Widget for transparency in (games) journalism. Proposal.
Here’s an idea that I’d like to see become reality. It’s a technological proposal prompted by the #GamerGate scandal. I believe, if created, it would mitigate some of the problems of integrity and transparency in video game websites that people are currently objecting to. It’s a service that would help online publishers of game related news, reviews as well as opinion/’think’ pieces, to avoid impropriety as well as the appearance of impropriety.
It would work as follows. On a web page containing a news story related to games, readers notice a third-party widget. The widget displays a Social Connection Indicator (SCI) score. Clicking a “What’s this?” link inside the widget, readers learn that the higher the overall score, the more likely it is that the author is not adequately impartial, and in the case of high scores, it’s recommended that readers should look into the connections further if they want to assure themselves that there’s no foul play going on.
The widget displays an overall score for the article prominently, as well as a breakdown showing a score for a pairing of each person mentioned in the article, with the author. I’ll call these pair scores, which are explained next. The overall SCI score for the article is equal to the highest of the pair scores it contains.
A pair score represents the degree of social connection, as measured through publicly available twitter interactions, between two people. The widget indicates the degree of social connection between the author of the piece and each person mentioned in it.
The degree of connection is calculated by the SCI service. The service conducts data mining on public twitter posts to arrive at pair scores. Retweets, replies and mentions are the main targets of analysis. A pair score is the product of direct interactions between the users, as well as the interactions of the people they interact with and so on until some arbitrarily chosen degree of separation. Collectively I’ll call these direct and indirect interactions the extended interactions. Data related to a user who is determined to be socially close to you (high connection score) will have a greater effect on the system’s calculation of your pair scores than data from a user judged to be more distant *.
To illustrate: Persons X and Y have never tweeted directly at one another, but their pair score is boosted to some degree because I have often had twitter interactions with both of them. My interactions link the two users in the eyes of the SCI system.
The tone of the interactions is not assessed. The SCI system doesn’t care if interactions are supportive or antagonistic. It concerns itself with the existence of connections, not their ‘direction’. We’re assuming that preexisting loyalties as well as animosities threaten impartial reporting.
The maintainers of the site publishing the games news article would set up and embed the SCI widgets on the relevant article pages, probably doing so before the articles are published. A setup wizard on the SCI site would offer fields to input the twitter handles of the author as well as the people mentioned in the article. The wizard would generate an appropriate embed code for use in the article.
I believe that such a service would be of value to gaming news sites interested in providing assurances of integrity and impartiality. It would be a highly visible way for these sites to differentiate themselves from less scrupulous organisations. To the extent that the service was successful, the lack of the SCI widget on a site would already serve as a red flag for concerned readers.
The SCI system could also report a site-wide average score (aggregated from all widgets used on the site). Organisations using the system would be motivated to try to keep their overall site score low. To this end reporters would be assigned to articles in a way that minimised prior connections (loyalty or animosity) between the writers and the persons involved in their articles.
The existence of the SCI system would influence the incentives of writers themselves too. If the SCI system saw widespread use, writers would understand that cultivating online friendships, or feuds, or participation in in/out group tribalism generally, with the people in the industry they are covering would limit the number of stories they’d be considered for in the future, both by their current and future employers.
Since authors for small and new sites will naturally tend to have lower connection scores with whoever they write about, this service will, to some extent, confer an advantage to these ‘underdog’ sites. This is good news for those who’d like entrenched institutions to feel more pressure to clean up their acts, and who’d like a more level playing field in game journalism.
At least in the form I’m imagining, the service would ‘see’ only Twitter interactions. Twitter seems like a good initial choice because of it’s popularity as a medium in independent gaming circles.
The SCI system is not intended to act as a substitute for ethical journalism practices (e.g. recusal) but as a supplement to them and a way to easily increase transparence towards readers.
A high SCI score, in and of itself, does not establish partiality, bias or corruption. Rather, a high score would be a signal for readers to be cautious and investigate the links between the author and the subjects themselves. This limitation would need to be clearly communicated to readers.
It’s also possible that real partiality exists even if a reported coefficient is low. So readers need to be aware that the system will sometimes result in ‘false negatives’. This could happen in cases where interactions between people happened exclusively offline, leaving little or no trace on twitter. I believe such blind-spots wouldn’t be a serious problem thanks to the use of extended connection analysis.
Some degree of connection should be expected between a journalist who uses twitter and the people he/she writes about. With respect to someone working in the industry being reported on, a pair score of zero, if even attainable, is not necessarily desirable.
Such a system could be monetised, for instance by requiring sites with sufficiently high page views to pay a subscription fee to the organisation hosting the service.
It may make sense to publish the codebase for the project in a publicly accessible way, so that interested parties can audit the code themselves to ensure there’s nothing shady going on in how the scores are derived.
The data derived by the live system could be cached in sequential files in some human readable format, and published. Auditors could then run the software themselves and verify that it gives the same results (for a given time window) as a safeguard against the possibility that the publicly available codebase is different to the ‘live’ one being used on the production server(s).
The system would respond to the crisis of confidence in gaming journalism by giving readers more information, but would not be diagnostic. It would be up to publishers and ultimately readers to decide for themselves what lower level of partiality is inevitable and what upper level of partiality is acceptable.
I hope someone reads this who agrees that this, or something like it, would be a valuable service, and has the tech/entrepreneurial muscle to pull it off.
* At first glance there seems to be some circularity here, but smarter minds than mine have created systems like this before so I’m not too worried about that.
Three insights for making peace with moral nihilism
I think that there’s more fear of moral nihilism than there needs to be. People worry that if they become persuaded of moral nihilism it will undercut their ability to make moral arguments and perhaps even turn them into the kind of person they don’t want to be. I hope to quickly show that these fears are misplaced.
Moral nihilism means rejecting the notion that there’s such a thing as mind-independent moral facts. We have no good reason to suppose that any actions have an intrinsic ‘must not-be-done-ness’ or ‘must-be-done-ness’. Religious people don’t dodge this bullet either, moral facts would be on no more firm an existential footing if there really was a celestial intelligence who wanted humans to behave in certain ways.
