Feminism, Politics, recent, Recommended

Feminism’s Dependency Trap

Reading the news stories about #MeToo and sexual harassment, and the barrage of social media posts that accompanied these headlines, I became saddened but also increasingly frustrated. It wasn’t the reports of men behaving badly that angered me, but the despair that seemed to be the expected response to these stories, and the helplessness that my female friends appeared to attach to femininity itself that I found troubling.

The unintended and painful irony of recent feminism’s preoccupation with overcoming male oppression has been to place men at the centre of female identity. This makes the feminine experience something like an echo; women’s voices seem to be little more than a response, or a rebuttal, to men’s voices, which are taken to be primarily an instrument of patriarchal oppression. But, in my own experience, men aren’t interested in maintaining power and control over women—they simply don’t see women as a group that they are oppressing, or that they would like to oppress.

We hear a lot about “male privilege” but historically it has been the “privilege” of men to make their way in the hard world in order to first win a woman’s affections, and then support the family structure financially. We might call this “patriarchy,” but this term isn’t the synonym for misogyny that contemporary progressive political culture seems to think it is. (One has to appreciate the misplaced sincerity of many of my university students who roundly condemn The Patriarchy, while driving their father’s Toyota to campus every day, and using his savings to pay for their tuition. Not infrequently it occurs to me that the people who are most vocal against The Patriarchy are those who have benefited from it the most.)

A further concern I have with the message and tone of contemporary feminism is that women have evidently forgotten that we have power over men as a result of the fact that we’re women—men adore us, and almost all their efforts at work or at home or in social settings, are made to win our approval, if not our admiration. In short, I am bewildered by the fact that in a culture in which The Patriarchy has never had less power over women, women seem to want to attribute to it a greater power than men in fact have, thereby confining women to a position of victimhood and powerlessness.

Victim status holds its own form of power, of course, but this nurtures resentment which is always utterly joyless. Curiously, mainstream feminism seems designed to perpetuate the story of male power and oppression: feminists seem to need it as an antagonist against which to define themselves. What follows is a critique of current feminism, undertaken in the service of what I believe is a better and more healthy feminism: a celebration of the feminine and of women’s innate power. Consider this, then, another way of looking at women’s relationship with men that does not see them as either victims of or insurgents against male oppression, but rather as free, self-confident, and joyful individuals.

I take a particularly keen interest in telling an alternative story of women because I see my university students anxious and angry about female identity generally. And, as a single mother to two young daughters, I have my own personal stake in the game. Questioning a culture that seems to tacitly naturalize female weakness is more than an academic concern for me. I’m unable to see the benefit of raising young girls to have a martyrdom complex as a defining feature of their identities, especially when it is arguably the case that men don’t see us as powerless in the first place. If we continue to insist that misogyny is ubiquitous, an inextinguishable and existential fact that orders relations between men and women at a fundamental level, what follows? We’re teaching young women to embrace resentment dressed up as liberation and agency. This is a counsel of despair.

The orthodox line of feminism is that women don’t need men, and that it is men who keep women in a state of dependence. This is the doctrine of women’s liberation: we are trying to liberate ourselves from our dependency on men. Pragmatically speaking, the notion that we don’t need men is largely true. (As a single mother and single woman, I’m certainly poorer than my married counterparts, but I am running a family household successfully, if chaotically.) Paradoxically, however, the rhetoric of orthodox feminism implies the reverse: we need men in order to prove to ourselves that we don’t. I don’t need to sleep with a stuffed animal at night, but were I to insist on mentioning this at every opportunity, it would become abundantly clear that the idea dominated me. At a time when Western women have achieved economic independence, control over their reproductive rights, legal equality, and equal professional opportunities, the continued obsession with the need to win independence from the thing that we are, in every measurable way, already independent from, reveals just how subservient we are to the idea of powerful men. After all, only a child still dependent on the comfort of a stuffed toy needs to insist to herself that she isn’t.

Yes, but—my detractors might say—women only insist that they don’t need men, because men assume that we do need them. We are fighting the tacit understanding of male privilege and power, and we need to prove to them that their archaic assumptions are not only incorrect, but unethical. Or, they might object that women need to assert that they don’t need men so loudly and consistently because, historically, we’ve been raised to believe we do need them under the rule of the patriarchy and its constructed gender roles, so we must now de-program our sisters and daughters. These objections, however, fall back into the familiar pattern of making The Patriarchy the centre of female identity and ignore what is perhaps the most important fact of the relationship between men and women: although women may not need men, men still need women.

Let me say that again: men need us. It’s silly to enter into a conversation about women and men without acknowledging the basic biological drives of our species. I’ve never known a heterosexual man who isn’t constantly preoccupied with thoughts of women. Their own nature is at work against self-possession: the sight or the thought of a woman can overturn a man’s thoughts, his will, and seriously compromise his reason and unbalance his ability to make decisions. At times, this preoccupation can manifest as anger and even hatred. Nobody is suggesting that misogyny isn’t real. Most of the time, however, men’s need of women results in clumsy attempts at flirtation or awkward and unwanted advances. From what I can tell, a large proportion of the #Metoo complaints are of this nature.

If feminism is, in part, about women being seen as independent and free sexual agents—adults, in other words—then why is it so frightening to them when a man treats them as just that? If women want to be seen as sexual free agents then we should stop acting like scared and helpless children when men treat us as such. Those who respond by appealing to the bureaucratic systems of corporate structures (broadly known as the patriarchal system), or to the warm and nurturing responses of “friends” on social media, are hardly demonstrating that women are strong enough to handle sexual situations on their own.

This is not to deny that there is real and brutal violence against women, best handled by the police and the criminal justice system. But if a co-worker lets a woman know she looks hot in her skirt this can reasonably be dealt with by a woman on her own, rather than by corporate structures of authority. If we would prefer not to deal with these things on our own, fair enough, but let us not re-describe this reliance on authority as a victory for feminism, or for women’s empowerment, and instead call it what it is: an instance of women’s dependence on structural power; a paternal bureaucracy that has arrogated ever more coercive power under the banner of gender equity.

Feminism is suffering from a lack of respect for women themselves. This is part of the lack of respect for other individuals as individuals that characterizes modern culture. We have exchanged personal agency for the depersonalization of human life and individual accountability for a bureaucratic structure that is ultimately responsible to no one, because no one takes personal responsibility for it. If we want to retreat from encountering others in their particular individuality, however distasteful, we should not do violence to logic by calling it a triumph of personal agency. A complaint to human resources may make us feel safe and avoid a potentially uncomfortable confrontation, but at the expense of personal courage.

Let’s say men heed the cry of feminism and stop behaving like men treating us as women. How does this enrich our experience and identities as women? Why is the goal of feminism to be treated instead as an androgyn? How is this anything other than a repudiation of femininity itself? Occasionally women might find an unsolicited pass flattering rather than threatening. We might want to rediscover the inherent power that comes from being desired. We might not see these moments as demeaning, but rather as an opportunity to encounter another on a more human level than our bureaucratic state often allows—even if we’re going to reject the encounter. As women, we might realize that these moments can be empowering rather than demeaning. After all, it takes courage for a man to approach a woman, as it exposes him to vulnerability and to the risk of rejection. We might even consider these advances as something exciting, spicy, fun! Or we might return them with a slap. Either way, it’s time for us to start doing this.

 

Marilyn Simon is a Shakespeare scholar and university instructor. She is currently working on a book on Shakespeare, Eros, and Female Agency.

295 Comments

  1. Alex P says

    Thank you so much for writing this. There are so many people throwing spitballs at feminism, but so few willing to lay out the logical arguments against the basic assumptions that underlie current feminist dogma.

    There is no patriarchy (in the sense that people use the word these days) and women in present-day first world countries are not uniquely oppressed. Sensible people just need to say it over and over again.

    • DuppyConqueror says

      I’ve asked for a definition of Patriarchy over and over and nothing even remotely falsifiable is ever offered.

      So I came up with my own definition which I think frankly kicks the ass of all other definitions: A Patriarchy is a system that produces Patriarchs. This is inarguable, right?

      When I think of all the fathers I’ve known in my life, the sheer number of men dancing to the tune of a wounded ex-partner’s ego to hang onto the slim thread of a relationship with their kids, and the number who just had their kids taken from them I have to wonder why they didn’t assert their patriarchal power. I mean that would be rule number one in any hypothetical patriarchy you could come up with, right? Custody defaults to the Patriarch?

      If this is a Patriarchy exactly where are all the Patriarchs?

      • Greg Allan says

        Patriarchy is a theory created by those women least able to empathise with the male condition. It is actually a projection of their own sentiments and gives us a reasonable picture of how things would be were women running the show.

        • Eleanor says

          I think you are half right. I see it as a reaction, by these women, who are coming from a place where many men have for a long time not been able to empathise with the female condition either. The irony being, as you said, many women have reacted in an equally unhelpful way. The lack of understanding and compassion comes from both sides. We all need to listen to each other empathically, challenge our own biases, & work together or we’ll never get anywhere worth going.

          • Trevor Sedis says

            Eleanor: >”these women…are coming from a place where many men have for a long time not been able to empathise with the female condition”

            Name 1 (ONE!) time in history where men had it better than women!

            Name 1 (ONE!) time in the past 50 years where feminists have helped men!

            Guys made female lives easier by creating indoor plumbings, central heating, refrigeration, washer-dryers, microwave ovens, vacuum cleaners, TV dinners, dishwashers, etc. etc. etc. Thousands of inventions that freed women to do more than their traditional in-house jobs.

            What have women done for men in turn, save make males lives worse?

            >”The lack of understanding and compassion comes from both sides.”

            No.

            Women today have special sections in hospitals, newspapers, and so on…along with “regular” sections. They also have female-only months, stamps, walks, colleges, college centers, White House initiatives, gyms, shelters, loans, etc. etc. etc.

            Men have nothing comparable.

            Nothing.

            >”We all need to listen to each other empathically”

            Feminists have had half a century to do so. Yet not once (ONE TIME!) did they sit down to ask men what menMEN’s lives are like, what GUYS might want changed in any new social contract.

            Feminists endlessly call for “conversations” while lecturing/dictating to men 24-7-356.

            Feminism is not, and has never been, about equality. It’s always been about blaming men for female failures/frustrations while giving women benefits and men burdens.

      • TarsTarkas says

        Want a good example of Patriarchy? Look at Wahabi Saudi Arabia. Or any other Muslin society that uses Sharia as its code of law. Women treated as chattel, their testimony worth only half that of men, etc. etc. These are real, extant societies. Gilead is a fiction. You have to go back to John Calvin;s Switzerland to find historical examples of Patriarchy the way the uber-feminists depict it. Such societies no longer exist in Western Civilization, have not existed within living memory.

    • Robert Paulson says

      The idea that women don’t need men is utterly laughable!

      What gender is her mechanic?
      What gender is her plumber?
      What gender is her electrician?
      What gender was the construction crew that built her house?
      What gender where the factory workers that build her car?
      What gender are the power line workers that keep her house lit?
      What gender are the road crews that allow her to get to her nice plush university job?

      The entire modern world was invented by, built by and maintained by men.

      This essay is a testament to women’s solipsism and lack of gratitude. Deep down, women know they need men, which is why – as this very author points out – they are always proclaiming how “strong” and “independent” they are and how they “don’t need a man”. Nothing but pure projection.

      • D-Rex says

        @ Robert P.
        I was thinking exactly the same thing, in fact the only bit in this essay I disagree with is the notion that women don’t need men. How many women would truly be happy in a world without men? Not many would be my guess. Regardless of the stuff on your list, most women I know rather enjoy the attention they get from men, whatever their age.

        • Abirdinthehand says

          Note that the author is a Shakespeare scholar. So she’s certainly dependent on a man too – one who has been dead for centuries now, but still….

      • Stephanie says

        @Robert, I agree, that is the one sentiment in this article I thought was objectionable. Women need men as much as men need women, probably more, even considering biological drivers. The author has children, so perhaps she isn’t aware just how nuts a woman in her mid-30s can get if she doesn’t have kids or a partner she would want kids with. To say women lack the biological focus on men is silly. Much of what younger women do is geared towards men, as well: from fashion, to fitness, to education, the subconscious goal is to up their status, so they can land a man with that much higher a status.

      • Andrew says

        Pretty sure women are capable of doing all that too. They just don’t want to.

        • ccscientist says

          Sorry, women are not capable of being roofers and loggers.

        • Trevor Sedis says

          Andrew: >”Pretty sure women are capable of doing all that too. They just don’t want to.”

          Do men also have the luxury of “not wanting to” do scutwork?

          Most men work at lousy jobs to pay bills…for themselves, families, etc. Very few say, “I get off tarring roads in 100-degree weather” or “It’s fun washing windows on 100-story buildings.”

          Most guys literally cannot afford to say, “What kind of work would I like to do”? Most ask, “How much does it pay?”

          Just because guys don’t bitch 24/7 about their jobs doesn’t mean they like them.

          Divorced fathers are forced to pay child-support based on the income a judge “imputes” they should be making. How many women are equally told by judges that THEY need to mine coal, long-haul truck, etc. to pay child-support to their exes?

          What happens to men who “don’t want to” be drafted?

          Why, 52 years after NOW was created, aren’t women marching weekly to force females to register with Selective Service? ‘Cuz we all know that if another draft IS enacted, feminists will say, “We sure would like to serve, but…damn the luck!…we’re not registered.”

      • Olivia says

        Dude, the author never implied that “not needing a man” meant that there wouldn’t/shouldn’t be men in the world; it’s clear that she’s talking about the need for a economic/romantic/sexual relationship.
        You are right that the jobs you mentioned are mainly held by men and that our intellectual and technological progress was chiefly realized by men into the 20th century, but your bullshit sense of entitlement and male superiority complex act as a natural remedy to any valid points you could have made. Cheers!

        • Robert Paulson says

          Dudette, your cluelessness continues to prove my point for me. Women’s economic “independence” a made possible by the built infrastructure and technology that makes modern life possible, which, as I said, was invented by, built and maintained by men. So next time you get an oil change, pass a road crew, or walk into your air conditioned office building, remember to check your privilege and your bullshit sense of entitlement. Cheers! (and tell your cats I said hi 😉

          • Robert Paulson, the sensible voice in the room.

            It’s about time these feminist women were kicked down a notch or two.

            Women need men whether they like it or not.

      • Kyle says

        Robert Paulson

        Very well stated. The only things I would add are:

        The entire food supply chain
        The entire transportation system – human and goods
        The entire resource extraction systems
        Almost all of the electronic technology
        Almost all of the military that keeps her safe from attack

        It is amazing how our society maligns the very people who are the ones who build, support and maintain the very lives they are taking advantage of. It is the height of arrogance and ingratitude. And people wonder why the MGTOW lifestyle is becoming more and more popular.

  2. Reluctant reactionary says

    Hallelujah, A woman with some understanding of us blokes who understands that the victim hood narrative is a dreadful legacy for her daughters. A gentle critique is that she slightly (only slightly) overstates our slavish desire to please and gain the admiration of women, we can grow out of it or these days have it slapped out of us and rather than a faint heart never winning a fair maiden, the field has been cleared for the clumsy fool or the sleaze bag. Spot on with the feminist addiction to dependence on the idea (and the reality) of patriarchal structures although it is as much a perverted feminine hypergamy as a rejection of the feminine power of being desired. Stop oppressing me, please look after me dichotomy. Anyway great article

  3. Coffee Klatch says

    The strawman heart at the center of this and just about every other Quillette article continues to beat brightly and dumbly.

    There is a patriarchy. There is obviously a patriarchy. Men hold more money, more power and more clout in society. This is being eaten away at and the stark contrast of what a post-patriarchy society looks like helps prove that the patriarchal society that came before it did exist.

    You can look at the pictures of the incoming class of US House Democrats vs. Republicans. These are not people who were “affirmative actioned” in. They are not people who had large corporations behind them — most of them took individual donations — and so many more faces of women and people of color are represented. Where were these people before? Why weren’t these people there?

    Because the white man has been the center — the solid — the white WASPy heart of a particular set of cultural signifiers and operators. Culture dictated that women should stay home and not go to school. Culture dictated that the woman’s place was in the home. Culture dictated that the man worked and held the family capital and pursestrings. Culture, via religion has dictated that woman was a reflection of man, far more effectively than your rich-in-fantasy flight written above.

    The author naively believes that equality is a “done deal” and that we should wipe our hands together and turn out the lights.

    No, this is just the beginning, and even at this juncture the pushback from the patriarchy (including the women who have the most currency to spend within it’s arms) — is brutal. It’s insidious. It tells you it doesn’t exist. It gaslights. It appeals to tradition, to nature to spirit — to desperately, desperately hold on to its position. It pretends to be centrist, it pretends to be liberal — it will say and do anything to make you believe it doesn’t exist.

    The author apparently hasn’t spent much time around any of the forums dedicated to incel posts, MGTOW, MRAs, etc. — there is healthy and robust talk about women being stripped of the right to vote, returned to the home, made to bear children — talk of lower IQs in women, incompetency, worthlessness — not to mention the vindictive witchery and chaos we all seem to embody — and you can find that right out in the open in the mouths of the IDW and Quillette orbit.

    Just so the author knows, my son will drive the car that I handed him to a school paid by MY dollars and my husband will continue to be a minor financial contributor to our home, while I bankroll the things that give us a great life. In 10-20 years, your condescending picture of a young feminist will be dead and buried, because she will be all grown up — and she will run this shit.

    We will keep going. You can trade your vagina as currency for clemency and a dog collar. You can type a million words of capitulation. This is a phase. We are adjusting and no amount of piddling around on this off-ramp of contention surrounding the “victimhood moment,” is going to change the fact that unless males pull any truly brutal moves — (which will, again, prove the patriarchy) to stop it, your doctor, your lawyer, your professor, your coder, your financial advisor, your government leaders will be more female and more (queer/poc/immigrant).

    The sooner you deal with it, the sooner we can get on with progress.

    • Chuck says

      Very few women want to be married to a beta male. It’s great that you’ve found someone for you, but there is a mountain of hard science, biological etc data that says that’s not attractive to most woman.

      • Tome708 says

        I am guessing her husband (coffee) is starved for sexual intimacy. Wondering why his wife is not sexually attracted to him. He has become the nice guy, the submissive man, the “ally”. Everything she told him and thinks she wanted. But just does not find her sexually attracted to him anymore.
        #freevicki

        • Stephanie says

          I’ll bet $20 that Coffee’s husband is cheating on her. Even beta-males can’t handle this level of denigration for long without seeking some kind of escape.

          Listening to Ocasio-Cortez for 5 minutes should disabuse anyone of the notion there aren’t incoming Congresspeople who got there because of the intersectional boxes they could check. Rapidly changing demographics don’t hurt, either.

      • No, actually there isn’t. There is a HUGE body of (social- bio-, neuro-) psychological research that shows that women actually do not prefer hyper-masculine men. Also, “alpha” and “beta” males Do not exist scientifically in a human paradime expect to explain SOCIAL (ie culturally constructed) categorizations, so there is nothing “hard sciences about your use of that language.

        • Declan says

          I don’t know about women preferring hyper-masculine men, but on average women ‘value a high earning potential’ ‘more so than men’.

          That’s from a 2016 study which replicated studies from the 1990s. Somone like Coffee Klatch is an outlier in terms of preferences.

          You can read the study here. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-016-0048-6

          As women without children are now out-earning men without children, those preferences will have to change, or there’ll be a lot of single people out there. But, for the moment, preferences are quite consistent.

          • “As women without children are now out-earning men without children, those preferences will have to change, or there’ll be a lot of single people out there. But, for the moment, preferences are quite consistent.”

            Except those preferences won’t change. They are hard-wired. Look at any wealthy middle-aged couple post divorce: the guy is swimming in female companionship and the woman is traveling the world, alone. She can’t physically bring herself to partner with someone worth less than her… in spite of the fact that very few middle-aged wealthy guys need or want a woman their own age.

            No, the result will not be a change in preference. The result will be a massive increase in poor mental health among the middle-aged.

        • Karen Straughan says

          “No, actually there isn’t. There is a HUGE body of (social- bio-, neuro-) psychological research that shows that women actually do not prefer hyper-masculine men.”

          “Sure, you say people prefer crunchy snacks. The science proves you wrong–people don’t, in fact, enjoy snacks so crunchy that they break their teeth and cut the insides of their mouths! So HAH!”

          Masculinity =/= hyper-masculinity.

          Also, women’s preference for masculine men ebbs and flows–during menstruation, women prefer more neotenized men, while approaching ovulation they prefer more masculine faces.

          “Also, “alpha” and “beta” males Do not exist scientifically in a human paradime”

          First, it’s “paradigm”. Second, “alpha” and “beta” are colloquial shorthand. No one considers them to be scientific terms. Still, the mountain of scientific evidence for hypergamy in women exists.

          You let me know when women en masse start meeting their future husbands, or even potential sexual partners, under bridges or at the unemployment office, mkay?

