We have greatly underestimated feminism’s harmful influence on millennials

This article was published at the Washington Examiner.

When it comes to the problems millennials face, we’re just not getting itAs I mentioned in my last post about the debt millennials have incurred, their predicament isn’t their fault. It is baby boomers who led millennials astray.

“We suffered from the educational debt phenomenon because when we couldn’t find jobs, a lot of us went to college. Or we got graduate degrees. Our boomer parents encouraged us to fund a lot of that with debt, on the premise that it would eventually pay off in the job market. But that was clearly wrong, and we’re paying the price for it,” writes Wall Street Journal columnist Joseph Sternberg in this interview about his new book, The Theft of a Decade: How the Baby Boomers Stole the Millennials’ Economic Future.

That is unquestionably true, but it’s not enough. Too few are willing to discuss the social narrative Boomers promoted that resulted in the economic troubles millennials now face. As Simon Sinek explains in this wildly successful video about millennials in the workplace, there are four pillars that landed millennials in the boat they’re in: parenting, technology, impatience, and environment.

“Too many millennials grew up subject to — not my words — failed parenting strategies,” notes Sinek. Millennials were routinely told, for instance, that they were special. They were told they could have “anything they want in life, just ’cause they want it.”

Once again, true. But there’s more to it than that. This message to which Sinek refers was specifically directed to girls by their feminist-minded mothers. Sinek talks about the self-esteem movement and the harm it’s done to millennials, and I agree. But we can’t separate the self-esteem movement from the feminist movement. They’re two sides of the same coin.

The self-esteem movement says, “There’s no one quite like you. You’re amazing. Go — seize the world.” And feminism says, “Your mothers’ lives were constrained. Don’t live the way they did — reach for the stars instead!”

As a result, girls and young women both then and now feel entitled to lives that defy description. They should be out-of-this-world exciting!

It was a powerful message that set off a chain of events. Millennials are the first generation of women to reject marriage and motherhood and to instead pile up degree upon degree, resulting in debt that, while theoretically was supposed to help them get established for marriage, instead dealt them a cruel blow: now they can’t afford to get married.

No one told these women that when previous generations got married they had zero money saved. But they also had no debt. The idea for marriage is to grow together, but that’s not what boomers taught millennials. Why would they? Boomers are the generation that brought us divorce. They didn’t want their children (again, their daughters in particular) to get married. Why be “just” a wife and mother when you can rule the world?

With this one simple (but destructive) message, everything changed. Today more than half of young people don’t have a romantic partner at all, let alone a spouse. Marriage has taken a serious nosedive, and we are all worse off as a result.

At the end of the day, Americans have underestimated the power the feminist narrative had on an entire generation of women. Even millennials don’t understand it — they never knew any other way to live. But that is changing.

Millennials were told they were special but learned that they aren’t. They were told they don’t need a man but learned that they do. They were told that children will hold them back but discovered that children are precisely what they want. In fact, family is all they really want.

Only now they’re too old or too broke to have one.

Suzanne Venker

Suzanne Venker is an author, columnist and radio host known as The Feminist Fixer. She helps free women from feminism so they can find lasting love with men. Suzanne's newest book, WOMEN WHO WIN at Love: How to Build a Relationship That Lasts, will be published October 2019.

Reader Interactions


  1. Some of them are intelligent, though. They know to cut off the mass media, and listen to their inner guidance. Some are extremely aware. You actually can create almost anything you seek. You may not be able to create *everything* you seek. Life is choices. And commitment. My question for all those millenials that decided not to reproduce, and raise healthy children, is who is going to pay for your social security? Who is going to staff the nursing homes that you’ll be in? Oh, wait, we don’t even have enough nursing homes for the boomers. It is not impossible to have a family later in life. It’s been done.

    What about a Truth and Reconciliation plan, for feminists, where they can ceremoniously and formally give up their hatred, resentment, perceived lack of control, and other negative stuff? Perhaps they can commit to a life of service to humanity, instead of attacking innocents. In a healthy society, children are cared for, and trained. Young adults start in the work force. The age of 30 brings a new sense of self, where self is larger than just what is inside the skeleton, or the skull. This is the age where men come into their own, are established, and can think about marriage. They can marry earlier. Men realize that their only real value is what they produce. They come to know they are expendable. They begin to think about what a committed relationship would be like. Except in our society, they’ve had numerous life lessons about the idiocy of doing that. The Romans used to crucify escaped slaves, and leave their bodies hanging, for a while, as an object lesson. Our equivalent is the divorce court, which extends the agony of men for 22 years to life. That sounds just like a prison sentence. Debtor’s prisons were abolished long ago, except of course for men who can’t pay their child support. Women don’t have to do anything a court tells them to do, as few laws are enforced for women.

    In life, the smarter of the young learn from the old. That is why traditional societies valued elders- men and women. What does an old man have to say to a young man? “Don’t get married, unless you want a long term relationship to raise children well. Other than that, play the field.” It was fascinating to see my daughter’s classmates seek out mates. Many did. One married a slacker, and has to work to make up for that. So I guess there is some justice, though I have to say she didn’t deserve that. When my father was young, you could work 30 years at some places, and get an 80% pension. That has vanished. There is little corporate loyalty to workers, any more, and workers have little long term commitment. Corporations measure performance, of course. But creative solutions are a gift, which does not have to be given. And so it is with marriage, for many. I am fascinated to see religious conservatives, because they seem to be the only group of people who respect marriage, and people, and society. Church people give a much higher percentage of their salaries to people. After Chernobyl, Russian radio stations tried to raise money to help people there. They didn’t do well. Russians, they said, preferred to spend their extra money on vodka. I know some Russian immigrants in my area. They said the KGB never bothered them when they were drinking. When they found God, they were bothered, and felt they had to leave. Something like 20% of the Russian government’s income comes from vodka sales.

    I am encouraged by the young, though. They understand they’ve been screwed by society. And they are seeking out spiritual solutions. I go to my youngest child’s PTA meetings. They are mostly run by women, who are very, very focused, on education, and what they can do. They go to the town’s meetings, too, some of them. I know a veteran, married to a Filipina, who is all heart. She can’t stand to see men over about 30 unmarried, and she functions as a matchmaker. In her world, unmarried men are out of balance, dangerous to society. Unmarried women are unhappy, usually. She brings balance to her world, by doing this. Some even seek out the books of people like Joseph Murphy, or Neville Goddard, or Florence Scovell Shinn, or even Dee Wallace, among others, to expand their awareness of the spiritual side of life. My oldest daughter told me recently that one thing my divorce from her mother taught her, was to be very picky about whom she married. And she married well. She has two wonderful kids. She is a joy to deal with. She works, part-time. I tell young men, especially those going off to college, to concentrate on their studies. I tell them that women will ignore them, anyway, until they get established economically. I tell them that the smartest thing they can do is to master their craft, to be the best they can be, and to avoid women until they are say 28-30. I tell them that at that point, all those women that dissed and insulted them, when they were younger, are now replaced by a new crop of 25-28 year olds who are now very open to relationships. I tell them that the women who dissed them, who didn’t get married, are now desperate, and by definition, picked over merchandise, not worth their time. They don’t know this. So I tell them. My wife’s nephews sometimes listen to me, also. I tell them that everything they see in the media is a lie, designed to destroy their lives. They get it. Mainstream television is a dying form. I am hopeful for the future.

  2. Speak for yourself. I had my tubes tied when I was in my 20s. I’m 62 now and I don’t regret it one bit. Children are definitely what this woman doesn’t want.

    I don’t know how old you are, but I’m old enough to remember when women were frustrated by having to do nothing but stay home and iron shirts. I still remember the women from my childhood who were both terrified and angry that they “had” to have children. My own mother, born long before feminists came along, never wanted children. I know older women who were grateful they had miscarriages into the toilet when they were young and married.

    Tell THEM all they really wanted was a child. They’d laugh you out of the county.

    The only reason you’re able to post this drivel on a blog is because feminists stood up and said women have a right to their opinions and a right to make those opinions heard. In the days before feminism, your husband would have the right to slap you upside the head and tell you to get back in the kitchen.

    Thanks to feminism, you don’t know how good you have it.

    • So feminism is totally dependent on technology. That’s comforting. And the most fragile tech that ever existed, in the most complex system known in history, can’t ever fail… how many feminists are there in Somalia, I wonder, where you must admit, equality of outcome has been achieved. An annual income of $6 per year. There is another place absolute equality has been achieved. You can see these communities in many towns and cities. They are called “cemeteries”. It would be fascinating to see feminists put back into the 1860’s. Kerosene lamps, buggies, and no labor saving technology. I wonder how long their ideology would last. No, better yet, the 1600s. Yes. Cook over a wood fire. Sew your own clothing. No central heating. Feminists have no idea how good they have it, and how fragile this is. Americans really need to go even just to Mexico, to see how much of the world lives. Mexicans are generally very nice people. They have to live with reality. They don’t have the luxury of a philosophy that sounds great, and doesn’t work in practice. Latina women very much like American men, as spouses, because they are kinder, more generous, and nicer than the local product. Me gusta mucho mi esposa. Hispanic feminists are usually nowhere near as vicious as are the Caucasian ones.

      You are right about labor. Monday was wash day. Tuesday was ironing day. Wednesday was mending day. Thursday was baking day. The first washing machines, that had no spin dry, were very welcome, to women. Mending was necessary because clothes were comparatively far more expensive. The diet was actually better, then, no preservatives, or pesticide residues. Which means feminism is totally dependent on technology.

      • Remember the dictionary guy, Noah Webster? His house is a museum. He had a man cave, with his loom. He prepared flax, and then wove sheets, and shirts. How many people today could handle that kind of tech?

    • If you don’t want children, don’t have them. That’s simple. If you don’t want to be married, don’t get married. From genetic studies, 80% of women got to reproduce, while only about 40% of men did. You seem to want to be in the 20%. Go for it.

    • “feminists stood up and said women have a right to their opinions and a right to make those opinions heard. In the days before feminism, your husband would have the right to slap you upside the head and tell you to get back in the kitchen.”

      Apparently you know nothing of history. Look up Carrie Nation, for example. She took an ax to saloons, regularly. The women who sought the vote were not feminists, not by today’s standards. The Celtic culture has MANY examples of independent women, as one example among many. Chivalry was DESIGNED by women, notably Eleanor of Aquitaine. If women were the total slaves you say they were, you sexist, feminism could not have emerged. You are a slave to your ideology. Look up the word “scold”. Women who bitched a lot were called this, in the 1700’s, which disproves your point. A few women dressed in men’s clothing, to fight as soldiers- in the Revolutionary war, and more did so in the Civil War. Florence Nightingale created nursing, long before feminism. Somewhere on this blog, they talk about a Thai woman, who organized other women, to slaughter foreign invaders, who were men. Oriental women are very, very tough. It is useful to do your research, before you make claims. But what feminist cares about truth, when ideology is so much more exciting, even when it is total BS? The Soviet Union had more truth in it than feminist ideology. So did Nazi Germany. Neither system was nice. One thing those hardworking women did, that you insult, was they had descendants. You won’t. Your genes die with you. That’s fine. Evolutionary dead ends happen all the time, in nature. How many children do feminists have? Few- and they aren’t viable spouses, either. This problem will solve itself, in a few generations. And a lot of suffering inflicted on innocents, by feminists.

