Greetings!! Is this your first visit? If so, please consider registering. It enables downloads and removal of adverts. Use the 'facebook connect' for quick access.
View RSS Feed

All Blog Entries

  1. I sent a letter to the DOJ(I ramble on about related topics)

    by , 10th-February-2011 at 07:33 PM (Musings of a Pro-Human Woman)
    (Note to my AM readers: sorry that my thoughts seem really jumbled on this post, I got to rambling on about everything on my mind)
    Thanks to rohara on the Anti-Misandry fourms I became aware of a biased report that was released and I have read the report and sent an email to the Department of Justice:

    To whom this may concern,
    I have recently read the report, "Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research," and I am dismayed at the level of dishonesty that has been shown on this reportand on the host website. The SAVE letter that was sent to you on November 24th, 2010 reveals all of your gender bias. As a citizen of the United States, I am demanding honest statistics regarding domestic violence. The dishonesty on this report is harmful to the male victims of domestic abuse, our brothers, fathers, husbands, and sons. As the wife of a previous victim of domestic abuse I am sickened that the standard of research for the government that I pay for with my own tax dollars isn't honest.

    I am going to post a link to the SAVE letter and I demand you fix this serious problem.

    A concerned citizen of the United States.
    My husband doesn't like to talk about it at all, but he was in an abusive D/s relationship(let's be honest, all forms of relationships are open to abuse) with his previous partner. The man he was involved with didn't treat him like a human being and went beyond what is acceptable in the BDSM community. Even though I practice domestic discipline with him, I very rarely have even a need to do so, and I always make sure that he understands that I love him very much. I don't go over his limits and I give him room to be a happily content house-husband. I am not perfect and accidents happen, and sometimes I let my anger and frustration get the best of me. But we are all human, we make mistakes and we learn ...
    Tags: abuse
  2. Love is in the Air

    by , 9th-February-2011 at 11:19 PM (Musings of a Pro-Human Woman)
    It's that time of the year again, and romance is on my mind.
    <TABLE class=tr-caption-container style="MARGIN-LEFT: auto; MARGIN-RIGHT: auto; TEXT-ALIGN: center" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=center><TBODY><TR><TD style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"></TD></TR><TR><TD class=tr-caption style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">Yes, pure unadulterated romance!</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
    As Dominant as I might be, I am still a woman who loves romantic ventures and ploys, from my husband, but I thought about doing something special and different for him this Valentine's day, despite the commercialism of the day and the greedy women that use their husbands to get them expensive jewelry, I am still going to do something for my husband and celebrate the day.

    What many women tend to forget is that romance is a two way street, and our boyfriends and husbands want love as well, so what if they don't want that 3000$ diamond ring, they still want our affection which is, I might add, priceless. And this is also true in a D/s relationship, like the one I have with my husband. It isn't just my husband's responsibility to be the romantic partner all of the time, it's my responsibility to be a romantic partner too.

    So when Marc Rudov and many others tell others the brutal truth, that Valentine's day isn't about romance, and tell men to boycott the day, I understand the reason and I am sickened by the attitudes espoused by many women about the most "romantic" day of the year. Men are NOT ATM machines, they are the people we are supposed to love as much as they love us.

    "But, Lady Catherine," you might be asking, "Why are you posting about romance in a blog about gender politics?" . To which I reply: Love is the cornerstone of successful relationships, I cannot stress ...
    Tags: misandry, romance
  3. Addressing Some Attitudes I Have Encountered

    by , 8th-February-2011 at 05:30 PM (Musings of a Pro-Human Woman)
    You HATE men!
    This has been popping up lately in some of the circles I have been involved with the last couple of weeks. Perhaps it's my bull-headed personality or my choice of words, but I seriously do not hate men of any stripe. I am not a hateful bigot. Do I hate some of the things that some men do? Yes. But not all men are terrible people. I might be a Dominant female, but I'm seriously cuddly and for the most part over-protective(at least according to my husband!) of the men in my life.