1. You care about the truth
The first insight is that you care about the truth. And you’d prefer to know the truth even if it’s uncomfortable. I believe moral nihilism is the position that coheres best with what we know about the world and I think if you read Mackie and Joyce there’s a good chance you’ll end up agreeing with me. Your commitment to truth should compel you to investigate this important subject seriously and with an open mind, even though (or perhaps especially because) you risk feeling temporary discomfort as your beliefs shift.
2. Ditching moral realism won’t make you a bad person
If you’ve done away with moral realism doesn’t this throw you into an anomistic chaos where anything’s permissible? Surely this stance at least prevents you from making arguments that imply that certain behaviour is right or wrong?
Neither is true. Even though moral facts don’t exist, in a healthy human, strong moral feelings and empathic response do. If I could be sure I’d ‘get away with it’ I still wouldn’t do the Bad Things that a psychopath would calmly contemplate because I feel repulsed by the idea of doing them, and I’m sure I’d feel overwhelming guilt if I was capable of going through with them somehow. This has nothing to do with questions of permission or forbiddance. In non-rigorous contexts I might even say it’s wrong to do those things.
3. Moral facts are persuasively inert
So doesn’t denying moral facts undercut your ability or motivation to make moral arguments? Perhaps surprisingly it doesn’t need to have that effect either.
I’m a moral nihilist and a libertarian. While being both of these things, I made the video George Ought to Help, which implicitly makes a moral argument against the state, specifically against the welfare state. It might strike some people as inconsistent or hypocritical for me to argue that way. It’s neither of those things.
I’m motivated to make moral arguments because I believe they can bring about changes in the world that harmonise with my preferences. My preferences (which inevitably reflect my moral feelings) include maximising prosperity and minimising suffering. I’m convinced that propertarian anarchism is by far the most suitable path yet conceived of towards that end.
My moral arguments don’t rely on the assumption that moral facts exist. Instead they appeal to a preference for coherence and consistency in moral judgements on the part of the people I’m making the argument to: You and I feel that X is wrong (meaning that it offends our moral feelings). Y closely resembles X in ways A B and C. If you condemn X doesn’t it make sense to condemn Y too? I encourage people to question whether their judgements cohere with one another. I believe it’s fair to say that the moral judgements of most statists are strikingly incoherent, for instance.
Perhaps the most important thing to notice is that in efforts of persuasion, moral realism doesn’t help you. If a person doesn’t feel that threatening violence against peaceful people is wrong already (e.g. threatening to assault a friend to compel them to donate to a cause you consider worthy), then no amount of outraged brow beating about moral facts is going to change their mind. You should consider cutting your losses and ending the conversation.
Notice also that if two moral realists disagree, they face a deadlock: How has either gained knowledge about what these moral facts are? By what mechanism? Why treat this conviction as something other than ‘merely’ a vey strong feeling?
Don’t be afraid of moral nihilism. If anything, I believe jettisoning the metaphysical baggage of moral facts makes it easier to anchor yourself in the world as it is, and to strengthen your arguments with the robustness that comes from a clear-eyed grounding in moral coherentism.
Can you lose a fortune by mistyping a bitcoin address?
Can you lose a fortune by mistyping a bitcoin address? If you’re in a hurry ‘no’ is an acceptable approximation of the answer.
Lately the bitcoin exchange Bitstamp carried out a procedure intended to demonstrate the organisation’s bitcoin reserve amount. The procedure included the step of transferring funds managed by Bitstamp (183,497 BTC, which is roughly $103,675,805 at the current market price) to a new address known to be under their control to demonstrate ownership.
On Reddit a couple of users commented on the frightening prospect of transferring such a large amount of money, positing that if an incorrect receiving address was entered the result would be catastrophic. If you transfer bitcoins to an address by mistake the only way you’ll get them back is if the owner of the address decides to send them back. Helpfully, Bitcoin’s design makes this kind of mistake very unlikely.
Not all bitcoin addresses are valid. If you try to send money to an invalid address your bitcoin client, or the website hosting your wallet—assuming it’s been built competently—won’t process the transfer, and no funds will be moved. For testing validity, bitcoin adresses include a checksum.
Checksums are used to ensure the integrity of data portions for data transmission or storage. A checksum is basically a calculated summary of such a data portion.
The rough idea is as follows, the end portion of a bitcoin address is generated by performing a mathematical operation on the front portion of the address. If you take a valid address and change any part of the front portion, the back portion needs to be changed to a particular value that agrees with the front part in order for it to remain valid, and vice versa. The likelihood of accidentally changing both the front and back portion of an address to values that agree with one another is vanishingly small.
You can test this for yourself using blockchain.info. First look up a valid bitcoin address by navigating into one of the latest transactions listed on the homepage. For instance 1AbAgKrzbdZZ3Ty8uEvf4Q1pEGJYQvEHjB. Then try changing any of the characters of the bitcoin address in your browser’s address bar and refresh the page. You’ll see the error message ‘Checksum does not validate’. The same happens if you swap the positions of two characters in an address too.
So while it’s still possible to end up sending money to the wrong address (for instance you could copy and paste a valid address belonging to someone other than the intended recipient), the likelihood of this happening because a bitcoin address was mistyped or garbled somehow is next to non-existent.
I accept bitcoin donations via: 1KWH7bi8Tovmy4Pg5cQQiHa3SLda2iMECc
A question for advocates of anti-discrimination laws
A question for advocates of anti-discrimination laws for private businesses. NB. this is not a rhetorical question. I don’t rule out the possibility that a sensible answer can be given (I just can’t think of one myself).
Consider two kinds of interactions that can happen between pairs of adults.
- A one night stand.
- The exchange of money for a good or service: such as buying a drink in a bar.
Advocates of anti discrimination laws typically believe that one should be free to reject the sexual advances of another person for any reason (including racist beliefs), but that when it comes to exchanges involving money, a business owner should be compelled to accept all-comers who are interesting in interacting in the form of buying/trade.