    • You said: “My own mother, born long before feminists came along, never wanted children.”

      Which means she didn’t want you. That explains the tone of your post. And you seem to think that women were totally oppressed before feminism came along. I guess your mother also didn’t want to educate you. That is a shame. Every child should be wanted, and loved.

      The Celtic general Boudicca was a woman. She raised a large army, to fight the invading Romans. She lost in the big battle. And she fell on her own sword. I’m curious: do you really think she was ever told to go back to the kitchen?

      An SOE team sabotaged the railroad cars, in France, that were to carry the best Panzer division’s tanks to the D-Day invasion site. They put abrasive powder in the axles. Instead of the Panzer division’s projected 8 hour trip, the division took over 3 days. Among that SOE team were a 14 and a 16 year girl- two of them. Do you suppose they were ever told to get back to the kitchen? Not more than once.

      I sent a package UPS today. The woman who took it was not big. She hefted the 70 lb box rather easily. I asked her what farm she worked at. Yes, she worked on a farm. Prior to the Civil War, there were many farmers. And many strong women. I knew a guy, from Idaho. His wife weighed maybe 100 lbs. She could pick up and throw 50 lb hay bales onto a high bed truck. For an hour, or more. Do you really think her husband ever told her to get back to the kitchen?

      My dad’s mom was known for her independent thoughts. She was born about 1888. Her husband never, ever told her to get back to the kitchen. He was a smart man. She had eight children. Birthed at home.

      There is a reason women didn’t work. Let’s look at the same thing today, in the Arab world. A man whose women have to work in the fields, or work outside the home, has less status- for the family. A wife who doesn’t have to work is clearly rich. And this is how it was, prior to say 1900, in the US. How many women dream of marrying the millionaire- so they can wear those expensive fashions, that say they don’t have to work. Women’s fashions mostly still reflect this. High heeled shoes cause serious knee problems for women when they hit their 50’s. How well would you jog, in high heels? Womens’ pants rarely have pockets. This is partially for show, and partially because traditionally, a servant would have carried the money, and groceries. Take high fashion, for women, and go cross country in the woods. It does badly, doesn’t it. It is designed for show, to show off the idle rich, who can afford to offer leisure to the high class women.

      You talk about women you knew, who didn’t want children. How large is your sample size? Surely you didn’t know 90% of the women in the country? Is it possible that your sample is not representative of all women? Dr. John Christopher used to be astonished at how women would give birth, with all the pain- and want to have another one, as soon as possible. He also refused to ever do an abortion, this was before they were legal. The women who had the child that wasn’t aborted- check this out- always came back to him to thank him for their child, which they were very happy with. It isn’t politically correct for women who deeply regret their abortions to talk about them, because, after all, killing the unborn is now a virtue, somehow.

      What you say is representative of a tiny slice of human experience. Human variation is legendary. You also have no idea of what great women have done, apparently. The high priestesses of the temples in Sumer were rather powerful. And that was what, 6,000 years ago. Apache scout shamans were beyond the level of Navy SEALS. They could cross Death Valley, for example, without supplies, or water. They could climb trees faster than a squirrel. They could camouflage themselves better than any soldier now, and they didn’t need ghillie suits. One favorite game was bear slapping. This is stalking close enough to a bear, slapping it, and running away at top speed. There were black women who guided escaped slaves through the South, to freedom in the north.
      Hawaiians had “chiefesses”, i.e. female chiefs. Wilma Mankiller was elected the leader of one Native American group.

      It is useful to have a large enough sample size, to understand things. Please consider expanding your sample size. It is, pardon me for saying this, grossly inadequate, and inaccurate. If you are going to use a model universe inside you, to compare and contrast, at least make sure it is close to accurate. If you want to see an incredible woman, try seeing Mother Meera. Queen Elizabeth I actually ordered her cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots, executed. Hillary is not an example of a strong woman. Joe Klein points out that her rise was totally dependent on her husband.

      Suzanne, you have an accurate model, of how things work. Thank you for that. And for that reason, what you say is cogent, and accurate. Please keep saying it. Please go against the crowd, which is as crazy as all crowds.

      • I forgot to say, about one of every four of those Apache scout shamans was a woman. Lozen, and Dahtaste, were legendary. There are tens of thousands of other women who broke the feminist “mold” of supposedly oppressed women. If women really were as oppressed as feminists claim, they would never have been able to break out of it.

  3. With great power, comes great responsibility. Except women want only the power, none of the responsibility. It sucks to be the average guy in our society. Female privilege vastly outweighs any kind of male privilege.

  4. Girls and young women both then and now feel entitled to lives that defy description. They should be out-of-this-world exciting! There’s no one quite like you! You’re amazing! Go — seize the world.” Feminism says, “Your mothers’ lives were constrained. Don’t live the way they did — reach for the stars instead!”

    That is good advice. But it doesn’t show up right away. It takes a lot of commitment, and effort, and some apparent failures along the way. We really should take women to a country where women do most of the work. Laos. The men smoke pot, and do almost nothing. Women do the hard work, of roadbuilding, and so on. Laos has not advanced much, in the last 50 years. In parts of the Yemen, men chew khat, and act like potheads. The women do much more. The Yemen is not a nice place to live.
    There are African countries where the men drink beer, and do little. They aren’t exactly advanced there.
    That is where the USA is heading. Go to any inner city slum. Look around you. This is what happens when single parent families raise the children. 80 years ago, an entrepreneur would have bought up the buildings, and done something useful with them. Today, you don’t see this, not much.

    Cassie Jaye did a TED talk on the men’s rights movement. Of course she was viciously attacked by feminists. For women to get true, real equality with men, their social security payments would have to be reduced- women outlive men. They would have their work product compared, with that of men. There are women who work hard, in workplaces. And there are those who don’t. And they are excused, much more than men, to keep the quotas of women high. Their medical insurance would have to be higher-they go to doctors more. Women make more money than men, in several professions, because they are harder to recruit, and keep. Men are subject to false accusations, by women. Well, all women should be believed, even when they lie, and they do lie, sometimes. Of course all those women that Bill Clinton raped can’t be believed, because they accused the wrong guy.

    Biology is real. There is a strong, visceral urge, to have children, for women. They can deny it. It gets stronger. No, not for every woman, what tendency is 100%? I’ve talked to a number of men, who understand that the balance of power shifted, about the age of 30 or so. They understand that there are far more women looking for partners, after that age, than there are men. They understand that this advantage only increases, with time. Men live harder lives than women do, which is why they die off sooner than women. Sex is easy to get, now- for men. Women give it away for free. Men don’t speak as openly as women do. They don’t speak as much as women do. But when a 40 year old guy has women hitting on him, it’s fun for him to play the same games women did, when he was in high school. Yes, women can be almost anything they want. But this always comes at a price. Women can work 100 hour weeks, in a tech firm, or law office. But they have no time for anything else.

    How many people on their deathbeds wished they had worked more, spent more time in the office? I’ve never heard of one. I have heard many wish they had spent more time with their loved ones. Or, even, wished they had loved ones. I ride a bus to work. It is mostly men, and most of them are married. Most of the women aren’t. I hear of women freezing their eggs. Great. How long do they keep? What kind of degradation is there, over time? There is degradation.

    It would be useful to teach girls in high school to clearly define their goals, to set up benchmarks, and to truly understand how much work it takes, to achieve those goals. Millenials think it will all be handed to them on a silver platter. That’s not how it works.

  5. Feminists fight their inner demons
    For ideological, and other reasons
    Fight with dragons long enough
    And you take on all their stuff
    Your eyes eat everything you see
    What you think and feel, you’ll be
    Slay the innocent, without guilt!
    From this is satisfaction built!
    Gather up your hurt and pain
    It needs you, to live again
    Give to others, even more
    Surely spirits will then soar!
    In time, though, you will discover
    You hurt yourself, along with other

  6. It takes a very focused individual, to go against the tide, and speak the truth. I applaud you, Suzanne, for telling the truth. You must feel somewhat lonely. Speakers of truths that don’t fit in with the usual media B.S. are not typically popular. You stand, like Horatio at the bridge, against the unthinking mob. Thank you.

  7. Um…where are the Gen X ers? Most millennials have Gen X parents or even Gen Y parents, not Boomers. I would say it’s ok, that we are used to being left out, but no. NO, not in the context of these claims you make. You want to connect A to C while completely ignoring B, and the only reason I can come up with for your willful omission of Gen X , is that including them (you know, the truth), wouldn’t fit the narrative you created basically from dust and misinterpretations of feminism.

    • Feminists, and truth. Oxymoron.
      Like military and intelligence. Except that’s not fair, there are bright people in the military.

      Designers say you can get two of the following three; low price; speed of delivery, and effective, in designing products or services. Feminism comes at a high price, the speed of delivery of useful product is zero, and effectiveness is also zero. All you have to do, is look at your results. You can see the feminist paradise, in any big city. Go to the slums, where the single parents, ok, single moms, live. Look around you. And feminists want you to pay child support, for children that aren’t yours. Black people are like lab rats. Watch carefully how black people are treated, because that is going to spread to other groups. Or, ride the bus, and listen to a black woman talking about how hard it is for her to get a responsible black man, in her life. The smartest people in this country- based on earnings, and results, are Orientals. They also have the lowest rate of divorce. This is not a coincidence.

  8. Damage is worse than you thought…

    Consider Engineering…

    There are two aspects to engineering: DESIGN (qualitative) and ANALYSIS (quantitative).

    Design engineering is about presentations, customer needs, collaboration, etc.
    Analytical engineering is about math. Math. Just math.

    Feminists indoctrinate girls with engineering in the K12. They have large meetings where girls arrive on busses to hear about Girl Day Engineer. And they are presented ONLY with examples of DESIGN engineering.

    The girls who are good at math, opt out of engineering (they have no interest in design and want math).
    The girls who are not good in math (on seeing DESIGN engineering) choose engineering.

    And then, in college, when the math hits (and it does), those girls drop.

    ASIDE from that, the vast majority of girls do not like engineering.

    I pushed engineering on my daughter (I taught her the math). Then, about three years ago, she came to me while i was in bed. She was crying. She said “Daddy, I don’t want to be an engineer.” I was stunned at how BAD I had been. I pushed her, without thinking.

    I shudder to think how many girls we are driving to engineering and who do not want it. We are setting a generation of girls up for some major lifetime depression.

    • I remember engineering students in college. They studied 6-8 hours/day, including Saturdays, over and above class. They didn’t date. They didn’t have time. Liberal arts students don’t have to work half that hard. Some men don’t have the stamina for it, and many women do not, either. People who don’t know anything about engineering are pushing women to it, who hate it. How does that help anyone?

      • They are pushing an inaccurate ideology, on people who don’t want it. This looks and smells a lot like fascism.

