate in the free exchange of ideas, and try their best, and try to be courteous and polite, but those who don’t, same as English-speaking narrow-minded bigots both left and right (except worse because I have to struggle to understand your insults), I say, to heck with you.

            And your mothers, too.

            (To my fellow Turnabout regulars: life’s too short to waste on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll trolls, isn’t it? Let’s not “feed” the trolls.)

          • “I see a lot of cry-baby men
            “I see a lot of cry-baby men in this forum who are having a difficult time handling the fact that women are just as good as they.”

            The men at this forum all, without exception, know that women are just as good as they.

            “It’s sad to see men who cannot handle the fact that, as years go by, social standards do change. I suggest that if you can’t handle the American way of changing with the times, you go live in India or the Middle East where you can get away with treating women like crap.”

            Please don’t project your own relationship failures and miserable experiences onto us and our wives and marriages. We don’t treat women like crap, as you were so obviously treated by your ill-chosen boyfriends and husbands. Furthermore, treating women like men, as women’s lib does, is treating them like crap.

            “All we want is an equal opportunity to live out our career dreams without interference from men’s prejudice against women working.”

            Men here have no prejudice against women working. They have reasonable objections to women being hired (by means of affirmative-action pressures) for jobs women are unsuited to do, such as fireman, policeman, infantry soldier at any level from private to general, and combat fighter pilot, and to women abandoning or neglecting their newborns, toddlers, and young children in order to work outside the home.

            “Obviously we are smarter than men […].”

            No one on this side doubts women’s intelligence. Everyone on this side knows men’s and women’s intelligences differ.

            “If we end up in jobs we can do as well as men, we deserve to be paid the same.”

            You are and always were, since way before women’s lib.

            “I could care less if some women aren’t of a mind to live with men like you. That is each woman’s decision. You need to respect women like me who just want to live life to the fullest. I was unhappy as a woman in the traditional domestic role. I went through depression so heavily that I almost committed suicide. I am the happiest I have ever been now that I am a successful businesswoman. To get to my point: you are shortchanging women like me who aren’t happy in the traditional domestic kind of role.”

            No one on this side has any objection to the above. Everyone on this side would agree with a woman’s choice not to pursue the traditional domestic lifestyle if it didn’t make her happy.

            “I would respect you if you wanted to be a ‘househusband’ or whatever you would be called. ‘Each person free to choose his lifestyle’ is my motto in life, and there is no reason you shouldn’t respect my wishes to live the way I want.”

            There are certain jobs women can’t do because they are by nature inapt for them, such as fireman. In addition, it’s wrong for mothers to neglect or abandon their babies, toddlers, or young children in order to work outside the home. All on this side agree that within those restrictions and some other reasonable ones women should be able to do what they want.

            “My lifestyle would never affect you. Deal with the woman in your life and stop trying to push your beliefs on the rest of us.”

            There are societywide norms which malcontent women’s libbers can’t cause society to contravene on a large scale without causing social harm. Such societywide norms include respect for femininity instead of trying to change girls into boys and young women into men, respect for the lives of the unborn, respect for the fact that jobs within and without the home are in some instances categorized based on normal sex roles (roles determined in turn by natural sexual abilities, inclinations, and preferences), and so on. Thus, men are unsuited to running or staffing daycare centers and women to enrolling in men-only institutions like VMI to become military cadets.

            “Not every woman is happy with domesticity.”

            We on this side all feel that women who aren’t happy with domesticity shouldn’t choose it for themselves.

            “I […] suggest you treat women with respect, and that means letting each woman do what makes her happy.”

            We agree, provided what she wants to do accords with society’s norms. Abandoning her children in order to work outside the home, having an abortionist drag her term baby part-way out of her womb, kill it as its arms and legs are flailing and struggling in desperation by punching the end of a vacuum cleaner through its skull and, while it’s still alive, vacuuming its brains out, then pulling the corpse the rest of the way out and throwing it in a garbage can, or pretending to do jobs women are by nature unsuited for, we don’t agree with.