How can one justify advocating that freedom of association (specifically the freedom to turn down a possible interaction) be upheld in the case of sexual interactions, but not in the case of interactions involving the exchange of money for goods and services?
'Support Tomasz Kaye creating videos' Patreon page.
It’s like Kickstarter except patrons pledge to donate a given amount for each item created (in my case videos). Maximum limits can be set to avoid contributing more than you’d be comfortable with.
Rewards for patrons include being credited in videos they help to fund and the opportunity to add their voice to private discussions about upcoming video ideas.
Thanks in advance if you take a look to see if you’d like to be a patron, or just help spread the word.
Eric Voorhees open letter to Peter Schiff about Bitcoin
An Open Letter to Peter Schiff A follow-up to the discussion on the Peter Schiff Show, December 2, 2013 (this has been emailed to Peter just now)
It was a privilege and an honor to be a guest on your radio show today. I’ve been a fan of yours for more than five years; you were one of the reasons I discovered Austrian economics (and, in turn, Bitcoin), and your eloquent explanation of consumption vs. production in an economy has guided my outlook of the world ever since. So thank you sincerely for what you’ve taught me, and for the opportunity to appear on your show. It was a really special moment for me.
While we had some valuable discussion today, I felt a follow-up was appropriate to better articulate my points. You’re right to be highly skeptical of such a new technology and monetary system, but please take the time to ensure your skepticism doesn’t blind you from what I humbly suggest is one of the most important tools for human freedom ever conceived.
First, Bitcoin must always be considered as two things: the payment network (Bitcoin) and the currency units (bitcoins). Condemnations of the latter can often be resolved with an understanding of the former. Satoshi should have named them differently to avoid this initial confusion.
When you suggest that bitcoins have “zero intrinsic value,” you are only considering the currency unit itself and ignoring the payment network. While I prefer the term “utility” over “intrinsic value” (because all value is subjective to the valuer), I may indeed admit that bitcoins, as currency units all by themselves, have no fundamental utility and are completely uninteresting. But – and this absolutely critical – the payment network has vast utility.
In fact, this network is probably one of the most valuable and consequential technologies currently on the planet. Some of us realized this a few years ago. Others are realizing it now. Many more will realize it in the future. The Bitcoin network is, fundamentally, a ledger of title controlled by no man. Ponder that for a moment. The transmission of value and ownership has thus just been severed from the State, not by impotent voting, but by the technological achievement of man. Now, during the show, you agreed that perhaps this payment network has utility. So, if the network (Bitcoin) has utility, and only one currency is accepted on this network (bitcoins), and those bitcoins are scarce, then should not those units themselves command a market price? Who knows what that price should be, but there should be a price, no? Any good that is useful and scarce will have a price (consider that air is useful but not scarce, and fish with three eyes are scarce but not useful, thus no price for either of them). Because the Bitcoin network is useful, and because only scarce bitcoin currency units are permitted on this network, the bitcoins themselves have a price. Indeed, they must have a price until the network is no longer useful, or the coins are no longer scarce.
This is not magic. It is not a Ponzi scheme or elaborate fraud. It’s just the market pricing something that it finds useful. As the network grows in usage, its utility subsequently grows, and thus scarce bitcoins appreciate further. Those who grabbed coins in the early days benefit hugely, just as those prospectors grabbing nuggets of gold out of the California foot hills did in the early days of the gold rush. Gold is not a pyramid scheme merely because early acquirers profit from later subsequent adoption and demand.
The Utility of Bitcoin and Competitors
So to adequately claim that bitcoins ought to have no price (which is the implicit assumption from your claim on national television that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme), you must demonstrate that the Bitcoin network has no utility. As someone who has transferred $100,000 worth of value to another person instantly in another country (on a Sunday when banks were closed, no less), I am confident that you will not succeed in this demonstration.
I believe that you will understand and agree with my above arguments if you objectively ponder them for a while. Your contention then moves to the following: that if Bitcoin (the network) can be replicated by anyone, it isn’t actually scarce at all and thus even though the network is valuable, the price of individual coins will fall toward zero as the system is replicated over and over by competitors. You would explain that while bitcoins are limited to 21 million units, anyone can create a competing crypto-currency and thus the number of possible crypto-currency units are unlimited, thus not scarce, and thus not fundamentally worth anything.
You made this argument several times on the show today. It is a fair point for you to raise, but please allow me to counter it.
Bitcoin, after all, cannot really be copied. True, the open-source code can be copied and the copier could release CopyCoin (indeed this is happening all the time). But, the copier cannot copy the infrastructure. The protocol layer is easily copied. The infrastructure layer is not. On Day 1 of Bitcoin, it had no infrastructure layer. I can tell you, as an entrepreneur in this space for the past few years, Bitcoin’s infrastructure layer is now substantial. Indeed, I am sitting in my office, and looking at my employees building this very infrastructure as I write this. Their work, and that of many thousands of others around the world, is not so easily replicated.
Let’s use an analogy, which you so often convincingly do when describing the absurdity of Fed policy or the counter-productive nature of various government programs. I believe the following is a very fair analogy.
Consider that language itself is a protocol – a set of rules for conveying information. Consider then that one could copy the English language, and change parts of it, and release it as English 2.0. However, why would anyone use it? Even if it had marginal improvements over traditional English, where is the infrastructure? Where are the vast tomes of literature written in English 2.0? Where are the speakers and writers and scholars of this new language? Where are the libraries and Wikipedias full of English 2.0 articles? How many newspapers are written and conveyed in English 2.0? How many Peter Schiff podcasts are disseminated in this new alternative? That infrastructure wouldn’t exist, and neither therefore, would the users. This is merely the natural, spontaneous consequence of network effect, and it applies to English as a protocol for language just as it applies to Bitcoin as a protocol for money.