    You are a self-hating woman HATER!!
    How the hell did this even pop up? I don't hate myself and I don't hate other women even if they make choices I don't agree with or have the desire to make. Women are people, just like men, I try to give a balanced perspective on the issues at hand but maybe I don't have the experience at looking at them from a general perspective.

    Bu...bu...but you're one of THEM!!!
    So? Your point is? Does having the ifeminist label or MRA label automatically makes me "anti-male" or "anti-female"? Why? I don't see the problem with using both labels especially when they both fit my ideology and beliefs about gender politics. Perhaps it's because my personality is a little jarring and I'm not fully up to speed on MRA issues(and I am trying to learn about them), but I see no problem with using both labels.

    You. Just. Don't. Get. It. Do you?
    I'm trying to learn about MRA issues so I can better address them and give a more balanced opinion about them, I have started to learn about what kinds of reproductive rights they are fighting for and I will continue to learn about theother various issues that they have. So, I apologize to my readers if it seems that I give an unbalanced perspective on issues(as I am guilty of it elsewhere), I am trying to learn more about them.

    In conclusion, I don't hate either men or women, even those who don't share my ideology or ideas about ...
  4. Renaming Victims as Accusers: Anti-Woman or Pro-Justice?

    by , 7th-February-2011 at 06:40 PM (Rise of the Zeta Male)
    Recently Bobby Franklin of Georgia suggested that we stop using the word “victim” when regarding rape cases, and instead suggested until proving they are raped we use the term “accuser”. To no ones surprise, the majority of the left wasn’t thrilled with this. It comes right after the attempt to redefine which rapes qualify for abortions that involve government money, which does not help Franklin’s case.

    It’s not a smart idea to taunt the angry bear, which is what he did. Women’s rights activists were up in arms (and in my opinion, for once they were right to be) and then tossing this out there right afterwards makes things even worse for the GOP. The claim is that this is anti-women, while others are claiming this is pro-justice.

    The anti-woman case is made pretty clear, arguing that it makes people more reluctant to come forward when raped and that it should not be applied in this one scenario. After all if you are robbed you aren’t an accuser you were robbed. Using the term accuser puts into question whether an actual crime was committed.

    Of course that is the point. The idea is to say that until there is proof, a crime may have been committed, but at the same time it may not have. It is pointed out that people lie and if we use the word victim we automatically assume that on the other end there is the perpetrator.

    more here...
  5. On Privileges

    by , 7th-February-2011 at 05:54 PM (Musings of a Pro-Human Woman)
    I have been thinking about privilege lately, and like many other ideas that have their roots in gender feminism that seems to flood their way into my mind, I have been thinking about male privilege and female privilege. The thing with any and all privilege is that it is always subjective. I started to write my own list of privileges and came to the conclusion that those privileges are just as subjective as any male privilege I could think of. What I might think of as a privilege for me, could be an obligation for another woman.

    I think Sweating through Fog had it right. "Privilege" rhetoric makes easy targets out of anybody: LGBT people don't have privileges heterosexual people do, women are oppressed, men have all the privileges, and so on. I don't need this rhetoric to get my viewpoints across, I am not oppressed and straight normal men aren't oppressors. There isn't a "patriarchy" that is designed to oppress me, the government oppresses men and women. Only rhetorical discipline is neccesary for me to get my view points across, when I'm engaged in debate.

    I am not a victim that is denied privilege, my bisexual husband isn't a victim, and no one as a group is a victim. Victim mentality only leads to a blaming game that creates the bigotry we are said to be opposed to. Are there isolated incidents of misogyny, misandry, or homophobia? Absolutely.

    I do not blame men for what misogyny there might be, because men as a whole are not the enactors of misogyny. I love the men in my life, I love my father, husband, and my male cousins, they are all precious to me. What I have a problem with are people like Miss Andrist, who hates men for the most inane reasons.