      • Maria says

        A beta male is like a dish kept in the fridge for days and after that heated in the microwave: it fills your stomach, but nothing more

    • Ryan Carr says

      oh look, a professional feminist grievance seeker……who wuda thought……

    • Peter from Oz says

      Thanks Coffee Klatch.

      It’s great to get to see an angry feminazi in the flesh, as it were.

      All through reading your post I keept n thinking of that line from Hamlet: methinks she doth protest too much.

      How about you stop being a ”woman” and start being a human being?

      The problem with feminists is that they are all solipsists in that they think that their hang ups and problems are somehow universal amongst women. Maybe some women don’t want to be CEOs or politicians. Maybe they actually liked what you call the patriarchy? From what I can see you want them all to be like you and have your ambitions. That is never going to happen.

      MGTOWs and incels are just the male antihesis of the extreme feminists. You can fund just as much misandry among feminazis as you find misogyny amongst MRA morons. But the funny thing is that there are no me’s studies course at universities, no men’s hour radio programmes or masculinist literature.

      Until feminists can stop being feminists and become humanists they will be inferior to men who have been humanists for some time now. Most women get this. it’s only a few of the old, noisy harridans on the left that are truly weak who don’t understand.

      • Danielle says

        This MAN. Speaking for US.
        ❤️Always,
        -The OTHER WOMEN
        🤘🏻🙏🤴🌎

      • D-Rex says

        @ Peter
        I generally agree but not call MRA’s morons and they should not be lumped in with MGTOWs and INCELs. I get the impression that a lot of women are getting painted into a corner that they may not be able to get out of. When enough men and young males give up trying and move on, there will be a lot of women wondering where all of the “good” men have gone.

        • Stephanie says

          I agree with D-Rex. Men have legitimate grievances that must be solved at the political level (unlike most of the problems feminists point to, which amount to rage against the agreeable nature of women). Foremost among these is family law and domestic abuse. The systemic way men are discriminated against by police and the courts is an absolute travesty.

    • Woodrow says

      “There is obviously a patriarchy. Men hold more money, more power and more clout in society”
      .. (in fact women hold slightly more than half the assets in Australia and the US.)

      “my son will drive the car that I handed him to a school paid by MY dollars and my husband will continue to be a minor financial contributor to our home, while I bankroll the things that give us a great life”

      Nice work. You have provided an admirable example of the fact that the most powerful, least oppressed women are the most likely to hold on to the idea that they are oppressed.

    • Jeliasko says

      I could not possibly find the time to write all you got wrong here… Still, incel and MGTOW posts? You are not just scraping the bottom of the fringe barrel to find an argument, your digging into the wood. And the vagina thing – such a quick ad hominem move would make Donald Trump blush.

      P.S. You are not doing your son any favours by giving him a car to drive. 😉

    • Evil Cishet White Patriarchal Mansplainer says

      It’s probably not even worth responding to this, as any argument against your preconceived and largely unfalsifiable notions about reality necessarily constitutes a dispute regarding the veracity of your experience, and will therefore be reflexively dismissed as ‘gaslighting’. Isn’t it convenient that you’ve baked a psychological defense mechanism against contrarian opinions right into your post (which presumably reflects your worldview)?

      But hey, what the hell.

      > The strawman heart at the center of this and just about every other Quillette article continues to beat brightly and dumbly.

      That you happen not to consider certain claims truthful does not make them a strawman. You do not have a monopoly on determining what is and isn’t an accurate read on a position or argument (and, by your own standards, suggesting otherwise would constitute ‘gaslighting’ of others), so kindly fuck off with the presumptuous assertion of opinion as if it were fact and your inane, self-aggrandizing posture of unearned, baseless intellectual superiority.

      With that out of the way, let’s get to the meat.

      > There is a patriarchy. There is obviously a patriarchy. Men hold more money, more power and more clout in society.

      Your first claim constitutes a god of the gaps fallacy — you’ve observed certain outcomes and inferred that they must necessarily be the result of a structure which conveniently justifies your sense of victimhood. To prove this, you would need to control for all possible factors that could lead to those outcomes and then demonstrate that none of them save your supposed ‘patriarchy’ explains the result. This has not been proven in the wider cultural discourse and you’re certainly not going to be the one to do it here.

      Onward.

      > This is being eaten away at and the stark contrast of what a post-patriarchy society looks like helps prove that the patriarchal society that came before it did exist.

      Even if we accept your terminology and framing, you’ve provided no example of such a post-patriarchal society nor proven the existence of one, so you cannot use this as grounds to demonstrate the existence of your supposed ‘patriarchal society’.

      > You can look at the pictures of the incoming class of US House Democrats vs. Republicans. These are not people who were “affirmative actioned” in. They are not people who had large corporations behind them — most of them took individual donations — and so many more faces of women and people of color are represented. Where were these people before? Why weren’t these people there?

      The current Democratic strategy is to play up race-baiting identity politics among their minority constituents. With that in mind, of course the party machine is going to enable these candidates and of course they’re going to win votes among those constituents. This is not a groundswell of stunning and brave poc/women punching upward against evil whitey/patriarchy, it’s the inevitable result of a political climate that encourages voting out of tribal loyalty over voting based on substantive policy positions. And, incidentally, white people are the most evenly-split demographic in the country; the others all break overwhelmingly for the Democrats, which severely undercuts your own notion of the desperate maintenance of WASPy self-interest.

      > Because the white man has been the center — the solid — the white WASPy heart of a particular set of cultural signifiers and operators. Culture dictated that women should stay home and not go to school. Culture dictated that the woman’s place was in the home. Culture dictated that the man worked and held the family capital and pursestrings. Culture, via religion has dictated that woman was a reflection of man, far more effectively than your rich-in-fantasy flight written above.

      Culture doesn’t ‘dictate’ anything and to suggest otherwise constitutes a conscious and willful denial of human agency. There are cultural norms, yes, but in a society where legal equality is present, they are just that — norms. And plenty of women over the years have bucked cultural norms without succumbing to woefully self-indulgent victim complexes. Many of them are perfectly successful and happy.

      > The author naively believes that equality is a “done deal” and that we should wipe our hands together and turn out the lights.

      Supposing the equality is not a done deal once individuals are granted the same legal protections surrounding natural rights implies a worldview fundamentally incompatible with liberalism and the notion of natural rights in general. If you want to impose some sort of equality (or ‘equity’ — and which self-interested authoritarian asshole gets to decide what constitutes that?) you need to begin socially engineering for outcomes, from the top down, which you aren’t entitled to do in a society that respects self-determination.

      > No, this is just the beginning, and even at this juncture the pushback from the patriarchy (including the women who have the most currency to spend within it’s arms) — is brutal. It’s insidious. It tells you it doesn’t exist. It gaslights. It appeals to tradition, to nature to spirit — to desperately, desperately hold on to its position. It pretends to be centrist, it pretends to be liberal — it will say and do anything to make you believe it doesn’t exist.

      Yes, we must remain ever-vigilant against sin. The devil wears many faces. I even have it on good authority that he — in all of his patriarchal glory — can manifest in the form of a goat. And surely he’s present. After all, there’s no other possible explanation for any phenomenon that is to one’s personal detriment or inconvenience, is there? And we’re so capable and brave for overcoming the devil in spite of his best efforts, aren’t we?

      > The author apparently hasn’t spent much time around any of the forums dedicated to incel posts, MGTOW, MRAs, etc. — there is healthy and robust talk about women being stripped of the right to vote, returned to the home, made to bear children — talk of lower IQs in women, incompetency, worthlessness — not to mention the vindictive witchery and chaos we all seem to embody — and you can find that right out in the open in the mouths of the IDW and Quillette orbit.

      Suggesting that MGTOW people and MRAs are pulling the cultural levers of society (if we’re even accepting your assumption that culture ‘dictates’ behavior) is a fairly extraordinary claim and you’ve provided no evidence whatsoever to substantiate it. Alternatively, if you meant to suggest that their mere existence is evidence of a vast, oppressive patriarchy, then that’s a basic failure of logic. A few isolated examples does not prove a general case.

      > Just so the author knows, my son will drive the car that I handed him to a school paid by MY dollars and my husband will continue to be a minor financial contributor to our home, while I bankroll the things that give us a great life. In 10-20 years, your condescending picture of a young feminist will be dead and buried, because she will be all grown up — and she will run this shit.

      Your own lived experience would seem to fly in the face of the notion of an oppressive patriarchy. Perhaps the fact that your husband earns less than you is actually indicative of an oppressive matriarchy? Have you considered checking your privilege?

      > We will keep going. You can trade your vagina as currency for clemency and a dog collar. You can type a million words of capitulation. This is a phase. We are adjusting and no amount of piddling around on this off-ramp of contention surrounding the “victimhood moment,” is going to change the fact that unless males pull any truly brutal moves — (which will, again, prove the patriarchy) to stop it, your doctor, your lawyer, your professor, your coder, your financial advisor, your government leaders will be more female and more (queer/poc/immigrant).

      A reaction to your terrible brand of politics will prove nothing of the sort. If you keep playing force and interest politics based solely around tribal/gender affiliation, then crying about ‘patriarchy’ when others begin to engage in the same behavior, that’s simply indicative of either willful hypocrisy or a catastrophic failure in basic reasoning.

      > The sooner you deal with it, the sooner we can get on with progress.

      You don’t get to dictate what constitutes ‘progress’ to the rest of us, so kindly fuck off.

      • Cindy Satwell says

        Well actually, if she defines ‘patriarchy’ as men having more power, money, clout, that’s not the gaps fallacy–she is simply labeling what she understands to be the current reality. Of course you have a point–she does imply that the ‘patriarchy’ is the result of a long history of male cultural dominance, but confusedly, she blames the WASPy male. What about all the other kinds–the Catholic or Buddhist or Jewish white male oppressors? Or male oppressors of colour? I guess they send different signals, or at least operate differently.

        Intensity of her comment suggests reaction formation

      • Erica from The West Village says

        Thank you to the Women’s Gender Studies Professor for weighing in. The same woman who has a Saturday night date at Walgreen’s each week to buy new AA batteries for her “friend” Hillary.

        If you’re half as smart as you project, then you’ll comprehend the fact that when you segment out women as a gender (sorry, I’m not assuming your gender…why would I with all the hate of men?) against any normal bell curve, there are but 20% of you radicals who believe that the Patriarchy Must Be Smashed and the Government exists to assert this destruction.

        #MoveOn. Seriously..life it too short and thanks to natural selection, we won’t have to worry about you spawning little mini-me’s who want to end civilization as we know it.

      • Peter Kriens says

        Thanks @Evil. You saved me a few hours 🙂 Almost perfect, without the unnecessary swear words it would have been even more powerful. (Although I sympathize with the sentiment.) To @Coffee Klatch. Maybe it is getting time to seek some help for so much hate cannot be healthy.

        • D-Rex says

          @ Peter K.
          I disagree, I think the swear words were entirely appropriate in the context of his comment.

      • Mike Patterson says

        Solid reply to Coffee by Patriarchal Mansplainer, but I agree that she’s probably too consumed by her warped ideology to understand your rebuttal or reply rationally.

    • Lola Falala says

      “Men hold more money, more power and more clout in society”

      Fifty years ago, that may have been The Patriarchy in America. But today? No. Today’s distribution of money, power, and clout is best explained by men’s greater desire for those three things, as well as the fact that there are far more extremely intelligent men than there are extremely intelligent women. (Take heart, Coffee Klatch. Men are also far more likely to be extremely dumb.)

      BTW, I’ve heard that—in the U..S at least—women hold more wealth than men. After all, the wives of rich old men tend to outlive those men.

    • peanut gallery says

      Female supremacy! I see a lot of assertions being made… Honestly get over yourself. I’m not an MRA, but men do have issues and why can’t they talk about them? Incel is another word for loser. And if you search the internet you can find anything. That doesn’t make it prevalent. Otherwise I’d think more people were furries.

      Men built society to protect women and children and I was raised to never hit a woman and to respect them. How terrible for you. To make up, I hope the next guy whose privilege you check decks you. You know, for equality. The modern feminist way of viewing things is through a lens of victim-hood. Men and women have been partners for a long time. (40,000 years?) We need each other to have a functioning society.

      • Karen Straughan says

        We’re all furries, peanut gallery. The furry apocalypse happened slowly and insidiously like a virus that spreads on the internet but conceals itself in meatspace.

        I’m sorry to have to tell you this, peanut, but you are the omega man–the last of the normies. Soon you will be one of us.

    • Richard says

      That is a decent steelman rebuttal as long as the water keeps running, the electricity stays on, wars don’t happen, food continues to be harvested, cars continue to get repaired, homes continue to be fixed and built, roads continue being repaired, and on and on and on.

    • Brent Swenson says

      What a perfect case to support the author’s premise. Well done indeed.

    • Geez Coffee you sound bitter. Sounds like you got it all going. That awful male dominated culture didn’t stop you, no sirree. I should think you’d have a tiny spark of joy, hell, I’m happy for you.

    • gravy train says

      TL;DR, she resents her husband because he earns less than she does and is directing that resentment at men as a whole.

      “Just so the author knows, my son will drive the car that I handed him to a school paid by MY dollars and my husband will continue to be a minor financial contributor to our home, while I bankroll the things that give us a great life.”

      • Robert Franklin says

        So when her husband divorces her, she’ll get to pay him alimony, likely for life. That Patriarchy’s a devious little sucker, isn’t it?

    • Janice Jollet says

      “There is a patriarchy. There is obviously a patriarchy. Men hold more money, more power and more clout in society. ”

      Not on average. This is the Apex Fallacy.

    • Empiricist says

      “There is a patriarchy. There is obviously a patriarchy. Men hold more money, more power and more clout in society”

      No. Firstly please consciously quantify your statement. “Men” do not hold more money, power, or clout. Some men hold more of those things than some other persons, both men and women. Some women hold more of those things than some other persons, both men and women. The people in the position of holding more of those things than the mass majority are very few in number and have what they hold because they are vastly more able to compete for those things than the rest of us, not because they are either male or female.

      As for the mass majority the truth is otherwise. In respect of money, read “Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man” by Susan Faludi for a starter. The truth about money is that the accountants attribute its acquisition to males in greater quantities than to females for bookkeeping purposes but their bean counting ignores the fact that the vast majority of the money men earn gets spent by women and for the benefit of women and children. As for power, watch The Red Pill directed by Cassie Jaye. The vast majority of men have significantly less power than the vast majority of women simply because the law prioritizes the interests of women and children over those of men and then prioritizes women over men as the defenders of the interests of children. Not sure what you mean to denote by “clout” but if it approximates “influence” the present state of identity politics clearly proves otherwise.

      • D-Rex says

        @ Emiricist
        “the vast majority of the money men earn gets spent by women and for the benefit of women and children”
        Most of the husbands of my acquaintance leave the finances to their wives, therefore your statement seems correct. Most men understand that women are more likely to be economical with the budget due to the nesting instinct, whereas men are more likely to spend money on frivolous things for our entertainment. So while I may at times hold a little resentment that I can’t spend more money on wine, DVD’s and comics, the rational part of my brain accepts these as necessary for our long term security.

      • Jasper Jigger says

        Stiffed is a little old now. But I guess each of us are trapped in our own past. This isn’t to say old ideas are worthless, of course. I’ve noticed for a while now that the stories and ideologies many sprout are often artifacts. Sacred ones. The sacred may not be rational.

        I enjoy a good read. Some of the articles here are excellent but many are simply crappy. Unsupported tripe. Reiteration of intuition.

        I don’t mind empiricists because of the reliance on evidence. Frankly, this article raised plenty of good and interesting points. But it will mostly appeal to the converted because it strokes existing beliefs.

    • Your whole “my son will drive MY car….husband will contribute a secondary income…” proves exactly the authors point 🤦🏽‍♂️

    • R Henry says

      “There is obviously a patriarchy. Men hold more money, more power and more clout in society.”

      Have you ever heard “correllation is not causation?”

      You display a common, immature understanding of the world around you. Just because men have more money, or clout, than women does NOT mean men have withheld it, or taken it, from women.

    • Harland says

      LOL the idea that MGTOW people and MRAs have any power whatsoever in society is laughable. On the rare occasion that one of them pops into the spotlight screaming feminists promptly beat them back into the shadows.

      I’ll give you one example, although I can easily produce more. There is an (unfortunately named) documentary ‘The Red Pill,’ which is an overview of the main MRA concerns, allowing many of the prominent MRAs to make their case (and which was not an attack on feminism). It was fiercely attacked by feminists, the director couldn’t find normal funding (and had to resort to crowd-funding), a showing was canceled after feminists hectored a movie theater, the media was extremely abusive and unfair to the (female) director, etc. I’ve seen no concerted attempt by even a small group of feminists to counter any of this and to defend the right for advocates for men to make their case fairly, without being harassed or no-platformed.

      The Red Pill documentary being protested in Sydney. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMUC9u0nAaQ

      >Racist, sexist, anti-gay! MRA, go away!

      None of them have actually watched it.

      • Karen Straughan says

        Harland, you don’t know the half of it.

        CBC, Canada’s publicly funded broadcaster, did a TV interview of a Calgary Women’s Studies professor about a screening of the Red Pill. Though the article attached to the video clearly indicated that this professor hadn’t seen the movie, this was not mentioned in the interview itself, which was broadcast regionally.

        At one point she explained that there are, indeed, some pressing issues facing men (and listed incarceration culture, low educational attainment, male victims of domestic and sexual violence), but that MRAs take those things and instantly move toward “it’s women’s fault.”

        Later on, the professor was asked what MRAs want. She replied, “they’re advocating for… mostly sexual rights. Meaning, ‘if only we could have sex with whoever and whatever we want, whenever we want to, then maybe we wouldn’t HAVE to rape you.'”

        So basically, to her, MRAs are using genuine men’s issues as a smokescreen to hide our REAL agenda of male sexual entitlement to women’s bodies. Which would make us look even worse, really–cynically using genuine problems men face to hide our nefarious intentions to legalize rape or some shit.

        The hilarious thing about it was that the interviewer just nodded and yupped along with this woman, without asking her to substantiate anything and certainly not suggesting that her description of MRAs might be exaggerated.

        So a state funded nationwide institution just let this woman (who already gets paid by the state to teach impressionable students from a position of unassailable authority) blather on about the most ridiculous nonsense without even asking her to clarify, let alone defend, anything she was saying.

        Ahhh… The Patriarchy works in mysterious ways.

        • martin macdonald says

          The CBC disgusts me.
          Thanks for all your work, Karen.

    • Coffee Klatch says

      There are a million mon-keys on a million typewriters that read more into what I wrote than anything I actually wrote. Nice responses, though — ranging from the compressed rage of a thousand overly effusive internal anal sphincters to the classic “men built this shit to protect you, WOMAN.” And here I thought they were just at the fringes…

      I am a humanist, and a feminist until something looks like roughly parity. Five minutes with any Google search and the basic proficiency to read a histogram will tell you that men are paid more, they have more wealth and more power. This is the gaslighting part. It’s not equal, and there is always a threat that the numb-brained mores of the past will come raging up and spark — and woman is again, a rib, a witch, a chaos demon, a fucktoy, an object, the damned.

      Who would be stupid enough to believe that just because negative rights exist for anyone that this is an antidote to cultural oppression/fascism? That’s the funniest fucking part of any of this — don’t look at power. Don’t look at the stats. Don’t look at the bloodied bodies of females or their children — don’t look at the org chart, don’t look at the numbers, don’t look at the faces compared to the other faces. Those people are invisible. They’re not real. They don’t exist. Believe me instead.

      If you could step outside of your regressive fantasies, you would literally see the starched collar being strained by the reddening of the neck, the bulging veins — the shot-through mercury of the T-1000 knitting itself back together as a another form, ready to strike, as the rope slips from and burns its hands. We say we don’t need you — the answers is, we will kill you. We say keep your fucking hands to yourselves and we’re banished to the menstruation hut — I guess you didn’t see the article about Wall Street excluding women. We say we don’t owe you babies, you say enslave them.

      And I don’t believe this is all men — but I believe that it’s enough. And until I see better stats and more diverse faces from top to bottom everywhere — it’s also proof to your lie that the leftovers of the oppressive mores still haunt us. If we are people, and not groups or tribes or whatever — there should be no balances tipped toward white males in wealth, industry, the public sector and government.

      Implied in my post above is that it’s better, and it’s changing — but it’s not done. And to stand in the solar storm of the tantrums so far. They should get fully more entertaining as we approach something like equality.

      • Stoic Realist says

        The inherent flaw that you seem to be stuck in is that you are asserting rather than proving the case you are trying to make. You rely entirely too much on ‘I see X and because I see X that must mean Y even though I have no evidence to support it beyond saying what I believe I am seeing.’ The problem with this line of argument is that it is entirely too similar to ‘The world is flat. I know this because I look all around me and the world is flat out to the horizon’ and ‘The world is the center of the universe. I know this because I look up at the sky and see the universe cross the sky as I witness it.’ In both of these cases perceptive evidence was used to draw an incorrect conclusion because the underlying facts and systems were not investigated.