Now, does the network effect mean English, or Bitcoin, can never be replaced? No. But it does mean it’d be extremely difficult in either case. But let’s remember something. Even if a superior crypto-currency overcomes Bitcoin in the open market (certainly possible), does that make Bitcoin a failure or Ponzi scheme? Does that negate the utility bestowed by Bitcoin while the market still favors it? Consider that one can benefit from the Bitcoin network with zero or very low exposure to the currency price long term. This means a payment made with Bitcoin last year still accomplished its objective – value moved freely, the users benefited, even if a year later the system falls apart and goes to zero. Thus, there is real utility today even if the system doesn’t work next year. The assumption that Bitcoin will be around for eternity is not a prerequisite for benefiting from its utility in the present.
Mutual Respect for Market-Based Money
I think you will discover, upon reflection, that your concerns about Bitcoin boil down to the thesis that Bitcoin is a volatile, highly speculative, and non-conservative asset class. In this, I wholeheartedly agree. But if your arguments are claiming that the payment network itself is some kind of fraud – a Ponzi scheme undeserved of respect or even consideration – then I must take issue with that. The Bitcoin network is an utterly revolutionary technology. It separates money from the state, in a way that gold, unfortunately, has been unable to do. When fully understood, Bitcoin should bring tears to the eyes of anyone who fights against the tyranny and ignorance of coercive governments and their monetary witch doctors. This is why thousands of people around the world have dedicated their lives to this campaign. We are carrying out this experiment without anyone’s permission. We’ll either fail, or change the world in a way that was inconceivable before this technology existed.
I wholly support your idea to make a gold-backed digital currency. Please do it. I’d love to be your first customer, because I love gold. But being in this business, seeing how the payments and banking and regulatory world works, I can tell you that your initiative will likely fail, either by self-immolation (GoldMoney severing inter-account payments), or by governmental take down (e-gold).
A monetary/payment system that relies on gold backing is reliant on the backer. It relies on a centralized, trusted party, to warehouse the gold and provide convertibility. This is the counter-party risk eliminated by Bitcoin.
You cannot compete with fiat by having a competitor that is vulnerable to the guns of government. Bitcoin may not be perfectly immune, but it is highly resistant. Censorship of e-gold was easy. Censorship of Bitcoin will be… entertaining.
Regardless, if you’re honestly interested in trying that experiment again, I will help you and support that effort, because I recognize the value of precious metals as commodities and as money. Until such a system actually exists, I am humbly asking you to support our efforts in kind, and am humbly suggesting to you that bitcoins, while non-physical, are indeed real and indeed have real value, because they are the one currency accepted on the most revolutionary payment network known to mankind. This is not theory – it’s actually working for millions of dollars of payments every day. We’ve moved beyond the Mises textbook. We’re running in the open market.
While Bitcoin is still a highly-volatile experiment, it deserves more respect than dismissal as a Ponzi scheme, and regardless of whether you think the current price of a bitcoin unit is justified, you must acknowledge that this technology, broadly speaking, has utility both for both economic exchange and, more importantly, individual freedom. When my grandparents ask me how to protect their wealth, I don’t tell them to buy bitcoins. I tell them to buy precious metals. When they ask me how to transfer value across distance, I don’t tell them to ship gold. I tell them to use Bitcoin. My hope in writing this letter is simply this – that perhaps you’ll come to see Bitcoin and gold as beautiful compliments and important tools in the advancement of free-market money – one long-standing, conservative, and physical, the other new, technologically and politically disruptive, and digital. One will not replace the other, but I believe both will come to replace fiat, and good riddance to that stuff.
In Liberty, Erik Voorhees
girl-powerr said: sorry I spammed you, I had forgotten that your blog existed and found it again while going through my history and got hella upset because I remembered that you existed. As for those sources, I don't feel I should be doing this very basic research for you and I can't paste links here, but I would recommend you start by doing a simple google search for "wage gap" you will find articles from forbes, NPR, Huffington Post, Washington post and many others that provide REAL facts about the wage gap
I have thirty seven, some from forbes and the huffington post. These are those REAL facts you asked for.
What about the fact that men have it worse in nearly everything?
Men suffer more casualties in war
- Men are 99.999% of American combat deaths and casualties
- Men are at least 97% of the deaths since the first Gulf War
- “The numbers of wounded women and female amputees, meanwhile, are considerably less than their male counterparts–at least 378 wounded versus 17,490; 11 amputees versus over 400–but they are historic for modern day warfare.”
- A Pentagon study published in March on the mental health of soldiers returning from deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan found that more than one- third of U.S. soldiers received psychological counseling. A statistic buried in the study: 23.6 percent of women reported a mental health concern compared with 18.6 percent of men.
currently, women are not even required by law to register for selective service, but even mentally challenged and physically disabled men are, in addition to all the healthy ones)
In contrast, women get every veteran’s benefit a man does, yet comprise less than 3% of combat deaths or casualties and a woman makes the cover of Time magazine (person of the year/2003 standing in front of two men.
Men have it rough in the workplace
- Men are 93% of industrial deaths and accident (NIOSH)
- Even though murder is the leading workplace cause of death for women, a statistic often used by gender feminists, that number is only a percentage of the 6% of workplace deaths that women comprise. In other words, a fraction of a small fraction.
- One example:
Between 1890 and 1917, two hundred thirty thousand (230,000) [male] railroad workers were killed. One of the most dangerous jobs was “brakeman.” Each car had to be stopped manually and it was the brakeman’s job to stop four or five cars. The brakeman walked on top of the RR cars and turned a wheel, putting the brakes “on” for each car. It was not unheard of for a brakeman to be thrown from the top of a RR car.
Source: Freight Trains, Modern Marvels, The History Channel, 2006
Men die more often from unnatural causes than women
- Men are:
76% of homicide victims – DOJ
80% of Suicide victims – CDC
Suicide ranks 11th among causes of death in the US, with 30,622 completed suicides in 2001. It is the 3rd leading cause of death among people 15 to 24 yr. Men ≥ 75 yr have the highest rate of death by suicide. Among all age groups, male deaths by suicide outnumber female deaths by 4:1.”
- “The other most common suicide victims are divorced and/or estranged fathers like Derrick Miller. In fact, a divorced father is ten times more likely to commit suicide than a divorced mother, and three times more likely to commit suicide than a married father.