    Thank you for your time. In frith.

    Originally posted on:
  6. On Sex and Gender: How Small Social Customs Compound to Make Gender Roles

    by , 4th-February-2011 at 02:00 AM (Rise of the Zeta Male)
    I have talked about this before. It seems to be popping up again a lot in what ive been reading again. So I am diving back in.

    Sex and gender is part of the nature vs nurture debate. Does the idea of nurture have an impact on us in the form of a group?

    There is a difference between sex and gender. They overlap sometimes (like being a mother or a father) but society labels certain tasks as male or female and duties. It may be biological for men to want to protect women but it’s a social expectation and a gender role that forces men to hold open doors. Look at cross-cultural studies you see that they are not identical in which sex is assigned what jobs in society. Those are gender roles, they lead to stereotyping. Its real if we like it or not.

    However it is also our duty to take it as it is and not spin it. It is in itself not good or bad, but problematic once it becomes restricting to what is and is not socially acceptable. If you hear a man is a dental hygienist (15% of the people that graduate from school to be this are male, while 1% of the employed are male) and you think “that’s wrong” or won’t hire them because of it, then it becomes restraining. If you say “that’s unusual”, shrug it off and move on/hire them if they meet the needs then it is not.

    Back in the days of hunter/gatherer societies this was practical. A lot of it was based on biological urges and physical capabilities. Men are more muscular, thus they were expected to do the major hunting. If you said “I want to be a gatherer instead” you were essentially looked at as being wasteful. You have something that needs to be utilized (physical strength) and you are not using it to the best of your ability. You were becoming a hindrance to society.

    more here...
  7. The Real Link Between Masculinity and Violence

    by , 1st-February-2011 at 03:53 AM (Rise of the Zeta Male)
    Every so often you will hear people equate the concept of violence with being male. Its not a surprise that people make that connection, men make up the vast majority of people in prison, and convict the majority of murders, as well as suicides which is in itself a violent, and self destructive act. Once in a while a great tragedy happens, and someone blames it on the idea of hyper-masculinity. Hyper-masculinity is the idea that if there is a link between masculinity and violence. In its most extreme forms masculinity is naturally violent. And, society just happens to be obsessed and praises it. Phrases like “man-up” are used to take things to the extreme. People want “super masculine” violent people. It is society’s ideal and what men are told to look up to. That is what makes society violent. Or at least that is the basis behind the argument.

    Anyone else not buying it?

    If you haven’t seen through it yet, the problem with this argument is that it is a cultural that is designed to make men not only aggressive, but violent as well. It is naturally self destructive as it would mean that it is our desire for our next generation of young men to be vicious brutes. This is not to say aggression is not part of masculinity, it absolutely is.

    It is important to make the differences between aggression and violence clear. Aggression involves competitiveness, a bit of cunning, and a desire to come out on top. It means that you have to always be prepared to do what is necessary. However it also has a sense of self discipline to it. It has less to do with being harmful, and more to do with a “go get ‘em” attitude. Even at its extremes, violence, while aggressive is not part of the aggression mapped out in masculinity.

    Violence on the other hand is just what it sounds like. When aggression turns toward the desire and practice of physically harming other people are things. Violence involves intentionally causing people and ...
  8. Gender Role

    by , 31st-January-2011 at 04:35 PM (Musings of a Pro-Human Woman)
    I've been reading a series on Clarisse Thorn's blog for a while, and while I like that she has been targeting something that I have issues with(traditional masculine ideals are holding men back, I agree with that sentiment wholeheartedly)

    I posted a comment on her blog:
    Ms.Thorn, I participate on MRA forums/blogs, and I have read all of your posts regarding heterosexual men and privilege. I do not usually like the label “MRA” or “ifeminist” and I generally use the label “pro-human” as it’s not a loaded term.
    I do not agree with everything MRAs say, but I do believe that men are the targets of institutionalized misandry. And I also do believe is that women and men have some privileges that the other gender does not.
    In my honest opinion, traditional masculinity heaps a lot of problems on men’s shoulders thanks to sexist assumptions about men. Just as traditional femininity heaps a lot of problems on women. This is all especially true if men and women do not themselves fit into a proscribed role.
    Thank you for your time. In frith.
    As I have stated elsewhere, I do not fit into the standard gender binary, but neither does my husband. In our relationship, I am the provider and head of household and my husband is the homemaker, we are both happy with this arrangement.