  9. This is a great post, Suzanne. I’m often critical here on this blog, but this is fair and mirrors some of the books already out there in the public sphere.

    In chapter 3 of his book “The Myth of Self-Esteem: Finding Happiness and Solving Problems in America”, author John P. Hewitt spends some time highlighting the connection between Feminism and the topic of self-esteem. A couple of interesting quotes:

    “The opposition to competitiveness and evaluation based on achievement is a corollary to the belief in entitlement. To say that all deserve self-esteem is also to say that some are denied it because it is based on standards of achievement they cannot or should not be asked to meet.”

    “Moreover, few people -myself included- would argue that it would be better if children were encouraged to feel badly about themselves.” (This is taken largely out of context, here, for emphasis. It is striking to read this in the age we live in, though many can probably identify with this kind of parenting and schooling, meant to keep children grounded and humble.)

    In her works “Generation Me” and “The Narcissism Epidemic” (co-authored with W. Keith Campbell), Jean M. Twenge details the measurable sharp rise in narcissism in young women and girls of the latter parts of Gen X into the Millennial generation, an area where men and boys historically scored higher.

  10. LOL at feminism being a harmful influence on millenials!

    American women as a whole are totally destroyed by feminism. The overwhelming majority of American women are cock carousel riding, tattoo having, no morality having, debt ridden, slags.

    If you are a man getting married to an American woman you might as well chop off your fucking nuts like the bitch boy that you are and just end your life.


    • Slag. The leftover from ore. This is a metaphor that suggests the valuable stuff, perhaps gold, has been taken out, and the nonvaluable stuff left behind. What ye have sewn, that also shall ye reap. Or, what you plant, you harvest.

      What did Nietzsche say- oh yes- if you fight dragons long enough, you become one. Stare long enough into the abyss, and it begins staring back. Feminists have put their attention on the negative, for a long time. They have become the oppressors they so despise. And the abyss of the wall is staring back at them. And, if you’re upset, sad, angry, and so on, what better way to deal with it, than to spread out your toxins among others?

      An ideology that idolizes not reproducing is self-correcting. Most of these feminists will not reproduce. Those that do will use sperm banks. Storing sperm, and eggs, does result in genetic decay. It doesn’t matter for farm animals, that are slaughtered young. For humans, well yes, it does matter. There have been many evolutionary dead ends. Feminism is simply eating its own young.

      One could think that people don’t learn. The National Socialism of Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, and others, caused a great deal of suffering. So, now we have new incarnations of it. We’ll all have pie in the sky.

      Feminists thing that toxifying their bodies- literally- with hate, using toxic, carcinogenic tattoo ink, and hair dyes, exposing themselves to STD’s repeatedly, and abusing authority, is somehow going to get them all they want. May Allah grant them patience. Noone in history has ever gone this route, to this goal, but perhaps they will be the first. Heh. Right. Dream on. Hate creates cancer in the body, as Dr. John Christopher noted long ago. It also creates cancer in the body politic.

      I am encouraged by the young people I see getting married, in their thirties. They know, from direct experience, all around them, which paths work, and which do not. They don’t need the theory. Those who saw the ashes of WW II swore “never again”. Well, it came again, just in different forms. The point is that feminism is like a side band, a guidance, as a warning of the perils of following their ideology.

      Those who plant lies harvest disappointment. Those who plant truth harvest happiness. This is a very patient teacher. If you would like to see how most of these feminists will end up, look at Sinead OConnor’s video, at her website. She is covered in tattoos, clearly alone and suffering, and despairing. She had 4 kids by 4 different guys, and dumped them all. What has she now, to attract love into her life?

    • How long before Lesbians join the mgtows, I wonder, since they have at least as bad a problem with other women, as men do? Domestic violence is particularly nasty, among lesbians.

  11. Boomers were raised by depression kids. Most people live in avoidance- avoiding the negatives. Boomers wanted their kids to not have to deal with the trauma they had. So they went in another direction- abundance, as they saw it. Would the sexual revolution of the 60’s have been possible, without the Depression? I doubt it. The Depression babies were also the WW II generation, which dealt with some major challenges. They wanted peace, and abundance. And they created it. In an ever more permissive environment. Discipline and freedom are in balance; go too far in one, or the other direction, and you are out of balance. And today’s millenials are very much out of balance- as are most young people in all eras. They are more out of balance than their counterparts of yesteryear. Which means they will overcompensate, as previous generations did, and in new directions. Millenials weren’t well served, perhaps, but their parents did the best they knew how, as do most parents. THey have to find their own way. I am a boomer. The next generation of my family, now in their 30’s, all have committed relationships. They don’t play around. They know they have to be committed, as they have seen the pain of divorce.

    The major bad player in all this is our mass media, which is truly toxic. And that next generation is moving away from the mass media. They have a vague, uneasy feeling about our mass media descendants of Josef Goebbels, who tell such lies. Mass media is a dying animal. The big 3 networks are dying. Heck, Univision, the SPanish cable channel, has beat out NBC. I will not be sorry to see the mass media gone. They did all they could to destroy the country. And they have failed, at least so far.

  12. Suzzane your definition of feminism comes from an indoctrinated way of thinking and an intolerance to what isn’t “status quo”. Men and women obviously aren’t biologically the same, in fact equality is about acknowledging these differences and having EQUAL respect for the different needs and ideas of both male and female.
    Women today aren’t working more because they want to be just like men, most are probably working because the cost of living is so high that one family members salary is no longer enough to support an entire family.
    You are also avoiding the reality that your view of a woman’s role is what a woman’s role has been in a patriarchal society. Societies can be structured in an endless possibility of ways, there is no one way to live that is the “right” way. Millennials today are just more aware of this and refusing to allow their ideas be limited by people saying “well this is the way things are”, something I’ve noticed the many generations before me Have accepted without questioning why. Things were created to be the way they are now and new things can certainly be created. As more young people realize the way things are now are not in the best interest for caring for all human beings they can see that the way things are needs to change, most importantly the mass brainwashing that has been imposed on the American people, the same brainwashing that enforces your stance that you should stay in your lane, do what your told, and don’t question anything. You can’t change anything if you can’t change your mind

    • “Women today aren’t working more because they want to be just like men, most are probably working because the cost of living is so high that one family members salary is no longer enough to support an entire family.” Today that’s true for some. But that’s not why women initially fled their homes en masse.

      Millennials are not more aware of anything. They’re hopelessly UNaware (of both history and truth). That’s the underlying issue.

      “The same brainwashing that enforces your stance that you should stay in your lane, do what your told, and don’t question anything.” I’ve made a life out of questioning everything and always encourage others to do the same.

    • As women have moved into predominately male roles they have found out that stimulation from even bad things is still better than no stimulation at all, they have become adrenaline junkies or drama queens, for men this means taking up motorcycle racing or sky diving etc. but for a women it means having numerous dead end affairs and occasionally destroying a few nice guys that show interest in her. This is one of the reasons hot young girls prefer to hook up with bad boys because they like the pain and drama inflicted on them. This behavior only produces middle aged sluts that nobody wants.

      • There is a lot of domestic violence among lesbians. Because lesbians have the same problems with other women that men do. Justice… and equality!

    • “role has been in a patriarchal society”. Feminists compare women of low class to high class men, and get very upset about the differences. Men and women of the same social strata generally bdo about the same, though women do somewhat better, compared to men of the same strata.

      “Societies can be structured in an endless possibility of ways, there is no one way to live that is the “right” way.” Actually, there is a very accurate way to determine what the “right way” is. Does that way reproduce the race? If it doesn’t, those who live that way die out without heirs.

      “Millennials today are just more aware of this and refusing to allow their ideas be limited by people saying “well this is the way things are”, something I’ve noticed the many generations before me Have accepted without questioning why.”
      It appears you aren’t familiar with history. The young have always been restless, seeking to move out into their own. The state of marriage that Suzanne talks about is involved with reproducing the species. If you aren’t interested in that, then, as you say, why be limited, you can do anything you like. My question is, who will pay your social security, and medicaid?

      “Things were created to be the way they are now and new things can certainly be created. As more young people realize the way things are now are not in the best interest for caring for all human beings they can see that the way things are needs to change,”
      Aha, eternal youth. Change is not always good. The road to hell is paved with good intentions is so true it is almost invisible.

      “most importantly the mass brainwashing that has been imposed on the American people, the same brainwashing that enforces your stance that you should stay in your lane, do what your told, and don’t question anything.”
      You are describing feminists, very accurately. You are right, it is a mass brainwashing.

      We don’t live in indigenous cultures any more. We are atomized. The nuclear family is also disintegrating, as you say, by design of the social engineers. Show me any powerful state in history that was better than an indigenous community. You can’t.

  13. do you have a chapter about how millennial lesbians can find women to marry? Because I would love to get married, but to another woman.

    • Go to any gathering of feminists. The only problem you’ll have, is precisely the problem men have; the quality of your selection.

  14. Women evolved, like men, to engage in alloparenting (fellow group members aid in child rearing together). They also evolved to engage in ‘central-place foraging’ together. Hunter-gatherer women (e.g. the Hadza of Tanzania, the Aka of the Congo, the nSan of Botswana) spend a lot of their time together co-raising children and foraging for reliable resources (and to that point, they are considerable providers and not simply wired to take resources from men). This suggests women are very much wired for working and socialising with other women. The dissatisfaction they may or may not have experienced in working is likely for many reasons, just as it is for men. Purposeless jobs, social isolation, lack of autonomy in the workplace (both men and women, mind), and so on. Women wanted equality with men, which meant they had to lower themselves.

    • Camille Paglia recalls her mother spending lots of time with other women, socializing, sharing information. The denial of this may be one reason for the increasing dissatisfaction among women.

  15. Third wave feminism has turned a generation of women into demanding, complaining, exploiting, vicious harpies. Some women of this generation have wisdom, though.

  16. [from a website]
    I credit my mother for introducing me to the ideas of Camille Paglia. Disillusioned with the prevailing strains within feminist literature that seemed to hold an implicit contempt for stay-at-home moms, my mom came across Paglia, an outspoken feminist who seemed to sympathize with the decision of women to embrace motherhood.

    A couple of weeks later, my mother had relayed to me, in the form of lengthy phone calls, the main ideas she had identified in Paglia’s canon. To my mother, Paglia was someone who didn’t regurgitate the same tired clichés that many feminist figures seemed to have in endless supply. To me, it became increasingly clear that I disagreed with a majority of what this woman had to say. Even so, she grew to become a strangely compelling character to me.

    Paglia is incredibly tricky to pin down. The controversial American feminist and social critic boasts a wealth of opinions, some of which are intuitively antithetical. A staunch libertarian revered by political conservatives, she admitted to feeling the Bern in the 2016 Democratic Primary and voting for Jill Stein in the 2016 election.

    An openly gay woman, she’s declared no particular loyalty to the LGBTQ community and has even stated she doesn’t “get along with lesbians.” Somewhat rigid in her idea of the sexual polarization of the genders, she is at the same time adamantly pro-sex, pro-pornography and supports the legalization of prostitution.