~Suicide took the lives of 30,622 people in 2001 (CDC 2004).
~Suicide is the eighth leading cause of death for all U.S. men (Anderson and Smith 2003).
~24,672 suicide deaths reported among men in 2001
~24,672 / 30,622 = .8056952
~In other words, over 80% of all suicide deaths were male.
- Of the top fifteen leading causes of death, men lead in 12 categories, are tied in two and trail in one. Even though more women die of heart disease each year, men die of heart disease many years earlier.
Men are the overwhelming majority of rape victims
- Male rape has been called “The most closely guarded secret of American prisons.” (Weiss and Friar 1974)
There are estimated to be over 300,000 male rapes per year in American prisons and jails.
- Meanwhile A United Nations statistical report compiled from government sources showed that more than 250,000 cases of male-female rape or attempted rape were recorded by police annually. The reported data covered 65 countries.
- According to the 2009 United States National Crime Victimization Survey estimates, only 55% of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement officials. When a male is raped, less than 10% are believed to be reported. Female-male and female-female rape are ignored altogether in this survey.
Other facts regarding men and rape:
- 2.1% of men reported forced vaginal sex compared to 1.6% of women in a relationship in the previous year. From: Predictors of Sexual Coersion.
- 94% of sexually abused youth in correctional facilities reported being abused by female staff. From: Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities, 2008-09.
- Among inmates reporting staff sexual misconduct, ~ 65% reported a female aggressor. From: Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008-09.
- 50% of homeless youth reported being sexually abused by a female. From: It’s Not What You Think: Sexually Exploited Youth in British Columbia
Men get screwed over in divorce and custody courts
- A woman is the party filing for divorce in about 66% of divorce cases.
“How often was it that many more of women wanted the divorce more than the men?
2/3. The same as the amount responsible for divorce filings. And yet another study of divorced couples found that the majority of divorced wives and husbands both agreed it was the wife who wanted out.”
- Women receive custody in about 84% of child custody cases.
In the spring of 2002, an estimated 13.4 million parents had custody of 21.5 million children under 21 years of age whose other parent lived somewhere else. About 5 of every 6 custodial parents were mothers (84.4 percent) and 1in 6 were fathers (15.6 percent), proportions statistically unchanged since 1994
According to Los Angeles divorce consultant Jayne Major:
“Divorced men are often devastated by the loss of their children. It’s a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children. Most of the men I deal with never saw their divorces coming, and they are often treated very unfairly by the family courts.’”
- Paternity fraud is rampant in the U.S.
30% of those named as fathers who test for paternity find they are not the biological father.
- Not only is all this imbalance around marriage and children unfair to men, we must also consider that the damaged inflicted on fatherless children is staggering:
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average. (Rainbows for All God’s Children)
70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)
85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)
Men are often screwed over in the Justice System as well.
- There is blatant anti-male discrimination in the criminal justice system and the sentencing disparity between men and women exceeds that between whites and any other minority.
- Avg sentences for crime by gender:
Female – 18.51 months
Male – 51.52 months
- “Judge bashes Probation Department for gender bias in favor of leniency for girls”
- The 2006 United States’ rate of incarceration of 751 inmates per 100,000 population is the highest reported rate in the world, well ahead of the Russian rate of 628 per 100,000.
93% of the prison population is male with over 60% having no High School education. America has now passed Russia as the country that has the largest percentage of its population incarcerated, yet we still claim to be the freest country on earth.
The number of persons on probation and parole has been growing dramatically along with institutional populations. There are now 7.2 million Americans incarcerated or on probation or parole, an increase of more than 290 percent since 1980.
- The problem of sentencing disparities is compounded by an epidemic of false accusations:
205 (and growing) wrongly convicted people have been exonerated by DNA evidence since the beginning of the Innocence Project.
204 of the wrongly convicted were men.
Most of them were falsely imprisoned for rape.
- As we saw in the Duke Lacrosse rape case fiasco, false accusers are rarely prosecuted and when they are it is only as a misdemeanor (at most), while rape itself is vigorously prosecuted as a felony. The Duke false accuser, Crystal Gayle Mangum went on to commit assault, arson and finally murder before authorities made a good faith intervention.
One attorney speaking at premiere for the movie, After Innocence, estimates that there are between 20,000 and 100,000 wrongly convicted still in prison.
Valid research puts the estimated false rape reporting rate at 41%
Capital Punishments Target Men Almost Exclusively
- Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, there have been over 1,200 executions in the United States. Eleven of them, or less than 1%, were women. This stands in stark contrast considering women commit, by DOJ estimates, 10% of all murders, are involved in 35% of all domestic homicides (are involved often means they get other people to kill for them) and nearly 30% of murders where the victim was another family member.
- We hear a lot about the historical oppression of women’s voting rights, but few if any women who were born in the 20th century were every without the right to vote in their lifetime, upon reaching legal voting age. On the other hand, around 2400 hundred California men (42% of CA men killed in Vietnam) gave their life for their country without being allowed by their country to vote. The exact number is 2,381. Four of the twelve Iwo Jimo flag raisers died for their country without their country ever allowing them the right to vote.
- “The youngest Vietnam KIA is believed to be Dan Bullock USMC, at 15 years old.
At least 5 men killed in Vietnam were 16 years old.
At least 12 men killed in Vietnam were 17 years old.
There are 120 persons who listed foreign countries as their home of record.
At least 25,000 of those killed were 20 years old or younger.
The oldest man killed was 62 years old.”
If you do a full count on all the men in the 20th century who died for their country without being allowed to vote the numbers will be staggering.
In America there are over 270 women’s commissions, but only one for men in New Hampshire.
There are over 700 Women’s Studies programs on colleges and universities throughout the United States teaching thousands or tens of thousands of classes from the gender feminist perspective, but not one program or class, teaching men’s studies from the masculist perspective.
Men are fully half of the victims of domestic violence (26% of intimate partner homicides), yet are denied service at most tax payer funded domestic violence shelters.
The CDC reports that in cases of non-reciprocal intimate partner violence (one directional) that women are more than twice as likely to be the aggressor. The report cites that women comprise 70% of perpetrators, men 29%.
In the largest collection of studies on intimate partner violence known, Martin Fiebert of the California State University, Longbeach offers the following:
SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600.
- In another study the CDC lists male victims of domestic violence at more than 34%, but men injured in Iraq (and all other men) are by law in California excluded from domestic violence shelter services. Only one shelter in Lancaster, CA accepts men and it has been extensively harassed for doing so.
That harassment is a systemic problem with origins that emanate from academe. Dr. Murray Straus, an internationally recognized expert on intimate partner violence published the following paper outlining the various ways that feminist ideologues suppress data and research on IPV that demonstrates gender symmetry in its incidence.
- Men are subject to extreme discrimination in healthcare.
Men today die on average 6 years sooner than women. In 1920 the variance was one year. The death rates for prostate and breast cancer are similar, but because men die of other things more frequently-accidents ,war, heart disease etc., there are fewer men left to die of prostate cancer. This is akin to saying people from a nation like Zimbabwe are immune to Alzheimer’s- but in fact they die of other things before they can get old enough to contract Alzheimer’s.
To date, there are numerous federal offices on women’s health, and not a single one for men. Also, the lion’s share of gender specific medical research is done on behalf of women.
Men and boys are suffering decline in the educational system. Department of Education graph:
Boys are facing a significantly harder time in early education than girls. Yet girls, from primary education through college still benefit from many more special programs designed to help them gain “equality” with males.
Some info on the wage gap
- The wage gap myth based on the “comparable worth” paradigm:
- The wage gap myth based on the “comparable worth” paradigm:
- While men make more money than women on average, women control and spend vastly more money than men.
- Women as an economically disadvantaged group is a myth that negatively affects men.
Not too long ago, legendary adman David Ogilvy chided his peers for talking down to women. He berated those who ignored women or discounted them, misconstruing men’s higher paychecks to mean greater spending clout. And he was right. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, women–who comprise just over 51 percent of the U.S. population, making them the largest consumer segment in the country–control six trillion dollars in buying power annually. Statistics show that:
Women make 88 percent of all U.S. retail purchases. Some experts even predict that, by 2020, women will control most of the money in America.
Women control 88 percent of all purchases.
Women handle 75 percent of family finances. 43 percent of those with assets over $500,000 are women.
Women influence two out of every three of the 3 trillion dollars spent in the U.S. each year!
From the Sisters4Sisters Yellow Pages:
Women are starting businesses at twice the rate of men.
One out of every 11 American women owns her own business.
Currently there are over 10.6 million women-owned businesses employing 19.1 million people and generating $2.5 trillion in sales.
Women make or influence over 85% of all purchasing decisions.
In 2010, women have the majority of wealth in America.
Men pay the majority of social security taxes and are outlived by six years by women, but the government makes no fair adjustment to how those funds are distributed.
In summary, men experience systematic discrimination in parenting, domestic violence policies, education, criminal sentencing, paternity, forced labor, military conscription, public health policies, genital integrity, false accusations, reproductive rights, portrayal by the media and in the coverage of their issues by the news media.
Misandry is often expressed through racism.
From Scottsboro An American Tragedy.
“The protection of white womanhood, it might be the pivot around all Southern culture. Of the 5,000 people who were lynched from 1880 to 1940, most were black men accused of raping or sexually assaulting white women.” – Robin Kelly, Historian
From American Man
“In 1931, two white women stepped from a boxcar in Paint Rock, Alabama to make a shocking accusation: they had been raped by nine black teenagers on the train.” … ”- a poor white woman whose lie lends her respectability…”
PBS Home Video
Scottsboro An American Tragedy
The case that sparked the civil rights movement
As we have seen with the “war on drugs,” legislation like VAWA, primary aggressor laws, mandatory arrest laws and the like have a disproportionately negative effect on minorities and other low income populations.
- Or the differences in healthcare for men and women in Obamacare program
- Young men will be the biggest losers in the transition to Obamacare. Reports estimate that males as a whole will see:
11% increase in insurance premiums compared to 9% drop in females
Men under 40 will face 18% - 31% insurance hikes compared to females under 40 13% to 19% decrease
Young men ages 25-36 will could face insurance premiums of 50% or more compared to young females 25-29 who will see 4% increase
What about some quotes by famous and powerful feminists?
"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex."
~Valerie Solanas, the SCUM Manifesto
"The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist."
~National NOW Times, Jan.1988
"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."
~Catherine Comins, Vassar College,
Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52
"The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it"
~Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in Women and the New Rage, p.67
“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”
~Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.”
“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.”
“Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear”
“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.”
“In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.”
“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.”
~Sally Miller Gearhart
“All men are rapists and that’s all they are”
“Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.”
"Sex is the cross on which women are crucified … Sex can only be adequately defined as universal rape."
"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat."
“MAN: … an obsolete life form… an ordinary creature who needs to be watched … a contradictory baby-man …”
”TESTOSTERONE POISONING: … ‘Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from ‘testosterone poisoning.’”
~A Feminist Dictionary
"Patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself… The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their home."
~Gloria Steinem in Revolution from Within: A Book of Self-Esteem, pp. 259-261.
"Women take their roles of caretakers very seriously and when they hear of someone who’s taken advantage of a child, they react more strongly than men do."
~Kathleen C. Faller
"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it."
~Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan
"I wonder if he [Martin Luther King] really accomplished things, or if he just stirred people up and caused a lot of riots."
~Melbourne City Councilwoman Pat Poole on her opposition to renaming a street for Martin Luther King
"Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live her life, or to love, or to mother children. Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s daughter is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman,"
~Andrea Dworkin, Liberty, p.58
"Compare victims’ reports of rape with women’s reports of sex. They look a lot alike….[T]he major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it."
~Catherine MacKinnon, quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers, “Hard-Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation,” Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1991.
"The fact is that the process of killing - both rape and battery are steps in that process- is the prime sexual act for men in reality and/or in imagination.".
~Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 22..