        There are volumes of factual analysis out there that contradict your conclusions. You say men are paid more, but numerous studies don’t bear you out. Instead they indicate things like the fact that in many major cities between a man and a woman entering the work force in the same city doing the same job the woman will have a higher starting salary. They also show that men work more hours, travel further for work, take less time off, and elect to pursue more hazardous positions and that these all contribute to a difference in pay. You speak of blood yet you neglect the statistics that point out that ninety percent of workplace fatalities are men. These are the facts and the statistics that occur after you analyze the base causes rather than look at something, point at it, and make a declaration without seeking the underlying truths.

        Sadly it seems that rather than engage with facts you prefer to construct a conspiracy theory narrative to take some comfort in. I suppose you are entitled to make that choice. It is possible that the world may even allow you to live comfortably in that cocoon, but I would not take odds on it. The thing is that reality tends to be cold, cruel, and heedless of the feelings and preferences of the minute specks of life that humans are when placed within the universe as a whole. This means that for most people there comes a time where they are forced face to face with the truth behind their illusions and the greater the illusion the more painful that experience tends to be.

        I wish you luck. We have institutions full of people who were not able to adjust to those moments.

      • Karen Straughan says

        You all heard Coffee Klatch!

        Let’s get to it. She won’t stop until she sees parity!!!

        Here’s the to do list to bring things up to 50/50:

        * 100% more women in computer science.

        * 1500% more women dying on the job.

        * 5000% more women in sewer maintenance, logging, fishing and other hazardous and dirty jobs.

        * 5000% more women dying in war.

        * 200% more women homeless and 500% more of them sleeping rough.

        * we cut the federal budget for women’s health by 80%.

        * let’s get those suicide numbers for women to double! It’s only fair.

        * we need to at least triple the number of arrests of women in domestic violence incidents.

        * at least 6 times as many women need to lose custody of their children after divorce.

        * women accused of crime need to be treated every bit as harshly as men–if we do that, the female prison population will be at least 40% of the overall, rather than the 5-15% it is now.

        * abolish all government departments devoted to women’s health and wellbeing.

        * reduce female enrolment in post-secondary by 1/6.

        * allow men an equal de facto and de jure right to utilize safe haven abandonment of their unwanted children

        * the CDC indicates that attempted or completed nonconsensual sexual intercourse is 40% female perpetrated against men–let’s got those convictions of women!

        * murders of women should increase by 25 to 40%.

        * women’s life expectancy needs to be brought down by 5 to 7 years.

        Let’s get on this, guys. We can do it together. One day, we’ll reach parity!

        • Mike van Lammeren says

          @KarenStraughan, thank you so much for your post. It is factual, insightful, and witty.

          In the past, men bought Playboy for the pictures, but claimed it was for the articles. Today, I would like to freely and honestly admit that I support Quillette for the discussions — not the articles.

      • Jeremy Cole says

        @Coffee, it’s hard to tell if you are writing parody here or not but no matter. Here’s the truth: most men don’t occupy what you might call positions of power. Nor do most people. There is very little room at the top of a pyramid and lots of sharp elbows. Most of us are grinding it out downslope, trying to provide for our families and keep the wheels from falling off at home. It’s true that the people you find at the peak are mostly men because that’s who is at the right tail of several relevant distribution curves AND because many men are freed up to focus on careers by women working in partnership with them for shared goals. That’s not necessarily a bad deal for either of them. That’s why they do it.

        So why don’t women get to focus on careers while men support them? Sure, sexism and gender stereotypes play a part in the current shape of things but there are also those pesky distribution curves; women’s own choices, and the needs of kids. What you call “patriarchy” is a byproduct of all of these things, and it is naturally self-reinforcing, but it is not its own cause.

        The idea that equity (50/50 representation across the pyramid) would improve society because it’s “fair” seems like an unexamined one to me, and a little utopian. Bear in mind that while women can trade a spot in the matriarchy for one in the “the patriarchy” men don’t really have the same option. For one, most men aren’t inclined to take up traditionally female roles and for another, most women don’t want the men who are. In general, when presenting themselves to women as a potential mate, men need to come with a value proposition. They need to have amassed enough skills or resources to be appealing. That typically means they are a lateral move or a step up from the woman’s position. Women’s value on the other hand (in terms of mate selection) is much more inherent, revolving around beauty and fertility. This truth is actually at the heart of many feminist arguments about the ways in which women are valued/devalued. You can say that it’s unfair or maladaptive for our current societies but the fact is we are running on ancient hardware that doesn’t hear you, and that isn’t changing anytime soon. So, given these facts, as men lose access to positions of status/resources what will the outcome be? Is it beneficial to society or just to individual women? And as more of these individual women supplant men at the top, what happens to the pool of potential mates they have to choose from (again, equal to or higher than their status)? It shrinks.

        These things may not seem fair, but there they are. How do you deal with them? Blank slates and social constructionism? Not gonna cut it.

        One thing that can change is our perspective on where the center of power truly resides. In other words, do we live to work, or do we work to live? If you decide that professional status is the locus of power in life you might see a patriarchal structure take shape around it. If you see home/family as the locus of power in life then men and “the patriarchy” become a subordinate support structure to that endeavor. As usual, the truth probably lies somewhere in between — not with the interests of men or women but with the unconscious urges that actually pilot our joint course and push the human race forward.

        Like it or not, men and women are in a boat with two oars. At the end of the day, we just need to get somewhere together. Who can row fastest isn’t really a helpful question. It just sends you turning in circles.

        • GEORGE PAPPAS says

          Jane Austin understood the above. Perhaps modern feminists should read Pride & Prejudice before making fools of themselves otherwise they will find out that Baby it’s Very Cold Outside.

    • PaulNu says

      “There is a patriarchy. There is obviously a patriarchy. Men hold more money, more power and more clout in society.”

      Ah, that old leftist trope that all disparity can only be explained as oppressor and oppressed. LOL.

    • Women have got the vote, Coffee Klatch. We can run for any office we please. We can work in any industry we please. We can even sue for perceived different treatment; even where two men get a different wage, it’s the woman with a different wage who can sue, not the less savvy negotiator of the two men.

      Equality is a done deal. Women have the same opportunity to populate the government offices and boardrooms at the same frequency as men. That we aren’t using it is on us – men certainly don’t outnumber us to the extent that our democratic society could be so heavily stewarded by them if plenty of women didn’t like it that way.

    • 2+2is5 says

      Coffer Klatch, what happened to treating people fairly regardless of gender? Your argument centers around women running things, but I don’t see how one gender dominating leads to good outcomes. What outcomes are you pursuing?

    • Rohit J Parikh says

      I can understand much of what you say but yout last sentence is alarming’ When you say, “The sooner you deal with it, the sooner we can get on with progress.” I read progress to mean, “what II coffee, want”. You have an agenda and you want the world to run according to your agenda. That is dictatorship because the world has many voices, and yours is only ONE of the many voices. It is an important voice but also dogmatic.

    • Certainly there are more women ascending to elite positions than ever before in government, boardrooms and the professions. However, its a mistake to think that this is a challenge to “the patriarchy”, since those women don’t want to tear down the existing power structure, they simply want to join the existing gravy train and reap the rewards of exploiting the labour of the poor peasants down below, male and female alike. After all, its not like our new female company directors have shown any great interest in raising wages or working conditions any more than their male counterparts.

      So yes, there is a patriarchy, and given the picture you paint of your financial circumstances, I dare say that you are part of it. Congratulations on your ascension to the ruling class. However, please don’t delude yourself that you are any friend to the thousands of women who toil making your clothes, your food or the German sedan you gave to your snot-nosed spoilt brat of a kid. Its just the same shit with a different face, and for reasons that are perfectly understandable, the proles increasingly just don’t give a shit about the face no more.

    • Karen Straughan says

      “There is a patriarchy. There is obviously a patriarchy. Men hold more money, more power and more clout in society.”

      And are more likely to be homeless (and sleeping rough), to die on the job, and to take the most dangerous low paying jobs out there (like general construction laborer). They’re 3 times as likely to commit suicide generally, and ~10 times as likely to in the immediate wake of a family break-up (probably because they rarely get meaningful custody of their kids).

      They serve 60% longer sentences for the same crimes under the same circumstances in the US (and are more likely to be convicted in the first place). One study in the UK found that if men were treated the way women are in the criminal system, men would be paying more fines, but 5 of every 6 men in UK prisons wouldn’t be there.

      At least 75% of the money spent on personal items that can be gendered (clothing, jewelry, toiletries, cosmetics, accessories, hair care, etc), regardless of who is spending it, is spent on women. Women only earn 80% of what men do, but they have at least equal control over spending–including big ticket items like homes and cars. Most advertising is aimed at female consumers, because they mostly control the purse strings.

      As Woodrow points out, women in the US control more than 50% of all wealth.

      Perhaps even more alarming, a report in New Zealand that tracks the net cumulative impact on the tax system by gender found that, taken as groups, only men between age 40 and 79 are net taxpayers. At no point in their lives will women have taken less out of the tax system than they put in. At age 65, women are in the red to the government to the tune of $50,000 each, and by the time they hit 80 that number triples. So basically, the “patriarchy” pays women to just exist.

      If that’s not enough, men die more frequently and earlier of 14 of the 15 leading causes of death and have a life expectancy 5 to 7 years shorter than women, yet depending how you measure it, anywhere from 2 to 10 times more government and private money is spent on women’s health.

      What can I say, huh? That Patriarchy sure works in mysterious ways.

      “Culture dictated that the woman’s place was in the home.”

      Not even close. Culture dictated that the wives of high status men could afford to not work, and it was a point of pride for the entire family for the wife and mother not to have to work outside the home, or bring piecework into the home to supplement the family income. For the working and peasant classes, women always worked, often in underground economies exempt from taxation.

      Upper crust women demanded to know “why can’t I be a barrister like my father!” while working class women wouldn’t have traded places with their coal mining, logging, night-soil hauling husbands in a million years.

      “It’s insidious. It tells you it doesn’t exist. It gaslights. It appeals to tradition, to nature to spirit — to desperately, desperately hold on to its position. It pretends to be centrist, it pretends to be liberal — it will say and do anything to make you believe it doesn’t exist.”

      You sound like you’re talking about Satan here. “He appeals to greed, to lust, to sloth–to desperately, desperately hold onto his power. He pretends to be the benign and well-meaning serpent offering a ripe and innocuous fruit, he pretends to be the good intentions with which the road to his lair is paved–he will say and do anything (even plant a false fossil record) to make you believe he doesn’t exist.”

      “Just so the author knows, my son will drive the car that I handed him to a school paid by MY dollars and my husband will continue to be a minor financial contributor to our home, while I bankroll the things that give us a great life.”

      You sound bitter about your husband’s lack of financial contribution to your marriage. But look at you! You’re the primary breadwinner! You’re calling the shots! You’re the man! Living the dream! All that sweet, sweet patriarchal privilege is YOURS!!!

      …aaaaand you’re oppressed.

      • Mike van Lammeren says

        @KarenStraughan, when are you going to write an article for Quillette?

    • Olivia says

      I think you’re wrong. Women in the western world have every opportunity that men have; occasionally more. The fight has become trying to convince men to ‘step aside’ so woman can reign supreme – that’s not equality, that’s a power grab. And some men have been talked or guilted or shamed into going along with it. That’s terrible for society. We want every individual contributing to society in the most effective way they can. Suppressing one half so the other can rule over them is detrimental no matter which half is “on top.”

      • Karen Straughan says

        Olivia, it’s worse than that.

        Back when men were “in charge”, laws were on the books that (inasmuch as possible) specifically protected women and held men responsible for their bad actions against women (including rape and wife beating–the former was a capital crime, the latter punishable by public flogging).

        I have yet to see ANY real push from feminists to address female perpetration of domestic and sexual violence–not even against other women! Government funded, feminist run DV services *charge lesbian batterers out of pocket* for court mandated batterer treatment, and almost without exception, provide no victim services for men, no matter their sexual orientation. DV shelters in my city kick the sons of their female victims out on their 14th birthdays (or earlier, if they’re early bloomers). Predominant aggressor policies (a feminist innovation) mandate that “patriarchal terrorism” is the lens through which police decide which party, the man or the woman, is the abuser, and further mandate they take physical size and strength into account when deciding who to arrest–which means “arrest the man” is the rule of the day, no matter who was doing what.

        Historically, divorce was equally hard to get for a woman or a man (in the UK, it required an act of Parliament!), but even if a woman lost custody of her kids in the divorce, at least she owed nothing to her ex or her kids.

        Now we have a situation where a man can do nothing wrong whatsoever, lose custody of his kids, and owe lifetime alimony and years or decades of child support to his ex.

        A husband had a degree of legal authority over his wife and children (and servants and apprentices), but he was also held responsible for the wrongdoings of those under his guardianship–including being criminally prosecuted for certain crimes committed by his wife. A wife could say, “my husband made me do it,” or even, “my husband didn’t stop me from doing it,” and he would be prosecuted in her stead and bear the full consequences for the crime.

        Now we have feminists writing articles in mainstream news media arguing that women’s prisons shouldn’t exist.

        We have #MeToo-ers arguing that men should be both psychic and clairvoyant–he must be able to read her mind to know if her yes isn’t *really* a no, or whether her undoing his pants and putting his penis in her mouth *really* means she’s consenting to have his penis in her mouth. He must also tell the future so he’ll be able to discern whether she’ll regret the encounter a day a week a month or 40 years later.

        We have feminist legal innovations that are dismantling the culmination of 800 years of liberal western jurisprudence, essentially saying that in cases where men and women come into potentially criminal conflict, the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof and access to due process protections *for men* are unfair to women. A reasonable statute of limitations is unfair to female victims, and who cares whether no human being can provide an alibi for something that happened on an unspecified day at an unspecified time 20 or 30 years ago.

        And here in Canada, we’re about to see a law passed that will make feminist training for judges in adjudication of sexual assault mandatory. What’s in this training? The public apparently has no right to know. But I can almost guarantee that it will amount to the following:

        If she lied to police, that’s consistent with rape. If her story is incredulous, or if it changes, or if she initially said there was a gun but there wasn’t, that’s consistent with rape. If she concealed evidence from the police, rape. If she remembers everything perfectly and never changes her story, rape. If she colludes with other witnesses to bolster her case, well, rape victims might do that. If she follows the instructions of police and crown counsel, that’s also something rape victims do. If she’s visibly traumatized? Rape. If she appears to be revelling in the public attention and joyfully crowing about how she’s going to screw over the defendant… also consistent with rape. If she misremembers key details that she herself insisted were key to the incident, well, that’s not inconsistent with rape. If she avoided the defendant after the alleged assault, yep, you guessed it, rape. But if she pursued him sexually and romantically for more than a year afterward and then LIES ON THE STAND and says she avoided him after the alleged assault, well, wouldn’t you know it? That’s also consistent with rape. There is literally nothing a woman can do, no way a woman can behave, that is not consistent with her having been raped.

        On the flip side, a man who appears to be visibly traumatized by an accusation is consistent with the manipulative behavior of rapists who are attempting to garner sympathy. Also, if he’s calm, rational and presents a reasonable demeanor in court, that’s also what a rapist might do, because he’ll know that appearing level-headed might get him off the hook. If he held onto chat logs wherein his “victim” was throwing herself at him after the alleged assault, that’s exactly what a rapist would do to cover his tracks. If he’s angry, well, rapists tend to be angry people, no? There is just no way a man can behave and nothing he can do that is not consistent with him being a rapist.

        As women gain power in society, what are we seeing? We are seeing no proposals from feminists to impose responsibility or accountability on women, the way Patriarchy imposed these things on men. We are seeing no lobbying on the part of feminists to protect men from women’s increasing power to harm them, the way men were constrained under custom and law from harming women under Patriarchy.

        What we’re seeing is feminists arguing that “no means no, but yes doesn’t always mean yes.” We’re seeing efforts to close women’s prisons, and treat female offenders even more leniently than they already are. We’re seeing a feminist orchestrated policy situation wherein men who are victims of female-perpetrated DV are more likely to be arrested than helped.

        Women got special protections and provisions under Patriarchy, as compensation for their status as wards of their fathers and husbands. Under a feminist matriarchy, there won’t be anything like that for men.

    • Jake T says

      Congratulations on your success, which I’m sure you worked very hard to obtain. I think it shows that the best way to move forward isn’t to pit groups against each other, but to embrace the individual and individual liberty as the highest value.

      Your husband can take a back seat because that works for him. You can push forward because that works for you. PoCs can and should run for, and win, office (even if you didn’t like his policies, Obama was exactly as McCain described him). Immigrant success should be embraced.

      Humans have a scarcity mindset deeply rooted from our time as hunter/gatherers. Dividing into groups will create a counter group – MRA is a predictable counter balance to new feminism, as was all lives matter to BLM, as was white identity politics to democrats’ minority identity politics. People see things as a zero sum game when you divide into groups.

      We’ve gone a long way in the wrong direction from Dr. King – we need to judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin…or I’d add their sexual preference, economic standing, gender, gender identity, etc. The content of THEIR character, not their group identity’s media-assigned character.

      Embrace the individual. Elevate the individual. Put equal opportunity as the highest value. Then work to remove the barriers to equal opportunity and talk about it through the context of the individual. Then the scarcity mindset can fade into the background, because we’re talking about elevating everyone, not just one group or another, EVEN IF elevating one group really does mean “elevating to parity.”

      It’s a much better marketing message that helps the majority group see themselves in the message. If you feel that’s not fair, ask yourself what’s effective.

    • Trevor Sedis says

      Coffee Klatch: >”There is a patriarchy. There is obviously a patriarchy.”

      Yes, yes. Just like there’s a Santa Claus…and Bigfoots…and the Loch Ness Monster.

      CLUE: If “patriarchy” were real, rape wouldn’t be a crime. And all women would be Handjob Maidens.

      > “Men hold more money”

      TRANSLATION: Men work harder and longer at more dirty, dangerous, deadly, high-paying jobs.

      >”more power”

      TRANSLATION: Men expend greater effort to attain certain kinds of power.

      Feminists usually only talk about monetary or political power. Yet there are many more kinds. For example, who has more power over a child: his/her mother or a general? Who has more power: a South American dictator or the Pope?

      >”more clout in society”

      Really? If a man calls the police and says his wife is emotionally abusing him, what’s likely to happen?

      >”a post-patriarchy society”

      Defined how?

      >”look at the pictures of the incoming class of US House Democrats vs. Republicans”

      Per usual, feminists only look at the cushiest male jobs. Even then, they never ask what guys have to do to attain and keep such positions. Why do feminists never whine about the dearth of female deep-sea fishers or oil-rig roustabouts?

      Women take male sacrifices for granted because men don’t bitch about their lives. Yet if guys went on strike for a year, Western civilization would collapse.

      >”so many more faces of women and people of color are represented”

      As plumbers, electricians, etc.?

      Also, what makes a person-of-complaint or vaginate fit for a position?

      Plus there are things like Emily’s List, unspoken quotas, and reps like Kamala Harris who sleep their way to power.

      >”Why weren’t these people there?”

      Because they chose not to run.

      Also because it was harder for women to run before the Internet. And before male-created technologies freed females from their traditional roles. It was hard for females to run for public office before the Pill, and TV, and commercial airlines.

      Recall that democracies are historically rare and men, especially in the UK, only got universal suffrage when women did. However, before they could vote, and throughout history, men had to protect their families, villages, cities, nations, etc. with their lives.

      What is the so-called “egalitarian” women’s movement doing to ensure that fathers get half off all custody/support orders post-divorce while women fill half of all military cemeteries?

      Thought so.

      >”Because the white man has been the center — the solid — the white WASPy heart of a particular set of cultural signifiers and operators.”

      YES! And thank God for that.

      White Christian men…not black Wakandan women…created America and Europe. It was not Aztecs who created the Magna Carta. Or Chinese women who discovered electricity, created the Industrial Revolution, or invented the Internet. White men are truly compassionate kings. They created aerosol cans, automotive airbags, American Sign Language, movies, aspartame, aspirin, the assembly line, AstroTurf, audiotapes, ATMs, asphalt, baby formula, ball bearings, adhesive bandages, bar codes, barbed wire, barometers, batteries, camcorders, Carbon-14 dating, cardboard, double-entry accounting, mail-order catalogs, cellophane, dentures, smoke alarms, artificial diamonds, disposable diapers, disposable razors, fingerprinting, dry cleaning, escalators, email, subways, encyclopedias, dictionaries, Parliament, internal combustion engines, freeze-dried foods, SCUBA, Fresnel lenses, moon rockets, genetic engineering, chainsaws, pasteurization, polio vaccines, helicopter, holography, fluoridation, IVF, integrated electrical circuits, and so on…ad infinitum.

      All hail the white man for his ingenuity and love of humanity. Without him, artificial fertilizer wouldn’t have been discovered, consigning millions to death by starvation.

      >”Culture dictated that women should stay home and not go to school.”

      First, women are half of “culture.” No societies long endure without the active support of women.

      Second, schools traditionally were extremely rare and limited to the rich.

      To wit: females in 1700 America couldn’t fly from Boston to attend UCLA.