    She puzzles many, offends many more and is dismissed for being both too conservative and too liberal. (You’ll find more than one YouTube compilation out there of Paglia taking down feminists.)

    It must be said, though: A formidable feature of Paglia is that, in spite of attempts by supporters and detractors alike to placate her contradictions and package her a certain way, she continually defies boundaries. Similarly, she refuses to pledge any kind of allegiance to the resounding political platforms that both second- and third-wave feminism abide by. In fact, Paglia has consistently labeled herself a glaring outlier of second-wave feminism.
    In an op-ed to Salon Magazine, she infamously branded feminist figurehead Gloria Steinem a “mummified fascist” that forewent her earlier accomplishments and betrayed the universality of the movement by marrying her own partisan politics with the feminism she was espousing. Paglia credits this growing disappointment with Steinem as the turning point where she began to distance herself from what she considered to be the “power elite who had hijacked and stunted second-wave feminism.”

    Arguably, one of the driving forces for this broader divide within second-wave feminism was Paglia’s own contentious stance on the importance of biological sex in the understanding of feminism. To Paglia, your sex defines your gender, and both sex and sexuality lie at the very core of what it means to be a woman.

  17. Interesting article. No endorsement of any politician is implied, by sharing.

    Third-Wave Feminist Bullies Are Destroying Feminism
    July 18, 2017 8:00 AM

    Appearances matter: Women who wear pink dresses are not welcome.
    Third-wave feminism is suffering a crisis of credibility. On the one hand, interviewers consistently badger actresses and celebrities to declare themselves feminists and lambaste them if they decline to do so.

    “When talking about feminism, there are a lot of misconceptions about what the word actually means,” writes Teen Vogue’s Brittney McNamara. “At its heart, feminism is about choice. It’s the belief that everyone should have the equality that grants them the right to choose how they live their lives.”

    Except when it’s not.

    On Sunday, Joan Walsh, the author of What’s the Matter with White People, appeared on MSNBC to declare that Ivanka Trump cannot be a feminist because she wore an “incredibly ornamental” and “girlie” dress while representing the United States at a G20 summit meeting.

    “That’s not a dress that’s made for work,” said Walsh. “That’s not a dress that’s made to go out in the world and make a difference. That is a dress that is designed to show off your girlieness, and you know, God bless her, show it off, but don’t then tell us you’re crusading for an equal place for women at the table, because you’re not.”

    ***And feminists wonder why fewer than a fifth of Americans consider themselves feminist.

    Consider, for a moment, the legal and social reality of women in America. We graduate college in greater numbers than men to pursue careers, and, for the first time in human history, have readily available, affordable contraceptives that give us nearly total control over when or if we choose to have children. Clearly, we like this state of affairs. If feminism were actually about choice, all women would embrace it.

    But it’s not. Feminism has become a bully pulpit, from which its leaders deride successful women such as Ivanka Trump. Not, you will note, for embracing policies such as paid parental leave that will inevitably undermine the wages and opportunites of some women in the workplace. No, Walsh, with evident contempt, rebukes Ivanka Trump for choosing to wear “a pink dress with big bows on the sleeve.” Feminism is about choice. Sure.

    Public opinion on matters related to women’s rights has never been more encouraging. Almost all Americans (97 percent) support women’s working even if a husband can support her, according to 2012 CNN/ORC International poll. Further, most women do wish to work. Most Americans also agree that having women in the work force is good for marriages (75 percent agree), good for society in general (81 percent agree), and good for the children of working women (52 percent agree). Nine out of ten Americans find birth control morally acceptable, A 2016 Gallup poll shows, and the same percentage believes that info about birth control should be widely available. Women have largely transcended the social and legal barriers that used to confine them to lives of a single mold; now they can choose their own paths. In short, second-wave feminism has been a categorical success.

    Third-wave? Not so much. By vast majorities, women today are spurning the label of “feminist” — it’s become an antagonizing, miserable, culturally Marxian code word for a far-left movement that seeks to confine women into boxes of wokeness.

    While second-wave feminism lauded the variety of choices a woman can have in her life, third-wave feminism excludes those who choose the wrong way or who present themselves in a supposedly un-feminist manner. For example, short skirts and bikinis once signified sexual empowerment. Today, “sexy” clothing signifies feminism only if worn by women who are not submitting to the male gaze (that’s feminist-speak for “not traditionally feminine”).

    This rejection of traditional beauty while celebrating “body positivity” has spread far beyond obscure, feminist circles. In London, Mayor Sadiq Khan banned “body shaming” advertisements from public transportation, because “unrealistic” images harm women; depictions of overweight bodies evidently do not and are still permitted to adorn the sides of buses. The ban follows the same dubious logic that conflates Ivanka’s pink dress with the patriarchy while lauding Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits as the symbol of peak feminism.

    Taking Ivanka Trump’s “girlie” appearance as proof of her purportedly un-feminist character exemplifies third-wave feminism’s compulsive need to control women’s appearances. BuzzFeed’s Anne Helen Petersen wrote on Election Day:

    No amount of advocating for paid maternity leave can mask the fact that Ivanka’s understanding of the world is one in which white, thin, straight, traditionally beautiful, nondisabled, bourgeois women will always win — if you consider constantly molding yourself to the status quo and overlooking your second-class citizenship as “winning.”

    One can make a legitimate argument that Trump’s lifestyle brand catered to upper- or middle-class women working in office jobs. But the assumption that Ivanka Trump cannot be a feminist because she is “white, thin, straight,” and “traditionally beautiful” demonstrates the paradox at the heart of third-wave feminism: It claims to be for all women while ousting anyone who does not fulfill multiple “intersectional” identities.

    Third-wave feminists have made a sick sport of obsessing over Ivanka Trump’s appearance — judging her on the basis of her aesthetic conformity to the woke ideal.

    Third-wave feminists have made a sick sport of obsessing over Ivanka Trump’s appearance — judging her on the basis of her aesthetic conformity to the woke ideal. Another BuzzFeed piece charges Trump with believing that women can “have a seat at the table” only so long as they “dress cute” and “stay thin.” (BuzzFeed can apparently read Trump’s mind and give voice to her inner thoughts, speaking for her in the public arena — something feminists used to decry.) Trump is not only denounced as a “white feminist” for failing to endorse Black Lives Matter. Instead this accusation is consistently and specifically tied to her appearance. As Dame Magazine put it in a cheap hit job about Trump and the first lady’s trip to the Middle East, Ivanka and Melania are “fake” feminists because of their “good looks, high fashion and displays of western white womanhood.”

    This sort of bullying, exclusionary feminism is not exactly winning over many young people. Teen Vogue, the newly converted bastion of intersectional, third-wave feminism, draws almost no teen girls. (According to data from comScore, the overwhelming majority of Teen Vogue’s Web traffic comes from visitors 24 years and older. Less than half comes from the 18-to-24 demographic, and virtually no visitors are younger than 18.) Sure, third-wave feminism indoctrinated a generation of bitter Millennial women, but the next generation does not seem too keen to mock any woman who wears a “girlie” dress. Third-wave feminism fundamentally defeats the very meaning of feminism as defined by previous generations, and younger women will continue to reject it wholesale.

    As a person working in the White House, Ivanka Trump should be subject to scrutiny for her choices in influencing public policy. But bullying women for wearing a cute dress is not only unwarranted. It’s also destroying feminism

  18. Interesting point

    Interesting point
    The curious case of third wave feminists
    There’s one type of woman that feminists will not tolerate
    Daisy Cousens

    15 April 2017 9:00 AM
    The third-wave feminist is a curious creature. Her comrades are a strange sub-strata of Millennial and Generation X women with a peculiar inferiority complex. They’re obsessed with picking at the scab of women’s lib, trying to draw fresh blood, and are often seen prowling (or lumbering) around, attempting to sniff out sexism in every nook and cranny. Theirs is an ideology based not on equality, but misplaced victimhood.

    According to your standard third-waver, the most insidious issues facing women today are not genital mutilation, or underage marriages, or sexual slavery. They are ‘manspreading’, ‘mansplaining’, and ‘micro-aggressions’. Terms cooked up to keep feminists in business as they steadily ran out of things to complain about. In short, third-wavers are perpetually miserable, and seek to make other women as brutally unhappy as they are.

    Third-wave feminists are a contradiction in terms. They insist women should enter the workforce yet won’t shut up about how horrible the workforce is because of the wholly inconvenient presence of men. They say it’s a woman’s choice to have children. However, they ruthlessly condescend stay-at-home mothers; insisting they are capitulating to ‘traditional gender roles’. They plead with women to come out about sexual assault, yet simultaneously discourage them by insisting they won’t be believed. They valiantly exclaim physical appearance doesn’t matter, and are usually proud advocates of the ‘fat positivity’ movement, yet, regardless of their insistence that ‘fat’ is not an insult, for some bemusing reason they become grossly offended if you dare comment on their weight.

    It is evident, then, the third-waver revels in convenient double-standards. However, the very worst of these is, ironically, a strange form of misogyny, and is starkly revealed in their treatment of right-wing women. In other words, third-wave feminists insist they want more female voices in the mainstream… as long as they agree with them.

    As a woman on the right, I have observed with amusement the rampant tanty-throwing when a feminist is confronted by a conservative compatriot. If you have the audacity to stray from the feminist tribe, the ‘sisterhood’ will hurl insults the likes of which, if uttered by a man to one of their own, they would howl down as the worst kind of sexism. They will denigrate the way you look, dress, and talk, and attempt to discredit you with gossip and fabrication. They will slut-shame you in a way they would vehemently condemn (with much wailing and gnashing of teeth) if they were on the receiving end. The third-waver will even find a way to attack your age. Especially if she is older than you.

    Take Kellyanne Conway. As the first woman ever to run a successful election campaign, she should be a feminist icon. And she would be, if she were on the left. If the wayward third-waver applied their own standards to all women, Conway would be lauded for this quite extraordinary achievement, regardless of her politics. Instead, feminists have labelled her ‘anti-woman’, mocked her for her hair and clothes, and dismissed her as an attention-seeker. The very ‘gendered’ insults third-wavers are allegedly rallying against.

    Sometimes-funny comedienne Chelsea Handler infamously tweeted, ‘I wish someone would put Kellyanne Conway in a microwave’, a comment that would have a man crucified if directed at a leftist woman. Speaking of men; where were the hordes of feminists defending Conway when Democratic representative Cedric Richmond joked she looked very ‘familiar’ kneeling on the Oval Office couch? Well, apart from one tokenistic tweet from Chelsea Clinton, they were nowhere to be seen; silently condoning the behaviour they allegedly loathe, at least when it comes to their own.

    But the champion of collective bullying of right-wing women is the demonstrably-easy-to-trigger Clementine Ford. Who, post-election, attributed the decision of women who voted for Donald Trump not to a simple difference of opinion, but to their apparent racism, and their capitulation to white supremacy (along with the men it allegedly benefits). She accused them of voting against their own ‘gendered interests’; interests prescribed by the Gospel according to Clemmie, of course. As such, to this particular third-waver, conservative women are deficient. Their opinions are nothing more than a by-product of their submission to the must-be-misogynistic men in their lives. A woman can only be conservative if she is an opportunist, unduly influenced, or has something morally wrong with her. Such a loophole in Clementine’s feminist mantra (along with her apparent unwillingness to understand her opposition) is at best, hypocritical, and at worst, malicious.