"Man’s discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear must rank as one of the most important discoveries of prehistoric times, along with the use of fire, and the first crude stone axe."
~Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, p. 5..
"The newest variations on this distressingly ancient theme center on hormones and DNA: men are biologically aggressive; their fetal brains were awash in androgen; their DNA, in order to perpetuate itself, hurls them into murder and rape."
~Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 114..
When asked: “You [Greer] were once quoted as saying your idea of the ideal man is a woman with a dick. Are you still that way inclined?"
Dr Greer (denying that she said it): “I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of the ideal man. As far as I’m concerned, men are the product of a damanged gene. They pretend to be normal but what they’re doing sitting there with benign smiles on their faces is they’re manufacturing sperm. They do it all the time. They never stop. I mean, we women are more reasonable. We pop one follicle every 28 days, whereas they are producing 400 million sperm for each ejaculation, most of which don’t take place anywhere near an ovum. I don’t know that the ecosphere can tolerate it.”
~Germaine Greer, at a Hilton Hotel literary lunch, promoting her book #34; The Change— Women, Aging and the Menopause#34; . From a newsreport dated 14/11/91
"One can know everything and still be unable to accept the fact that sex and murder are fused in the male consciousness, so that the one without the imminent possibly of the other is unthinkable and impossible."
~Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 21..
"Sex as desired by the class that dominates women is held by that class to be elemental, urgent, necessary, even if or even though it appears to require the repudiation of any claim women might have to full human standing. In the subordination of women, inequality itself is sexualized, made into the experience of sexual pleasure, essential to sexual desire."
~Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 265..
"AIDS education will not get very far until young men are taught how not to rape young women and how to eroticize trust and consent; and until young women are supported in the way they need to be redefining their desires."
~Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth, p. 168..
"In everything men make, they hollow out a central place for death, let its rancid smell contaminate every dimension of whatever still survives. Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it, and in life they commit it. They embrace murder as if life without it would be devoid of passion, meaning, and action, as if murder were solace, still their sobs as they mourn the empitness and alienation of their lives."
~Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 214..
"One of the reasons that women are kept in a state of economic degradation- because that’s what it is for most women- is because that is the best way to keep women sexually available."
~Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 145..
"Romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks."
~Andrea Dworkin in the Philadelphia Inquirer, May 21, 1995..
"All men benefit from rape, because all men benefit from the fact that women are not free in this society; that women cower; that women are afraid; that women cannot assert the rights that we have, limited as those rights are, because of the ubiquitous presence of rape."
~Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 142..
"We have long known that rape has been a way of terrorizing us and keeping us in subjection. Now we also know that we have participated, although unwittingly, in the rape of our minds."
~Historian Gerda Lerner in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women, p. 55..
"How will the family unit be destroyed? …[T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare."
~Roxanne Dunbar in Female Liberation
"We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.
~Robin Morgan, from Sisterhood Is Powerful (ed), 1970, p. 537
"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership. Only when manhood is dead—and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it"
"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together…. Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process…. No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children… Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people’s needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all."
~Linda Gordon, “Functions of the Family,” WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969
"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men…"
~Elizabeth Stanton, One Woman, One Vote, Wheeler, p. 58
"Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don’t like it, bad luck - and if you get in my way I’ll run you down."
~Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia. (Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia - 9 February 1996)
"As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women…he can sexually molest his daughters… THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE."
"My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don’t even need to shrug. I simply don’t care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don’t matter."
~Marilyn French; The Woman’s Room.
"All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women… All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men’s prey."
"We live, I am trying to say, in an epidemic of male violence against women."
"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
"The traditional flowers of courtship are the traditional flowers of the grave, delivered to the victim before the kill. The cadaver is dressed up and made up and laid down and ritually violated and consecrated to an eternity of being used."
"The media treat male assaults on women like rape, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations…obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign."
"Men renounce whatever they have in common with women so as to experience no commonality with women; and what is left…is one piece of flesh a few inches long, the penis. The penis is the man; the man is human; the penis signifies humanity."
"You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs."
~Catherine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar; University of Michigan, & Yale.)
"Man-hating is everywhere, but everywhere it is twisted and transformed, disguised, tranquilized, and qualified. It coexists, never peacefully, with the love, desire, respect, and need women also feel for men. Always man-hating is shadowed by its milder, more diplomatic and doubtful twin, ambivalence."
"Men’s sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can ‘reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out.’ Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women’s own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, ‘even if she does not feel forced.’
~Judith Levine, (explicating comment profiling prevailing misandry.)
"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness…can be trained to do most things."
~Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men.)
"Women have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do."
~Popular Feminist Graffiti
"I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, ‘hate in love,’ for the men women share their lives with—husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, coworkers."
~Judith Levine, My Enemy, My love
"There are no boundaries between affectionate sex and slavery in (the male) world. Distinctions between pleasure and danger are academic; the dirty-laundrylist of ‘sex acts’…includes rape, foot binding, fellatio, intercourse, auto eroticism, incest, anal intercourse, use and production of pornography, cunnilingus, sexual harassment, and murder."
~J. Levine; summarizing comment on the WAS document, (A southern Women’s Writing Collective: Women Against Sex.)
"All men are good for is fucking, and running over with a truck".
~Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the amount of $600,000. Richard had protested the quote; was dismissed thereafter on the grounds of harassment; and responded by bringing suit against the University. 1995 settlement.
"Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it "Her". Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination.
~Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women
"On the Left, on the Right, in the Middle; Authors, statesmen, thieves; so-called humanists and self-declared fascists; the adventurous and the contemplative, in every realm of male expression and action, violence is experienced and articulated as love and freedom."
~Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women.
"I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father’s concubine… What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What’s more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal.".
~Journalist Sylvia Fraser
"We are taught, encouraged, moulded by and lulled into accepting a range of false notions about the family. As a source of some of our most profound experiences, it continues to be such an integral part of our emotional lives that it appears beyond criticism. Yet hiding from the truth of family life leaves women and children vulnerable."
~Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women.