    I generally do not care for distinctions of "man" and "woman" when I'm dealing with a person. I treat them as an individual. Some men are feminine and others are clearly masculine, and hell, some even blur that distinction(like my husband), I see no reason that we can not treat men as individuals. If we can do that for women, then surely we can do that for men.

    Having archaic views of men is damaging to our brothers, fathers, husbands, slaves, Masters, or whatever label they fit under. Do some men fit into a traditional role? Yes. But, I do not see the reason to assume that men are all like that.

    In my opinion, real ...
  9. Qualified feminism. ("moderate feminism" "ifeminism" NAFALT "feminist but.." etc.)

    by , 21st-January-2011 at 03:49 PM
    In a previous blog, I wrote about the distinction between feminism and women and why many women think they are feminists but are wrong. Here I address those who want to use the feminist label for meaning something good, often re-defining feminism in the process to something like "radical feminism" even though hardly anyone self-identifies as a radical feminist - they just call themselves a feminist.

    I believe it is both incorrect and unhelpful for the plight of men to group females and feminists together and blame all women for feminism (and, by implication, not blame any men). That said, I encourage anyone - male and female - to distance themselves from concepts like "feminism" and "feminist" as much as possible unless you believe in female supremacy and have a distaste of men and masculinity.

    I encourage you not to call yourself any kind of "feminist" unless you believe in the social illness that is feminism. Claiming that not all feminists are like that (NAFALT) may be true in specific cases but the reality of feminism is seen by its overall actions, not by any one individual.

    Among the reasons to avoid the feminist label unless you are an unqualified feminist are:
    1) To achieve balance and fairness/egalitarianism in society, we have to undo all that feminism has brought upon our society (note: that is not undoing suffrage, nor equal pay, nor...). To be able to quickly undo everything that can be associated with feminism, it is important not to muddy what feminism is by using the same word for any other purpose.
    2) To those aware of the misandry and social damage caused by feminist ideology, there is a psychological effect on someone saying they are feminist. This can be seen all over forums such as Anti-misandry and Stand Your Ground when people say they are a "feminist but..." or a "moderate feminist" or an "ifeminist". It's not that people can't read, nor that they consciously ignore the qualification

    Updated 26th-February-2014 at 09:36 AM by Douglas

  10. But What If I Like It? A Case for Chivalry

    by , 21st-January-2011 at 03:15 AM (Rise of the Zeta Male)
    As much as I, and other members of the men’s movement despise (and that’s putting it lightly) the concept of chivalry, there is something to consider. The idea that some people may not just be happy in a family setting, but in the white knight role, what about them?

    Now before we go any further we have to separate these people from those that feel obligated to fill this role. They are in a separate category. They see that as the social norm, and what is to be expected of men. These are the people that look down upon us for not doing as they do. These people are a problem.

    But they aren’t the people I am talking about. I am talking about those who find appeal in the gender role so strong that being the provider and defender is self-fulfilling? They don’t thrive on the praise from women because of their actions (but they may like it), they are simply satisfied with the practice. I know some people might think that their existence is crazy, and I have never met one, but let’s say they actually do exist. Should we speak against them?

    I don’t think so. Actually, as long as they know they have options and aren’t trapped in a corner, I say we advocate it.

    More here...
Page 37 of 62 FirstFirst ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 ... LastLast

Donate to AntiMisandry

1e2 Forum