    Third-wave feminists attempt to justify such bad behaviour by blathering, ‘So, does the fact we’re feminists mean we have to support all women?’ Well, no. However, a key feminist whining-point is the push to give all women a voice. Therefore, one would have thought the instinctive reaction of the third-wave conformist to the right-wing renegade would be to encourage civil debate. But oddly enough, feminist engagements with conservative women never seem to move beyond personal attacks. Why? Because character assassination is the last bastion of the desperate when they’re out of intellectual ammunition. Asserting Western women are still an oppressed class is patently absurd. In the harsh light of reality, third-wavers actually have no argument.

    The idea women in our society are still somehow under the thumb of men is a fallacy; every opportunity available to men is also available to us. We have laws designed to protect us from rape, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, wage disparity, domestic violence, and other atrocities our sisters in the third world face unfettered. While not perfect, the playing field has never been more level. As such, the petty attempts of miserable third-wavers to intimidate right-wing women into silence are simply evidence of their terror at being exposed for the frauds they are. So here’s the tricky truth. Any Western woman who screams of her own ‘oppression’, yet has the means to view the world solely through the prism of gender, needs to take off the pussy-hat, put on a bra, and check her proverbial privilege. Ordinary women are sick to the back teeth of being told how terrible they should think their lives are by a hand-flapping mob of middle-class attention-mongers. Perhaps, if third-wavers realise this, they can resurrect what was once a noble, necessary movement. However, given the Left’s extraordinary capacity to eschew self-reflection, I’d say this is the longest of shots.

  19. Today’s outsized Femocracy is more desperate and (self) destructive than its successful progenitors.
    By JOANNA WILLIAMS • September 4, 2018

    Feminism has passed its first half century. And what a success it has been! We might still be waiting for the first female president, but women—specifically feminists—are now in positions of power across the whole of society.

    Yet feminism shows no sign of taking early retirement and bowing out, job done. Instead, it continues to reinvent itself. #MeToo is the cause du jour of fourth-wave feminism but, disturbingly, it seems to be taking us further from liberation and pushing us towards an increasingly illiberal and authoritarian future. It’s time to take stock.

    Over the past five decades, women have taken public life by storm. When it comes to education, employment, and pay, women are not just doing better than ever before—they are often doing better than men too. For over a quarter of a century, girls have outperformed boys at school. Over 60 percent of all bachelor’s degrees are awarded to women. More women than men continue to graduate school and more doctorates are awarded to women. And their successes don’t stop when they leave education behind. Since the 1970s, there has been a marked increase in the number of women in employment and many are taking managerial and professional positions. Women now comprise just over half of those employed in management, professional, and related occupations.

    Women aren’t just working more, they are being paid more. Women today earn more in total than at any other point in time and they also earn more as a proportion of men’s earnings. For younger women in particular, the gender pay gap is narrowing. Between 1980 and 2012, wages for men aged 25 to 34 fell 20 percent while over the same period women’s pay rose by 13 percent. Some data sets now suggest that **women in their twenties earn more than men the same age**. Although high-profile equal pay campaigns appear to suggest otherwise, when we compare the pay of men and women employed in the same jobs and working for the same number of hours each week, the gender pay gap all but disappears. Four out of every 10 women are now either the sole or primary family earner—a figure which has quadrupled since 1960.

    But this is not just about the lives of women: it is feminism as an ideology that has been incredibly successful. For over four decades, feminist theory has shaped people’s lives. Making sense of the world through the prism of gender and seeking to root out sexual inequality is now the driving force behind much that goes on in the public sphere.

    Back in 1986, in one of the first examples of new legislation explicitly backed by feminists, the Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. This has had a profound impact upon all aspects of employment legislation. As a result, a layer of managers and administrators, sometimes referred to as “femocrats,” are employed to oversee sexual equality and manage sexual harassment complaints in workplaces and schools.

    Not surprisingly, definitions of sexual harassment began to expand in the late 1970s. In education, the term came to encompass a “hostile environment” in which women felt uncomfortable because of their sex. By this measure, sexual harassment can occur unintentionally and with no specific target. Furthermore, a hostile environment might be created by students themselves irrespective of the actions of an institution’s staff. As a result, colleges became responsible for policing the sexual behavior of their students too.

    Pressing forward under the Obama administration, sexual misconduct cases on campuses were tried under a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than a higher standard of clear and convincing evidence. Within these extrajudicial tribunals, students—most often young men—could be found guilty of sexual assault or rape and expelled following unsubstantiated allegations and with little opportunity to defend themselves. Although current Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has revoked the Obama-era guidelines that instituted these kangaroo courts, many institutions under pressure to react have expanded their zero tolerance policies, often at the expense of basic due process and fairness.

    In the 1970s, radical feminists opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, arguing that it individualized and deradicalized feminism. “We will not be appeased,” they asserted. “Our demands can only be met by a total transformation of society, which you cannot legislate, you cannot co-opt, you cannot control.”

    Yet today, a feminist outlook now shapes policy, practice, and law at all levels of the government, as feminists seek to transform society through the state rather than by opposing it. Most recently this has taken form in the demand for affirmative consent, or “yes means yes,” to be the standard in rape cases. This places the onus on the accused to prove they had sought and obtained consent; in other words they must prove their innocence.

    This is a radical shift, yet it is being enshrined in legislation with little discussion. California and New York have passed legislation requiring colleges to adopt an affirmative consent standard in their sexual assault policies. In 2016, the American Law Institute, influential with state legislators, debated introducing an affirmative consent standard into state laws. The proposal was ultimately rejected but the fact that it was even taken seriously shows feminism’s growing legal influence.

    History tells us that legislation driven by feminism can have unintended consequences. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), passed in 1994 as part of President Clinton’s massive $30 billion crime bill, aimed to put 100,000 police officers on the street and funded $9.7 billion for prisons. VAWA sought more prosecutions and harsher sentences for abuse in relationships. But a more intensive law enforcement focus on minority communities, coupled with mandatory arrests of both partners on the scene of a dispute, resulted in unanticipated blowback. Police were accused of over-criminalizing minority neighborhoods; critics said women were disinclined to call the police for fear of being arrested themselves. A 2007 Harvard study suggests that mandatory arrest laws may have actually increased intimate partner homicides and, separately, women of color have described violence at the hands of the arresting police officers.

    Ultimately, the crime bill merely punished; it didn’t help prevent domestic abuse against women.
    Although all women have in some way benefited from feminism’s decades-long campaign against inequality, it is clear that some—namely middle- and upper-class college graduates—have been more advantaged than the rest. Feminists in the 1960s argued that all women had interests in common; they shared an experience of oppression. The same can hardly be said today. An elite group of women with professional careers and high salaries has little in common with women juggling two or more jobs just to make ends meet. Yet the feminist voices that are heard most loudly continue to be those of privileged women .

    • Do you notice that they do all the bad stuff to black people first? Remember that report from the 1960’s, on the negro family, of D.P. Moynihan? And white people now have the divorce rate black people had back then. LBJ started the explosion of single mothers in the black community, which has led to great social disorder in those communities. Drugs are a problem in those communities. Intentionally. They were targeted first. If you want to see where the people behind the curtains are taking us, just look at what they are doing to black people.

  20. High-profile feminists like Anne-Marie Slaughter, the first woman director of policy planning at the State Department, and Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg, sell books and make headlines for criticizing family-unfriendly employment practices and the gender pay gap. Good for them! But remember that these women have incomes and lifestyles that put them in a different league from the vast majority of women—and men. They identify more closely with the tiny proportion of male CEOs than they do with women who have jobs rather than careers, who wear uniforms rather than dry-clean-only suits to work, who have no time to hit the gym before heading to the office. Their push for “lean-in” circles appeals more to young college grads than women struggling just to put food on the table. Their vociferous feminist call to arms falls flat in Middle America—yet we are told they speak for all women.

    In 2018, feminists do walk the corridors of power. But in order to maintain their position and moral high ground they must deny the very power they command. For this reason, feminism can never admit its successes—to do so would require its adherents to ask whether their job is done. For professional feminists, women who have forged their careers in the femocracy, admitting this not only puts their livelihoods at risk, but poses an existential threat to their sense of self. As a result, the better women’s lives become, the harder feminists must work to seek out new realms of disadvantage.

    The need to sustain a narrative of oppression explains the continued popularity of the #MeToo phenomenon. In October 2017, The New York Times ran a story alleging that Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, who had the power to make and break careers, had committed a number of serious sexual offenses. (The allegations against Weinstein mounted and he is now being charged with sexual assault and rape.) Over the following weeks and months, accusations of sexual misconduct were leveled against a host of other men in the public eye.

    Such serious accusations need to be dealt with in the courts and, if found guilty, the perpetrators punished accordingly. But rather than arrests, trials, and criminal proceedings, #MeToo has gathered pace through social media. Actress Alyssa Milano took to Twitter on October 18 and asked women who had been sexually harassed or assaulted to “write ‘me too’ as a reply to this tweet.” Thousands of women came forward to call out their own abusers or simply to add their names to a growing list of victims. #MeToo took on a life of its own; it readily lent itself to an already-established fourth-wave feminist narrative that saw women as victims of male violence and sexual entitlement.

    Women in the public eye are now routinely asked about their own experiences of sexual harassment. Some have publicly named and shamed men they accuse of sexual assault or, as with the case of comedian Aziz Ansari, what can perhaps best be described as “ungentlemanly conduct.” Others are more vague and suggest they have experienced sexual harassment in more general terms. What no woman can do—at least not without instigating a barrage of criticism—is deny that sexual harassment is a major problem today.

    The success of #MeToo is less about real justice than the common experience of suffering and validation. It is a perfect social media vehicle to drive the fourth-wave agenda into another generation. Hollywood stars and baristas may have little in common but all women can lay claim to having experienced male violence and sexual harassment—or, failing that, potentially experiencing abuse at some indeterminate point in the future. Statistics on domestic violence, rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment are used to shore up the narrative that women, as a class, suffer at the hands of men.

    But scratch the surface and often these statistics are questionable. In recent years, at the hands of femocrats, definitions of violence and sexual harassment have been expanded. On campus, all kinds of behaviors, from touching through clothes to non-consensual sex, are grouped together to prove the existence of a rape culture. When sexual harassment is redefined as unwanted behavior it can encompass anything from winking, to whistling, to staring, to catcalling. There is little objectively wrong with the action—it is simply the fact that it is unwanted that makes it abusive. Today, we are encouraged to see violence, especially violence against women and girls, everywhere: in words that wound, personified in a boorish president, in our economic and legal systems. This is violence as metaphor rather than violence as a physical blow. Yet it is a metaphor that serves a powerful purpose—allowing all women to share in a common experience of victimhood, and, as such, justifying the continued need for elite feminism.