      >”Culture dictated that the woman’s place was in the home.”

      Again, culture is half female. Females CHOSE to stay home rather than hire themselves out, say, as warriors.

      >”Culture, via religion has dictated that woman was a reflection of man”

      Religion also dictated that men care for, provide for, and pay the debts of women.

      Like most feminists, you never talk about the price men pay for any alleged privileges.

      >”even at this juncture the pushback from the patriarchy…is brutal.”

      Examples? Have you endured the Burma Death March…or merely someone complimenting your handbag in broad daylight?

      Some 20,000 young UK males died on the first day of the Battle of the Somme…which lasted over a year. Name a comparable horror endured by females!

      Modern women think being “cat-called” is a capital offense. Then they wonder why so few women are in positions of power.

      >”to desperately, desperately hold on to its position”

      Tell us: what stops thoroughly modern women from making and paying for dates with men? Who is holding women back from doing anything?

      For example, what stops women from cleaning septic tanks, picking up garbage, maintaining sewers, paving/maintaining roads, laying railroad tracks, creating production machinery to build cars and can food, crewing on cargo ships, stringing cable-car wires, and test-piloting jets?

      >”there is healthy and robust talk about women being stripped of the right to vote”

      Perhaps because women still don’t have to defend suffrage with their lives like men must.

      >”returned to the home”

      From where?

      >”made to bear children”

      “Made to” how?

      >”talk of lower IQs in women, incompetency, worthlessness”

      As if feminists for the past 5 decades haven’t maligned men as pigs, dogs, rapists, molesters, and other MANifestations of evil incarnate!

      The truth is that, at too long last (at least 50 years), men are beginning to fight back. This upsets feminists who’ve been dishing it out, never having to take it in turn. They’re hoping that acting like damsels-in-distress will spare them blowback.

      Amazing, too, how supposedly combat-ready, Ranger-qualified, rough and tough, fierce and feisty feminists lose their stool when held accountable.

      >”my son will drive the car that I handed him”

      What model? How old?

      >”to a school paid by MY dollars and my husband will continue to be a minor financial contributor to our home”

      So, HIS dollars, too. How minor is his contribution? What size dog-collar does he wear?

      Who mows the lawn, maintains computers, cleans gutters, hangs shelves/doors, install home entertainment centers, does the taxes, unclogs the toilet, and acts as security guard?

      Can your husband choose not to work at all, like many married women?

      If you divorce, will you have to pay him a huge alimony for all the years he enabled you to be chief breadwinner?

      >”In 10-20 years, your condescending picture of a young feminist will be dead and buried”

      Nope. Feminism will be dead and buried by then. Since most feminists hate men, they never marry, and never have kids. They will work 2 jobs to pay for immigrant families with MANY kids, living traditional lifestyles.

      Also, more and more men will choose not to marry, preferring to serially boink slutwalkers. Free from having to pay for wives, kids, families…guys will live better and longer lives, enjoying their hard-earned money.

      Females, on the other hand, will have nothing to offer but vag. Sexbots will replace a lot of live-ancient-retread-diseased-dry vag, too. And when guys (who invented heart-transplants) invent artificial wombs, women WILL be good for just one thing.

      At best.

      >”she will run this shit”

      Ah, you sound like such a delightful, happy, optimistic, loving wife. What size Alpo can does your man get fed?

      >”your doctor, your lawyer, your professor, your coder, your financial advisor, your government leaders will be more female”

      Note, again-again-again-again how so-called “egalitarian” feminists want women to have only the highest-paying, cushiest, academic/corporate, salaried positions…and those handed to them ‘cuz vag.

      You never hear feminuts demanding that women be half of all those fighting on front-lines in war, filling military cemeteries, tunneling through mountains, butchering meat, harvesting chickens, making first-moves sexually, cleaning oil spills, detoxifying chemical spills, decontaminating nuclear accidents, covering roofs, operating cranes, installing plumbing, parachuting into forest fires, or rescue-swimming.

      They just want more same old, same old: Daddy/Patriarchy/Men catering to the wishes, whims, and wackiness of pedestal’d princesses…while making the world safe for femocracy.

      What feminitwits never imagine is men fighting back. Or opting out like Scandinavian/German men… who walk by while their women get raped by THE DIVERSITY.

      Swedish women…who opened their arms to refugees…had their legs subsequently forced open by swarthy gents who turn that nation into the rape capital of Europe.

    • hunter says

      Your vision sounds more like an angry mob not quite ready to deploy the modern version of the guillotine. And your mob is led by a former barrista and certified loon.

    • brad G says

      It’s difficult to digest the seeming obsession with sexism or equality that is more of a conscious invention at this point in time, and continues to haunt insecure women. Perhaps if women see themselves as collective creatures, having been the physically weaker of men, during the course of evolution, and continuing onward, their own perception belies their weakness. I know plenty of women who move through life on an equal footing with men — not an identical footing, as they femaniacs fret over, but an equal footing, in that they achieve what they want to achieve, and don’t worry about men’s clubs and hierarchies, much as your average man does. They aren’t equal — they are different, men and women, and the most obvious inequality is willingly allowing themselves to be victimized by feminist hysteria over being lesser beings. Very few men perceive women this way, but you can continue to will that it does. There are no physical slaves, only imagined ones. And continuing to spread the illusion of sexual slavery with comments like this only perpetuate it. This sort of nonsense doesn’t do your average strong woman any good at all, and I am sure of course none of them are reading this mumbo jumbo, as they wouldn’t stoop so low. They actually lead productive, fullfulling lives, and are treated as equals in this world: equal as individuals, and not as collective slaves to a demented sexual chain, or the language of radical feminism.

    • Lynn Mills says

      You’re ignoring the big blue elephant standing next to you. There has always been patriarchal societies in the eons of mankind because men are stronger than women. We may be intellectual equivalent, but men are stronger. They built the houses, killed the prey, protected us against the enemy, etc. Those were the days where might equaled right. Today is different obviously, women can do anything they are physically and mentally capable of doing in our society. However, what do you do when you feel threatened? Call the Police? They’re substitute patriarchal alphas hired by the state to protect us. Don’t feel so high and mighty because you can buy your child a car. You’re only able to because there are government alphas hired to keep us safe. Men and women were meant to work together. We’re the yin to each other’s yang. Without each other, there would be no family. Without family, there would be no society. Stop trying to define who is stronger. Instead, realize without families there are no great societies and we all are essential.

    • janby says

      Coffee Klatch stokes her self-righteous rage with slimy slogs through the incel, MGTOW, MRA murk to validate 1] her warped POV and 2] unwarranted sense of superiority. The guys wallowing in the murk did not create the SHREW; methinks the shrew largely created them. Most sentient human beings understand that lobbing incessant dehumanizing hate will result in a backlash. If you represent “progress, god helps us all.

    • *yawn* Not feeling too terribly guilty about any of that.

      Also not feeling too inclined to “dealing with it” or some cancerous notion of “progress”.

      Think I’ll keep winning, thanks.

      #MGTOW
      #CommenceThePence
      #ManOutNotUp
      #FeministTearsForYears&Years

    • Trevor Sedis says

      Bruce McKay: Are you Stevie Wonder? The West is currently over-populated with Shamu-sized landwhales waddling about, members of the genus Dworkinus Hugem Eatumucho Donuts.

  4. Great article. Encore. In the U.S. women were initially denied the right to vote and other civil rights. However that does not alter the fact, women were instrumental in building this country. There were women who settled this country when their husbands died in route. These women bore and raised future generations. Women planted crops, butchered hogs, chopped wood and provided food, clothing and shelter. Women maintained the home front when men were at war. Every man owes his existence to a woman. The story of women is one of perseverance. Modern day feminism devalues these accomplishments, in favor of victimhood. Feminism should seek to praise and revel in the accomplishments of their predecessors. What is empowering about preaching perpetual victimization? If women are dependent on the conduct or actions of men. then can women be said to be masters of their own destiny? The history of women says otherwise.

    • Trevor Sedis says

      Farris: >”In the U.S. women were initially denied the right to vote and other civil rights.”

      So were men.

      In fact, for most of human history, no one voted. Yet even then, the rich, the politically/militarily powerful, and the large landowners ran things.

      >”women were instrumental in building this country”

      First string or taxi-squad?

      >”There were women who settled this country when their husbands died in route.”

      Did they remarry? Count on other men?

      How did a lone woman with kids not only build a sod house and plant/harvest crops, but fight off Injuns?

      >”These women bore and raised future generations.”

      Sure. Just like cows, earthworms, and rats. Your point?

      >” Women planted crops, butchered hogs, chopped wood and provided food, clothing and shelter.

      Where did they get the hogs? And what shelters did they build?

      >”Women maintained the home front when men were at war.”

      Why didn’t they reverse roles? You know, in the name of equality and to un-oppress themselves.

      >”Every man owes his existence to a woman.”

      And every woman owes HER existence to a man.

      Absent a spark from the mighty peen, a womb remains a cold, sterile oven.

      >”The story of women is one of perseverance.”

      And nagging, bitching, kvetching, rumor-spreading, deceit, violence, manipulation, etc. Women are equally human, not saints.

      >”If women are dependent on the conduct or actions of men”

      They are. Just like men are on women.

      It used to be called a Mutual Admiration Society. Then feminists dropped a huge deuce in the punch bowl.

  5. Anon55344 says

    “historically it has been the “privilege” of men to make their way in the hard world in order to first win a woman’s affections, and then support the family structure financially. ”
    Only true from 1950-1959.
    Throughout history most marriages were arraigned.
    And women have always contributed to the support of the family.

    • I doubt most marriages were arranged (let alone arraigned), at least not in the punjab sense. My great grandparents for example, way way before the 50s, simply met and got married. Weird huh?

    • Trevor Sedis says

      Wrong. Read Ferdinand Mount’s, THE SUBVERSIVE FAMILY.

      • Anon55344 says

        “In this book, the author rambles endlessly attacking almost everyone for their beliefs without offering a shred of evidence in support of his own beliefs. He attacks Christians, Marxists, and various academics. The author claims that the nuclear family, based on love, was common throughout history. Is this true? I don’t know and I won’t know until I find another book that actually contains historical evidence. I only read the first 4 chapters of this book, so maybe it improves, but I don’t have the patience to find out. I think the history of the family is an important topic, worth reading about, but this is not the book to buy on this subject.”——-Franklin Schmidt

  6. Joe the Tranquil says

    “although women may not need men, men still need women.“

    Actually, it’s the opposite. Men don’t need women, when push comes to shove, a lot less than women need men. This idea that we’re sex crazed buffoons who lose our brains when we see a pair of breasts is a myth. Self-control is the mark of the civilized, and what marks a
    Man from a boy is his ability to master his urges, and not be ruled by them. Cut women and children out of a mans life and he’ll do just fine. Better, in fact, in these dark days…given the damage feminism has wreaked on society.

    “men adore us, and almost all their efforts at work or at home or in social settings, are made to win our approval, if not our admiration. ”

    Speaking as a Mgtow, more accurate to say we find you ranging from mildly annoying to intolerably obnoxious, and in all cases best avoid. Kind of like a rabid dog, or a locked and loaded skunk.

    • peanut gallery says

      @Joe I recommend the MGTOW channel Spetsnaz… Or I would if it still existed. That’s too bad. He had the healthiest outlook in that community and wasn’t about just avoiding women. He had a background in helping troubled men and had a lot of wisdom to share.

      You’re really missing out on an amazing part of life.

      Ok, so someone managed to save his work even if his channel is gone. I highly recommend it over wallowing in resentment. YMMV.

      https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMvvI-ys0V9MbuUrc2jeUPA

      • Trevor Sedis says

        peanut gallery: >”I highly recommend it over wallowing in resentment”

        Interesting. Feminists have attacked men and masculinity, ruining whole societies, for the past half-century. Yet whenever men belatedly complain about it, they’re told they’re “wallowing.”

        What did YOU do during the Gender War, Peanut?

        Do you think guys should spend all their time working to end the suffering of women who think they’re men who want to be horses that boink furrykins who wish to be gerbilists who play pattycakes with rainbow-flatulating unicorns.

        At what time, under what conditions, and for how long can men kvetch about the sundry harpoons stuck in them by fembots?

    • @Joe the Tranquil
      “This idea that we’re sex crazed buffoons who lose our brains when we see a pair of breasts is a myth.”

      Speak for yourself.

      • Trevor Sedis says

        The Flyoverland Crank: Why not invite him to join your Manginas Anonymous group? Let him borrow your BDSM gagball, too, and maybe join you in the Gimpbox.

      • Joe the Tranquil says

        I been a member of that fine gathering of gentlemen for nearly two decades.

        We meet on thursdays for bowling and beers.

    • D-Rex says

      @Joe
      “Cut women and children out of a mans life and he’ll do just fine. Better, in fact”
      What?
      Only someone who is damaged to the point of being numb could say such a thing.

      • Trevor Sedis says

        Perhaps you’re right. Now…what do you think causes someone to become numb?

        Or do you think only women bleed and only men make them?

      • Joe the Tranquil says

        Hate to burst your bubble, but I’m not damaged. Or numb. No woman ever broke my heart, I’m not divorced, impoverished for alimony or suicidal due to an unfair custody arrangement. I have no wife and no children, and I intend to keep it that way.

        The choices men like em make are based on a rational cost/benefit analysis. To put it simply, women (especially those raised in a feminist society) bring very little benefit to a man, but enormous costs and risks. In addition, the time, effort and expense required to make oneself attractive to women, divert resources for other activities that are far more productive and being genuine enjoyment to ones life. Not to mention the risks that arise thanks to #metoo, as a large number of male college students currently suing their schools for civil rights violations can attest.

        Put it this way, would you want to invest in a business in which the other partner has been indoctrinated In an ideology that despises people like you (feminism), has a 50% chance of catastrophic failure (divorce), and would strip you of any valuable products created during its existence (children) and leave you deprived of your assets and earnings for decades to come (alimony)?

        For any man both rational and sane, that would be no.

  7. Declan says

    *and in all cases best avoid*

    Looks like you failed on this occasion Joe.

  8. Evander says

    ‘At a time when Western women have achieved…control over their reproductive rights’

    To quote the author: ‘How is this anything other than a repudiation of femininity itself?’ And a refusal to take responsibility for the result of their sexual decisions; pleasure without commitment.

    Are there any notable mainstream feminists who don’t support infanticide in the womb?

    btw, beautifully written piece.

  9. Vibekke says

    I was here to criticize parts of the article (which I think has the right intention but presents weak arguments) but after reading the comments, I’d like to actually praise the author for writing something that angered both feminists and whatever those weird dudes in the comments are.

    • Trevor Sedis says

      Vibekke: >”that angered both feminists and whatever those weird dudes in the comments are”

      Good German, Vibekke! Want another pat on the had and a fence-sitting doggy biscuit?

  10. Robert Holm says

    “I’ve never known a heterosexual man who isn’t constantly preoccupied with thoughts of women.”
    Really? I’m sorry, but you need to expand your social circles a bit. I don’t know what kind of men you associate with, but they sound weird. I don’t think I’ve ever known anyone like that myself, not even when I was a teenager. Now I’m a single guy in my mid-forties, and I devote all my time to work and hobbies. I interact with a lot of women, but I don’t particularly need them and I certainly don’t think about them all the time. If they were all to disappear tomorrow that would be terrible and I would grieve at the loss of friends and family, but I would be able to continue my life just fine. Otherwise I agree with the article.

    • Stephanie says

      @ Robert, somehow I doubt most men are thinking of women all the time, good of you to confirm that. The author is presumably divorced, or otherwise broken up with her baby-daddy, so her not understanding men and how they think is not surprising.

  11. “although women may not need men, men still need women.“

    this really is the crux of the issue. it isn’t helpful making it a contest between who needs who the most, and which gender is better than the other. men and women need each other and have complementary roles to play. this i writ large all over evolutionary history and encoded in cultural operating systems build on millennia of cumulative human experience. of course there is plenty of latitude with regards to the specifics of the roles, and the interplay between genders is constantly evolving as societies move along their arcs of maturation. however, entertaining the thought that roles can be completely decoupled from gender, or that one gender doesn’t really need the other, strikes me as delusional and incompatible with any sane framework for a functioning society.

    • frances says

      It’s almost as if men and women are in the human project together. Who’d have thought?

    • Trevor Sedis says

      ferdinando: >”men and women need each other and have complementary roles to play”

      Ah, so THAT’s why there a 10 zillion man-hating women’s groups in the West, but not 1 (ONE!) group effectively protecting men’s rights after 50 years!

      >”entertaining the thought that roles can be completely decoupled from gender, or that one gender doesn’t really need the other, strikes me as delusional”

      Where have you been for the past half-century?

  12. James says

    “Let me say that again: men need us.”

    In one sense, yes. In another, the constant drumbeat of accusation and shame from institutions which are increasingly anti-male is driving a wedge between the sexes. And this doesn’t just work one way. Men may be shamed into silence on these subjects. But they are listening.

    To successfully reproduce, men do need women — at least for now. But humans subject every decision, including the decision to reproduce, to some sort of cost-benefits analysis. We often do this at a subconscious rather than a conscious level. But we do do it.

    An average man — one who isn’t ugly, stupid or poor but who also isn’t in the top 10% for attractiveness and isn’t rich — has to work extremely hard to make himself attractive to a woman.

    In his early 20s, he will be resource poor and will probably face many rejections, some kind and tactful but many either brutal or condescending. From these rejections, he will slowly learn what most women do and do not find attractive (which, even it’s not the caricature of pick-up artists’ imagination is often very different from what the young man has been told as a boy by well-meaning adults).

    At the same time, he will work hard at his job or his career to make himself someone worthy of respect (and self respect) but also someone able to command the resources needed to prove himself to a potential partner.

    At some point between their mid to late 20s, many women’s priorities in dating change. This is when our average man’s investments in learning skills, learning how to interact with women, building resources, may start to pay off. Some of the women who have been rejecting him, or men like him, may start to reconsider.

    This process already involves some swallowing of pride. During his youth, the average man has watched women chase after exactly the kind of men they have told him, and society tells him, they don’t want and disapprove of. He is bruising aware of the fact that, when when they women had the most bargaining power and the most choice, he was not their first choice. And contrary to feminist myths, most men do not shame women for this. They just accept it and are glad women’s priorities change as they get older.

    But why swallow your pride and put in all this effort to attract someone who has been socialized to see you as an agent of a force which is oppressing her, to see your hard work in support of her desire to have a family not as (or mainly as) as sign of your love and sacrifice but as a primary cause of the wage gap, who will side with the media, politicians and cultural actors in scolding and berating you, often on the basis of misinformation or the most uncharitable interpretation of collective male behavior?

    Easier just not to bother.

    • chasing the dragon says

      That happened to me, although I was lucky in that my wife was somewhat younger and hadn’t spent her life riding the carousel. But I do remember ruining a tender moment when she said she wished we had met years before and I coldly answered: you wouldn’t have given me a second glance back then. Brutal but true.

    • Martin28 says

      And the birth rate is dropping like a stone. A recent Atlantic article called it the “sex depression.” I am not aware that there has ever been a sex depression before. Not even in Victorian times. The Atlantic danced around the issue in very politically correct, feminist-approved language.

      • TarsTarkas says

        Japan has been experiencing replacement depression for some decades now. And now that multitudes of the Hikikomor are being forced out of the basement due to the aging of their baby boomer parents who are no longer able to financially support them, the fun involving the Japanese as a people is just beginning.

        • Kyle says

          TarsTarkas
          The difference between Japan and the West is that feminism isn’t the cause of the population decline there. I am married to a Japanese woman. She is far from a feminist. Japanese culture does not support feminism at this time. I think the causes for the population decline are numerous. One, it is expensive to have children in Japan. Two, there are a lot of entertaining diversions so many young people are more interested in other things. Three, I have to wonder if the crowded conditions of the major cities aren’t causing a subconscious reaction in the people that makes them not reproduce as much because of the crowding. At any rate, what they are experiencing is not caused by what is going on in the West. The women there are great. I wouldn’t even consider being with a Western woman again.

      • Stephanie says

        @Martin, I can’t imagine the dropping birthrate reflects people having less sex. Rather the ubiquity of birth control, the destigmatization of abortion, the scare tactics the media employ on young girls that if they get pregnant before they’re pulling in a six-figure salary their life will be ruined, ect, is causing the depressed birthrate.

        • @Stephanie: I doubt it is as extreme as that and also, what is wrong with being financially atable before you have children? If you depend solely on a man for income, you’ll be called a gold-digger. If you dare to rely on the state, you’ll be called a welfare queen. And what if the father of your children beats you and you solely depend on him financially? Not a great option.

        • ShipAhoy says

          Read the Atlantic article. Not to mention stats that testosterone levels are down by 50%. Women looking increasingly masculine, calling a prolonged gaze “harassment” and getting males beseeching them for another chance expelled from school probably doesn’t help the sex rates either.

          • ccscientist says

            I think falling testosterone is due to men being fat which screws up your hormones. Even in men, fat produces estrogen.

    • In fairness, a woman at the age of eighteen is at the height of her feminine powers. She is young, pristine, beautiful, unharried and in the best physical shape of her life. A man at the age of eighteen has no life experience, no money, no charisma and quite often no car. Its inevitable that during those early years, the male is going to face an uphill battle in getting anywhere with the ladies.

      Even as a male myself, I find male adolescents pathetic creatures, particularly when they are not related to me, and particularly when they attend at my residence in the company of my daughter. I cannot tell you how many times I have dreamed about grabbing one of these characters and cracking their head like a fortune cookie, but it would be a lot.

      • James says

        I wouldn’t call young men “pathetic”. They are just at the start of their journey and, in evolutionary and social terms, at a mating disadvantage. They are no more to be held in contempt than older women, who are at a similar disadvantage.

        Everyone’s just trying to get along. My point was, as a young man, why bother trying when the best you can expect for your efforts is a partner who has been trained to treat you with contempt and to either not see or discount the value of your contribution to the relationship and to the wider world?

        “I cannot tell you how many times I have dreamed about grabbing one of these characters and cracking their head like a fortune cookie, but it would be a lot.”

        I can imagine. And I sympathize with your frustration. But remember we were all callow, awkward and unsure of how to make a good impression. Only age and experience cures it, if anything does.

        Also, could it be that your daughter is choosing the “wrong” young men? Or rather, from her perspective (depending on how old she is), could she be choosing the “right” young men: the exciting, fun dangerous ones who are, of course, just the sort of clueless knuckleheads custom-designed to wind you up?

        Give it a year or two, she’ll suddenly change tack and bring home and banking analyst who enjoys math puzzles and bird watching. Then you’ll have the opposite problem: you’ll have to hide your horror at how boring her new, and apparently long-term, man is.

        Either way, good luck!

        • Mike van Lammeren says

          @James, regarding your comment: “Why bother trying when the best you can expect for your efforts is a partner who has been trained to treat you with contempt?”

          Statistically, speaking for all men and all women, you might be right, but you are not the statistical average, you are an individual, and there are many intelligent, beautiful women out there too. Go find one.

      • Morgan says

        In fairness, the kind of adolescents your daughter is choosing at that age probably aren’t decent people. And that’s why she’s choosing them.

      • Trevor Sedis says

        Bab: >”a woman at the age of eighteen is at the height of her feminine powers. She is young, pristine, beautiful, unharried and in the best physical shape of her life.

        A man at the age of eighteen is at the height of his masculine powers. He is young, pristine, strong, handsome, unharried and in the best physical shape of his life.

        >”A man at the age of eighteen has no life experience, no money, no charisma and quite often no car.”

        A woman at the age of eighteen has no life experience, no money, no charisma, quite often has no car, and is a bimbo obsessed with shoes and makeup.

        Its inevitable that during those early years, the female is going to face an uphill battle in getting any male to view her as anything but a pump-n-dump.

        I find female adolescents prissy, pompous, pathetic creatures, good for just one thing.

        I cannot tell you how many times I have dreamed about grabbing one of these characters by the pussy, cracking her vag open…a lot. Then, post-porking, having some beers with the bros, regaling them will tales of my getting tail.

    • Mike van Lammeren says

      @James, the fact that it is easier not to bother does not make it right.

  13. m. a. diamantis says

    thank you. a refreshing, well written article like so many here.

  14. Vivian Smith Smyth Smith says

    “One has to appreciate the misplaced sincerity of many of my university students who roundly condemn The Patriarchy, while driving their father’s Toyota to campus every day, and using his savings to pay for their tuition. Not infrequently it occurs to me that the people who are most vocal against The Patriarchy are those who have benefited from it the most.”

    Bang on point. My cousin went through a phase in her teens and early twenties when she was a “radical” feminist, and 90% of her conversations were peppered with feminist jargon and complaints about men and the patriarchy.

    On a family get together that also coincided with her birthday, she literally broke down crying when she received a very expensive digital camera from her Dad. I assumed that it was tears of joy, until I realized that she was upset at her father for not getting the exact right one that she wanted. He was sufficiently cowed and promised to get the correct one. Oh, she was 19 at the time.

    What struck me most was not only the spoiled brat reaction, but the huge double standard. Could you imagine a 19 year old boy crying in that situation? And then being successful in getting what he wants with those antics? That was one of my first indications that feminists are often very selective about the double standards that they rail against.

    To her credit, she worked herself out of that phase. Real life seemed to have intervened.

  15. Tome708 says

    I had a comment on the article, a criticism. Then I read Coffee Klatch, and forgot it. Coffee Klatch Made me believe this author was the most reasonable person I had ever read (In contrast) So I made my comment about Coffee Klatch above.
    Now I remember that I had an opinion about the article. After contemplation it occurred to me that the ideas in the article seem reasonable because of Coffee Klatch of the world. I think it led to the Coffee Klatch of the world.
    It was well written and offered some interesting points.
    I am gonna now tread on dangerous ground:
    Can we not use “single mother” anymore? It seems to be used as some sort of badge of honor. It seems to imply by the user, some inherent special knowledge.
    I would suggest either “failed marriage mother” or “irresponsible mother”.
    Yes I know how hard they work, and that they “do their best” but it is not the “best” environment for the kids.
    It’s not even just normalization of the situation, it always seems to be elevating “single motherhood”.
    There it is, have at me.
    (By the way, I do admire moms that chose to raise their children rather than kill them. I am suggesting it is irresponsible to engage in activity that produces these children outside of stable marriage. Killing your child is worse than irresponsible, it is an abomination)

    • Pirus says

      Being a single mother surely must be every third wave feminists Ideal. Do away with the father and we will have perfect, utopian female future.

      • R Henry says

        As far as the Feminist mind is concerned, men are best for provide sperm and money…then, they are happy to be done with men. This is the definition of a prostitute.

      • Tome708 says

        Yes the divorced woman, collecting alamony and child support with joint custody claiming to be a “single mom”. Then at some point I heard the men with fifty fifty custody referring to themselves as “single dads”. Gag. Everyone wants to jump in the “victim” train.

        • TarsTarkas says

          For an early view on what a pure matriarchy would look like, I would suggest googling ‘Lyranian Lensman’ where Kimball Kinnision encounters a planet where males have the intelligence of cockroaches and only used for reproductions, and the females have utterly no culture or sense of humor.

        • Trevor Sedis says

          Tome708: >”at some point I heard the men with fifty fifty custody referring to themselves as ‘single dads’ ”

          Joint (“50/50”) custody usually means the father has LEGAL custody. That is, he has some say on issues like where his kids go to school.

          He still must pay child-support (tax-free to his ex…who can spend in all on herself; no accounting is required).

          She has PHYSICAL custody, the kids living with her.

          Dad often sees his kids every other weekend…IF his ex permits. She can deny visitation with impunity while he’s jailed for not paying child-support. She can also accuse him of abuse and block his access to the children.

          Of course, when men complain about such obvious injustices, they’re called “victims” by people who kow-tow to feminist plaints 24 hours a day. They know vaginates are the REAL humans, men just unfeeling, robotic, heartless, evil ATMs.

    • @Tome708 what about women who need to escape an abusive relationship? Also “failed marriage mother” seems to suggest that a woman alone bears the responsibility for that marriage breaking up.

      It is interesting how in any criricism against feminism fails to even consider that there are still genuinely violent, abusive men out there, even of they are in minority.

      • ShipAhoy says

        And there are violent, abusive women. Is that the equality you’re looking for?

      • Karen Straughan says

        Rose, at least 70% of divorces are initiated by women, and the majority of these women cite “dissatisfaction” as the cause, not abuse, and not even irreconcilable differences.

        I criticize feminism every single day, and I would never fail to consider that some men (and women) are genuinely violent and abusive.

        In fact, the woman who founded the world’s first battered women’s shelter, Erin Pizzey, was a battered child with two violent parents and was called a “homewrecker” by clergy and community leaders when she began taking in abused women and their children in Chiswick in 1972.

        She’s also the most staunch anti-feminist I know. She’s my hero and my mentor and she wouldn’t forget or deny for one second that violent men exist.

        She was drummed out of the shelter movement she started on her own as a one woman army, because… feminists didn’t like her findings that many of the women in her shelter were at least as violent as the men they were fleeing. Somehow, they interpreted her saying that women are also sometimes violent and abusive in their relationships was “excusing male violence”.

        Again, the majority of divorces initiated by women have nothing to do with abuse. No one should be forced, by law or by cultural stigma, to stay with an abusive partner. But I think you might be falling prey to the dogmatic feminist interpretation of things, which appears to be that if one doesn’t preface every criticism of the status quo with three paragraphs of caveats acknowledging that there are outliers and exceptions, that we believe there are NO outliers and exceptions.

        A discussion of the harms of single motherhood should NOT have to involve a page long disclaimer that some women have good reason to divorce because of abuse. Why? Because they are not the women we’re talking about here. We’re talking about the roughly 50% of divorced women who initiated a divorce and broke up a family, upending the lives of their husbands and children, because they were dissatisfied with their husbands. These women should not be lauded. They should not be considered heroes. And if they’re collecting family maintenance payments or using subsidized daycare, taxpayer or charity funded school lunches and after school care, or any other crutch, they should NOT be considered to be “independent”.

        • @Karen, thanks for this – I had no idea. Could you point me to sources on the statistics, please, particularly about the 70% divorce initiation by women and 50% women who chose divorce due to “dissatisfaction”?

          Also, can you please point me to sources that will show that children growing up in families where mum and dad argued constantly are happier than those in single parent homes? Surely growing up in an atmosphere of constant conflict cannot be great to children.

          Also, I think “a page long” disclaimer is hyperbolic. Acknowledging outliers might be done in a sentence.

          • Trevor Sedis says

            Rose: >”Could you point me to sources…can you please point me to sources”

            Do your own research, por favor. Google is your friend.

            Also, I suspect you will just say “muh feminism” and ignore any proof presented.

            If you are an adult and don’t know that women are as violent as men…but often in different ways…then you remain a child.

            Poisons kill as effectively as bullets. Scorpions, though small, are more dangerous than “much larger” manatees. The idea that “tiny” women can’t be violent (they’re giants to children) is dangerous nonsense.

    • Lynn Mills says

      @tome708, Just curious, what do you call mothers whose husbands have left them? SOL mothers?

  16. Martin28 says

    “although women may not need men, men still need women.”

    Let’s not forget that women need men to be born. Therefore humanity needs women to need men, and vice-versa. Over the millennia, men have protected women, and the children. Women and children would never have survived without this protection, and male support. This is still true to a degree. Who does the dangerous jobs? Who built and maintains the house you live in, the buildings you work and shop in, and all of the hard infrastructure in between? Who maintains the electrical grid? How long would feminists—generally well educated or getting there—survive without the electrical grid?

    Otherwise there is a lot of good sense to this article. It is a breath of fresh air—but a lot of fresh air needs to be let into this stifling, unhealthy, and mostly one-way conversation.

  17. Sean S says

    There is no femininity in feminism at all. Feminists are simply female men, undesirable. If see one, run.

  18. “the fact that we’re women—men adore us, and almost all their efforts at work or at home or in social settings, are made to win our approval,”

    Yep. We really do. I hate submarine movies, you know why? There are no women in them. Women make life worth living. When we forget that both men and women suffer.

    My 2 cents

    • Man Loving Lady says

      @Craig Willms As a woman, I LOVE submarine movies. All those brave men committed to protecting the homeland where their loved ones live. Seriously, I’d rather date a marine than a hipster with a man bun. On the other hand, can’t stand feminist writing.

  19. Vince John says

    Think of the feminist as a spoiled child who has yet to grow up.

    • Trevor Sedis says

      Vince John: >”Think of the feminist as a spoiled child who has yet to grow up.”

      Think of Western men as fathers who spoiled their female children, preventing them from growing up.

      Guys today had 50 years to create 1 (ONE!) effective men’s rights group. They chose not to. Instead, they whine impotently online about all the shite their cowardly passivity permitted for half a century.

  20. somewoman says

    Feminism was a movement that origniated in the mid 20th century (it wasn’t really called or thought of as this during the suffragette movement). The vast majority of its theorists and westernized opponents are very narrow and sheltered in their views of the world as based in developed western countries. For them, their cultural memory extends to their grand parents or great grand parents in which a man generally earned a salary and his wife worked at home in the relative comforts of a house with some appliances such as laundry machines. But this society is such a small sliver of the history of humanity and expanse of human societies that it really doesn’t tell us that much about what our natural instincts are.

    Male domination over women has been so pervasive and severe over most historical civilizations that an intelligent person really should start suspecting that there is some kind of male instinct to possess and control women as much as they can manage to. 1950s america with a male breadwinner and female homemaker does not describe the level of legal physical control men had over women in most societies or through most of history. Look at the world today. Fathers trading pre-adolescent female children for livestock or land and handing them over to men who already have wives or are much older is commonplace in many parts of africa and in the arab world. Before christianization it was done in parts of europe too. Women used to be routinely killed in much of the middle east if they ran away from abusive husbands or tried to refuse forced marriages.

    It is also a myth that our natural state is one where men provide and women are provided for so they can focus on nurturing children. This arrangement is seen almost exclusively in european and urban near eastern societies. Through all of africa, bedouin society and most of southeast asia, female labor actually accounts for the majority of resource production. However, they control very little of the wealth. Look at a picture of who is tilling the fields in vietnam or indonesia and you will see women. They and young male adolescents milk the cows and watch the livestock in africa and amogn bedouin too. Adult men in these societies are actually somewhat parasitic to them in that they own and control the resources (and would kill any woman who tried to divorce him and take his camels), and actually do not contribute to food production as much as they take. IE, they eat first and do the least labor. My family is from such a place. All the men do is work a few days when the labor is most physically intense (the harvest) and then take the harvest to the market, sell it and then control the money that comes in. But they do perhaps 10% of the work overall. My cultural experience is the norm more than the abberation across the world.

    It’s very charming to sit and think of human nature as one where men strive to regale and entertain women while “privileged” women merely need to be pretty in order to receive that attention and then decide who to bestow their affections on. Yes, that scenario more or less describes the world I live in (a wealthy american city), but that doesn’t actually describe the world most women live in now or lived in in the past. Probably a third of women alive today have almost no choice in who they marry. The men in those societies have little interest in figuring out how to woo women. I was in indonesia last year and my driver explained that his father simply abducted his mother from her house as a teenager. The mother despised him and never wanted to marry him and never learned to love him in the least but it still married to him today because her family required it once she came home forcibly pregnant. This fantasy this author has of some instinctive female privilege is really the mistake of thinking that the privilege of a living in a post-enlightenment developed wealthy society that respects autonomous rights for all is rooted in our primal state.

    • ” very narrow and sheltered in their views of the world as based in developed western countries”
      Odd, I got the same impression reading your comment.
      It comes down to this: men are physically larger and stronger. In most of the world apart from in advanced civilizations, might makes right, like it or not. Even in the West our relatively safety is thanks to the male-dominated police and military and their willingness to do dirty and dangerous jobs. A woman sitting in a salaried office job calling herself a feminist is laughable. Let’s see her digging ditches or raking out sewage or climbing a 500 ft radio tower.
      Also, because women can birth children, that makes them socially useful whereas men must prove their usefulness via other means such as prowess or social status. Same for males of nearly every animal species.

      • somewoman says

        It’s takes some blind spots to think of society as this thing where men do the hard labor of creating the foundation while women sit comfortably doing nice desk jobs. Realistically, traditonally male menial labor is no more vital than traditionally female menial labor. You won’t have a working sewer system without ditches and the ditches were dug by men, but those ditch diggers would have never grown up without whatever woman fed and bathed them when they were toddlers. We have electrical grids but wouldn’t have working power companies if there were no kindergarden teachers to teach all these corporate executives how to read.

        There are a lot of men in this world. Maybe 2% of them contribute meaningfully to the advancement of civilization. Women do something too. We had a flynn effect for decades where the average IQ rose by more than a dozen points, and some of that in the last 50 years was due to the better teaching methods and early childhood programming that mostly women figured out. Each of these educational researchers won’t be named as a genius like einstein, but in aggregate they also have contributed meaningfully to the advance of civilization.

        • Stoic Realist says

          Your IQ assertion is interesting given that the studies I have seen show that 1) Average IQ had been going down rather than up. I think it was something like a 15 point drop from Victorian times. And 2) that we have found no reliable way to teach up IQ. If you have scientific references to other data I would honestly like to see them.

          • gab.s says

            There are many links at the bottom of the Flynn effect entry on wikipedia.
            From what little I have seen, the increase in iq is mainly in the area of abstract thought, possibly due to children being raised in a world where abstract thought is encountered more frequently than in prehistory/history – I read that the design of stone hand axes did not really change for 100,000 years, during which time the human skeleton evolved appreciably.
            Also it would be fascinating to know if epigenetics plays a part in this.

    • Nate D. says

      @ somewoman

      This is an excellent and thought-provoking comment. I understood the author of the piece as speaking from a Western mindset, and that when she speaks of “history” she means within the history of current ideals. That was a presupposition – maybe a wrong one – but one that made the article make sense to me.

      I grew up in a developing African country. Male oppression of females was obvious and it was ingrained in the culture. Women collected the firewood and men sat in the shade. A woman that did not collect firewood was beaten.

      How was Western civilization able to incrementally leave this power schema behind? Did women take power from men or did men cede it? Christianity’s doctrine of unselfishness certainly seasoned the pot, but I propose that men ceded their power as it became obvious that increasing women’s rights and access proved beneficial to society.

      Perhaps Coffee Katch’s passion above spews from a primal fear. Does Western feminism dangle from a slender thread? What would it take for Western culture to begin making a u-turn; to begin arcing back to the power schema of old? As a man with three daughters, I certainly hope feminism doesn’t overplay its hand and jump the shark. I believe the author’s brand of feminism has staying power (sans the arguments about who-needs-who-more) and stands to benefit society more. Think, humanism – not gender-based power schema. Coffee Katch’s brand of feminism is toxic and will only serve to push us back to the stone age.

      • Jeff Denton says

        @nate D. “How was Western civilization able to incrementally leave this power schema behind?”

        I find that to be a really interesting question. Anyone have any good reading recommendations regarding this? I’d love to look into it more. My initial gut response was something like, “Well, western societies have never had this power schema.” But after thinking a bit more I realized the obvious fact that, at SOME point, western society diverged from primarily agrarian, bedoin, tribal society.

        A (very uneducated) guess might be something related to urbanization of society. Large urban centers offer many collective benefits, but require a lot of infrastructure built out, maintenance, and protection – work typically done by men. So, men didn’t cede power so much as the power dynamic shifted because of the pros and cons, perks and obligations of living in a more complex, urban society.

      • Robert Franklin says

        Nate D. – Feminism eventuated in the West due to a variety of factors. By the mid-19th century, the world had about 1.5 billion people. Therefore, the need to optimize reproduction by protecting women and making men the disposable sex began to look unnecessary. European and American capitalism increased wealth and leisure time for far more people than ever before and medical science had discovered the germ theory of disease, making survival much more likely and longevity greater. Finally, the Enlightenment’s concept of individual rights and liberties promoted the idea that women should be included. Indeed, that’s the very idea behind the Statement of Sentiments. The reason things began changing is that the circumstances of human life changed to make the traditional female role far less important than ever before.

        • Stoic Realist says

          It is also worth remembering that war played a significant part. During World War 2 while the men were away there was a need for society to continue on and for production to be maintained to supply the war effort. This led to the ‘Rosie the riveter’ campaign where having a lack of men to fill the positions they asked women to do it. This not only took the women out of the house. It also gave them income and proved that they could make their own living. (Though not directly on point the movie ‘A League of their Own’ shows some of the reasoning and the issues.)

          When the men came back there were a number of women who didn’t want to go back to how things were. Though in most cases they didn’t get to keep their wartime jobs. They instead went out and found new ones. Since the extra workforce became extra productivity everyone was happy for a while. (No. It wasn’t that easy, but there was a gain in place that gave society a reason to adapt.)

          Now no change is without consequences and this one had many. The rise of modern feminism being one of them. Another was a sea change in the economy where the option of a single income family began to disappear as prices adjusted to the availability of capital.

      • somewoman says

        “How was Western civilization able to incrementally leave this power schema behind? Did women take power from men or did men cede it? Christianity’s doctrine of unselfishness certainly seasoned the pot, but I propose that men ceded their power as it became obvious that increasing women’s rights and access proved beneficial to society.”

        I don’t think that is known, but I could hazard a guess for things that might have contributed:

        1) Maybe we’re not all the same- There is huge variation in instincts of how to deal with the opposite sex in individuals. You have serial killers that rape and strangle women by the dozen. A far outlier, but it shows our variation. It’s possible that different races of people don’t have the same kind of instinct to provide their wives resources or their children reasources. This has been suspected when we look at the low paternal investment that occurs routinely in both american black and west african societies. I dont know the answers about this.