            “Do you honestly think men would take up nursing, teaching, secretarial jobs, factory jobs, day care, and other female dominated fields just to get the women back home? I don’t think so.”

            Men are completely unsuited by nature to be daycare providers and no mother of a baby or toddler should, and none in her right mind would, send her child to a daycare center staffed by men. I don’t know what the rest of the sentence means. Men are suited to be nurses, teachers, secretaries, and factory workers.

            “Think about your anti-feminist logic before you start beating or raping your wife next time.”

            We don’t beat our wives or approve of men who do. So sorry the only men you ever managed to hook up with beat you. Raping one’s wife is a contradiction in terms. If a man batters his wife in an attempt to have sex with her which she won’t consent to, he can be charged with battery. Despite what certain Clinton-appointed pot-smoking cocaine-sniffing degenerate judges might claim, “wife-rape” is no more a possibility than “homosexual marriage” or a “square circle.”

            ________________________

            “If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

          • Hmmm…After watching this de
            Hmmm…After watching this debate, I have to say that I agree with the women. Yes I am a ‘feminist’ man. I am not gay, but happily married. I stay at home with our children. She works as a military general and one of the best in the league…probably even more fit than most of the men. I have no shame. I am a religious man that goes to church. There is nothing wrong with our children. They are teenagers and in the top of their class. I get upset with this idea that there is something wrong with our family just because it isn’t a ‘social norm.’ Obviously the situation is working for my family and can easily work for others. My wife and I combined our names upon marriage showing our devotion to each other.

            Yes, I do the cooking and every other domestic chore in the house. I also run a part-time successful mechanic shop beside the house so no need to call me a ‘wet noodle’ or whatever you think of me. I do everything that I guess a ‘normal’ man does and more.

            I find it incredibly wrong that you think women are unsuited for jobs such as being in the military, construction, mechanic work…etc. Of course most women are not built for it I agree, but those who are and can do it should. We should not be in their way of what they want to do. They have proven themselves even more than the men over in Iraq. I think for this they need to be commended, not subjected to male chauvenism for their bravery.

            As far as child care is concerned, I am insulted that you think all men are incapable of taking care of children. There are many mothers out there that shouldn’t even be allowed to have children. It takes two to make a child, therefore it should be the equal responsibility of both parents to raise a child. This doesn’t mean that a man should only share part in a male child. This is wrong and if you are any kind of christian then you would know this. It is long past the days of needing a male ‘heir.’ If you still think that you need a male heir, then I agree with the opinion that you are still living in horse and buggy days.

            I agree with the opinion that it should be each person to themselves. Who are you to judge if your neigbor goes out and has an abortion. How does that affect you? If it doesn’t directly affect you then you should just keep your mouth shut. You should not be out there enforcing your beliefs on someone who doesn’t share it. It was amazing that you didn’t comment on that. Apparently you think it is right to force a person to conform to your psychotic christian notions. Abortion is perfectly fine if you believe in it. If you don’t, then simply don’t have one if the situation arises. Let women have their choice. If you want to be so chauvenistic that the child care should be completely left to the woman, then you should be agreeing it is her choice whether or not to terminate the pregnancy. Hmmm why is it that chauvenists are so hypocritical?

          • Dream on, Ron
            The best line in your comment was,

            “Abortion is perfectly fine if you believe in it.”

            Everybody got that? As we’ve known for quite some time here at Turnabout, left-liberals don’t just approve of unrestricted abortion, they “believe in it”—they view it as an article of faith. (And notice the type of abortion this commenter is referring to: not some early first-trimester procedure but to my post’s description of full-term partial-birth abortion no less! To him that’s something one can legitimately “believe in”! Hey is that “believe in with all one’s heart and soul,” or just something liberals “get kind of all sentimental and misty-eyed about”? No biggie, just curious …) Unrestricted abortion is a big part of the liberal religion.

            You call yourself a Christian, Ron? You’re about as Christian as that “rabbi” in New Jersey was Jewish—the one who assured us Jews were permitted to kill babies until age one.