    Problems with #MeToo are too rarely discussed. Violence and sexual assaults do occur, but these serious crimes are trivialized by being presented as on a continuum with the metaphorical abuse. The constant reiteration that women are victims and men are violent perpetrators does not, in itself, make it true. It pits men and women against each other and, in the process, infantilizes women and makes them fearful of the world. It also masks a far more positive story: rates of domestic violence have been falling. Between 1994 and 2011, the rates of serious intimate partner violence perpetrated against women—defined as rape, sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault—fell 72 percent.

    The consequences of entrenching in law assumptions that women are destined to become victims of male violence and harassment are dangerously authoritarian. Feminists now look not to their own resources, or to their family and friends, but to the state to protect them. Black men in particular can find themselves disproportionately targeted by feminist-backed drives for legal retribution. A 2017 report from the National Registry of Exonerations suggests that black men serving time for sexual assault are three-and-a-half times more likely to be innocent than white defendants who have been convicted of the same crime.

    In the meantime, demands for the punishment of bad behavior are inevitable. Male catcalling in the UK and France could soon be a criminal offense. While similar bans have been unsuccessful in the U.S., there are plenty of street harassment laws at the state level that feminists could co-opt if necessary. Additionally in England, there are proposals to criminalize “upskirting” or taking a photograph up a woman’s skirt. Upskirting is a vile invasion of a person’s privacy. However, the majority of instances are covered under existing indecency and voyeurism laws. The proposal, as with others, is a feminist signaling device: the message is, yet again, that the world is a hostile place for women and their only course of action is to seek redress from the state.

    Meanwhile, working-class women are effectively exploited as a voiceless stage presence, brought on when convenient to shore up the authority of the professional feminist. On occasion this means the livelihoods of regular women are placed in jeopardy for the greater good of the collective. Earlier this year, a group of A-list Hollywood actresses petitioned against tipping waitresses in New York restaurants, arguing it was exploitive and encouraged sexual harassment. Perhaps unsurprisingly, servers shot back that they would like to continue receiving tips, thank you very much.

    Fourth-wave feminism is increasingly authoritarian and illiberal, impacting speech and behavior for men and women. Campaigns around “rape culture” and #MeToo police women just as much as men, telling them how to talk about these issues. When The Handmaid’s Tale author Margaret Atwood had the effrontery to advocate for due process for men accused of sex crimes, her normally adoring feminist fans turned on her. She referred to it in a Globe and Mail essay in January entitled “Am I a Bad Feminist?”

    “In times of extremes, extremists win,” she wrote. “Their ideology becomes a religion, anyone who doesn’t puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor, and moderates in the middle are annihilated.”

    The fact is, men are publicly shamed every day, their livelihoods and reputations teetering on destruction, before they even enter a courtroom.

    Frankly, it is disastrous for young women to be taught to see themselves as disadvantaged and vulnerable in a way that bears no relationship to reality. Whereas a previous generation of feminists fought against chaperones and curfews, today’s #MeToo movement rehabilitates the argument that women need to be better protected from rapacious men, or need “safe spaces.” Women come to believe that they will be harassed walking down the street, that they will be paid less than men for the same work, and that the world is set against them. The danger is that, rather than competing with men as equals, women will be so overwhelmed by the apparent size of the struggle that they will abandon all efforts and call upon external helpmates, like the state and ugly identity politics that push good men away. Women’s disadvantage thus become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    All the while, the real problems experienced by many American women—and men—such as working long hours for a low wage and struggling to pay for child and healthcare costs, are overlooked.

    When second-wave feminism burst onto the scene more than 50 years ago it was known as the women’s liberation movement. It celebrated equality and powerfully proclaimed that women were capable of doing everything men did. Today, this spirit of liberation has been exchanged for an increasingly authoritarian and illiberal victim feminism. With every victory, feminism needs to reassert increasingly spurious claims that women are oppressed. For women and men to be free today, we need to bring back the spirit of the women’s liberation movement. Only now it’s feminism from which women need liberating.

  21. With the rise of social justice movements in recent years, the last remnants of classical-liberal feminism have all but faded. It has been replaced by the rise of third-wave feminism: a movement that promotes equality, diversity and inclusivity.
    In principle, this new wave of feminism is all about intersectionalism — that is, extending to groups of people other than able-bodied white women of the middle and upper-middle class.

    In practice, the movement has become fraught with irrational, often divisive hostility under the guise of tolerance and justice. From burning books to banning speakers from college campuses, the actions of many within the movement speak much louder than their tolerance-laden rhetoric.
    As humans, we use cognitive shortcuts called heuristics to make snap judgments. These shortcuts give rise to broad, generalized attitudes and beliefs about entire groups of people. It is no wonder then that — to the chagrin of many within the movement — society has retained its view of the quintessential feminist as a bra-burning, hairy-legged man-hater.

    “Classical-liberal feminism was meant to be the cornerstone of freedom … not some weapon with which to beat men into silence and subjugation.” Of course, nearly every stereotype harbors a grain of truth. Today’s third-wave feminism is grossly out of touch with most Americans — in fact, a 2015 Vox poll indicated that only 18 percent of Americans consider themselves feminists. However, when the same sample was split into two blocks, 78 percent expressed their belief in the “social, political, legal and economic equality of the sexes.” What’s more, 85 percent stated that they believed in “equality for women.”

    A more recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll published in the Washington Post found similarly jarring results. While 60 percent of women identified as “feminist” or “strong feminist,” only 33 percent of men responded in kind. Interestingly, 43 percent of all respondents described the feminist movement as “angry,” and 46 percent felt that modern feminism “unfairly blames men for women’s challenges.”

    These results tell us two things: first, an overwhelming majority of the population supports equality of the sexes in virtually every realm of society. Second, there is general aversion to the word “feminism” itself; this suggests that the underlying problem lies both in principle and in practice. Modern feminist thought represents a shift in ideology. That is why it is important to note the distinction between two different types of feminism: equity feminism (a subtype of classical-liberal feminism) and gender feminism.

    In a nutshell, equity feminism is limited solely to government. It says that women’s rights and equality should be recognized by law, and that the establishment should not infringe upon these rights in any way. In this view, oppression is only defined in political terms; that is, members of a group can only be labeled as oppressed if the state fails to protect their rights or otherwise violates them.

    Gender feminism, on the other hand, extends from government to society. Also known as social justice feminism, it argues that we are born in tabula rasa — in other words, as a blank state. This ideology claims that gender results purely from socialization and is a patriarchal concept intended to oppress women. It defines oppression itself as both political and cultural constraints on freedom. In comparing equity and gender feminism, it is obvious that today’s feminist movement employs the latter school of thought. The outlandish tenets of gender feminism have sparked mass hysteria within today’s movement. Biased research touted by intellectuals and mainstream media is largely to blame for this scaremongering — it produces distorted and misleading statistics that blow issues out of proportion.

    Speaking of research, another pressing problem with third-wave feminism is the disregard for and undermining of science. Far-left feminists, strangely enough, align themselves politically with those who denounce right-wing pundits for denying climate change. But these feminists are just as guilty of ignoring science when it clashes with their beliefs: insisting that gender role differences are entirely the result of socialization is incompatible with the findings of evolutionary psychology and neurobiology. Indeed, radical feminists remain defiant to virtually any form of logic or reason. In their world, even the scientific method — which is the embodiment of empiricism and therefore objectivity — is sexist and androcentric (yes, this actually came out of the biology department at Virginia Tech). Apparently, even encouraging objective debate is oppressive, and asking people to maintain composure during discourse is nothing short of gaslighting.

    This denial of logical reasoning and empiricism represents the pernicious victimhood complex that third-wave feminism places on women. Telling women that they are fragile, feeble-minded beings who must be shielded from the truth is not conducive to empowerment; frankly, it is more than a little insulting. For a movement that markets itself as the trendy and ultramodern crux of progressive thought, third-wave feminism sure is stuck in the past. Yes, history has by and large disenfranchised women; the last traces of this oppression linger even in modern, first-world society and the status quo is by no means perfect.

    However, modern feminism has wrongly imposed the burden of guilt on men as a whole for legal and institutional grievances that they themselves have taken no part in. After all, a 20-something-year-old man today cannot logically be held accountable for things like sexist hiring standards and property laws of the past century. Unfortunately, when we dwell on what used to be, we too often forget to actually live. We fail to reflect on the progress that has been made; to appreciate the rights and privileges we enjoy in the present. And while it is human nature to seek a source of blame for our struggles, no good has ever come of scapegoating. To generalize all men as inherently violent and oppressive only serves to alienate them further from the movement.

    Classical-liberal feminism was meant to be the cornerstone of freedom, empowerment and choice — not some weapon with which to beat men into silence and subjugation. It’s sad to witness such a revolutionary movement collapse into a bitter war of opposing ideals.
    Radical feminists, I speak to you directly: are you so blinded by prejudice and animosity that you cannot even fathom the error of your own ways? Your so-called progressive movement has evolved into a toxic culture of political correctness, trigger warnings and safe spaces, exuding a mingled air of intellectual snobbery and baseless antagonism. You have rendered yourselves indistinguishable from the right-wing bigots you so disdain.

    In an ideal world, a few bad apples wouldn’t poison the entire tree: we would not deem all Muslims terrorists based on the actions of a few radical groups; we would not cry, “Feminism is cancer!” in response to the few militant individuals within the movement. But the world, in all of its imperfections and uncertainty, is not an ideal place. If feminism is ever to redeem itself, the changes must come from within, starting with the radicals who have blackened its name in the first place.

    At the end of the day, freedom of speech matters. Diversity of thought matters. Feelings will never discredit facts, and critical thinking will always prevail over blind faith. In the words of noted scholar and equity feminist Christina Hoff Sommers, it is indeed time to “take back the truth.”

  22. Millenials have been given poison to drink. The question is, though, will they drink it?
    They may be smart enough not to. We may yet be surprised

  23. That’s why feminists are some of my favorite people to do comedy in front of. It’s so easy. They’re so sensitive. They take themselves so seriously that you can’t be absurd enough — they still act like you’re presenting legislation. When I was in L.A. during the election I would just trash Hillary, to mess with them.

    What’s so funny to me is that what’s really going on is never brought up. Who donates to the president and who pays for the advertising on all these big news networks? That’s shit people should be upset about. But instead, if you do a feminist joke in a strip mall you make the news. So that’s just a load of shit.

    Politics and news didn’t used to be like it is now. When I was a kid, when you went over to somebody’s house, you didn’t bring up politics because you wanted to avoid a fight. Now it’s all people bring up and it doesn’t get you anywhere. Who has ever screamed at somebody and then the other person said, “You know what? Now I see your point.” Screaming just causes you to say horrible things to people that you would probably like if you actually knew ‘em. But both sides are completely delusional. They say everyone else is either a libtard or a fascist Nazi. Something happens to human beings when they get in groups. Suddenly you have an agenda. My hate for that is probably what drove me into doing what I for a living.

    -Bill Burr

    • Who has ever screamed at somebody and then the other person said, “You know what? Now I see your point.” Can you let feminists know this, then?