        2) I think parts of western economic history probably had a big impact over time. 90% of europeans were landless serfs until around the renaissance. So the vast majority of men had nothing to give fathers in exchange for their daughters. There was no bride price, no dowry and no inheritance for the most part for women. Likewise, a woman with no inheritance didn’t invite financial exploitation from men who wanted her for the dowry. This may have created the foundation needed for a society where men offered their efforts and fidelity and women offered their own- because neither had anything else to offer.

        3) Monogamy- This one I think is the biggest factor. Christianity was rare in that it required official monogamy of all men, including the most powerful. In societies like China and India, most men ended up monogamous, but the kings and wealthiest men did tend to have multiple wives. In those times, the laws were written for and by the most powerful men only. So, if those men are men with 200 wives, then the laws and customs they create will be prone to viewing women as not terribly valuable. Some object to be bought and exchanged. Not a companion, which might happen out of necessity if you can only have one women for all your life.

        The tradition of chivalry did happen before the enlightenment, and it was unique. This is a great mistake people make when thinking about the world. Chivalry is hundreds of years old and deeply embedded in the western mind set, but it is completely alien to almost every other culture. There is no such thing as women and children first in the middle east. Ask all the israei soldiers who are amazed that grown male arab fighters will strategically hide behind women and children without concern that they will get shot first. I think the existence of chivalry paved the way for women’s rights during the enlightenment because it made the concept of trying to cater to women not seem absurd.

      • ccscientist says

        “How was Western civilization able to incrementally leave this power schema behind? ” I propose that it was a combination of increasing wealth such that fewer jobs required brute strength, more education, and the classical western liberal ideals of “all men are created equal” which includes women. In addition, cutting back from 6 kids in 1800 to 2 kids today frees up women to work, as do appliances. Many things combined.

    • Tome708 says

      More reason to destroy the western patriarchy. Burn it down

    • Jeff Denton says

      @somewoman I appreciate your insightful and thoughtful comments. Western feminists who actually desire to work hard for change and get their hands dirty as opposed to just complaining, should take your observations seriously and focus their efforts outside of the societies that offer them unprecedented levels of freedom, security, and opportunity.

      This particular article, however, should be thought of as bounded by the context of modern, rich, western societies. And maybe further bounded by modern American society. Once that context is established, I find very few parallels to the cultures you describe and agree with the author that we are quite a ways past a patriarchal society. I can’t think of any time in American history when men, by and large, shirked their responsibility to work and left it up to women to do the heavy lifting. if anyone can push back on this assumption, I’d be happy to look into some evidence.

      • somewoman says

        “I can’t think of any time in American history when men, by and large, shirked their responsibility to work and left it up to women to do the heavy lifting.”

        Go to Baltimore.

        • Jules Sylver says

          somewoman: “Go to Baltimore”. No kidding. I remember walking through Harlem in the mid 70s. The streets were entirely filled with men. Hanging out, in bars, on corners. Absolutely no women. Where were the women? Inside, working, doing whatever it takes to provide for their family.

          And 2 words to any man who wants to blame male irresponsibility and indigence on women.

    • Somewoman, considering all you say, why are today’s feminists not focused on these issues? Why do they celebrate their head covered “allies”? Why do they obsess over the non existent “rape culture” on campuses?

      • somewoman says

        Feminism is now tied with marxism, which is obsessed with the redistribution of wealth/power. They tried that without the identity politics throughout the 20th century, but the result was that marxism was a collosal failure compared to just about everything else. So they had to think of a new tactic. Lack of marxism worked just fine to improve opportunity and standard of living for everyone, but some demographic groups and nations were still stuck being poor. The demographic that holds the most wealth is white men, so marxism wants to redistribute wealth from white men to other demographics. So, while playing into the resentments of the working class would no longer work, they decided to foment resentment against people who struggled to economically compete with white men.

        Thus, feminism/marxism is obsessed with painting white men as the capitalistic hegemon responsible for all the worlds ills. If there is ISIS, it is because they caused climate change. If there is child marriage in somalia, it is because white men colonized it and depleted it of resources. They do not care about the disparity in power between men and women or about the absolute rights that women have in any part of the world. They only care about weakening the group with the most power- white men. In their minds, doing so will create equality and some create a situation where everyone around the world works together for equality.

        In Afghanistan, they have a saying- the police will no more interfere with a man who kills is wife than with a man who kills his ox in some private rage. Now, how many so-called feminists do you think are even aware of the fact that this is a saying? And it is more than a saying really- it is effectively the law women in rural Afghanistan live under. A law that says some man they were forced to marry can kill them on a whim. The feminists will not claim to agree with this saying if the question were pressed, but they pay no attention to the issue left to their own devices. They have much energy for banning baby it’s cold outside. Much energy for passing around youtube videos of microaggressions. But no energy to even noticing or asking what challenges in the developing world actually face.

        There is NO awareness of any issue women in the developing world face unless it is also an issue some women in the western world face. Did you know a massive issue for women in much of the poor non-western world is that their husbands, who own all the money, refuse to buy refrigerators or prioritize getting proper wiring for it? It’s catastrophic for their lives because it keeps these women tethered to the kitchen all their lives. A women who has 5 children (as they do) has to spend all her waking hours finding and cooking food if they can’t refrigerate it. But these are the problems no one talks about because it’s an alien concept to the women who have the microphone.

        • ga gamba says

          @somewoman

          Very good comments. You have a decent grasp of history and an understanding of the world beyond that of Europe and post-Columbian North America.

          I’ve lived in the third world for much of my life and often even a refrigerator is not only beyond the means of many, it’s beyond the geography of many. I’m quite familiar with the provincial Philippines, and many people are far removed from the electrical grid. So, to have the refrigerator one also needs a petrol or diesel generator and a means to regularly fill it. A combined refrigerator freezer from an unknown maker such as Condura is about $500. A smaller refrigerator without freezer is about half that. A cheap generator starts at approximately $200, and anything durable for daily use will cost more than that. Petrol is about $1 per litre. You have to arrange and pay for the transport of those. Even journeying to a shopping centre is an adventure. But one probably wouldn’t even do so because they don’t have bank accounts to save their money for such a purchase; I recall reading that 50% of Filipino workers don’t have bank accounts, and in the provinces one is far from a bank. It probably wouldn’t matter; many don’t have enough to open an account due to the minimum balance. These are the people buy small sachets of shampoo and single cigarettes. Buying in bulk, such as one bottle of shampoo, is inconceivable. The little sari-sari shops don’t even stock that because no one can afford such an extravagance. The minimum daily wage in the provinces is about $7. Let’s not forget about typhoons and monsoons, so flooding is common occurrence. One of a family’s first major expenses isn’t an appliance; it’s a tin roof. I know people who who frequently see their roofs blown away in a storm, so anything electrical that was under it is destroyed by the water. And almost no one has homeowner’s insurance.

          I won’t even bother to get into how someone always has to be at home to prevent it being burgled.

          I mention this not to dispute your comment, but to add that life is even much harder than what a refrigerator would solve. Getting to the point of development where one may buy that with as few worries as those in the developed world can is for many a far-off dream.

          • gab.s says

            sorry that post was supposed to reply to some womens’ comment above!

        • @somewoman

          I wholeheartedly agree with everything you wrote. I’ve seen the utter disregard western feminism has for the rest of the world, but there was one fallacy in your post I wanted to address: marxists and socialists laugh at intersectional feminism and find it absolutely and completely ludicrous, so you may want to look into that.

    • D-Rex says

      @Somewoman
      Good comment, much food for thought, indeed most of the comments here have been western focused.
      “Fathers trading pre-adolescent female children for livestock or land and handing them over to men who already have wives or are much older is commonplace in many parts of africa and in the arab world. ” I read about this in a National Geographic(I think) article called “child brides of the Yemen” which was horrific.
      I do wonder if the injustices you write about could be as a result of the advent of agriculture. Did the same thing happen in hunter gatherer societies? Take your example of the woman collecting wood while the husband sits in the shade, a thousand years earlier he would probably have been off hunting for food instead of lazing around and the wife collecting wood may have seemed more reasonable.

    • Anon55344 says

      @somewomen
      10,000 upvotes for you.
      Your comment is the one I wanted to write.
      What I am curious about is whether the men who sit under the shade of a tree talking are actually doing work. Are they doing “political” work? Are they organizing society and settling disputes?

    • Trevor Sedis says

      somewoman: >”Male domination over women has been so pervasive and severe over most historical civilizations”

      Heifershite!

      Compare men’s lives in any era with that of women. Men have/had it worse.

      I recall feminists bitching about how oppressed Japanese women were. Then I learned that “salarymen” were basically wage slaves who handed their earnings to their wives. Those wives controlled the house: determining purchases, deciding kids’ educations, allocating funds for savings, etc. When the men eventually retired, Japanese women called them “wet clingy leaves” for horning in on female turf.

      >”some kind of male instinct to possess and control women as much as they can”

      Or… the female tendency to make molehills into mountains and treat papercuts like limb amputations.

      >”1950s america with a male breadwinner and female homemaker does not describe the level of legal physical control men had over women”

      Women controlled kids emotionally and physically, ran volunteer organizations, and held communities together. Men who physically abused women were often pulled aside and/or beaten by other men.

      >”Fathers trading pre-adolescent female children for livestock or land”

      Mothers sitting on their asses instead of protecting their lands.

      >”handing them over to men who already have wives or are much older is commonplace in many parts of africa and in the arab world.”

      Talk to women who live there. Any benefits in not being responsible for certain things? How many African/Arab women want to be truck drivers or high-steel workers.

      Also, talk to the men. Listen equally to THEIR grievances.

      Dn’t compare a sheik to an impoverish bedouin girl. Compare princesses to princes, same to same.

      I recall an NPR story about an African woman bitching about her husband. She whined that he hadn’t finished building an addition onto their house. When asked why he hadn’t, she said he was still 500 miles away in a diamond-mining camp, living in a room with 50 other men, working 12 hour days.

      >”Women used to be routinely killed in much of the middle east if they ran away from abusive husbands”

      What obligations did the men have? Were the women forced to fight and die for the Caliph?

      >”Through all of africa, bedouin society and most of southeast asia, female labor actually accounts for the majority of resource production.”

      Define “resources.”

      If the village is attacked, do women put down their babies, pick up spears, and form frontline defenses?

      >”they control very little of the wealth”

      How much “wealth” is there to begin with?

      >”Look at a picture of who is tilling the fields in vietnam or indonesia and you will see women….Adult men …do not contribute to food production as much as they take.”

      Do the women build houses, construct roads, pump water, chop wood?

      What aren’t you telling us? You sound like feminists who bellyache about all the work they do around the home, conveniently omitting all tradition jobs men do…from mowing lawns to maintaining mowers.

      >”All the men do is work a few days when the labor is most physically intense”

      Aha! So you finally admit men DO work, too.

      >”then take the harvest to the market, sell it and then control the money that comes in.”

      Why don’t the women do that? Perhaps because the journeys is far; wagons need special handling/repair; robbers abound?

      >” [Men] do perhaps 10% of the work overall.

      Again, define “work.”

      For example, do women fell trees, drag them to mills, then build homes?

      List all the jobs required to run a village. Then tell us who does what.

      >”doesn’t actually describe the world most women live in now or lived in in the past.”

      You continue to conveniently fail to detail the lives of…M-E-N.

      >”Probably a third of women alive today have almost no choice in who they marry.”

      So? Men face “shotgun weddings” and “arranged marriages,” too.

      >” I was in indonesia last year and my driver explained that his father”

      HIS? Why didn’t you pick a female cabbie?

      >”The mother despised him and never wanted to marry him…but is still married to him today because her family required it”

      Any women in that family?

      Any mothers pick families for their daughters to marry to increase the family-clan-tribe’s monetary, political, social standing?

      >”the mistake of thinking that the privilege of a living in a post-enlightenment developed wealthy society that respects autonomous rights for all is rooted in our primal state.”

      It’s also a mistake to think that only women bleed…and only men make them.

      Or that developed, wealthy nations are created by men…mostly white men…who’ve invented myriad things from banking systems to Parliaments to the Internet.

      Alas, like most feminists, you remain blind to half the world: men!

      • Mike van Lammeren says

        @TrevorSedis, you need to make a distinction between the many varied cultures and countries in the world today. Some of your complaints about women are valid in the West, but your defence of men in other cultures has no basis in fact.

        To take just one example, in all the societies that practice female genital mutilation, or more succinctly, cliteridectomies, there is no comparable punishment for men. Most women only achieve orgasm via their clitoris, and once their clitoris is removed, they are given a life sentence of never experiencing orgasm. There is nothing like this for men.

        But here too, it would be a mistake to make this a male vs female issue. Why not frame it as a human rights violation? Here is the problem restated: In some cultures in the world, almost half of all people are deprived of sexual pleasure due to the forced surgical removal of part of their genitals.

        @TrevorSedis, I urge you to take some part of the passion you clearly have for male vs female problems in the world today, and spread it to some other causes too.

      • Kyle says

        Trevor Sedis
        Thank you for describing some of the other half of the conversation. I must say that listening to only one half of the conversation gets extremely monotonous. Not only is it only one half of the conversation, it is a very misleading half at that. Yes women have suffered in many situations throughout history, but to claim that ONLY women have suffered is unbelievably short sighted and misleading not to mention flat out WRONG. The conversation NEVER seems to include the RESPONSIBILITIES that men have taken on throughout history (not to mention the risks and the dangers). The narrative ONLY includes benefits in order to make human history sound like one long oppression of women. It is so disgusting it makes me want to puke. And then, of course, we have to blame all men now for ALL of the suffering of EVERYONE in the past and punish ALL of them as if they were the ones that caused it all. My question is: How much longer are we going to have to put up with this pissy, BS, Marxist narrative? The Marxist are blaming white men for everything because if the men are weakened and marginalized and feminized, the society will become weak and unable to defend itself. Subjugation will be easier to accomplish.

    • Mike van Lammeren says

      @somewoman, you are absolutely right about the world in general. But we don’t live in the world “in general”. For now, we still live in distinct cultural and geographic regions, divided by borders, and in some places, walls.

      For now.

      Here in Canada, our self-professed feminist Prime Minister seems determined to erase those borders, and remove those distinctions. If I only cared about men, I might be inclined to support Trudeau’s goals.

  21. Women werent emancipated from patriarchy, they were emancipated from pregnancy.

    Birth control, abortion and long term day care are relatively recent developments. Its turned women into men and men into boys.

    • Somewoman says

      Birth control methods aren’t at all new. They are just more effective than they used to be for thousands of years. And yes, it has changed male and female relations and obligations to each other substantially.

      Long term daycare is new but the concept has prehistoric roots. The nuclear family was much more of the exception than the rule through most human societies. Most societies include extended familiess or tribes where the women share responsibilities for watching children. Young women have normally spent a lot of time working in fields or doing other things while their mothers or aunts would watch young children for several hours a day. The current method of being away exactly for the same 8 hours a day is new, but the act of handing off children to other women or governesses was entirely normal for thousands of years.

      • D-Rex says

        Modern birth control has been a blessing although with some unintended consequences but over time these will be ironed out. I would not wish to return to the old days where death in childbirth was more common.

    • Martin28 says

      I tend to agree that birth control is a key factor. Women had women’s roles, because there was no choice. The prime years of their lives were spent having and caring for babies. Generally health care is also a key factor, and modern freedom from privation. We could not have afforded birth control before about 100 years ago, because we needed every baby we could get. And women had to give birth and care for the infants. That left men to do many things that were critical for society, including technological innovation, which eventually led to modern life and birth control. The ideology that views this all as patriarchy and oppression, rather than human need, is a very narrow mindset that doesn’t bear much scrutiny. That’s why open discussion of this topic has to be shut down by those who hold that ideology. Why do they hold that ideology? Out of fear and selfishness, mostly.

      • ga gamba says

        Women also had menstruation to contend with. Yes, napkins and the like existed, but were often homemade, and were not as reliable as what women depend on nowadays. Here’s a description of an early tampon of the mid 19th century. A very good way to make the plug is, to cut out round pieces of soft linen cloth, then pass a stout thread through the middle of each and press them close together, till the mass is an inch thick. The string is convenient for pulling it out again, and should always be attached to every one. A small bag filled with tan, or ashes, or sawdust soaked in alum water, is also very excellent.

        Let’s not ignore that childbirth often caused, and still causes, incontinence. Postpartum urinary incontinence presently afflicts from 6 to 29 per cent of women, and this is includes those who have access to the best medical care ever in human history. Depending on the study, 50 to 80 percent of women who give birth experience tearing of the pelvic skin and muscles. For more than 1 in 10, the tearing is severe enough to damage the anal sphincter muscle, which often leads to the loss of bowel and bladder control. What was it like 300 years ago?

        Certainly nursing was another task women had handed to them by biology. It wasn’t like she could pop over to the shop to buy formula or pump her breast milk and put it in the non-existent refrigerator for safe storage and later use.

        • gab.s says

          I really am surprised that in the olden days any women ever had sex at all when the possible consequences involved were so awful. The evidence would suggest they did, but surely it must count as extreme risk taking behaviour?

        • Trevor Sedis says

          ga gamba: >”It wasn’t like she could pop over to the shop to buy formula”

          Wet nurses.

        • Trevor Sedis says

          ga gamba: >”Women also had menstruation to contend with.”

          Yet another female problem mitigated by men. Dr. Earle Haas invented the modern tampon.

  22. “the people who are most vocal against The Patriarchy are those who have benefited from it the most”

    Absolutely. I witnessed that hypocrisy more times than I can count. One could say that about entire countries as well. First world countries lean more feminist and yet it is only thanks to men fighting in wars or doing the grubby business of maintaining the infrastructure to keep things running. People in the West, particularly educated women but also suburban/urban men live in a fantasy world versus life outside. Which can be very harsh and violent,

    In college I knew two types of “down with patriarchy” women. Either they were spoiled rotten and coddled by their fathers to (sometimes they turned to hating men because their expectations for dating partners were waaay out of whack versus their level of attractiveness), or they brainwashed by single mothers who blamed every last problem in life on their ex, vilifying all men in the process.

  23. markbul says

    ” I am bewildered by the fact that in a culture in which The Patriarchy has never had less power over women, ”

    This is so obvious a fact that it seems ridiculous that it has to be stated. My late mother (bless her soul) never worked after her marriage and pregnancy, because my father didn’t want her to. And she had a particular aversion to women as church ministers. She actually did live in a cultural patriarchy, and she liked it just fine. That is, she was much happier in her life than today’s poor victim harpies are now.

    The fact that today, in our thououghly feminized culture, when everyhing specifically male is disparaged by our cultural and intellictual elites, we see this explosion of anxiety over a now non-existant patriachy, can only suggest a kind of mass madness, one little different from the mass madnesses of the 20th century. Those led to world wars. Where do you think this one is going?

    • Abirdinthehand says

      markbul wrote: “The fact that today, in our thououghly feminized culture, when everyhing specifically male is disparaged by our cultural and intellictual elites”

      Actually, it seems to me everything specifically female, or rather, traditionally feminine, is disparaged. You have more than 2 children? You’re nothing but a brood mare, a baby machine, and you’re helping to destroy the planet. You’re a stay-at-home mom? How boring you are. It is much better to spend your days battling in the corporate world. Let the daycare deal with the rug rats. You like cosmetics and wish to stay slender and attractive for your husband? Hah! You’re objectivizing yourself and buying into male fantasies. Body positivity, baby! Don’t worry about that extra 20 pounds; you’re beautiful no matter what! You cook dinner for your family? What year do you live in, 1955?

      Feminists claim to hate the patriarchy, while at the same time praising women who exhibit all the traits they despise in men.

  24. The reality is that many women have replaced dependence on males with dependence on the government (which net funded mostly by males). Who needs a controlling boyfriend when you can have a controlling social worker, court-ordered therapist, and a probation officer?

    • Nate D. says

      @ KD and markbul

      I’ve been following with keen interest the declining life-expectancy of white females in the West. The meteoric rise of opiate addiction, psychosomatic drug use, and alcoholism (speaking of dependency) are the main culprits. It seem upwardly mobile women are headed in an interesting direction.

      We’re seeing something unfold here. It’s going to be interesting.

  25. IronSI says

    Women are the majority of voters, live longer, have more education, have lower rates of incarceration, cotrol the majority of consumer spending hold most of the education jobs below college. If women are oppressed, they must be opressing themselves.

  26. Kristina says

    The metoo movement might as well bring back the old fainting couches, it robs females of so much agency. If a woman today is eligible to become an army ranger or be front line in combat, a woman should also be expected to have the ability to firmly reject unwanted advances and move on with her life.

  27. Robert Franklin says

    “I am bewildered by the fact that in a culture in which The Patriarchy has never had less power over women, women seem to want to attribute to it a greater power than men in fact have, thereby confining women to a position of victimhood and powerlessness.”

    Ms. Simon – The reason you’re bewildered is because you fail to see the dynamic at work and that has always been at work with feminism. Feminism has always relied on that most traditional of all male-female interactions – male protection of women. Everything feminism has ever done amounts to women crying “Help, save me” and “the Patriarchy” coming to their aid. It was true of the vote, of family law changes, of educational changes, domestic violence laws, employment laws, etc. #MeToo is simply more of the same. Therefore, attributing more power to men than we have abets the notion that women are always in peril and must call “the Patriarchy” to their aid. “The Patriarchy,” having all that power, can then aid women and of course, if it fails to do so, provides more evidence of men’s antipathy for women.

