Heroes and other future corpses

Yesterday, I had a conversation, on line, with a man who I'll call, for lack of a better description: an old school working man. He described himself a the guy who always showed up on time, on good days and bad. As reliable as gravity. A man who doesn't take sick days, no matter what. A man who doesn't complain when his joints ache, or when expected to work in hard conditions, in oppressive heat, or in freezing cold.

I believe this man is exactly how he describes himself, strong, reliable, honourable, and stoic. And I also know he has every right to take pride in these qualities and define himself by his utility to others. That's my phrasing, by the way, not his.

This is definitely a real man, and in all our struggle to see men recognized as human beings, this man, and millions like him built the world we live in, and continue to build and maintain our world.

And what I told him was that he is what we are fighting against. men who define manhood by being sacrificial beasts of burden. I told him this attitude is exactly why women, such as the female hosts and the female audience of a daytime TV show feel justified in treating the mutilation of a man as comedy.

And although I maintain that this self definition of male identity by men willing to work themselves to death , or to step between a bullet and a child or a woman in self sacrificial defence is what fuels and supports a runaway feminist ethic of hatred of men and disregard for their humanity, at the same time I have to recognize the greatness of what men like this represent. And who am I to tell any man he cant be that hero.

The problem them is in the economy of human esteem, in which men are valued by utility, and devalued as human beings, denied consideration and that sacrifice used as the meter of their manly worth.

Men like this are great men, but their greatness and their self selected sacrifice is reflected back on themselves and on other men as required sacrifice by a culture who regards disposability as worth.

The guy who always shows up for work, sick or healthy? That's him. The guy who never sees a doctor. The guy who in his conversation admits to serious health issues over the years. And in his next utterance points out that but over time he either stopped noticing them or they just went away.

A man who sees himself as a wooden robot, bark skin stretched over a sold core. Like a tree, only the outside, only bark is truly alive.

In his own words born and bred for sacrifice, for the common good.

This is a real person, a real man, and a valid human being. And to my ears, these words are the words of a slave, in bondage to a world which demands his life's service, but a world which denies his humanity except in that act of sacrifice.

Without men like this, our world will fall in on itself. But without men like this, willing to serve as the disposable bodies of a feminized culture, we would not need to withdraw our sacrifice and protection.

The greatness of men like this one is truthfully what levered humanity from a survivalist, pre-civilized existence, into a modern safe, well fed and house modern world. Men, and the corpses of men like the man I call the old school working man, are what paved the way for civilization. And now, the continued willingness of men to sacrifice, to be heroes is what no longer serves us. It's what enables and supports a growing culture of feminized, self indulgence, lack of human empathy, and which retards the adulthood of our culture. Heroes as great as they are, and as much as they are owed, have got to go.

The Carrot or the Stick: Nope

On May 9th the Huffington Post published contributor John Blumenthal's article suggesting to women that sexual relations[1] with republican men be unilaterally suspended as a form of work-to-rule, based on the current media characterization of a supposed “war on women”.

Putting aside the falsehood that women, as the only sex who actually have any legal reproductive rights are subject to a “war”. This popular characterization obscures the actual debate ongoing about whether women should benefit by forcing other people to pay for their birth control and other health services. Should women pay for themselves or should everyone else pay for them? And that's a war on women. However, on hearing about this from Bernard Chapin, it struck me as an applied case of the “appeal to force” or collective blackmail.

There is also another unexamined assumption in the feminine-approval-seeker's advice for a sex strike and this assumption is present in several other areas of superficially male-versus-female political rhetoric.

It is most strongly evident in a substantial fraction of anti-rape activism. A widely circulated list of “tips to stop rape” includes repeated admonitions, aimed at men, to “remember to not rape”. Of course, this timely advice reinforces the essential truth that men, as distinct from human beings, are simply appetite-driven rutting beasts. This is not only the logical basis for controlling men's behavior  (in particular, republicans)  by denying them what they quite obviously care the most about. Aside from this handle of ownership and control, the subhuman character of male creatures certainly justifies a continued blithe disregard for any of the complaining of so called activists in pursuit of male human rights.

