My Articles for The False Rape Society -- Part
Back in 2010 or so, I answered a call for writers issued by Pierce
Harlan, owner of a blog title The False Rape Society. The blog existed
to showcase the prevalence and type of false accusations of rape, primarily
as they appeared in news reports, and related subjects. He was looking
for someone to write about rape culture. I didn't know anything about it,
and I thought learning about it might make for some good articles for the
FRS blog, so I sent him an e-mail.
He took me up on it. If memory serves, I was to write an article
every other week, to appear on Fridays, although that was changed to weekly
at some point. I already knew I did not do well writing under deadlines,
and I lasted a little over a year. Part of the way through my time with
the FRS, my subject matter was enlarged from Rape Culture 101 or Gender
101. I wrote about forty articles.
The archives of The False Rape Society are still online, although
the comments have been removed. In 2013, the blog was moved ant the named
changed to The Community of the Wrongly Accused. Visit, follow the links
The False Rape Society
~ The Community of the Wrongly
I will gradually post my articles from The False Rape Society here,
and will create a hyperlinked index as time allows.
No Gender Differences? Really?
Have you ever encountered the feminist claim that gender is a social
construct and doesn't exist naturally? The differences between individuals
is greater than the differences between male and female, the claim goes.
Here's an example of this propaganda put out by the Department of Education:
Except for minor physical characteristics, feminists say -- for example,
women can give birth and men can pee their names in snow -- there are really
no differences. They'll tell you this with a straight face,
evidently expecting you to believe they really believe it.
They don't. Of course they don't. There could be no such
thing as "rape culture" by anyone who believes gender difference does not
Because who rapes, according to feminists? Men. Why do they
rape? Because they are men. Women do not rape, because they are not
Sorry. Anybody who'd believe that believes in very basic gender differences.
I believe the differences between male and female exist, but not the
way feminists do. For them, the point of not recognizing gender differences
is to elevate women; and the point of recognizing them is to trash men.
Why? Aside from simply expressing the hatred of men that underlies
all feminist thought, the point is to give women an advantage in the classroom,
in the office, in the home. But because men and women are different, the
advantage has to be an unfair one.
If there are no differences between men and women, why the VAWA?
Why reconstruct education in this country to be friendly to how girls learn,
and hostile to how boys learn? If male and female are the same, what's
the objection to single-sex classrooms? If there are no differences
in the genders, wouldn't a classroom full of boys be exactly the same as
a classroom full of girls and boys?
The blatant double standard of feminism is one of my strongest objections
to it. It is illustrated many ways, but the cognitive dissonance
of claiming no gender differences exist while proclaiming that we live
in a "rape culture" is is one of the most conspicuous.
I Am Not Afraid
When I step out of my house, get behind the wheel of my little S-10
pickup and drive a mile or so to Winn-Dixie, or to the next county to visit
my kinfolk, or anywhere, for that matter, the first thing that pops into
my mind is not, "Gee, I hope I don't get raped while I'm out." That's
particularly true if it's daytime.
When it's night, I'm apt to be a bit more cautious, aware of the possibilities
of mischief abroad. Scripture says wicked people (that would be women as
well as men) love the darkness of night because it hides their evildoing.
So I don't take chances. No giving rides to people I don't know. No stopping
to help someone with a flat tire. I'll call for roadside assistance,
but I won't stop myself. I can't change a tire, anyway, so I'd be no help.
My caution, though, can't be chalked up to "rape culture." I know
that if I'm waylaid in the dark, it's more likely that I'll be robbed by
somebody needing money for drugs than by a crazed rapist.
But isn't that what I'm supposed to be afraid of? Isn't that what
"Take Back the Night" and claims of "rape culture" are all about?
Women victimized by legions of rapists skulking in the nightime shadows?
On the "History" page of the website for Take Back the Night Foundation,
a paragraph describes how a woman walking down a dark, empty street is
terrified by the shadows until she reaches her destination. It's a tragedy
that women feel anxious when they walk alone at night.