            You’re exactly what you said: a “feminist.” So, what else is new? You’re an extreme left-wing radical women’s-lib-type Marxist who worships degenerateness. Yawwwwnnnnn…. (Most of those can spell, though …) You haven’t told us anything.

            Oh and, uhhh ….. “I should just keep my mouth shut”? Don’t hold your breath waiting, would be my very sincere advice …
            ________________________

            “If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

          • I can’t believe what I’m reading…
            I agree with the opinion that it should be each person to themselves. Who are you to judge if your neigbor goes out and has an abortion. How does that affect you? If it doesn’t directly affect you then you should just keep your mouth shut. You should not be out there enforcing your beliefs on someone who doesn’t share it. It was amazing that you didn’t comment on that. Apparently you think it is right to force a person to conform to your psychotic christian notions. Abortion is perfectly fine if you believe in it. If you don’t, then simply don’t have one if the situation arises. Let women have their choice. If you want to be so chauvenistic that the child care should be completely left to the woman, then you should be agreeing it is her choice whether or not to terminate the pregnancy. Hmmm why is it that chauvenists are so hypocritical?

            The moral relativism that underpins the justifications hurled about in favour of ‘women’s choice’ or ‘pro abortion’ is a well documented beast, but rarely have I seen it presented with such naked absurdity; I had to read the above paragraph twice over just to verify that this was not some attempt at parody or satire.

            Let me apply a little dose of logic to your argument and see what the outcome of the reacion is, ok? Firstly, if someone does not ‘believe’ (I applaud Fred for rightly locating this term within liberal pseudo-metaphysics) in abortion, and in fact feels strongly against it, it is likely that they do so because they believe that abortion in fact, constitutes the taking of a human life, that is to say: murder. For someone who sees things this way, do you really think they’re going to be satisfied by simply not electing to practice abortion in their own personal sphere?

            The Nazis BELIEVED that exterminating the Jews was not a violation of morality as such, but a necessary act of cultural and racial purification. Should those who opposed the holocaust simply have been content to say: ‘Oh well, it’s their belief, we won’t kill any Jews ourselves but we have no right to impose our belief that genocide is a rephrensible crime against humanity on anyone else?’

            People who perceive a justice cannot be placated by simply being afforded the oppurtunity to perpetrate that injustice themselves, and I’m sure that if you weren’t under the sway of a scientism which makes false claims about the humanity of unborn children you would not hold to such a ‘belief’ anymore than you would condone the muder of any other segment of mankind. In the words of Ronald Reagan:

            “Anyone who doesn’t feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don’t know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn. . . . Obviously, some influential people want to deny that every human life has intrinsic, sacred worth. They insist that a member of the human race must have certain qualities before they accord him or her status as a “human being.” . . . Every legislator, every doctor, and every citizen needs to recognize that the real issue is whether to affirm and protect the sanctity of all human life, or to embrace a social ethic where some human lives are valued and others are not.”

          • Good points to keep in mind
            “Think about your anti-feminist logic before you start beating or raping your wife next time.”

            This is a very good idea. We all know that traditionalist men beat or rape their wives pretty frequently, so we need a few pointers like this. Just like we know that all minorities are criminals, all Jews are scheming for world domination over us Gentiles, etc. I assume that these other generalizations are just as acceptable to the poster as the one she made. Or, are some forms of bigotry and hatred more acceptable than others?

        • Here Melissa unbosoms herself perhaps without knowing it
          “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,” or like one who’d hoped to make her life with a real man but wasn’t able to attract or keep one. Instead of looking inside herself when she was still young to see why she couldn’t, and perhaps mend it, she dug herself deeper into a hole by going the women’s lib route. Fatal, fatal, fatal mistake.

          Now she’s no longer young but on in years, and it’s basically over for her. She will not find happiness.

          So sorry for you, Melissa.

          Let any young women coming across these comments have a glimpse of Melissa’s original post in the thread, to get a good look at what they don’t want to turn into. I’d avoid women’s lib like the plague, girls … No matter what happens, I’d avoid women’s lib. Like the plague.