The assumed, and indeed the expected response, by men towards overt female sexuality is of course, competition for access, sycophantic subservience, or simply a drooling, blatant caricature of lust, like a cartoon wolf. Modelling of behaviours outside these few allowable expressions is treated in an insecure society with revulsion and censure. This at least partly explains the continued prejudice, sometimes manifested as violence against gay men in some parts of the United States. However, there is another unacceptable masculine response growing in popularity.

This is the avoidance of sex, and of women. As a self defined man, this is entirely unsurprising to me. Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto[2] mentioned a growing reticence of young men to become sexually entangled with women, referencing sociologist Amy Schalet's New York Times article[3], misleadingly titled: Caring Romantic Boys. In her April 6 article Schalet claims first romance, then fear as the motivation for increased caution and reluctance to have sex. In both cases she misses the point, but comes closer to the truth mentioning fear.

Taranto, a writer who is coincidentally male, nails it in his discussion: “...there is good reason for males (men as well as boys) to be more fearful of sex than females. Contemporary reproductive technology and law place all the burden for unwanted pregnancy on them. Between the pill and abortion, women have complete control over the reproductive process. They can avoid or end any unwanted pregnancy, and the man involved has no say in the matter.”

Schalet somehow missed this point, in spite of the obvious implication of this quote, directly from her NYT piece: “American boys often said sex could end their life as they knew it. After a condom broke, one worried: 'I could be screwed for the rest of my life.'”

Apparently, there's more to young men than a bottomless drive to ram-jam themselves into every willing feminine orifice. It might even be that beyond an intelligent awareness of their own total lack of legal rights in reproduction, coupled with their government's willingness to compel their financial support of women's exercised legal rights by force, asset seizure and imprisonment, that men, even the young and stupid, are increasingly unwilling to be controlled through their hormones.

This emerging conscious self preservation and rejection of a growing cultural censure of male identity is finding its way into mainstream reporting, as demonstrated by Schalet and Taranto. But as this becomes more obvious, attempts to force conformity with female-selected definitions of “real” masculinity also rise. This is evident in social conservative women's organizations whose message to men amounts to: “get back on the treadmill of provide and protect” as well as unambiguous attempts to shame men into conformity with characterizations such as “peter pan syndrome”, “boy-men” and similar pejoratives directed at those opting out. Even Amy Schalet managed to characterize men saying no as if it were feminine romanticism.

The reality of this phenomenon was noted in 2002 by Naomi Wolfe in her online NY Magazine article “The Porn Myth”. According to Wolfe “By the new millennium, a vagina, which, by the way, used to have a pretty high “exchange value,” as Marxist economists would say, wasn’t enough; it barely registered on the thrill scale.”

The Beauty Myth author spotted the trend, but misattributed its cause, based on the old 2nd wave feminist conception of men as subhuman.  But increasingly, the rutting beasts in this narrative are having none of it.

This doesn't mean male culture necessarily embraces celibacy, as some critics of the MGTOW movement will sneer in their attack articles. Rather, that men are now and always have been human beings whose sexuality, desires, and human needs are as complex and nuanced as women's, even if those desires and needs are not identical to women's. This simple fact appears to run contrary to the feminist mainstream in which masculine character is one of violent, brutal, and indiscriminate lust.

And the men who say no thanks to such a vision of their identities are told they are unmanly, faggots, infantile children, man-boys, failures or any other of a host of pejoratives. The choice then seems to be between conform as a man-beast, or refuse as a testosterone deficient, non-“real” masculine example of failure.

The answer to these unappealing prospects, for a growing number of men is no thanks. No thanks to option A and no thanks to option B. But sex is critical to the interface between men going off the reservation and the culture which simultaneously depends on, and condemns them. The choices proffered are finding ever diminishing preference from men, opting for sex on their own terms, or not at all. Those terms generally being exclusive of conformity to external definition of what is a real man. A violent man, a domineering, oppressive man, or a weak, prostrate, and apologetic man seeking approval or permission to exist.