  24. Love is not hate, war is not peace, freedom is not slavery, and book-burning is not liberating. what passes for “radical feminism” is fascism. It promotes chauvinism, censorship, maternalism, pseudo-anthropology, scapegoating, mystical identification with nature, tricked-up pseudo-pagan religiosity, enforced uniformity of thought and even appearance Here is all of the theory and too much of the practice we should all be able to recognize by now. An ominous tactical continuity with classical fascism, also, is the complementarity between private-vigilantist and statist methods of repression. In post-World War I Italy (the suppression of the IWW in America followed a similar pattern), fascist gangs attacked socialist and trade-union organizations with the tacit approval of the police, who never intervened except against the left. As I once wonderingly asked: “How come these women won’t get in bed with any man except the DA?”

    Those who carry out a calculated policy can’t complain if their reasons are asked for, and questioned. Fascist ideology always incongruously asserts to its audience, its chosen people, that they are at one and the same time oppressed and superior. The Germans didn’t really lose the First World War — how could they? so they are superior — therefore, they were stabbed in the back. (But how could a superior race let such a situation arise in the first place?) Men (only), we are told in a feminist/Anti-Porn Movement (APM) diatribe in Toronto’s Kick It Over, “have created the nature-destroying and woman-hating culture.” If so, then either women have contributed absolutely nothing to culture, or there is something more or something else to this culture than destroying nature and hating women.

    For their own purposes (some of which are as mundane as sexual rivalry with straight men for the women they both desire), self-styled radical feminists actually reduce women to nothing but helpless, cringing near-vegetables, passive victims of male contempt and coercion. This profoundly insults women in a way which the worst patriarchal ideologies — the Jewish notion of woman as a source of pollution, for instance, or the Christian nightmare of woman as temptress and uncontrollable sexual nature-force — fell short of. They defamed woman as evil but could hardly regard her as powerless. The new woman-as-victim stereotype is not only directly traceable to nineteenth century Victorian patriarchal attitudes reducing bourgeois women to inert ornaments, but by denying to women the creative power inherent in everyone, it places women’s demands on a par with those advanced for, say, baby seals.

    Suppose instead what only the most demented feminists and misogynists deny, that things aren’t quite that bad, that women have been subjects as well as objects of history. Then how can women — or any other subordinated group: workers, blacks, indigenous peoples — be entirely acquitted of all complicity in the arrangements which condemn them to domination? There are reasons for these accommodations. There is no excuse for denying their existence.

    This isn’t sour grapes. It has never bothered me that some women dislike men, even to the point of having nothing to do with them. I don’t like most men myself, especially the archetypal “masculine” ones. I can’t help but notice, though, that the vast majority of women feel otherwise. The radical feminists have noticed it too, and it drives them to distraction. I would be the first to agree that vast majorities can be wrong. If they weren’t we would be the fringe loonies, the impotent kooks that almost everyone thinks we are. But then I criticize majorities, I don’t pretend to speak for them. Radical feminists, in contrast, are vanguardists. As such they need to rationalize their animosities, and so they have — making a dick-determinist demonology out of their prejudices. As man-haters they can’t help but be women-haters too.

    It’s the old story of the woman who cried wolf. (Similarly, the manipulative media line that “anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism” worked wonders to sanitize Israel until its expansionism-cum-exterminism engendered anti-Zionists who just might proceed to take the B’nai B’rith defamationists at face value.)

    According to feminoid epistemology, men understand nothing of the real nature of women. One might logically suppose that the estrangement of the sexes resulting from disparate roles and discrimination would work both ways, and so most of us attending to our actual experiences reluctantly conclude. But no: men don’t understand women, but women (at any rate their radical feminist vanguard) understand men. Women — feminist experts, anyway — understand men much better than the men they claim to understand — and lesbian-separatists, who avoid men and decline to have sex with them, appreciate these verities best of all. The more remote your experience is from the real life of actual men, the better you understand it. Turning this around, isn’t the Pope, as he claims, the ultimate authority on women and sexuality?

    If feminism didn’t exist, conservative politicians would have had to invent it. (Why, pray tell, did all-male legislatures ever criminalize “obscenity” in the first place? And why do all-male courts arbitrarily exclude it from constitutional protection?) APM harpies, should they ever deal with people instead of their own fevered projections, would discover that porn is of no interest to the majority of post-pubescent males — not because they are politically correct, but just because it’s obviously gross, sleazy, and above all, inferior to the real thing.

    The feminist book-burners are cowardly opportunists. If what they object to is subliminal socialization of women into subservient roles vis-a-vis men (curiously, adopting the same roles vis-a-vis butch lesbians is harmless fun), their primary, near-preemptive preoccupation would have to be Cosmopolitan, Barbara Courtland romances, and the vast crypto-pornographic pop literature written for and snapped up by women. After all, the gore and violence are derivative: only victims can be victimized in any way. Fifteen years ago, the original women’s liberationists (subsequently switched like changelings with today’s priestesses, lawyers and upscale bureaucrettes) at least lashed out at influential enemies like Hugh Hefner and Andy Warhol. Nowadays they terrorize teenage punk anarchists (this anecdote is from The Match!) whose collages insinuate that Margaret Thatcher for instance is a ruler, the “mother of a thousand dead,” not a “sister.” Such is the logic of this bizarre biological determinism: any animal equipped with a vagina is one of Us, any prick-privileged person is one of Them.

    Male leftists, for instance, are easy and often willing yes-men to feminist aggrandizement. They combine guilt at past improprieties (by and large, those who feel guilty — toward women, blacks, foreigners, whatever — usually are) with a present ambition to get into the leftist-feminists’ pants. Thus Berkeley, California (to which I am adjacent) is crawling with male “feminists” who converted the easier to get laid. Much the same scam seems to be happening in Toronto and, doubtless, many other places. These ulterior ambitions obviously don’t, in themselves, discredit the ideologies to which they are appended — one can come to the right conclusion for the worst of reasons. But insofar as the opinions at issue certainly seem to be idiotic to anyone without extraneous interest in embracing them, otherwise inexplicable paroxysms by male intellectuals seem to be most plausibly explainable as self-interested insincere rationalizations.

  25. Over 90% of prisoners are male.
    Bricklayers are 99% male.
    Four times as many men as women commit suicide.
    Men, on average, live 7 years less than women do.
    70% of students in college are female.
    Men work longer hours.
    Men are slaughtered in divorce courts.

    I look forward to seeing how feminists will address these and many other similar disparities.

  26. Abraham Lincoln asked that, if you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? The answer is four. Calling a dog’s tail a leg does not make it a leg. Except in FeministFantasyLand. Where all that exists is theory. I saw a fascinating video on a woman who decided to have many plastic surgeries, because she wanted to look like a cat. She did, after 15 surgeries, look very much like a cat. Was she a cat? Well, no, her DNA was that of a human woman. So, does surgery make a woman into a man? Or a man into a woman? The DNA isn’t changed. There may be appendages that don’t work, added with surgery. Does calling a human which is a man, biologically, something else, make it something else?

    • In theory, theory and reality are one and the same. In reality, they are not. This is a crucial mistake that feminists make. Theory cannot be imposed on reality. It can be sort of used to justify some very unethical, even criminal conduct, but that does not mean that the theory is good, or useful.

  27. In Japan, which has a rapidly dropping marriage rate, the men couldn’t care less about “independent women”. Or the other stuff women think is important. These “herbivore” men are around 60% of unmarried men over 20.

    It’s not that they dislike independent women, they just don’t care. Being independent is a good thing, part of being an adult. It’s just not an attracting quality in a woman, for a man. Men who recognize the biological need to provide find this challenging. Men do want to give. Women can accept this, and still be women. Women need emotional validation/intimacy. Men’s needs are ignored, because he should just “man up”. So what is the advantage, to men, of commitment, again? Kind of like women who leave men because the men are emotionally unavailable, after manning up.

    Women don’t care about men’s needs. If men decided to sell themselves with qualities women don’t want… they know they’d strike out. The West follows in Japanese footsteps. Thank you, Suzanne, for standing against the propagandists.

  28. Men and women go through certain things, in divorce, including major emotional trauma, upheaval, doubt for the rest of their lives, and so on. Men have more, though.

    1.Family courts do not respect any of men’s rights
    2.Failed marriages are always the man’s fault
    3.Men are the ones ruined financially, over 96%, of the time

    “Family” law is gender biased, a money racket, and has archaic laws that do not represent modern reality. A man is better of playing casino odds, than family court. Prenuptial agreements don’t work. Some men commit suicide, in the process. The US has the highest divorce rate in the world — about 4.95 per 1,000 people, or about 53 percent of marriages, men have better than even odds of this, and women initiate around 70+% of those divorces.

    The system also makes massive money from supervised visits. And in some state judges have ownership in these facilities, which is a direct conflict of interest. But who cares about that?

    The men incur horrific costs, it’s hugely profitable for the legal racketeers inside, and the laws are not applied equally. The laws focus solely on what the Judge feels like should be “equal”. And it’s very, very often not in the male’s favor. Men know this, more and more.

  29. Given alimony, unfair division of unearned assets, child support, losing the house, losing the car, high risk of bankruptcy, losing the 401k… Men get out of divorce bleeding.
    Divorce lawyers drain blood, too. A contested divorce can get into the six figures. That’s just fees. What a man has to give up/pay for for the next 22+ years, is gravy on that.
    Financially men get reamed in divorce. Let’s talk about the child support particularly.
    Even if a man gets married, and does not have his own biological children, he can still be on the hook for child support. If a man shows that he is “acting like a father”, a corrupt judge can still take over his finances until the kid is well into college. Did you ever wonder why single moms seem so very approachable, before the ceremony? There are a few courts that have awarded child support for kids not his, to a man who just lived with a single mom for a few months. Still like that single mom, Buster? Still looking to get some quick action? Are you willing to pay 6-7 figures for that pussy? Is it really worth it?
    “child welfare is paramount” argument by the court system is a lie. All children of divorce suffer, greatly. Child support is HIGH, in most states? How is a man to save or ever grow for 20 years at that cost? Where is the incentive to make more money, just so more goes to taxes and his ex who doesn’t deserve it? The laws are so archaic that child support is usually paid even in cases that are 50/50 custody. So the father is in charge 50% of the time, yet still has to pay over a third of his earning power. Why is their not a “cap”? Or a fixed rate, rather than percentage of income? Imagine if a man was paying child support and he created a business that boomed – he could end up paying upwards of millions, yearly – to a girl that did nothing to deserve that money. Talk about a nightmare situation. Oh wait, maybe that’s why nobody is fixing up slums, any more- the men who would have taken that risk seek less income, instead of taking risks.
    These child support laws may have worked many years ago, when it was based on what a child actually cost to take care of and the division split. But in modern times, it’s just a percent of a father’s salary that if he doesn’t pay he loses his license and goes to jail (The irony! How will he pay that support from debtor’s prison?)
    If you watch the Divorce Corp documentary, you’ll see a specific part on family judges using this line (I wish it were a joke): “How would the child feel if it knew that its father was saving money on it.” Yes, the legal system doesn’t want dads to save money at all while raising a child. Good luck, retirement. And hello, early retirement for the mother. Fair deal, marriage. Isn’t it? A number of men commit suicide during divorce. Since they won’t get to see their kids anyway.
    What about when men lose primary custody (Which almost always happens, except in the cases the moms a well-known crackhead)? When she gets the kids – she has a higher likelihood of abuse. DID you know children are more likely to be harmed by their biological mother than father? Neither did I until very recently. But why am I surprised — and why are you shocked? Because we don’t talk about it.
    women are much more likely to cause child maltreatment and harm:
    In 2012, 54% of perpetrators were women and 45% of perpetrators were men. Source: CDC
    71% of Children Killed by One Parent are Killed by Their Mothers; 60% of Victims are Boys. Source: DHHS
    Lose half of everything you own regardless of if she helped at all or stayed at home, lose your earning power and incentive to grow fiscally for 18+ years, lose your sanity in divorce court, and have higher risk for the child being mistreated. Great combination.