"Catharine MacKinnon maintains that ‘the private is a sphere of battery, marital rape and women’s exploited labor.’ In this way, privacy and family are reduced to nothing more than aspects of the master plan, which is male domination. Democratic freedoms and the need to keep the state’s nose out of our personal affairs are rendered meaningless. The real reason our society cherishes privacy is because men have invented it as an excuse to conceal their criminality. If people still insist that the traditional family is about love and mutual aid—ideals which, admittedly, are sometimes betrayed—they’re ‘hiding from the truth.’ The family isn’t a place where battery and marital rape sometimes happen but where little else apparently does. Sick men don’t simply molest their daughters, they operate in league with their wives to ‘breed’ them for that purpose."
~Donna Laframboise; The Princess at the Window; (in a critical explication of the Catharine MacKinnon, Gloria Steinhem et al tenets of misandric belief.)
"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."
"And let’s put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism—the lie that there can be such a thing as ‘men’s liberation groups.’ Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group, specifically because of a ‘threatening’ characteristic shared by the latter group—skin, color, sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed FUCKED UP by being masters, but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism—the oppressed have no alternative—for they have no power but to fight. In the long run, Women’s Liberation will of course free men—but in the short run it’s going to cost men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women—kill your fathers, not your mothers".
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies."
"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference."
~Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime.
"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist".
~Ti-Grace Atkinson, Amazon Odyssey (p. 86).
"(Rape) is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear".
~Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will p.6
"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression…"
MALE:…represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants…the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.
MAN:…an obsolete life form… an ordinary creature who needs to be watched…a contradictory baby-man…
~From ‘A feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985:
"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal—a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students—I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment…of persuading students that women are oppressed
~Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University, as quoted in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women.
"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex."
~Valerie Solana, SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men.)
"Men, as a group, tend to be abusive, either verbally, sexually or emotionally. There are always the exceptions, but they are few and far between (I am married to one of them). There are different levels of violence and abuse and individual men buy into this system by varying degrees. But the male power structure always remains intact."
Message on FEMISA, responding to a request for arguments that men are unnecessary for a child to grow into mature adulthood.
Another posting on FEMISA: “Considering the nature and pervasiveness of men’s violence, I would say that without question, children are better off being raised without the presence of men. Assaults on women and children are mostly perpetrated by men whom they are supposed to love and trust: fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, step-fathers.”
~Both quotes taken from Daphne Patai’s excellent critical work,
Are you going to say “Not all feminists believe that!” Well it does not matter. What matters is that the feminists who do believe that have the power to change, block, and influence laws and guess what? They are trying to hurt men.
Feminists fight to hurt men (not just radical feminists either) (this info is from oratorasaurus)
Father’s rights group want shared parenting (equal custody) to be the default if both parents want custody and neither parent is unfit. They feel that men should not be punished for being men, and that women should not be awarded custody to their kids simply for being women. Currently women are awarded primary custody almost all the time, even if the husband was the stay-at-home Dad and the woman was the breadwinner.
Feminists fought against this. You can read NOW’s own statement here. Also note their usage of anti-male lies, i.e. “fathers are abusive, don’t give them custody.” That is from 1997, but still remains valid today.
Men want protection against false rape allegations. They feel that a man’s life should not be ruined simply on the allegation of a woman who may be a vindictive liar. Currently, a woman can accuse a man of rape for no reason, and the man’s name is splashed in the paper and his life is ruined. So, they fought for laws granting men anonymity until charged with the crime of rape—not convicted, just charged.
“The London Feminist Network is a campaigning organisation uniting London based feminist groups and individuals in activism.”
Men want an end to the justice system favouring women simply because they are women, and giving men harsher sentences simply because they are men.
Men want equal treatment when victims of domestic violence, and to not be arrested for the crime of “being male” under primary aggressor policies.
Feminists fought against this by trying to suppress evidence showing that half of domestic violence is done by women, by threatening the researchers with bomb threats, death threats, etc. Modern, younger feminists are doing it as well.
And sadly, they were successful in this effort of propaganda. For decades, and continuing today, violent men are (rightfully) convicted and punished by the state, while violent women are left to freely terrorize and harm their partners.
Men want female rapists to be arrested, charged, and convicted with rape. In Western countries, women are rarely punished when raping men, due to the biased legal system. In some countries, women cannot be punished when raping men, since rape is defined as a male-perpetrated crime.
Feminists fought against this in India, arguing that “there is a physicality [in] rape” and that it would make things “more complicated for judges.”
Feminists fought against this in Israel, claiming that changing the law would result in men filing false rape claims.
Men don’t want to be thrown in jail because they lost their jobs and temporarily cannot pay child support.
Feminists fought against this, trying to lower the amount to $5000 before a man is guilty of a felony for not paying child support. If a man loses a decent-paying job, he will now be a felon, go to jail, lose his right to vote, AND be unable to find future jobs—if he cannot regain an equal-paying job within a few months.
Men want equal economic support and help from the government. When the recession hit, male-dominated fields like construction lost millions of jobs, while female-fields like education and healthcare gained jobs. So the government proposed an economic stimulus for those fields.
Feminists successfully fought against this, arguing that it was discrimination to support men, and caused the government to give money to women who didn’t deserve it. Hundreds of professional feminists complained against the “sexism” of helping men (who had lost jobs) and not women (who had gained jobs).
A representative of the Michigan National Organization for Women testified in opposition to the Revocation of Paternity Act, which stopped the old law which stated that if a woman was married and cheated on her husband, the resulting child is considered to be legally the husband’s and the biological father had no legal rights to fight for custody or parenting time with his biological child.
As you can see, the claim that feminism fight for men’s rights is a blatant lie. Don’t believe any feminists that say that. Feminists fight for women’s rights. That is a good thing. Feminists also are happy to harm men’s rights, as shown above. That is a bad thing. Feminism is about female privilege, not equality.
Some may argue that these cases of feminists harming men is not “representative” of feminism. I ask you: Are there any cases of feminists helping men? No. Yet, there are many cases of feminists harming men.
It is reasonable to conclude from these facts that feminism fights to harm men