The absence in this narrative of just what is encompassed by men going their own way is deliberate. This is the province of men as individuals, many of whom; while not a collective, are disinclined to explain themselves, ask permission, or apologize.


[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-blumenthal/republican-men-sex_b_1457603.html
[2] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304444604577341862453090268.html
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/07/opinion/caring-romantic-american-boys.html?_r=1

Educating an ideologue

When Arthur Goldwag of the Southern Poverty Law Center, wrote a series of articles attacking the human rights movement advocating for the human rights of men and boys, he was a liar.
The SPLC in a shoddy attempt to capitalize on 15 minutes of media hate for Rush Limbaugh following his comments on Sandra Fluke, the once relevant SPLC targeted the Concerned Women of America, the conservative libertarian John Birch Society, and Glen Beck as well as second amendment activists. And the men's-rights web-site A Voice For Men.com

Within a week,  Reason Magazine[1][2], the American Spectator[3], Business Insider [4], the Ms-magazine-funded Good Men Project[5] and others called baloney on the SPLC's flabby fear mongering and fund seeking.

Eager to justify himself, Goldwag, still an unskilled liar took another swipe at AVfM. In his May 15 edition of easily refutable nonsense, The SPLC advocate began with the following:

“The last issue of the SPLC’s Intelligence Report presented a scathing portrait of “a hard-line fringe” of the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM): “women haters whose fury goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations,” whose rage is “directed at all women, not only perceived feminists.”


In those opening 57 words, Goldwag sells a number of falsehoods, a few of which are worth examination.

“…the SPLC’s Intelligence Report presented a scathing portrait of ...”

Wrong, the SPLC presented a sloppily assembled misrepresentation of conservative organizations, including the Concerned Women of America, the Libertarian-leaning John Birch Society and Glen Beck, as well as second amendment activists. The SPLC’s hastily constructed list of disjointed enemies also included a pick-up artist calling himself Roosh V, an organization called Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, whose mandate is to aims to improve the effectiveness of domestic violence policy, as well as some elements of the men’s rights movement, including this site.

“…a hard-line fringe” of the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM)”

This intentional mischaracterization is intended to discredit AVfM  and it's contributors as outliers. Far from being a fringe, AVfM is the largest and highest-trafficked men's rights site on the web. AVfM also hosts the largest online collection of original, men's-rights-specific literature anywhere in the world. The contributing authors come from across the planet and represent numerous political, sexual, economic and ethnic backgrounds and points of view. To call the site a “fringe” of the growing human rights movement, the “so called men's rights movement,” is a gross falsehood.

“…women haters…” 

Oh dear, that old canard trotted out again?

This is based on the tired and sloppy argument that opposition to feminism and hatred of women are the same thing. Feminism, the ideology, and women, the group of people, identifiable by their sex, of course are not the same, and not just because one is a biological demographic while the other is an ideological construct, the proponents of which are of any sex.

It is not even true to claim that feminism is a movement which serves or benefits women -although admittedly, most feminist advocates believe they are benefitting women. Treating an entire sexual demographic as if they are permanent children, powerless, locked into victimhood as a matter of identity – does not help them. It makes them easily manipulated stooges of whoever pretends to flatter and coddle them. Also, by pandering to the pseudo-celebrity privilege of victim-identity politics, it makes them easy to shake down for donations. Doesn't it, Artie old boy?

Interestingly, even as Goldwag clings to the notion that feminism and women are indistinguishable, he also manages to locate and cite a MRM blog[6] correctly pointing out that “Women are not feminism.” Goldwag, in his efforts to cherry pick and misrepresent quotes, managed to miss that this painfully simple idea has been a regular part of the rhetoric at AVfM[7][8] since its inception.

From the pages of AVfM…

“…implication that feminism and women are interchangeable synonyms is no more insulting to real feminists than [the] facile implication that criticism or disagreement with the ideology has no possible source except hatred towards women”

“This is why in my own writing, my answer to accusations of misogyny (the hatred of women) is to explain, as to a child, that a group of people (women) and an ideology (feminism) are not actually the same thing, and that opposition to an ideology, particularly one based on hatred or violence – does not translate to hatred of women.”

The logical refutation of the false claim that opposition to feminism equates to a hatred of women is documented at least as far back as 2007 in a document called the Anti-Male Shaming Tactics Catalog[9] This fallacy is listed in the catalog as “code black” or the Charge of Misogyny.

In spite of repetition on Youtube, on AVfM, on this guy's blog[6], that is, repetition of the fact that feminism and women are two different things, one being an ideology, and the other being a group of people, Goldwag still can't help himself. He categorizes his own article, in which he admits this most obvious fact, under the category “anti-woman.” Really.

The last falsehood (at least from the opening paragraph) is this choice nugget :

“...whose rage is directed at all women...”.

There are two lies here, but because I've already addressed the endlessly recycled lie that opposition to feminism is equal to hatred of women (feminism and women can also be distinguished by the spelling of the two words. Feminism starts with an F, for example)... rage will be addressed.

This is another circumstantial ad hominem. If individuals are angry, they usually have a reason. Sometimes the reason is difficult to discern, and must be guessed at. Someone mistreated and abused through childhood may carry anger through the rest of his or her life. To some, the source of that anger may be hard to ascertain. On the other hand, much of the black civil rights movement of the 1960's was fuelled by anger, and the source of that anger was plainly obvious. Black civil rights activists were vocal, and repeatedly explained in excruciating detail that being denied civil rights and treated as subhuman was a major source of black anger. Similarly, the current men's rights movement is also driven by a degree of anger.

Human beings dismissed as violent and hateful when they complain of the denial of basic human rights are quite naturally also angry at being lied to and being lied about. Arthur Goldwag, who writes for an organization which once protected human rights is now participating in the campaign of lies designed to silence human beings who are struggling for those same rights.

By characterizing legitimate anger as “rage,” Goldwag is attempting to kill two birds with one lie. First, he is attempting to pathologize the anger; to reframe it as dangerous and unhealthy. Second, he is attempting to lead people away from the issues driving the anger and deny human rights advocates an audience willing to listen objectively. Rage, used to describe human emotion, implies fault in the humans experiencing it, and elicits scorn for those expressing it. The word: rage, chosen by Goldwag, also implies violence, doesn't it? He can't quite get away with saying so directly, as the MRM is an avowedly non-violent human rights movement, but building a case for fear of human-rights bloggers works even by implication.

All of this from Goldwag's first paragraph. 57 words conveying almost as many lies, however, a complete parsing of all of Goldwag's dishonesty is not the point of this discussion.

Surprisingly, he does mention a radical feminist blog discussed at AVfM several times in the past, on which the radical feminist bloggers advocated male targeting eugenics, infanticide, boy-targeted child abuse and other hate fuelled violence and murder.

Following the SPLC's first sloppy attempt to vilify the MRM, the fastest growing human rights movement in the Western world, the eugenics and murder enthusiasts at Radfem Hub began fund-raising on behalf of the SPLC, and Artie Goldwag himself confirmed the support of the SPLC for these prospective eugenicists and killers, by tweeting a link directly to their page featuring SPLC fund raising.

Who is a hate movement Arthur? Who? Have you looked in the mirror? Goldwag claims that AVfM's founder and publisher, Paul Elam – and his colleagues (that would include me) read or represented Pam Oshaughnessy's eugenics advocacy as a well-developed plan, calling us “obtuse” for the misrepresentation. However, he doesn't cite any actual claim of a “well developed plan” on our part, probably because we never made any such claim. Obtuse is the word he used. Okay Arthur, if you say so.

Goldwag, although he mentions the eugenics enthusiasm and other hate driven violent rhetoric at Radfem Hub, somehow forgot to mention that after AVfM exposed that group radical feminists open call for mass murder, and after they began fund raising for the SPLC, he endorsed their site and it's content in a tweet to the SPLC fund raising page at radical hub. Oops. Obtuse, Arthur? Who? Us? Gentlemen and ladies, this is comedy that writes itself.

According to Cathy Brennan, the owner of radical hub site featuring calls for child murder, extermination, and eugenics – and where male human beings are discussed as an agricultural product, she said:

“I don’t hate men, [...] I have a father, I have a brother, I have a son. The war that Paul Elam is waging is in his head”

This statement is somewhat at odds with the private registration of the domain-name “paulelam.com” by Brennan, and the redirection of that domain name to the Radfem Hub hate and violence advocacy blog. Apparently Mr. Elam’s head covers a lot of territory, including at least some of the terrain in the head of Brennan herself.

Oh, and in addition to having a father, a brother and a son, Brennan also has a blog which calls for their genetic modification. “If we can do it with corn, men should be easy.”

Brennan also claimed that the infamous manifesto by Valerie Solanas calling for male extermination was a piece of Swiftian satire, not to be taken seriously, and that interpretations of that “satire” as a serious call for hate and killing reflected failed comprehension by “so called men's rights advocates”.

This claim ignores the fact that the author of the Society for Cutting Up Men Manifesto followed her authorship of that famously incendiary hate and violence by shooting the artist Andy Warhol, among others. It also ignores the continued references by modern feminists to the document which began with: ”The male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease.”

SCUM Manifesto derived conferences and projects continue to be held by funded and organized feminists worldwide, including a 2011 conference in Australia[10], and a Swedish theatre company adapting Solanas's hate manifesto for Swedish school children using a realistically staged public execution of a man to promote their event, followed by the call, “Do your part.”


Brennan claims to view the manifesto calling for male extermination as nothing more than satire. This claim contradicted by promotion of Australia's feminist “SCUM” conference on Cathy Brennan's blog, Radical Hub. Oopsie, caught you lying again, Cathy. Arthur Goldwag somehow missed this connection, too. Blame those darned misogyny coloured goggles.

Of course, all the rhetorical mummery from Goldwag and his fellow rent-seekers at the SPLC reflect the fact that while the Southern Poverty Law Center once served an important task, helping to greatly diminish the power of the KKK in the United States in the 1960's and 70's, that former human rights organization did their job so well they're now grasping for continued relevance. Ironically, because those human rights struggles were fought from the political left 40 years ago, that still left-leaning law firm, with their two palatial high rise office complexes and gigantic budget cannot see that the fastest growing human rights movement in America today is the one they're fighting against. And why? Because men’s activist don’t express themselves in a way in which bigots would approve. The SPLC has become the monster they used to slay.

Arthur Goldwag has the additional problem of being an ideologue, and a liar.

[1] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/299011/occupy-southern-poverty-law-center-charles-c-w-cooke
[2] http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/03/fearmongering-at-the-splc
[3] http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/09/the-southern-poverty-law-center-is-now-w
[4] http://www.businessinsider.com/civil-rights-group-is-now-criticizing-random-jerks-for-not-calling-women-back-after-sex-2012-3
[5]http://spectator.org/blog/2010/03/02/the-great-hate-hype-are-libert


[6] http://www.ofmb.org/2012/03/word-on-radfems-splc-and-ugly-hypocrisy.html
[7] http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/clementine-ford-calling-fellow-feminists-stupid/
[8] http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/fear-and-loathing/
[9] http://www.dumpyourwifenow.com/2007/03/01/the-anti-male-shaming-tactics-catalog/
[10] http://allecto.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/scum-conference-draft-program/

Roger Ebert is a sycophantic toad

The film-critic Roger Ebert, as a collective mother's day gift to women around the world wrote an article[1] this May 13, declaring that : “Women are nicer than men”. Of course – this would be absurd, taken alone, so the reviewer added a bit of equivocation: “There are exceptions. Most people of both sexes are probably fairly nice, given the nature of their upbringing and opportunities. But in terms of their lifelong natures, women are kinder, more empathetic, more generous. And the sooner more of them take positions of power, the better our chances as a species.”

This is how R. Ebert opened his 1500 words of female flattery, published on Mother's Day, and regrettably, it is another one of those articles. Men are bad, women are good, men are worse, women are better, men are the worst thing ever, and women are just the best, squee!!!

The top rated comment on the movie reviewer's tedious recitation of gender feminist dogma is:

“Bravo, Roger! :) Now *this* is a column that took balls to write! I hope you get lovely comments from your readers. Bollocks to the ones who don't like it”

Considering that Ebert is a professional reviewer of commercial entertainment, the principal consumers of which are women, I can certainly see that it really did take big brass balls to devote an entire column to flattering his audience. Well done Roger, you brave, brave soul.

It is also just a coincidence that the movie reviewer's view on the relative merits of women as better, smarter, more nurturing, more human, and just generally superior is a perfect reflection of the common thread of female flattery and disdain for men prevalent in all commercial entertainment. Coincidentally, one of the reasons men are a minority of the consumers of such entertainment, is it's not-quite-so entertaining to be told over and over that due to owning external genitalia, you're worthless.

Ebert, in his attempt to ingratiate himself to a mostly female audience has done what countless other approval seeking men have done. Simply, to metaphorically prostrate himself – declaring – look, I'm a good man, not like those other bad men, you see how I heap scorn on them and flatter you? Approve of me!

Interestingly, this is where Ebert inadvertently reveals his contempt for his audience. How debased must women be, how small minded, selfish and weak; that to feel better about themselves – they must degrade their brothers, fathers, sons and other men around them? What's worse, is how stupidly childish must we think women are to heap them with such degrading sexist flattery – assuming they will not notice our assumptions of their vain and venal character. Surely, we can hold women in higher regard than this. Not Roger, but if he is not rejected in his sycophantic pseudo flattery, his assumptions of his audience's character might even be right.

Aside from notation that his attitude mirrors the standard trope of movie and television that women are superior in every way, Ebert's male-abasing and false esteem is a tired and monotonous repetition of standard gender ideology.

Sing along with me, you all know the words!

Women are better then men!

Boom boom boom!

They do everything better than them!

Boom boom boom!

Ladies are generally nicer!

Quack quack quack!

Their thoughts and feelings are higher!

Quack quack quack!

Girls and women are smarter!

Bing! Bang! Smash!

To keep up, men must try harder!

Clang! Bang! Bash!

Et Cetera.

Ebert actually admits that his view of the “superior sex” is based on too many hours immersed in the fantasy world of produced entertainment, although he doesn't seem to notice his own admission.

According to Ebert: “This occurred to me while watching a forthcoming movie named "Where Do We Go Now?" It could have occurred during dozens or hundreds of movies.”

Women in movies generally <em>are</em> superior to men, because they're written that way, to flatter the sensibilities of the intended audience. The failure to notice that fiction reflects the assumptions and intentions of its authors rather than objective reality being a common thread in women-are-better social commentary from other writers, which base those assumptions on movie and television reality rather than, **ahem** real reality.

The sycophant notes the trend of women's rapid displacement of men in higher education, but fails to connect that to decades of overhaul of the educational system, rendering it hostile to men.

Referring again to Ebert's words: “I could bore you with more statistics, but I doubt you need convincing. Most of these things are intuitively true.”

This, by the way is how bigotry works. Facts? We don't need no stinkin facts! I know Whites are smarter than Blacks because it feels right!

Whoops, <em>not</em> blacks, I meant <em>women</em> are better than men, Ha, silly me, putting one demographic above another based on biological characteristic of identity would be racist, which is just stupid bigotry with no place in a modern, enlightened society.

Oh, dear me, how embarrassing that I almost suggested something so bigoted. Anyway, back to Ebert's astute observations of superiority of one biological group over another.

Ebert repeats the endlessly debunked wage gap myth, and also lies about the social science showing fatherlessness as the largest predictor of negative outcomes for children. Ebert skips entirely over the champion position mothers hold in the Olympic sport of infanticide and child killing. He also notes that fathers are more likely to be missing from their children's lives, but fails totally to examine a monetized family court system and cultural norms which forcibly sever men from their families. Ebert goes on to predictably characterize men's attraction to strippers as childish mommy-seeking. The point of his piece is, after all, not to enlighten, but to vilify one group and flatter another.

However, throughout all this naked sucking up to women, Roger Ebert depends on those superior beings to never notice that if compliment or admiration depends on the rhetorical degradation of men, his view of women is of infants lacking self reflection or empathy. Ebert depends on his preferred sex being cruel and cowardly, and never noticing this assumption he makes of them. Interestingly, he steers close to self parody in a few places. One such is in naming the superior sex's inclination to nurture the defenceless.

This ignores the entirety of human history in which men have killed and died in the defence of women, and that in all our eagerness to vilify men, calling them lesser humans, and calling women superior, more ethical, more empathic, we demonstrate a failure of the vaunted womanly empathy and ethical supremacy we lay a claim to.

[1] http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/05/women_are_better_than_men.html

Toxic Toddlers

I have a question for anybody outside the so-called-mens rights movement, This isn't for so-called MRAs, no, and although it is a rhetorical question, but I would also like to hear an answer from anyone outside the movement. Consider this a standing question.

Is anybody else sick and tired to listening to public commentators when they blame men for the decisions, actions and misbehaviour of women? What I mean is, are you tired of our culture's tendency to treat women as if they are tiny toddlers who cannot possibly have accountability for themselves?

This is almost the reverse of the folk wisdom which says behind every great man is an even greater women. Although, in this case it seems to be, behind every adult woman who fucks up, acts like a tool, or commits a crime, there's actually an invisible man somewhere in all our imaginations, on whom all her bad behavior is to be blamed.

According to Heather Knight, who writes for the san francisco based online magazine SF Gate dot com, 18 women running in the June 5 election for seats on the city's Democratic County Central Committee banded together to publish slate cards, hold fundraisers, walk precincts and mentor each other.

The SF Gate columnist Heather Knight explains this, saying : “It was supposed to show that women can change the often nasty tenor of politics."

However, what occurred at the meeting of all-female political hopefuls was a shouting match which resulted in overturned furniture, screamed accusations and several members storming out of the meeting. Several of whom stated they were not coming back.

Most hilarious was the comment by women's slate founder Alix Rosenthal, who said

"I think it's a symptom of this male-dominated political system we have where progressives and moderates have been conditioned to hate each other in this city, “Rosenthal also said ” We all have to practice kindness."

So, in an all-female meeting of politicians which devolves into a shouting match – we don't see adults admitting to bad behavior or owning their own shit or resolving to do a better job of keeping a professional cool in the face of disagreement, no. What we see is children looking for anyone else to pin blame on, for their own behavior.

This is a tired, old game that it's worth making public note of. The point here being that people make mistakes, people have opinions which turn out to be incorrect when better information is uncovered, or which turn out to be based on bias inherited from parents or peers or whoever. But adults are distinguished by their ability to recognize their own problems and correct them. Children of the adult variety distinguish themselves by failing to own their own shit.

And this is why its important to call this out when we see it.

I can already hear somebody crying that not all women are like that – and that's true, some aren't and those few end up standing up on their hind legs and hosting radio shows or engaging in other forms of self ownership. But a nation of children whose default individual response to personal failure is look for somebody else to blame is not how to express equality, or empowerment – its how to create a society of dysfunctional overgrown children with princess complexes, and who hand off everyone else's human rights in exchange for short term advantages and private law for themselves.

And its how to create a system of legal apartheid, which leads us to economic collapse and eventual violent societal upheaval.

And on that cheerful note, can we, as a society, please stop treating anyone with ovaries like theyre fucking children. Not only does it do them no goddamn good, it puts an onus on every real adult to clean up after and to carry the cost of a constantly growing segment of society whose infantile irresponsibility and moronic childish self interest and narrowness of vision is what empowers corporations to take over the political process, what lets politicians send young men to foreign countries to die and to kill for the profits of those corporations, and to motivate the non-thinking majority to devalue themselves in deference and defence of a socio sexual demographic of parasitic overgrown toxic toddlers.