  28. Robert Franklin says

    “Pragmatically speaking, the notion that we don’t need men is largely true.”

    Hmm. Really? The next time the heat/ac goes out or the car won’t start or the refrigerator quits or the roof leaks, etc., who ya gonna call? The simple fact is that 99.9% of everything that makes your life liveable and good was invented, discovered, built, constructed, refined, etc. by men. If you don’t believe me, take a week off and simply do without everything that’s been provided to you by men and see how it goes. No house, no apartment, no running water, no sanitary facilities. You can’t shop at the supermarket, operate a motor vehicle, etc., etc. Let us know how that works out.

    • Martin28 says

      @ Robert Franklin.
      Exactly. Have you ever seen a female roofer? Me neither. That’s a tough and dangerous job, and nearly everything we do depends on having good roofs. Then there is the electrical grid, the sewer systems, etc. etc. Nah. Women don’t need men, and neither do children.

      • Ever seen a man give birth? It’s a tough and dangerous job, and everything we do depends on the next generation being replenished. We all need each other.

        • Trevor Sedis says

          Susanna Krizo: >”Ever seen a man give birth?”

          Why do women brag about doing what cows, rats, and earthworms do: replicate?

          Also, women no more “give” birth than they “give” themselves heartbeats, breaths, farts, or bowel movements.

          >”It’s a tough and dangerous job”

          It’s also automatic. The only thing that requires “will power” is abortion. Otherwise, women just go about their days until its’ time to lays back like taking a huge shit.

          Many women don’t “show” for months. Other women birth bambinos like it’s nothing.

          FACT: Pooping out a baby is not the same as willing yourself to charge an enemy trying to kill you.

          Finally, men have gone to great lengths to ease childbirth. It’s men…particularly white men…who invented procedures that minimize dangers to mothers and infants…from forceps to sterile procedures to epidurals.

        • ccscientist says

          Of course we need each other but it is women claiming they don’t need men (and initiating most of the divorces to prove it).

    • Kyle says

      Robert Franklin – But that would only prove how horrible men are for making women so dependent of them, wouldn’t it?

  29. Robert Franklin says

    “what is perhaps the most important fact of the relationship between men and women: although women may not need men, men still need women.

    Let me say that again: men need us. It’s silly to enter into a conversation about women and men without acknowledging the basic biological drives of our species. ”

    Ms. Simon – You contradict yourself. If men need women because of our “biological drives,” then women need men for the same reason. And yet you say that “women may not need men.”

  30. Robert Franklin says

    “If feminism is, in part, about women being seen as independent and free sexual agents—adults, in other words—then why is it so frightening to them when a man treats them as just that?”

    It’s not frightening to them. Feminism is about increasing women’s power over men. That’s what #MeToo is about. Why else would feminism and #MeToo embrace the notion that all women who make allegations of sexual impropriety against men must be believed? The entire thrust of that movement has been toward allowing women to put men in prison, destroy their careers and reputations based on the word of the complaining woman. They’ve had remarkable success with that, BTW. If women were to embrace the notion that they’re “independent and free sexual agents,” then that power would be gone. If feminism were to embrace it, then most of feminism would be gone too.

    • Martin28 says

      I work mostly with women, and when they get together, they often talk about how men compliment their looks or otherwise indicate they are attractive, sometimes in awkward ways. They pretend they don’t enjoy it, but they love to tell about it. My sense is that this is a sort of bragging. It says, “I’m attractive enough that some guy thinks I’m attractive.” Yet, I say I don’t like it, therefore it’s not bragging. Also, I want sympathy. I want to elevate my status, appear that I am not trying to do so, and get sympathy at the same time. I think this explains at least 90 percent of #metoo.

    • C. Satwell says

      No less an authority than Catherine MacKinnon recently (2016) noted in an article in the Yale Law Journal: ‘Given that men who rape have been found to be normal in virtually all material respects so that normal masculinity under conditions of sex inequality is consistent with sexual predation, the behaviors found by Lisak are to some extent normative in masculinity.’ She is referring to the dataset of David Lisak, a psychologist who compared 15 ‘hidden rapists’ to 15 ‘non-rapists.’ So you see, there is empirical evidence to justify a truly assertive feminism in response to male predators, who it seems are everywhere in the patriarchy.

        • Jules Sylver says

          No Martin, that is not what C. Satwell said. Your question is inane. The internet is a format with limitations. If you are going to respond to someone, take the time read what they said, word for word.

  31. Winston Smith says

    Just as Orwell observed that Marxists in academe seemed to be motivated more by hatred of the rich than by compassion for the poor, I submit that modern feminism is more about hatred of men than advocacy for women. The notion of women as powerless victims of the patriarchy is intrinsic to modern feminism; without it there is no justification for the hate.

    Show me a college student majoring in Women’s Studies and I’ll show you a woman who hates her father. It’s about time we recognize the misandry and stop celebrating it as “feminism”

    • So what do men who hate their mothers create? Men’s Rights Advocate groups? So let’s recognize the misogyny and stop celebrating “men’s rights.”

      • Trevor Sedis says

        Susanna Krizo: What have women who hate their fathers created? Women’s Rights Advocate groups? So let’s recognize the misandry and stop celebrating “women’s rights.”

  32. – “I’ve never known a heterosexual man who isn’t constantly preoccupied with thoughts of women.”

    – “Men adore us, and almost all their efforts at work or at home or in social settings, are made to win our approval, if not our admiration.”

    – “although women may not need men, men still need women.”

    In these statements we may observe another unhealthy tendency of modern feminism, and that is its supreme arrogance. This arrogance leads it to have a very low view of men altogether quite aside from theories of oppression.

    So men are not the evil oppressors of woman, according to this author, they are just her helpless lapdogs, totally dominated by her irresistible sex power!

    (The author might consider the possibility that homosexuality is, in a sense, a male weapon used against exactly the kind of over-domineering, sex-powered queen bee who exults in controlling men that the author seems here to celebrate.)

    “We might want to rediscover the inherent power that comes from being desired.” I hardly think the modern woman needs to be told as much (Indeed, that sounds very much like something a recently divorced woman would say). Very many attractive women use the ‘inherent power that comes from being desired’ to get ahead in life in all kinds of Machiavellian ways already, more or less out of natural instinct; surely they don’t need to be encouraged to put on even more red lipstick, wear even tighter leggings, and even higher skirts?

    There’s a lot more I could say on this subject which might clarify my thoughts above, but I want to keep this short. To be clear, I think the author is correct in saying that we live more in a matriarchy than a patriarchy, but I think her brand of magnanimous chauvinism is hardly something that should be encouraged, and hardly represents a healthy development in feminism.

    • I think you have a good point, @breathnumber. I especially take issue with her notion that women don’t need men.

      Statistically (not individually), women need men for safety, stability, and security – we seek out men with these qualities – and also emotionally. Men protect women. Men provide a certain check on women’s neurotic tendencies. I speak not merely as a woman, but based on psychological research, repeated countless times over. Obviously I’m not talking about all men or all relationships; nor am I discounting male violence. But in general, heterosexual women need men every bit as much as men need women, and to imagine otherwise is at best silly, at worst, deeply harmful. And to assert that the way men need women is in their chivalric adoration after us is insulting to men and women.

      • “Men provide a certain check on women’s neurotic tendencies.” I find this hysterical, considering most conspiracy theories are created by men.

        • Susanna – and most conspiracies are created by women. Granted, they are of the quotidian, soap-opera-ish kind, which salt or sour (but undeniably pepper) social life, but the point still stands.

          To be fair of course, women also provide a certain check on men’s neurotic tendencies, so it works both ways in the best of circumstances.

    • A few general thoughts to balance out my (relatively piddling) criticism above.

      I think the author points out well a particularly unsightly contradiction in modern state- and corporate- run feminism. And that is that, while saying it is ’empowering’ women, it actually infantilizes them. It – the paternalistic state – announces that it is going to protect Woman from evil, that is, from Man; it is going to be her knight in shining armor. And it does a good a job, no doubt, of pretending it is protecting her via all the propaganda that constitutes the culture wars, such as by ‘fighting’ to keep available to the poor raped lady the symbolic procedure of abortion, by shaming sexual abusers who looked wrongly at the lady, by going on about ‘rape culture’, and in short by the entire publicity afflatus based on the exploitation of the men vs. women frame. (You can easily multiply examples yourself.)

      (The tone of the entire charade is very Puritan. In its extreme, it becomes that neo-puritanism of the militant lesbian kind, which disdains men because they are on the whole stupid, sex-obsessed apes. Its view of profligate sex, or even sex itself, is as low as that of the original Puritan. It even starts crusades to wipe out sexual vice. And a dozen other parallels there are.)

      But really, it is the State itself that is that irresponsible power – not men, not the Patriarchy, etc. It is the very modern State itself (including corporate media and ‘big business’) that is the biggest feminist, and the biggest anti-racist, and ‘transactivist’, and the biggest whatever it will decide to be tomorrow; and in executing the social engineering programs that we call political correctness and the like, it actually infantilizes the groups it pretends to ’empower’ and protect from ‘harm’, rendering them more dependent than ever on itself, even while it divides them into atomistic units all the better to dominate them.

      Women divorce men in part because there is welfare and child-care payment laws, provided by the State. And the ‘fight for equal pay’ waged by our cynical Machiavellian politicians and media masters plays no small part, either, in creating antagonism between the sexes. All of this serves to drive a mighty wedge between the sexes, which is exactly the desired outcome. For, all the interest groups that constitute the State do not want men OR women to have power over each other. They want all the power over you and me, themselves; they don’t want us to get together and become one family unit. They want to disintegrate the old family unit into totally isolated individuals.

      Hence, on the male side, the State promotes pornography in a million different ways to weaken the males and estrange them from developing real, lasting relationships with women, while it also promotes the nonsense that these same males jacking off in the proverbial basement, despairing of realizing a functional relationship with an actual woman, are evil rulers lording it over women, or dangerous Neo-Nazis about to take over the government. And that is just one example of many.
      It is in short the war waged by one, highly centralized opponent, against the old organic, hierarchical gradations of society.

      It is the war of divide and conquer, which is oft-used phrase but one rarely well understood even by those who often utter it.

  33. zrgflx says

    The author:
    “Feminism is suffering from a lack of respect for women themselves. This is part of the lack of respect for other individuals as individuals …”

    Coffee Klatch:
    “You can trade your vagina as currency for clemency and a dog collar. You can type a million words of capitulation.”

    Wow, Coffee!. You have most eloquently validated the author’s point. Congratulations!!

    • How ironic, since we know that feminism was born from men’s stubborn refusal to respect women. Opened doors and flowers do not compensate for real respect.

      • Trevor Sedis says

        Susanna Krizo: There’s a lot of water here on Earth. How’re things on your planet?

  34. A Charlton says

    “A further concern I have with the message and tone of contemporary feminism is that women have evidently forgotten that we have power over men as a result of the fact that we’re women—men adore us, and almost all their efforts at work or at home or in social settings, are made to win our approval, if not our admiration.”

    You will no doubt have observed that the vast majority of the feminazi have no such power over men.

    • First of all, there is no such thing as feminazi, since there is no such thing as an official Nazi party in power in any country. Secondly, a lot of women decide not to become objects and are content with less male attention. I believe the author of this piece is stuck in the mindset that female sexuality is somehow the superpower all women have, blatantly disregarding the “wallflowers” and the hoards of women who have no such power over men. Neither do all men have hyper-access to women. The author writes as if every woman and every man is supremely attractive, and that’s just not the case. And that’s the flaw that sinks the whole essay.

      • Trevor Sedis says

        Susanna Krizo: >”there is no such thing as feminazi, since there is no such thing as an official Nazi party”

        Feminazis, not Nazis. Pay attention: no one is talking about the Dworkin Battalion of the Wehrmacht.

        >”a lot of women decide not to become objects and are content with less male attention”

        Are women “sex objects” to lesbians? If so, how to they meet, respond, etc.?

        Howzabout hetero women stop being passive cowards and start taking equal risks to meet romantic needs with men…making/paying for half the dates?

        HINT: equal rights entail equal responsibilities, not cherry picking the best/easiest things in life.

  35. R Henry says

    “as a single mother to two young daughters, I have my own personal stake”

    As if I, as a father of two sons, have a lesser stake?

    • That is the question. Those who are against feminism rail against women having too many rights. Those who are against patriarchy rails against men having too many right. Most people fall in a category called humanity that is between the extremes. All they want to do is live their lives. But the thing is that men deny misogyny just as much as women deny their own agency, and so the drama continues.

      • Trevor Sedis says

        Susanna Krizo: >”Those who are against feminism rail against women having too many rights.”

        No, they rail against women having too few responsibilities. Why have feminists never marched for an Equal R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-I-T-I-E-S Amendment?

        >”men deny misogyny just as much as women deny their own agency”

        You’re not pretending that the men’s rights movement has anywhere near the clout that NOW and other female rights groups have…are you?

        Boy Scouts wear uniforms just like the US Marines do. Does that make them equal?

      • My view of recent “feminism” is they are demanding men “give”them “agency”. That was done decades ago, so they are really insisting men are keeping them victims. I think it’s simple. They don’t want to work that hard. I built a career in a man’s world in the 80’s. Refused to join “women’s business groups”. Why would I? I had a great time but had to eat my wheaties!

        I think it’s been a huge mistake to have women like Hillary as your feminist leaders. She is a pervert enabler who intimidated her husband’s victims to cover for him. She is an enemy of women. She gained power through her husband’s political career. Feminist? I think not. It’s all cognitive dissonance. At least Maggie Thatcher did it the hard way.

      • Kyle says

        Susanna Krizo

        The difference between the “men who deny misogyny” (who ever they are) and the “women who deny their own agency” (aka feminazis, thank you) is that the latter is subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars every year from the government and has programs of indoctrination (aka gender and women’s studies programs) in every college and university in the Western world, whereas the former relies on donations.

  36. Denis Leonard says

    Merry Christmas to all the great writers I’ve had the great privilege of reading over the last several months. There is no other place that I know of to get this quality and variety of the written word that is both impactful and relevant. All I can say is wow. Thank you. God bless.

  37. Loved this essay in general, but I really disagree with this: “Pragmatically speaking, the notion that we don’t need men is largely true. (As a single mother and single woman, I’m certainly poorer than my married counterparts, but I am running a family household successfully, if chaotically.)”

    I’m a single mother of five. While I can immodestly claim to have done a very good job raising them to adulthood, and they are all quite successful by several metrics, I feel the absence of their father and my partner *all the time.* There is just no substitute for a father/father figure, and husband in the family. None. Zero. You will not notice it so much when the kids are younger. You will start to notice it when they’re teens, and you’ll *really* notice it when they grow into adulthood. The absence of a father is devastating for both girls and boys, each in their own way, not merely in modeling for a significant other, but in deeper things, in forging identity, dealing with trauma, loss, challenge. Men handle all this one way, women another, and children need both ways. It’s possible to mostly replace this with a very involved male relative, e.g. an uncle, grandfather – or with a mentor, e.g. a coach. But a man is essential. The other issue is not having a partner for myself. I am not as good a human being or parent without a partner. I mean, yes, my marriage was horrible so I don’t regret divorcing. But there’s just no replacement for a functioning couple.

    I’m fortunate in that, again, by many metrics my kids are successful – all top colleges and grad/post-grad schools, and so on – but pragmatically speaking, the notion that we don’t need men is absurd and deeply harmful.

  38. “Let me say that again: men need us. It’s silly to enter into a conversation about women and men without acknowledging the basic biological drives of our species. I’ve never known a heterosexual man who isn’t constantly preoccupied with thoughts of women. Their own nature is at work against self-possession: the sight or the thought of a woman can overturn a man’s thoughts, his will, and seriously compromise his reason and unbalance his ability to make decisions.”

    I can’t speak for my brothers in patriarchy but I confess that in my case the quote above has been true of me for as long as I can remember. Is there a self-group out there that can save me?

    You know what? Never mind. I’ve decided to continue in my folly. Sorry…

    • Forgive me, I meant to say self-help group, not self-group. I’m preoccupied by thoughts of a woman I was standing behind at register 16 at WallyWorld today.

  39. Frances says

    At last someone has pointed to the joylessness at the heart of contemporary feminism. I’ve been banging on about this for years. It’s not trite: it’s central. Arid power struggles and intractactable resentments. A crippling legacy.

  40. Mother of Sons says

    Coffee: What future do you foresee for the son who was recently handed a car?

  41. ccscientist says

    The author admits that men need women but it isn’t just for sex. Women build a family life and social life that men need. They provide companionship that men need. Men and women complete each other. Likewise, and as part of this completion, women need men. Women find after divorce (and 70% of divorces are initiated by women–though among people I know it is almost 100%) that they are not happier. The big problem is that feminism and modern culture have turned women back into teens, convincing them that they have to prove their “independence” over and over–but that means independence from their husband. It convinces them that they are oppressed, and of course that means their husband. It fosters vague resentment and anger against men (and their husband). The husband is supporting the family financially and fixing things, but if cooking and cleaning and sex are all “exploitation” and patriarchy from her point of view, what is she giving to him to maintain the relationship?

    • Kyle says

      ccscientist

      Probably nothing. Usually the “oppressed” type of woman will stop participating in sex not long after the marriage. She will slack off on domestic duties and then wonder why her husband decided to cheat on her. She will feel like she was oppressed by him and have her lawyer (the one he is paying) take him to the cleaners and then describe herself as an “independent” woman while she lives off of his income in his house driving his car.

  42. Scotty says

    I very much enjoyed this perspicacious article. Thanks. SA

  43. Winston Smith says

    “Pragmatically speaking, the notion that we don’t need men is largely true. (As a single mother and single woman, I’m certainly poorer than my married counterparts, but I am running a family household successfully, if chaotically.) ”

    Where’d you get your kids from? Last time I checked you need a man to give those to you. Maybe you think you only need the man to get you pregnant and then you can raise the kids without him? That hasn’t worked out too well for the blacks.

  44. Andrew says

    Kind of depressing reading the hatred on both sides whenever gender is discussed. What I’ve come to conclude is that feminists misunderstand where a lot of sexism comes from. It’s not hatred of women, it’s an innate urge men (and society) has to protect women. While this can be a noble aim, it also ends up with some men looking down on women because those who need protection are of lower status than those who are doing the protecting. (also explains ‘women and children’ first on the lifeboats, why no one cares that men die 5 years earlier, die in lots of wars, end up homeless more often, and why society pays a lot more attention to female victims of violence rather than the much greater number of male victims of violence. )

    • @Andrew, the hatred you speak of from “both sides” actually stems from a small proportion of bitter people on either side. Most men and women value each other. And I speak as a woman who had a nasty divorce. My own personal experience doesn’t negate that truth, that men and women value each other and we’re all human. It’s just that right now, the Oppressor/Victim/collective narrative makes it seem that the voices are more numerous than they are, and rewards the resentful bitter angry people who dysfunctionally chase after group victimhood as a way to explain the world.

    • Men have an innate urge to protect women? So why do three women die daily in the hands of their intimate partners? If these need was innate and therefore universal, we shouldn’t see it.

      • Trevor Sedis says

        Susanna Krizo: you’re ignoring women’s innate urge to be equally violent.

        Women are the biggest abusers/neglecters of children and the elderly.

        Women historically (and now) are the biggest practitioners of infanticide.

        Women use weapons (knives, guns, poisons) to counter size differences with men.

        Women attack when men are old, sick, frail, asleep, drunk, or caught off-guard.

        Women count on men not fighting back.

        Women count on men not reporting female abuse to cops.

        Women count on cops believing females, not males.

        Women count on white-knights to beat any abused man who fights back.

        Women use proxies as hit-men, getting guys to do their dirtywork.

        Female teachers rape underage boy students and call it a “fling-dalliance-affair-romance-romp-mistake,” rarely getting jailed when caught.

        Small men know they can’t hit bigger men with impunity. Feminists ALWAYS think bigger men can’t hit women who attack them first.

        Feminists expect adult females to be treated like children (except when pretending to be equal benefits them more).

        Females start HALF the fights with men in hetero-couples.

        Females commit ALL the DV in lesbian couples (the most violent relationships!).

        No wars have EVER been fought without the active participation of women.

        Women raise boys to be warriors.

        Meanwhile, men are more likely than women to SAVE lives as EMTs, cops, firemen, fire-jumpers, rescue-swimmers, emergency-power restorers, ski-rescuers, mountain searchers, search-and-rescue teams, etc.

        Watch any news coverage before, during, and after disasters: it’s always MEN out there, risking their lives to save humans, animals, property, power stations, and so on.

    • Trevor Sedis says

      Andrew> “depressing reading the hatred on both sides whenever gender is discussed”

      Do you think the feminist army is the same size as the men’s rights army? If so, any proof?

      From where I sit, the Gender War has been one-sided, men never entering battlefields.

      Furthermore, I’m convinced that Western men’s failure to oppose feminism for 50 years is the reason things are so mucked-up today.

      A female today has a zillion resources available to her based solely on vag.

      Men, on the other hand, are SOL.

      Brett Kavanaugh came within a c-hair of losing his SCOTUS gig based on mere allegations made by women, 60% of whom later admitted to lying.

      Finally, why are there no videos of Ford lecturing in class, proving she always speaks in BabyVoice?

      • Kyle says

        Trevor Sedis well stated. Thank you for taking the time and energy to express what is rarely expressed ANYWHERE. This one sided – use examples of the most extreme men to describe all men narrative – is one of the main causes of the polarity in our discourse today. Please continue to expose the bias narrative for what it is.

  45. It is interesting we have this wrangling over the question of whether men “need” women or women “need” men, without considering what we are talking about.

    What is obvious is that any enduring cultural group needs the men and women composing it to form stable reproductive units and produce children who are inculcated with the culture and value systems of the enduring group–necessary from the standpoint of the survival of the group. It is also necessary that the group be able to protect itself, which in the real world is a job done either primarily or exclusively by males. The survival and perpetuation of any system of values and culture requires male and females cooperating within a somewhat traditional division of labor.

    Turning this around, it is clear that if you want to subvert and destroy an enduring group, you make cooperation between the sexes more difficult and you attack traditional gender roles. So we are really talking about a weapon, and like a sword or a nuclear bomb, the question is not the utility of the weapon, but against whom the weapon will be directed. Just as the sword is never directed against “man” or “woman” in the abstract, neither can a cultural weapon. Which cultural groups do we seek to eradicate, and what will be gained by their destruction? [It is for these reasons why I would be surprised if we find a widespread adoption of Western feminism in nations such as Russia and China, where these governments have much greater power to control cultural messaging, and where there is much greater sensitivity to preserving the traditional nation. It seems even in Israel, Western feminism is much more moderate.]

    • It is interesting to me that people get worked up about lesbian separatists like Dworkin, as if they pose some kind of threat to the social order. It is very hard to imagine a community set up on lesbian separatist lines ever reaching levels of replacement fertility, and therefore, from an epidemiological standpoint, you are talking about an outbreak, never an epidemic.

      In contrast, the kind of libertarian, hyper-individualist, narcissistic professionalism which results in high levels of income and status but much lower rates of fertility could destroy Western Civilization. . . which of course is only bad if you like Western Civilization. Obviously, Gandhi could have cared less, and Putin and Xi won’t probably sob for very long.

      • Trevor Sedis says

        KD: >”It is interesting to me that people get worked up about lesbian separatists like Dworkin”

        That’s like wondering why folks got worked-up over Hitler since he was “just” an Aryan separatist.

        Er, he also wanted Jews murdered!

        Similarly, Dworkin said all hetero sex was “rape,” all men “rapists,” and basically that men should die (save gays like her “husband”).

        >”which of course is only bad if you like Western Civilization. Obviously, Gandhi could have cared less”

        Er, no. Gandhi respected the West. He counted on its laws and morality to free India.

        He was also NOT non-violent. He said if you couldn’t in your heart-of-hearts let your enemy beat you and not resist (hoping HIS/HER heart would soften), it was your duty to not just fight back…but do so with all your might.

        Above all, Gandhi hated cowardice.

        As for Putin, Russia is no longer part of the immoral USSR. It’s returned to Christianity…and has more in common with the West than most think.

  46. Eraser of people's existences says

    One side – By inserting people with penises in our woman’s movement “you are making us unsafe and erasing our existence”
    Other side – By denying that we are women just like you just because we have penises “you are making us unsafe and erasing our existence”

    Well *someone* must be erasing other people’s existence…? Surely they cannot be erasing each other, in such a manner that both will eventually evaporate into thin air? If the accusations are so symmetrical, how to decide?

    People looking from the outside see the hysteria of both, because it resides in the latter part of the sentence, the one in quotes. Whoever first had the idea of turning minor grievances into “you are making us unsafe and erasing our existence” is to blame. Feminists and lesbians, you adopted this language before the trans people crashed your party – they are just parroting you. You and other “identity” movements began this spiral of madness. You will never get away from it unless you retrace your steps and engage on self-criticism of your history.

  47. Hestia says

    Thank you for your essay. I am a 64 anti-feminist woman. I believe that feminism was created by women who were not “feminine” enough to have power over their male suitors. Feminity is a powerful tool that women have had over men from the dawn of times. Just use it, girls!

    • The only reason you can be anti-feminism is because of feminism that gave you the right to address a “promiscuous assembly” consisting of both men and women.

      • Trevor Sedis says

        Susanna Krizo: >”The only reason you can be anti-feminism is because of feminism that gave you the right”

        No, having brain bestowed that right.

        Feminism is a sexist, misandric con game. It pretends that women are equal…and men beasts…while counting on men to see women as unequal children in need of Daddy’s/Patriarchy’s protection.

  48. ccscientist says

    Men are content to support their families. From my experience, women are ambivalent about working. It is good fortune by the way for the husband to earn enough for the wife to stay home with the kids. If a wife works she tends to lament the pressures. If not working, she laments not working, and yet has time for coffee with her friends, to see the kids and take them to the zoo if young or visit the grandkids if older. Men don’t have free time like that. Most men let their wives decide whether to work, assuming they can afford it.

    Both in women’s stated preferences (their “list” for a husband) and in their actual choices to marry, they prefer a man who is a couple of years older, makes more money than they do, is several inches taller. More masculine men (broader shoulders, deeper voice) and more athletic men are preferred (not necessarily “hypermasculine”). Women depend on men to reach the top shelf, deal with barking dogs and muggers, kill spiders, move furniture. The biggest predictor of divorce besides cheating is the husband losing his job or not making enough $ because women cannot respect a man who is “less” than they are. Men make more money in general due to working longer hours, choosing demanding (engineering) or dangerous (logging) careers, and staying in the workforce continuously. The most extreme income tends to reward the top 1% in IQ who happen to be men due to the different spread of the distributions (even in Scrabble, no woman has won an international tournament ever). None of this is because society structures itself to pay men more (even if it did in 1950) or because of discrimination.

    • “Women depend on men to reach the top shelf, deal with barking dogs and muggers, kill spiders, move furniture.” Not this woman. Way to stereotype.

      • Trevor Sedis says

        Susanna Krizo: >”Not this woman. Way to stereotype.”

        Way to miss the point, deny pattern-recognitions in “stereotypes,” and be a solipsistic feminist!

        SCIENTIST: The moon is 238,900 miles away.”
        KRIZO: “Well, I’ve never been there!”

        SCIENTIST: “In 2010, there were 5,419,000 car crashes.”
        KRIZO: “Well, I didn’t crash!”

        SCIENTIST: “Most women are smaller and weaker than men.”
        KRIZO: “Well, I’m not!”

        As a TV judge was wont to say, “True, but irrelevant.”

      • Abirdinthehand says

        Wow! You’ve never employed male help to move a mattress, a dining room table or a sofa? Kudos to you. I was once knocked over by a mugger who was a foot taller and 50 lbs. heavier than me, and I thank God for the young man who saw the attack and was able to chase the mugger down, punch him, and retrieve my purse. I couldn’t do it myself, since I was face down on the sidewalk. But you, Wonder Woman, would have valiantly beaten him to a pulp, I suppose.

  49. Addy H says

    Thank you for such an eloquent and real point of view demonstrated in your essay. This has made me so happy that there are women out there who know that they are strong and do not need a man to tell them that.

    I thoroughly enjoy this article!

    • Trevor Sedis says

      Addy H: >”there are women out there who know that they are strong and do not need a man to tell them that.”

      Yet, for some reason, they need to constantly tell MEN how strong women are.

      Ever notice how guys who get laid a lot never mention it?

      Why would they need to?

  50. Morgan says

    “although women may not need men, men still need women.”

    Don’t you see this has allowed a power imbalance in favor of women? Don’t you see the so-called “Patriarchy”, which certainly flawed, was an attempt to get women to need men as much as men biologically need women? Women’s absolute freedom results in women’s absolute domination over men, because men need women, and women don’t need men.

    • Morgan says

      Because women will almost never willingly reproduce with a male who with less successful / lower status than them, the ONLY path to stability is to return to something like the old gender roles. The alternative is the kind of social instability and declining birthrates that we see today. We need a society in which women need men, and where men have more opportunity to be needed by women.

    • Trevor Sedis says

      Morgan: >” ‘Patriarchy’…was an attempt to get women to need men as much as men biologically need women?”

      WTF? Patriarchy was created by women for women.

      Women need men to get pregnant. Otherwise their wombs remain cold, unlit ovens.

      Women also need men for protection. Women with no/too few men around become the slaves/concubines of men in other tribes.

      Pampered Western women may soon find that out. Demonized native men will no longer care about them while immigrant/refugee men surround them.

      Ask Swedish women. Their nation is now Europe’s rape capital.

  51. Lennart says

    Love the line: “… what I believe is a better and more healthy feminism: a celebration of the feminine and of women’s innate power”. Love that people are discussing the role of feminism and its modern apparations^^ Still: lmfao som, this article is not that well-reflected and whoooowee does it advocate sone dumb ideas!👏 All about personal empowerment and stuff, but this is proper Junior HS level of thinking

    • Trevor Sedis says

      Lennart: >”healthy feminism: a celebration of the feminine and of women’s innate power”

      B-b-but I thought feminism was about equality: treating men equally while burdening women with equal responsibilities.

  52. “I’m unable to see the benefit of raising young girls to have a martyrdom complex as a defining feature of their identities… ”

    This! This is the exact statement I think of each time I hear Jordan Peterson debating someone about victimhood culture/identity politics. What possible good can come from identifying oneself as a victim?

      • Trevor Sedis says

        Susanna Krizo: >”why do men portray themselves as victims of feminism?”

        Because they are.

        They made themselves victims by not fight back sooner. They still haven’t, some 52 years after the National Organization for Women was founded.

  53. There is no patriarchy any more than there is a tallarchy. You clearly ignore the reasons behinds outcomes and differences and attribute this to an oppresive system. Was specting more from this page after reading the note on pewdiepie that was amazing,if I do say so myself,but there are no gods or angels those are fairy tails. So: Yes, I will say that you are not gonna empower woman by bringing men down,you need to arm all people in a society by free choice and trade in order to bridge our diferences in physical capacity when it comes to violence. As a man i can tell you being a 19 year old that was once threatened by a 25 year old with tube arms my knife was the only thing standing between me and a beating. People will usually calm down when a higher force comes into place and considering what a knife can do he backed down. Luckily, the worst thing I would want is to still be in the .middle of a fucking trail after I had to stuck it in his neck. So yeha,we all need to actualy empower ourselves and an armed society is a polite society.

  54. I wonder if any of you have been inside a church, especially an evangelical one. You’d see the old coverture laws very much still in effect, women being denied most opportunities, told they are “designed” to be homemakers and have children (as many as possible). It’s a life of obedience towards their fathers first, later their husbands. No higher education for the daughters (unless they want to become nurses or teachers or attend Bible College), only a search for a husband who will become her new lord and master (phrase found in 1 Pet 3). This is the reality for millions of women all around the world. And yes, you can say they should leave the church, but that’s easier said than done. Those who are born into the world must leave everything behind of they choose to leave (I wrote a novel about it, “The Evangelical Wife”). So yes, “The Patriarchy” is still here, and men in this movement see themselves as patriarchs, much like Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, and Joseph. So no, feminism isn’t completely in the wrong, although the secular version tends to victimize more than empower, but it’s what the modern justice movement does to everyone.

    • Trevor Sedis says

      Susanna Krizo: >”I wonder if any of you have been inside a church, especially an evangelical one. You’d see the old coverture laws very much still in effect”

      And if you fail to bathe regularly, you might get sick.

      If you’re saying humans are imperfect, kudos! You don’t have to look far for flawed institutions.

      So, do you equally condemn mothers…still the main shapers of future generations…who use corporal punishment? They teach violence to kids: mom beats son who later beats wife.

      Again, you condemn women teaching violence, sexism, emotionalism, and hysteria…right?

    • Evander says

      Susanna, care to name and shame such churches, especially the evangelical ones? I’m a conservative Anglican and I’ve spent my life in evangelical churches in Australia. Your characterisation of Christian teaching doesn’t align with my experience at all, nor with what I’ve heard from mainstream evangelical leaders in the USA. I think you’re exaggerating by extrapolating from a personal, negative experience you might have had.

    • Church is-voluntary. Govt isn’t. Are you suggesting the government should regulate such? All you can do is educate and provide escape.

  55. Trevor Sedis says

    >”As a single mother and single woman”

    Where is/are the children’s father(s)?

  56. Trevor Sedis says

    frances: >”It’s almost as if men and women are in the human project together.”

    So, er, what have YOU done to oppose feminism run amok?

    It’s not men who’re decrying “toxic femininity.” And there’s no National Organization for Males shitting on women 24-7-365, ruining families, getting women fired for dressing provocatively, etc. It’s women who unilaterally blame men for mutual problems, always demanding that men condemn bad men and take a stand for women.

    So what are women doing to help guys?

  57. Stacy L. says

    “Women don’t need men” (which is poppycock), but I can assure you that the author’s children need a father. It kills me that women have become so arrogant and narcissistic to think that they can fill all of the needs of children. Trust me, you can’t. Even worse, our culture and society now CELEBRATE single motherhood. It is no coincidence that our society started heading south as soon as single motherhood quit being something horribly shameful.

    Thanks, feminism! You’re empowered but you’ve ruined your kids. That’s fine though…they were just boxes to check on your path to being a “strong, independent woman”.

    • Trevor Sedis says

      Stacy L.: >”women have become so arrogant and narcissistic”

      Plus smug and controlling.

  58. Trevor Sedis says

    d: >”the hatred you speak of from ‘both sides’ actually stems from a small proportion of bitter people on either side.”

    Nonsense. Feminism vs MRAs is like…

    Stroop’s Wehrmacht troops vs 1943 Warsaw Jews

    Mike Tyson vs Woody Allen

    Red Army vs Boy Scouts

    The power imbalance is HUGE!

    Most Germans weren’t Nazis. Just like most women aren’t feminists. Does that mean the Nazis had no power?

    >”I speak as a woman who had a nasty divorce”

    Details?

    Did you have kids? If so, who got custody?

    Anyone get alimony?

    What have you done during the past 5 decades, while feminist were shitting on men, to stop the madness. Did you act like an ostrich? A Good German? Fence-sitter?

    Millions of women benefitted from feminism’s demonizations of males. Few spoke up. It’s only when men finally speak up and air THEIR grievances that people suddenly say “everyone” is playing victim. Or call men “angry,” insinuating that their plaints aren’t justified.

  59. Saw file says

    @coffee…your comments are torn apart and then shredded. Picked clean carcass remained. You could have rebutted with fact’s to support your assertion’s, but you couldn’t, because you can’t.
    @Karen Straughan..if you’re th real ‘girl writes what?’… welcome to Quillette.
    @ ga gamba…hammering the nails home, per usual. Thx

    • Kyle says

      Saw file
      Yes she is the real “girl writes what”. It is quite easy to see by her eloquent comments. She is VERY well researched in her arguments and has a pleasant wit about her as well.
      Glad to see her comments here.

  60. You lost me here: “although women may not need men, men still need women.”

    Any woman worth needing needs you right back. It’s a two way street.

    Besides, I’m not sure the science backs up your beliefs on women in general. In fact, plenty of women need men as companions as much as a man needs a woman (if that weren’t true, we would have died out as a species long ago). So while I wholeheartedly agree with your critique of feminism, your critique of women-hood seems to be based more on anecdote then reality (you don’t believe you need men, so therefore no women need men)….

    Of course one could ask the question what does it mean to “need”. You seem to jump around a bit and conflate sexuality with parenthood/home-ownership/etc (ie. you expound your personal virtues as a single mother who doesn’t need men…and then talk about heterosexual men and their “needs” – with the implication being sexual). No, when it comes to raising children and taking care of the home, men don’t “need” women any more than you need men, so let’s set that one aside. As for your sex drive, that is your own business and each individual is very different. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a sex drive- male or female. But heterosexual women in general feel a need to attract a mate at least as strongly as heterosexual men do (hence intrasexual competition). So you critique of the differences between men and women are lacking. Granted, men and women express their sexuality differently, but that doesn’t imply a difference in “need.”

    Ultimately, the sad part is you lost the argument by changing the subject. You could have stuck simply to your critique of feminism (because indeed it does have the failings you describe), but you chose to talk about “needs” instead – which diluted your message.

  61. Captain Sailor says

    i enjoy the quillette and am testing how to comment here

  62. Morgan Foster says

    “Why is the goal of feminism to be treated instead as an androgyn? How is this anything other than a repudiation of femininity itself?”

    The author has not been paying attention, otherwise she would have noticed that the bulk of feminist writing today repudiates and rejects the very concept of femininity, holding it to be a construction by men for the purpose of oppressing women and only accidentally bearing a superficial resemblance of spelling to the word “feminism” which is not at all the same thing.

  63. Reasonable Moderate says

    Many MRA’s here, with their historical revisionism, are the equivalent of radical feminists foolish assertions about man spreading and things like this.
    These two extremes feed themselves reciprocally and help nobody. Men and women both have their amount of problems and both oppress each other’s and it’s important to generate an impartial anti sexist discussion.
    I see Quillette’s only concern to tear down feminism – which had capital importance in the past – without any constructive goal.

    • Kyle says

      Reasonable Moderate
      Have you any examples of MRA historical revisionism? Please set forth a few examples.
      The implication that MRAs and feminists are somehow on an equal playing field doesn’t correspond with any reality that I know of. The mere fact that feminists have been berating men and masculinity for the last 50 years and MRAs have only been heard of for the last 10 years (if that) would make me think that there is a disparity in perception. And the fact that feminism is subsidized by the government to the tune of billions of dollars a year in all Western countries of the world belies a lack of parity yet again. So please explain your ideas with a little more clarity. I find little to garner from you comment.
      Oh, and by the way, one constructive goal I can think of is to rid ourselves of the destructive ideology called feminism which has done NOTHING but provoke inharmony and instability in our society and cost the taxpayers billions of dollars in subsidies for women’s and gender studies programs that indoctrinate women to subvert our government and society with Marxist ideology.

  64. Octogenarian White Male says

    Useless each without the other.

    A lock and key.

    As unto the bow the cord is,
    So unto the man is woman;
    Though she bends him she obeys him,
    Thought she draws him, yet she follows;
    Useless each without the other.

    Almost fifty-eight years ago my wife and I made vows to each other to have and to hold, from that day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer (more of the latter than the former in our case), in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part. I promised to comfort and honour her, she promised to comfort and obey me.

    In those days, ultimate intimacy was not expected until the marriage bed. There were exceptions, of course, but most young men of my acquaintance respected female friends and fiancées and had no wish to risk the mutual shame of a shotgun wedding.

    My wife chose to be a full-time homemaker. She, more than I, nurtured three children to adulthood, all of whom are in first-time marriages with children of their own.

    Twice during my forty years of working life I was asked to move interstate. I did so. My wife faithfully followed me.

    I have given her breakfast in bed every day since her quadruple by-pass surgery almost seventeen years ago. She is otherwise active in and around our home. Daily medication enables her to enjoy a good quality of life. Neither she nor I would trade places with anyone.

    Her price is far above rubies. I think I may say in modesty that I am her tower and strength.

    If I were of courting age today I should not begin to know how to approach a young woman. Feistiness, unwillingness to accept well-intentioned compliments, and desire for independence from the male appear to be all too common. Not all are so inclined of course, but how to select those who are not from those who are?

    • Quillette is Alt Right in disguise says

      As unto the bow the cord is,
      So unto the man is woman;
      Though she bends him she obeys him,
      Thought she draws him, yet she follows;
      Useless each without the other.

      Thanks God nowadays no woman (and man alike) in her right mind could accept something like this.
      You better say you’re in search of a slave, not a companion.

      • Kyle says

        Quillette is Alt Right in disguise

        It looks WAY better than how things are going right now.
        I’m sorry you can’t perceive the love and dedication in the sentiments of the poem.
        It appears that you are way too focused on your perceived “rights” and not enough on what you can offer to the person you love most in the world.
        THIS is why our relationships are headed South at such a rapid clip.

  65. I Am Mine says

    You have been a benevolent slave owner, congratulations

  66. Gary Numan fan says

    It would be nice to live in a world where we ALL accept people individually instead of lumping everyone by gender, religion and ethic groups. I find people suffering from personality disorders such as narcissism and psycothopy (cluster B) stir up most of the trouble in our everyday lives which is all about power and control to them. Personality disorders don’t discriminate and is found in both male and female and everyone in between including different cultures. I am a former jockey which was usually a male domain back in the day when I did it, but I found it was certain individuals (including women) that made this difficult for me to achieve at times. I am very grateful to have lovely males in my life. A very refreshing and well written article by the author. Thank you.

Comments are closed.