    I can’t imagine why more men aren’t running to get married to slags with over 1,000 partners, a similar number of STD exposures, purple hair, piercings, psychopathic personalities, bad boys on the side, who have no intention of actually raising their children when they can be doing their drugs, nails, and texting. Doubt me? Get a guy who’s been through a divorce talking. Oh wait, you just did. But the woman you’re with is different, right? She might be. If she came from a stable two parent family, where the mother wasn’t batsh.t crazy, had real values, and never heard of feminism. And isn’t on medication. And really, really likes kids, and wants the best for them. If she doesn’t have at least 25 of these qualities… you are walking into Three Mile Island, friend.

  30. This interesting article is still relevant.

    Men in their twenties and thirties are fed up with women, but author Kay Hymowitz says you can’t blame them when women are demanding equality except when it comes to romance. [Selective equality isn’t

    Kay describes “pre-adulthood”—the twenties and early thirties—as not bringing out the best in single young men. Some men didn’t like it. As in, “cancel-my-subscription-the-writer-should-contract-such-a-bad-case-of-carpel-tunnel-syndrome-she-never-writes-again” didn’t like it.
    And many of the responses proved her point—and another one: Men are really, really angry.

    Consider this response:
    “We’re not STUCK in pre-adulthood, we choose it because there aren’t any desirable American women. They’ve been bred to abuse men.” This fairly typical response that appeared at the Seattle Post Intelligencer website: “Sorry ladies. In the age of PlayStation 3s, 24-hours-a-dy sports channels, and free Internet porn, you are now obsolete. All that nagging, whining, and stealing our hard earned cash have finally caught up to you.”

    Kay found a powerful underground current of male bitterness that has nothing to do with outsourcing, the Mancession, or any of the other issues we usually associate with contemporary male discontent. No, this is extreme bitterness from guys who find the young women they might have hoped to hang out with entitled, dishonest, self-involved, slutty, manipulative, shallow, controlling—and did I mention gold-digging?

    Websites like MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), Nomarriage.com, or EternalBachelor.com (“Give Modern Women the Husband They Deserve. None.”). Popular bloggers like Roissy ferociously and caustically dissect of female “sluttiness” and “shit tests” (attempts to manipulate men). One sees posts like “42 Things Wrong With American Women” and chat forums ruminate over how “American Women Suck.” And this is a tiny sample of what’s out there.

    Women may want equality at the conference table and treadmill. But when it comes to sex and dating, they aren’t so sure. Is this what Susan Faludi famously called the backlash? Is it immaturity? Or just misogyny?

    There’s another reason for these rants, one that is unseen. Let’s call it gender bait and switch. Never before in history have men been matched up with women who are so much their equal—socially, professionally, and sexually. By the time they reach their twenties, they have years of experience with women as equal competitors—in school, on soccer fields, and even in bed. They assume that the women they are meeting at a bar or café or gym are after the same things they are: financial independence, career success, toned triceps, and sex. Equality is equality, right? That is the bait. And now, the switch: Women may want equality at the conference table and treadmill. But when it comes to sex and dating, they are totally indecisive. The might hook up as freely as a Duke athlete. Or, they might want men to play Greatest Generation gentleman. Yes, they want men to pay for dinner, call for dates—a writer at the popular dating website The Frisky titled a recent piece “Call me and ask me out for a damn date!”—and open doors for them. And many men wonder: “WTF??!” Why should they do the asking? Why should they pay for dinner? After all, they are equals and in any case, the woman a guy is asking out probably has more cash in her pocket than he does; recent female graduates are making more than males in most large cities.

    Yes, girls can—and do—ask guys out for dinner and pick up the check without missing a beat. Women can make that choice. Men say they have no choice. If they want a life, they have to ask women out on dates; they have to initiate conversations at bars and parties, they have to take the lead on sex. Women can take a Chinese menu approach to gender roles. They can be all “Let me pay for the movie tickets” on Friday nights, and “A single rose? That’s it?” on Valentine’s Day. The nastiest and most vicious switch in this game is that women say they like nice guys, and give it away to bad boys. David DeAngleo lists “Being Too Much of a Nice Guy” as No. 1 in his “Ten Most Dangerous Mistakes Men Make With Women.” At his website, Relationshit.com, the most popular the most highly trafficked pages are those asking the question why women don’t like good guys.

    PlayStations and Internet porn? For a lot of guys, they seem like the better way. Men consider trade-offs, cost, and risk. Young men who aren’t seeking children have a big wide world to play in.

  31. Last night I was at a networking group for parents of special needs kids. I spoke with one of two women who did the child care. She was a millenial, newly graduated from college, just started a job. She was respectful, understood spirituality, had clear, focused long term goals, and her energy was very, very good. She had no downside that I could perceive. And sure enough, she was raised in the church. It is easy to dislike churches, and some have certainly been involved in bad stuff. I’ve had a lot of experience of atheist materialists, and of spiritual people. The spiritual people know where their heart is, and it is in operation. The materialists seem to be in eternal battles with … something. They aren’t entirely sure what it is. Women express their highest aspirations on spiritual paths, rather the way men do. I’ve had many comparisons. This one is 100%, and that is rare. Or maybe she just reflected my own energy. I was very cheered, at seeing someone that spiritual, who is 22.

  32. Maybe we need to deal with feminism as we do with other addictions?

    1. We admitted we were powerless over feminism—that our lives had become unmanageable.
    2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves, a spiritual power, reachable only through the heart, could restore us to sanity.
    3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of this power, as we understood er
    4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
    5. Admitted to Goddess, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs, and all the pain and injury we inflicted on innocents.
    6. Were entirely ready to have Goddess remove all these defects of character.
    7. Humbly asked her to remove our shortcomings.
    8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
    9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
    10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
    11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with Goddess as we understood her, praying only for knowledge of Her will for us and the power to carry that out.
    12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to feminists, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

    Traditional European culture had a way to cure addictions. Addictions can only occur in a body with acidic pH, that is, under 7.0. One can drink about a tablespoon of traditional apple cider vinegar, and a tablespoon of raw unpasteurized honey, mixed in water, once an hour, until the addiction passes. I have noticed that feminists seem to not eat a very good diet. They show all the signs of addiction, in their behavior. Avoiding acidifying foods is also very helpful. George Ohsawa noted that all diseases occur only in a body with acidic pH, too. Hatred is acidifying, to the body. 12 step programs aren’t easy, but they do work.

  33. Lyrics to God is a woman made more accurate
    Ariana Grande

    You, you love it how I move you
    You love it how I touch you
    My one, when all is said and done
    You’ll believe God is a woman
    And I, I feel it after midnight
    A feelin’ that I can’t fight
    My one, it lingers when we’re done
    You’ll believe God is a woman
    I don’t wanna waste no time, yuh
    You ain’t got a one-track mind, yuh
    Have it any way you like, yuh
    And I can tell that you know I know how I want it
    Ain’t nobody else can relate
    Mr. V, I like that you ain’t afraid
    Mr. V, lay me down and let’s pray
    I’m tellin’ you the way I like it, how I want it
    And I can be all the things you told me not to be
    When you try to come for me, I keep on flourishing
    And I see the universe when I use my Vibrator
    It’s all in me
    You, you love it how I move you
    You love…

  34. My daughter is happily married, with two kids. She is aware of feminism. And she is also very smart. She knows what works. She has taken the best of what she saw modelled, and put it together for her family. She was extremely careful in her choice of husband. The guy is great. I’m proud to say he’s a younger version of me, well, brighter somewhat, though. She told me that after seeing my two divorces, from what turned out to be slags, motivated her to do whatever it took to make her marriage work. And it is working. Feminism is a doctrine of hate, masquerading as equality. No matter how powerful they look, everything based on hate has a weak foundation, and in time, disintegrates. It’s just how things work. The committed feminists mostly aren’t having children. Those they have seem to mostly be toxic. Great. In just 1-2 generations, they die off, as do all other evolutionary dead ends. Feminism is a civil war. There are no winners in civil wars, only varying degrees of loss. The USA hasn’t recovered from its own civil war, which was started by Democrats- yes- Democrats, who fought bitterly to maintain slavery. Most of the troops in the CSA Army were men who couldn’t afford slaves. They didn’t make much money, because the tidewater aristocracy took the best land, and what free men could compete with slaves? Democrats live in the plantation house on the hill, even now, metaphorically. They have the doctrine that puts them at the top of the heap. Look at America’s inner cities. Detroit is a great example of what Democrats in the plantation house on the hill do to cities. Baltimore is another example. Walk the projects- during a schoolday, or on Sunday. Look around you. This is the Democratic paradise. I’m not saying Republicans are much better. I am observing what I see. The KKK was the terrorist arm of the Democratic party. Maybe 1 of the old DIxiecrats turned Republican, in the 70’s, but most of those segregationist Democrats died Democrats. Democrats are all lies, about the past, blaming others for their sins. And the first thing Democrats attacked was the black family. They intentionally decided to destroy it. And it worked. Black people had lower rates of family breakups, in the 1940’s, than whites. Now? LBJ’s Great Society, [the joke’s on you, America] created slums, and the inner city as it is now. The way to fight all this is on an individual level. Make your own family great. Serve your community. Quit consuming the lies of the mass media. And understand that most politicians, and all Democrats, are liars. I’m not saying Republicans are much better. We have no honest politicians. Just choose the less dishonest among them.

  35. Perhaps the queen of toxic feminism is Hillary. She engaged in more criminal activity, and made more money, than Al Capone. Curiously, her position was largely created by her relationship to her husband. Bill opened doors for her, into politics. Women want pretty much what people want- a better life, a future for their kids, enough money to live on, some fun in life. While feminists are toxic, the majority women aren’t. Survivors of WW II had the intent of never again. Which led to some new problems, because avoidance goals are negative, and not productive. Why can’t we have some attraction goals, like a healthy economy, health care that works, opportunity for all, higher education that is not all Marxist theory that doesn’t work, and so on? Feminism is all about avoidance goals. Feminists talk about all they hate, and don’t want, and seem to create more of what they hate, and don’t want. Millenial women I’ve spoken with are smarter than that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: