No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz?

It’s hard to talk about men’s issues if one wants to avoid mentioning every problem caused or worsened by feminists. No wonder feminists posing as “masculists” (which they are definitely not) are forced to talk about inane shit like crossdressing, boys playing with dolls or male rape survivors. Newsflash, feminists: these are NOT issues for men. These are issues for feminists.

Men’s main issues are discrimination, corrupt family law and rampant male-bashing. Affirmative action for women, misandric divorce laws and berating men in the media are all feminist ideas. Feminists came up with them, they popularized them and they fought for them to become accepted or to become laws.

No, seriously, what about common sense?

Do you really think that there is a feminist answer to the problems feminism have caused? Is there any other solution for the problem of discriminating against men than doing away with affirmative action for women? Will anti-male divorce laws change while feminists are in control of the government? Will male-bashing cease to exist while most of the talking heads are openly against men and any form of masculinity?

The only solution is to stop misandry, period. And that means stopping feminism. Mainstream feminism is the organized form of male-hatred, no matter what feminists say. Do you believe that Hillary does not hate men? Come on… She values the life of a man less than the comfort of a woman, that much is clear. Bashing fathers on father’s day, like Obama usually does, is misandry too, in case you didn’t know.

You can be a feminist or you can be fair to both sexes, but you can’t be both. There’s no such thing as a feminist masculist. It’s an oxymoron. You can’t fight for crushing men under feminism’s heel and fight for men’s rights at the same time.

This entry was posted in Feminism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz?

  1. AA12 says:

    You hit the nail on the head.

    Feminists fighting for men’s rights is as patently absurd as radical Islamists fighting for gay rights.

    God only knows the fembots would jump at the chance to stone us to death too. Until the day comes when they are that powerful, they’ll just have to settle for the family court system and draconian “equality” laws.

  2. Jennifer says:

    Compelling and true post. I do think, however, that male rape survivors and how they can be overlooked is a male issue. A more extended version of this thinking is how men’s modesty and bodies, and respect for them, are often so awfully disrespected in the media.

  3. Richard says:

    There are many pro-men sites that discuss dribble like this too.

  4. Richard says:

    P.S. sorry to bring this up, but isn’t a man calling himself a “masculist” just as bad as a woman calling herself a “feminist”?

    I read a criticism about masculist on a blog somewhere, but I cannot remember where I saw it.

  5. Jennifer says:

    Male-rape survival is not dribble. But oh yes, the other stuff is; I mean, seriously? Promoting boys who play with dolls and men who cross-dress is really just a veiled attempt to make males more feminine! And I’m sorry, no man who can’t resist putting on a dress has the “right” to use a ladies’ room because men will beat him up.

  6. Deansdale says:

    Richard, it’s just a problem with how you name the organized resistance against feminism. At the core pro-men groups are just anti-misandry groups, nothing less, nothing more. They are not a mirror image of feminists, because feminists fight against the male sex, while anti-misandry groups only fight against misandry. Paul Elam or Glenn Sacks (or whoever you wish to name from the more active pro-male guys) will NEVER lobby for laws unfair to women. They will NEVER fight for a “Violence Against Men Act”. What we want is fairness, not a gender war.
    And while I’m at it, let me just add that it’s easy to decide who’s for fairness and who’s not. Just see if they’re for or against VAWA. VAWA is gender discrimination. If someone is on the side of the VAWA crowd then s/he is fighting AGAINST equality.

  7. Deansdale says:

    “Pro-men” sites discussing crossdressing or playing with dolls are typically set up by feminists posing as pro-men, like the good mangina project or the pages of asshats like Michael Kimmel.

    You know, if someone wants to discuss men’s issues in our culture – like those “No rly what about menz” feminists -, the first thing they have to do is ask men what their problems are. But they never do that. They come up with their own fantasies about what men’s issues could or should be, and they start thinking about how to solve those. Well, we appreciate the good will, but we would appreciate it even more if you’d start facing reality instead of living in the fantasy-land of feminist theory.

  8. Richard says:

    Violence Against Men Act – I actually saw that somewhere too…

    Forgive, I cannot remember as usual. When I encounter these sites, I get ticked, and move on.

    VAWA is the first thing that needs to go – but – it brings in a huge amount of money as I understand it. I doubt it will collapse in my lifetime – maybe I am getting grizzled as I get older.

  9. Jose says:

    Deansdale: «No wonder feminists posing as “masculists” (which they are definitely not) are forced to talk about inane shit like crossdressing, boys playing with dolls or male rape survivors. Newsflash, feminists: these are NOT issues for men. These are issues for feminists.»

    I shall ignore the first two things you said that weren’t really men’s issues (because they aren’t as serious as the third one, but they are also kind of problems, albeit not the most important in comparison to others, including the third one).

    Male rape survivors aren’t a problem for masculists? Hell they are, and a very important one, because, «Newsflash»!, male victims are not socially accepted, they are mocked! This when they deserve as much simpathy as female victims!

    I do agree with you on two key areas: domestic violence policies and family law should be neutral, but they aren’t, in part because of (some, but by no meens all) feminists (but NEVER – and I need to screem out loud – NEVER BECAUSE OF FEMINISM!), in part because of so-called «traditional values» that say we should be strong, never display our feelings and not be envolved with our kids’ education.

    It’s because of texts like this that the men’s rights movement could not advance further right now. And, yes, indeed Glenn Sacks (I haven’t heard of Paul Elam) would defend fair laws, but he wouldn’t certainly defend you, because he’s also a feminist (that’s right – FE-MI-NIST; if you don’t believe me, I’d recomend you reading this:, scroll down to the paragraph starting with «I knew from the beginning…», and this:, scroll down to Berman writes: Joyce introduces us to Glenn Sacks…»).

    Although I understand the motivations of many of you, you are doing a crappy job publishing posts like this!

  10. Deansdale says:

    I did not say it’s fun to be a male rape survivor. But it does not concern most men, because, well, most of us are not in prison (yet) so it does not happen to us. As a male issue it’s not nearly as widespread as discrimination or male-bashing.

    because of (some, but by no meens all) feminists (but NEVER BECAUSE OF FEMINISM!)
    This kinda’ means that feminists are not representing feminism. I don’t buy this. It would be true IF some mainstream feminists would side with MRAs on these subjects, but they don’t. At best they are silent, so they are complicit in committing crimes against men. Feminists and feminism cannot be separated like this, and if someone tries to do it anyways, it only shows that s/he wants to defend feminism in the face of atrocities committed by feminists.
    What you actually do IS the movement. You imply that a mystical form of abstract feminism exists as an ideal, but it doesn’t. We have to face our day-to-day reality in which we face flesh-and-blood feminists representing feminism.

    It’s because of texts like this that the men’s rights movement could not advance further right now.
    We are advancing right now. If you’re not seeing that, you’re blind. The public opinion is changing fast. There are popular news sites like the Daily Mail where most comments are decidedly anti-feminist. New articles opposing feminism show up every day in the media.
    People got really fed up with the feminist rhetoric and political correctness, and they are showing up in greater numbers every day. In fact if you watch closely you can see that the first two comments here begin with “You hit the nail on the head” and “Compelling and true post”. If it turns out that feminists do not agree with me, well, I can live with that.

    And finally, yeah, I know that many people have bought into the feminist lie that it’s about equality. If it would be then they wouldn’t fight against male-only golf clubs while at the same time fighting for women-only golf clubs, but I digress.
    So there are a lot of people out there who mistakenly think that if they like the idea of “equality” then they have to call themselves feminists. Bullsh*t. I want real equality, that’s why I fight against feminism. Feminists have created many laws, but none of them treat men and women equally. Think VAWA, IMBRA, Title IX, etc. All these feminist wetdreams are actively discriminating against men.

    you are doing a crappy job publishing posts like this
    Well, what do I know? But it seems to me that you did not debate any of the real points I made, you’re just arguing about irrelevant little details. You admit that feminists have created bad, sexist laws. In my book this means the fight against feminists is morally justified. Every intelligent person with a sense of justice and fairness has to side with us, and, let me assure you, they did, or will do. It’s just a question of time. Our “enemies” are either idiots (manginas and white knights), or rotten (like Amanda Marcotte or Jessica Valenti). There is not one sane and honest mainstream feminist in the world.

  11. Fidelbogen says:

    Whoever self-identifies as a “feminist” should expect to be treated like a “person of interest”, as the police would say.

    Not only must feminism itself be exposed and rooted out, but the WORD feminism must be stigmatized like the word ‘nazi’.

    What plenty of people fail to grasp, is that feminism is a social organism, greater than the sum of its parts. It does not matter if “not all feminists are like that.” The point is, that feminism as a whole is indeed “like that.” It is monolithic in terms of what it ultimately makes real in the real world. So, whoever is truly not “like that” as an individual needs to demonstrate their good faith and solidarity by disowning “feminist” as a personal label or descriptor.

    So in the long run, only the diehards will cling to the word feminism. This means that language and reality will begin to correspond to each other very precisely. At last we shall know who is really who, and who stands where in relation to what.

    That is just the effect we need to generate. It will etch a sharp, clear, easily discernible line between “feminist” and “non-feminist”. Presently, “feminism” shades gradually into the surrounding world; it has fuzzy borders. This is exactly what needs to change.

    And activist-thinktivist-talktivist energy ought to be budgeted toward making this happen in a big way.

  12. Jennifer says:

    I used to call myself a feminist, until I realized what they’re really about. How’d I find out? I read their material and their personal comments, online.

  13. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Something Something Edition

  14. Holy Counsel says:

    Greetings, folks! So much to respond to when you find a new blog!

    Feminism survives on dogma and, like religion, has a tough time surviving the instant knowledge and criticism of the internet age.

    Which is why I heartily approve your summary of the latest feminist concern trolling known as “No Seriously, What About Teh Menz”. I come from reddit, where I remarked that the blog bore far more resemblance to /TwoX than it did /Menrights. A four part series on our cocks is what the feminists imagine will make us happy.

    What is worst is that on a site supposedly dedicated to caring about men, there is no shortage of pure misandry linked right of the sidebar. Feminists heartily deserve the reputation everyone has of them, and have no one to blame but themselves for all the women who start with “I’m not a feminist but…”

    Glad to to find like-minded brothers and sisters!

  15. Deansdale says:

    You’re welcome :)

  16. Kat says:

    I’m gender conscious and feminist. To me, being feminist or being masculinist – maybe even quer – are the sub consepts of gender conscious.

    I think men should examine their own sex and gender more than they do. I don’t want to be “masculinist”, but I very much would like to be pro-masculinist, and as a gender conscious, I have much very useful consepts which can help while determining masculine relation with power. How ever, I don’t yet have much to be pro for, especially for many masculinists want to hate feminists and prefer to break, not build. Well, I will wait. :)

  17. Deansdale says:

    You know, with Amanda Marcunt being a feminist it’s an obligation for decent people to hate them. Feminists say they don’t hate men but then turn around and say men only kill themselves to hurt women. Un-fuckin-believable. And don’t let me get started on the Catherine Kieu – Sharon Osbourne case. Feminists are the scum of the earth, a plague worse than the black death.
    Luckily more and more people wake up to this fact.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s