        • Origins of feminism are rather complex
          Sorry to disrupt the oversimplification party, but the origins of feminism are rather more complex than both sides seem to imply. For example, before the industrial revolution, men and women were typically economic partners in the home. Most homes were farms, but even tradesmen worked out of their homes or a few rooms built onto their homes. Men and women had much more of a sense of working together. As children aged and became more capable, sons learned (and assisted) what the father did for a living, and daughters learned from (and assisted) the mother. Much more of the family earnings were in direct production, barter, and trade, and less in cash, than today.

          Once the father started going off to the factory, and later the modern office, huge changes hit the home. For one, the mother had no adult companionship. Second, the male children were no longer learning the father’s job, and they were pretty much surplus underfoot trouble around the house, and the mother had more kids at her feet than she did back when the boys were off in the field (or in the blacksmith’s shop, or wherever) with Dad. Third, standards of living rose, so that people could afford to buy more products (candles, etc.) that they used to make in the home together. Division of labor and mechanization are efficient, of course. The resulting cash-based society meant that the glory is in going out of the home and earning cash, not in staying home with the kids. Less of the wife’s time was spent in economic productivity (you cheaply buy soap, candles, clothes, etc.; you don’t make them at home), and more was spent in non-economic activities (cleaning, etc.)

          These factors tended to make more women torn between the rewards (and difficulties) of home and the rewards of outside work. You often hear new mothers today say something like, “It would be nice to have someone older than 18 months to talk to!” You did not hear that 200 years ago on the farm. I also do not think it is a coincidence that formal schooling got longer and longer in the industrial age. At least in these several respects, the changes have little to do with strong or weak men, or men who treated women well or poorly.

          As a traditionalist conservative, I think that it helps to understand history in order to know what has been gained and lost over time. When we criticize women for “leaving the home”, we might want to remember that it was men who first left the home, in a tremendous break with millennia of established habits and customs. This accentuates the harm done when the mother leaves the home and there is no parent left to care for the children, but it also reminds us that it is not something ordained from time immemorial that men shall work outside the home and women inside it.

          “From Cottage to Workstation: The Family’s Search for Social Harmony in the Industrial Age” by Allan Carlson is an interesting history of the economic issues surrounding the family.

          By the way, as personal innuendo seems common in this thread, I will declare that my wife has always stayed home to do the multitude of work there is to do there. I am currently seeking ways to work from home, to recapture some of what we have lost in the passage of time.

          • As a traditionalist conservat

            As a traditionalist conservative, I think that it helps to understand history in order to know what has been gained and lost over time. When we criticize women for “leaving the home”, we might want to remember that it was men who first left the home, in a tremendous break with millennia of established habits and customs. This accentuates the harm done when the mother leaves the home and there is no parent left to care for the children, but it also reminds us that it is not something ordained from time immemorial that men shall work outside the home and women inside it.

            I disagree with the notion that it was men who first left the home to work in factories. At the beginning of the English industrial revolution, the young women of the English countryside were lured into the mills by the promise of cash payments, helping to expand the cash-based economy. As cash became increasingly essential, the men could no longer afford to remain tenant farmers, and were compelled to leave the farms for the factories and mines. This pattern repeated itself in New England in the early 1800’s, and in Japan in the late 1800’s.

          • Interesting; a clarification and a question
            Thanks for that insight into the early situation with respect to textile mills.

            My general point is this: There was at least a moment in time when most men were working outside the home, and most women were inside the home, more recently than the onset of the industrial revolution. Then, when women started leaving the home for outside jobs in large numbers during World War II and the post-war economic boom and later, the situation was spoken of as if the natural state of affairs is: men outside the home, women at home. This is nonsense from an historical perspective.

            A question to ponder: When women started working in the textile mills of England, was it all due to women being mistreated by men at home (as claimed by the recent female posters in this thread), or was it caused by most of the men circa 1800 being weak and confused by feminism (as claimed by recent male posters in this thread)? I would suggest that neither facile explanation really describes the situation circa 1800.

    • Melissa is Baiting
      And I am sorry about the possible causes. If she would like to discuss this further, I suggest she do it with a psychological professional. Good luck Melissa.

Comments are closed.