In that case, it makes sense to me to not walk alone at night unless
you must. Drive, baby. Call a cab. Get someone you trust to walk with you.
Or stay in until it's daytime.
And remember; men are victims of nighttime mischief, as well.
Women don't have a corner on victimhood. But where are all the organizations,
rallies and websites, not to mention legislation, aimed at protecting men
who are victims of nighttime crime? Why do only women deserve this
And is it just me, or does everyone who visits the Take Back the Night
website notice the big blue "donate now" button at the top of every page?
Frankly, judging by personal observation, my town is just full of women
who are also not afraid. They drive alone, shop alone, ferry kids
around, they work, play, worship without living in fear of rape.
It would seem that the campaign to make women fearful -- and that's what
all this "rape culture" baloney is about -- isn't working too well.
The attempt to instill fear of rape in women is really an attempt to
instill in them the fear of men. And that must be disappointing for
the radical feminists trying drive a wedge between the sexes and fundamentally
alter the way human beings relate. The majority of women, even those
who've come under feminist influence without consciously embracing it,
don't see "rape" and "men" as synonyms.
What they--what we--see is that it is men who protect us, who partner
with us to share our homes, our fortunes, our lives, our families. They
are not our victimizers. They are our fathers, our sons, our husbands,
our brothers, and it will be a cold day in hell before feminism will succeed
in making me fear the wonderful men in my life who love me and see to my
It is largely because of them--and the legions of men whose live decently
and virtuously, who protect and provide, who do the right thing because
they are men of honor and conscience--that I am not afraid.
Man-hating and the Popular Culture
On the writers groups and blogs I regularly read, from time to time
discussions ensue about the popularity of vampires as romance heroes.
There seems to be an increase in these discussions now, probably because
of the release of Eclipse, the latest film in the series based on the vampire
novels of Stephanie Meyer.
For anyone who's been off-planet the last few years, Meyer's "Twilight"
series chronicles the love story of Bella Swan, a teenage girl, and her
relationship with Edward Cullen, a vampire, in the gloomy, great northwest.
I generally don't take part in such discussions because I'm pretty sure
women who love to write and read about vampire heroes would not care for
my explanation of their popularity -- misandry, brought to you by feminism.
I've noted in previous essays that women who may not consciously embrace
feminist thought can nevertheless influenced by it, considering how pervasive
it is in our culture. I've also put forth the opinion that feminism
seeks to alter the most fundamental of human relationships.
Women are drawn to men, especially those they perceive as strong and
capable. Feminism has done its best to discourage that attraction.
The claims of thousands of years of evil patriarchy, which is nothing more
than men oppressing and exploiting women...the complaints about men denying
women education, careers, the vote...the bellyaching about the "imprisoning"
of women in the "comfortable concentration camps" of brick ranch houses
in the 'burbs...the charges that men long to keep women barefoot, pregnant
and in the kitchen...the whining about the glass ceiling and paying her
$.79 for every dollar he makes...the allegations of sexual harassment on
the job...the pervasive showcasing of domestic violence (all committed
by men, of course)...the accusation that every man is a potential rapist...the
constant carping about rape culture....iIt's all designed to sow discord.
To plant in women the fear and hatred of men and to bring about a "new"
humanity, where the old roles no longer apply--indeed, no longer exist.
It's difficult to imagine this goal will ever be achieved. On the most
fundamental level, it goes against what we are. Women and men
are made for each other. They belong to each other, and they belong together.
However, at the very least, feminism's drive toward this unachievable
goal has made it unpopular, even offensive, for a woman to admire and love
a man, particularly a strong one. The problem is that women are drawn
to strong men, and when that attraction is discouraged, it will find expression
another way, up to and including admiration for -- or, in the case of the
Twilight saga, obsession with -- entities that do not even exist.
Is it really coincidental, then, that the ascendency of sexy vampires
in novels and movies coincides with the aftereffects of second-wave feminism
with its element of egregious man-hating?
In 1979, Stephen King's Salem's Lot was made into a TV miniseries, and
vampires looked like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TheMasterKurtBarlow1979.jpg
In 1994, Anne Rice's Interview With the Vampire was made into a theatrical
movie, and the vampires looked like this
And in 2008, Stephanie Meyer's Twilight was made into a movie, and the
vampires looked like this:
Interesting that they grow to look more and more like the loathsome
men feminists would have us fear and hate but, paradoxically, emulate.
I haven't read Meyer or Rice's books, or seen the movies based on them,
nor have I read the proliforation of vampire paperbacks flooding the popular
culture. I'm not a feminist; I haven't bought into all the man-hating,
so I don't need a substitute for human males as an object for admiration,
even in light, escapist reading.
My admiration is reserved for the flesh-and-blood sons of Adam--the
good, decent men who love their wives and children, who provide for their
families, who make society work, and who strive to make the world a better
place for all. These are my heroes.
I'm sure there are feminists who don't undestand that; they can be sure
I don't lose sleep over it.
Writing Advocacy Fiction
When I asked Pierce if I might discuss my false-accusation novel in
one of my essays, I didn't expect his offer to link to the novel's page
on Amazon.com, though I certainly appreciate it, just as I appreciate the
okay to blog about something very important to me -- my belief that fiction
needs to be used much more than it is to positively portray men and to
counter feminist propaganda.
No doubt about it, nonfiction is crucial in the communication of ideas.
This blog is but one example. But fiction (and drama) are potent persuaders,
too. Feminists and progressives know that and they've used them for decades
(along with taking over education, legislation and the courts) to promote
their worldview and alter society.
There have been some false-accusation novels in the past with positive
portrayals of men. To Kill a Mockingbird comes readily to mind, since this
year marks the 50th anniversary of its publication. But Disclosure, a novel
by the late Michael Crichton about a false sexual harassment case, featured
a less admirable protagonist who seemed highly inconvenienced by the charge
but not really emotionally affected.
You see it over and over again, in news reports and other accounts;
false accusations of a sexual nature are emotionally devastating to the
accused man and those close to him. This is in addition to the possible
loss of job, income and standing in the community--and sometimes the loss
of several decades of life in a penitentiary, if the accusation is rape.
I found one of the best examples of this effect in a comment made by
Reade Seligmann, one of the Duke Lacrosse defendants. I no longer have
the quote, and can't find it online, but he said, in effect, that when
he saw himself on national TV and heard news reports about what he was
accused of, "I can't tell you what that does to me inside."
That was a major inspiration for my writing Southern Man; to show the
emotional effects of false accusation on an innocent man--what it does
to him inside. To show how it carried over to his family and loved ones.
To show what the thoughtless acceptance of "Women never lie" and similar
feminist declarations can lead to.
It may be a little audacious to think the initial offering of an unknown
novelist will make any headway against the institutionalized hostility
toward males in our culture, but you gotta start somewhere.
Although I suspected no traditional publisher would cross feminism and
take a chance on my manuscript, I did shop it around for a while. My suspicions
were confirmed by a rejection letter from the late Kate Duffy at Kensington,
who wrote, among other things, "While the premise is interesting, I don't
think this adds anything new to the idea of sexual harassment."
Well, of course it adds something new to the idea of sexual harassment
-- the effects of a false accusation on an innocent man. At any rate, that
letter convinced me to bring the novel to print myself. It is an advocacy
novel, written to inform through entertaining. It is intentionally emotional;
perhaps even emotionally manipulative. I wrote it for traditional women
who may not realize the extent to which feminism and progressivism has
influenced their world--though I do hope men can read it without gagging.
I would love to see more advocacy fiction on behalf of men and more
counter-feminist novels. I encourage aspiring novelists who doubt their
chances with establishment publishers to consider self-publishing. Thanks
to the digital age, it has never been easier or more affordable. A recap
of my experience bringing Southern Man to print can be found here:
Thank you again, Pierce.
Journey to the Dark Side
I mentioned in my first Rape Culture 101 essay that tracking down the
origins of rape culture would comprise research for future essays.
I must confess, though, that I'm far less interested in researching
the origins of rape culture claims and more interested examining the primary
motivation behind them, the same one that fuels feminism: hatred of men.
Toward this end, I went through the web in search of feminist sites
and blogs to help with my research. To my delight, I found much of
my work already done for me.
Take Part, Inspiration to Action, http://www.takepart.com/ a website
that encourages activism on left of center issues, has a list of "Top Ten
Feminist Blogs," http://www.takepart.com/news/2008/03/13/top-ten-feminist-blogs/some
of which the readers of The False Rape Sociey are no doubt familiar with.
The list was compiled two years ago by Bostonian Giulia Rozzi, who does
not identify the criteria she used to choose these particular blogs, which
is understandable when you think about it. Whim seems as acceptable
a rationale for much feminist thought as objective standards do.
In any case, whatever Rozzi's criteria, the Top Ten Femnist Blogs are:
1. Feministing http://www.feministing.com/
2. Feministe http://www.feministe.us/
3. Our Bodies Our Blog http://www.ourbodiesourblog.org/
4. Jezebel http://www.jezebel.com/
5. Broadsheet (part of Salon.com) http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/
6. Finally Feminism 101 http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/
7. Women in Media & News Blog http://www.wimnonline.org/WIMNsVoicesBlog/
8. Holla Back NYC http://www.hollabacknyc.blogspot.com/
9. MediaGirl http://www.mediagirl.org/
10. Bitch Magazine http://bitchmagazine.org/blogs
I haven't visited all of these blogs. In fact, I've hardly visited any
of them to date. I have a really low threshold for feminist BS and can
only take small, measured exposures to it at any given time. But
I will visit them, looking for what they say about rape culture, and what
they may say, or otherwise reveal, about the man-hatred that underlies
Rozzi follows up her list with an acknowledgement that there are many
more "fabulous female-focused blogs out there."
Imagine my surprise, then, when I discovered, quite by accident, that
one of the most viscerally male-hating blogs I have ever encountered is
run by a ... man. (So the blogger claims.) I'm speaking of
"A Radical Profeminist" http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/
The blog's banner sez, "This blog exists to challenge white heterosexual
male supremacy as an instutionalized ideology and a systematized set of
practices which are mysogynistic, heterosexist, racist, genocidal, and
Oh, goody. Anybody who has something to say about so many subjects
will surely have comments on claims of rape culture and false rape accusations.
The problem, I discovered after a few mintues of looking around over
there, its that the blogger, who claims his name is Julian Real, appears
to be completely demented. This guy concocts his own terminology that requires
a fabricated glossary; he remains secure in his "radical profeminist" hatred
of men (if they're white and hetro) by a commenting policy that allows
no challenging opinions.
The blog is stuffed like a turkey on Thankgsiving. Look down the right
sidebar at all the links, labels and previous posts. Among them,
you'll find Real's bio, which says he is disabled, and now we know why
he has so much time to create and then wallow in such hatred. Men (and
women) who have to go to work and earn the funds to put the 'taters on
the table don't have time for such foolishness.
However, when I stumbled across the site, I stayed long enough to look
for posts on rape culture. A search of the site using that terminology
reveals eight pages of articles, the first one a movie review of The Karate
Kid remake written by Malik Diamond, "hip-hop medicine man from the fifth
dimension." (I'm not making this up.)
I have to say, after visiting Julian Real's little corner of cyber-insanity,
it'll be a bit of a relief to get back to ordinary man-hating from, say,
Michael Kimmel at Feministing. At least Mr. Kimmel writes like he
went to high school.
About the best thing I can say about Real's blog is that visiting it
doesn't cause permanent brain damage.
The Virus of Radical Feminism
Okay, I know--and will say right up front--that it's a stretch to compare
feminism to a virus, particularly the one I have in mind, although there
are some parallels. But I'm not the first or only one to make such a comparison,
as a Google search confirms.
David Horowitz, writer and publisher, a leftist turned rightwinger,
has compared the entire cultural and political left, including one if its
subsets, radical feminism, to a virus. If Horowitz has a specific virus
in mind, he doesn't name it. He does descibe its effects: "...a virus that
attacks [the left's] brain cells and makes it incapable of ingesting real
world facts and consequently of arriving at reasonable judgments."
I do have a specific virus in mind for my comparison--the rabies virus--because
I've recently had reason to do a lot of Internet reading about it.
Several days ago a semi-stray cat bit me. (Story here: http://www.conniechastain.blogspot.com/)
I have no access to his vaccination record, don't even know if he has one.
So I read about rabies on the Center for Disease Control's website, and
my county health department's website. While determining how I needed to
respond to the bite (and following those instructions, and the advice of
my doctor), I read other things about rabies.
Viruses can do nothing on their own--can't eat, can't grow, can't reproduce.
They need a host for that. Most viruses are benevolent, as far as mankind
is concerned. Indeed, life could not exist without them. But a very few
have extremely malignant effects on their hosts. One of them is the rabies
virus. Though other viruses far kill more people around the world, rabies
carries its own special kind of horror.
This virus is so devastating because it attacks the central nervous
system--spine and brain--the master controller of every physical thing
we do, the determiner of our thought, reason, emotion, self-concept. The
destruction of brain cells by the virus visits upon the victim some of
the most horrifying pathologies known to man. Moreover, while rabies can
easily be prevented, it cannot be cured. Once symptoms manifest, death--a
horrible one, if palliative care is not available--is inevitable.
The rabies virus enters the body through a bite wound. For days, weeks,
or months, it makes its way thoughtout the nervous system, remaining symptomless,
until it reaches the brain. Then, symptoms appear. (Symptoms of rabies.
If we consider radical feminism to be a virus that infects a culture
or society, are we starting to see a glimmer of the parallels here? I think
so, although every analogy breaks down at some point.
Consider the type and quantity of destructive change that has come to
society through the work of relatively few feminist activists. The "bite"
could be likened to creating in women an overwhelmining dissatisfaction
with being wives and mothers (Friedan's The Feminine Mystique), the increase
of coeds in colleges and universities and the prevalence of women's studies
Through feminist-influenced graduates, the indoctrination then branches
out from university campuses into government, the courts, corporations
and business, law, medicine, the news and entertainment media, the popular
culture, even the military and religion. In short, every aspect of culture.
It invades and reshapes the very things that determines, on a societal
level, who and what we are. Unlike the rabies virus, which is basically
a thing with no will or intent, the radfem virus attacks society knowingly
and with intent.
Because so much of what feminism seeks to change is essential to human
existence, there's bound to be monumental and devastating affects on the
culture, such as:
1- rejection of the sex roles of men and women which are fundamental
to individuals and society;
2- the undermining of the stability of the family, the foundation on
which all society rests;
3- the shunting aside of men and boys (on whom societal survival depends)
in favor to making girls "feel better";
4- the demonization (or dumb-ination) of men in the popular culture;
5- the invention of "rape culture" and perpetration of false rape claims
6- the astronomical dropout rates, drug use and criminal activity among
I could go on, but readers of this blog no doubt are well acquainted
with symptoms of the radfem virus on our culture.
The question now arises--can our culture's immune system fight off the
virulent attack of feminism? Or do these societal symptoms mean we've reached
the point of no return?
Fight for the Title
No, I'm not talking the title of World Heavyweight Champion for boxing,
although no doubt about it, that title has to be fought for.
I'm talking about the current squabble over which women will claim the
title "feminist" -- conservatives or liberals.
A couple of months ago, feminist writer Jessica Valenti blasted Sarah
Palin for "adopting the feminist label." Apparently, leftist feminists
believe conservative women cannot, or should not, share the title. Nevertheless,
most of the female candidates who won primary races in June identified
as conservative Republicans -- and feminists.
You have to be careful with labels. Many political writers have questioned
Sarah Palin's conservatism, and I'm not in total disagreement with their
doubts. But when it comes to the feminist label, it is most interesting
to see what self-identified feminists say it means.
Numerous definitions, explanations, discussions of what a feminist is
can be found on the internet; none of them sticks with me more than more
than a highly misandric piece written in 2008 by Miami Herald columnist
Leonard Pitts titled "I Am a Feminist." I've often wondered if Pitts realized
how greatly he was demonizing his fellow males in this column.
You can read it here: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08039/855735-35.stm
The column concludes, "We have lost collective memory of how things
were before the F-word. Of the casual beatings. Of the casual rape. Of
words like 'old maid' and 'spinster.' Of abortion by coat hanger. Of going
to school to find a man. Of getting an allowance and needing a husband's
permission. Of taking all your spirit, all your dreams, all your ambition,
aspiration, creativity and pounding them down until they fit a space no
larger than a casserole dish."
Shortly after this piece was published, I recapped it in a chatroom
as, "Men = casual beaters, casual rapists, heartless insulters, irresponsible
impregnators, rigid controllers and haters of women..."
When some of the chatroom members hotly took exception to my recap,
I explained further that it was logically implied in what Pitts wrote.
"Of the casual beatings." Requires casual beaters -- does it not? --
who would be men, unless you imagine Pitts is talking about women casually
beating other women?
"Of the casual rape." Requires casual rapists, who would be men --unless
you imagine Pitts is talking about women casually raping other women.
"Of words like 'old maid' and 'spinster.'" Heartless insults that require
heartless insulters, and since we know the feminist tenet that women are
not heartless, we can infer that Pitts is talking about men.
"Of abortion by coat hanger." Abortions are performed on pregnant women,
and women cannot impregnate other women, so the impregnators are men, and
since the woman is having an abortion to get rid of the child, that means
she was impregnated by a man too irresponsible to practice birth control,
or to take responsibility for the baby.
"Of going to school to find a man. Of getting an allowance and needing
a husband's permission." "Allowance" and "permission" imply control, and
men are doing the controlling.
The violence and abuse, the heartlessness and insults, the reproductive
irresponsibility, and the rigid control all adds up to men's hatred of
women. That is what Pitts is saying about men in this article and he implies
these things, these effects of men, would be running rampant and roughshod
over women--but for feminism.
In a recent column for RealClearPolitics, Cathy Young opined that conservative
feminists speak to "an audience that seeks individualistic and market-oriented
solutions, rather than big-government-driven ones, and focuses on women’s
empowerment rather than oppression.... The women who embrace it are likely
to transform both feminism and conservatism. The feminist movement ignores
them at its peril."
I have my doubts. Feminism, as Pitts so ably demonstrated, is man-hating
at its core. Any woman--or man--who does not accept and promote that concept
does not deserve the title. In my humble opinion.
It's a Good Time to Take a Stand
If you pay much attention to politics and culture, you know things ain't
real pretty right now -- at least, not in the USA.
The country is probably as divided as it has ever been without resorting
to arms. The economy is in shambles; government at all levels is broke.
The recession has hit men the hardest, so the federal government tries
to fix it by spending nonexistent money creating jobs for ... women. The
president disses the Boy Scouts' 100th Anniversary in order to get in front
of TV cameras with the bit-- women of "The View." Sheesh.
Society is polarized. That makes it a good time to seize the energy
that flows from conflict and take a stand. What we have now is a great
opportunity for real women to stand up to radical feminists -- to stand
up for themselves and their men in the face of baseless feminist criticism,
haranguing and bellyaching.
The Internet is a great virtual arena for such a debate. An effort might
be as simple as leaving a comment challenging a hostile article or praising
a positive one. From there, the motivated debater can move into chat rooms
and discussion groups. Really motivated defenders can start their own blogs.
Anybody who's been online a while knows all this, but it bears repeating,
as hard times weigh folks down and try to leach our spirits from us.
Being the somewhat contentious and opinionated person that I am (hey,
I can't help it, it's my Scots-Irish mountaineer heritage) I've been e-squabbling
and i-kvetching since I got online with my first WebTV back in 1999, about
a great variety of subjects, including feminism. I've learned a few lessons
that others have perhaps learned, and perhaps not.
First, you're not going to change the mind of a dedicated feminist,
about rape culture or patriarchy or glass ceilings or anything else, no
matter how logical and incisive your argument, so don't try. Realize that
the whole point of the exercise is to present your argument to non-participants,
to the lurkers and readers, those who may not yet realize that they, indeed,
do have a dog in this fight.
Second, you're not going to do your cause any good by participating
in the online equivalent of elementary school cafeteria food-fights. Nobody's
convinced by name-calling and profanity, so don't participate, and if you
have the authority, follow the example of FRS's great moderators, Pierce
and Steve, and shut down counter-productive discussions.
Third, as important as it is to stand up to radical feminist insanity,
it is far more important to stand up for the wonderful men in our society,
in our families, in our lives. They're unlikely to stand up for themselves,
these men -- ordinary men (who are anything but ordinary), the unsung heroes,
the men who hold everything together, who make the world work and societies
successful, the nameless men who invent, who maintain, who accomplish because
it's what they do, not because they seek recognition or praise. But whether
they seek it or not, they appreciate it.
But there's more to do than just recognize their essential contributions
to successful human existence; there is also the job of defending men,
particularly western men, from feminism's egregious lies. You don't read
of husbands in the USA cutting off their wives' noses and ears -- but you
do hear of wives cutting off their husband's penises--and being applauded
for it. And yet, in a society where women are pampered and uplifted, feminists
still complain about made up rape culture and the dearth of women in executive
So many times when I've read terse accounts of false rape accusations
on this blog, I've wondered if anyone stood up for the falsely accused,
if the women in his life stood with him and let him know that he was not
abandoned by those who care about him.
Arguing, on the Internet or anywhere else, isn't for everyone. But in
this climate of constant complaint about men and boys, even non-confrontational
types can, and should, stand for and with their husbands, fathers, sons
and brothers against all of feminism's false allegations.
Earnest Feminism Revisited
Back in June, Dr. Snark posted a masterful essay titled, How Long
Can They Pin It On 'Fringe Radicals'? If you missed it, follow this
link. If you read it before, it's worth reading again.
It begins with the claim of earnest feminists, that they "don't hate
men at all, and that those so-called feminists who do hate men are not
really feminists at all, and that we've just got it all wrong."
I've butted heads with earnest feminists making these claims for years,
in discussion groups and chat rooms online, and a few times in person.
I note that in-person, face-to-face headbutting is usually much more civil,
even polite, than what happens online; although feminist minds seem to
be equally closed and concrete-hard, regardless of where the discussion
Earny-fems not only deny that man-hating feminists are real feminists;
they deny the many ways feminist man-hating manifests in our culture.
A couple of years ago, I had a some lively discussions about a Newsweek
article by feminist Carol Gilligan claiming that studying girls can teach
us about boys.
In making her case that boys can "read the human world astutely" she
claims that boys, to avoid "compromising masculinity," often repudiate
their "human qualities" (i.e., emotional openness, sensitivity and connectedness).
She illustrates this with an anecdote about little Sam.
Four-year-old Sam asked his mother one day, "Mommy, why are you sad?"
Wanting to shield him from her sadness, she replied, "I'm not sad." Sam
said, "Mommy, I know you. I was inside you."
Well, I told the folks in my discussion group that this was a bunch
of hooey. Utter shuck. Made. Up.
A four-year-old -- girl or boy -- would not make that kind of abstract
connection, I explained. Little Sam would know his mommy was sad because
she had a sad expression on her face, or because she was crying. Most kids
that young would associate "being inside" someone with being devoured,
a terrifying concept which does not fit with emotional openness, sensitivity
The outcry produced in the group was a marvelous illustration of the
traversing of feminist tangents. Did I think four-year-olds don't know
where babies come from? (Some of them do, but that wasn't the point.) It's
because I've never had kids that I don't know what four-year-olds think.
(If you have to personally experience something in order to discuss it,
a great many people in that group would have to forego commenting on their
The one I liked best, though, from one of the most earnest, self-proclaimed
feminists in the group, was that nobody ever heard of Carol Gilligan, so
how much influence could she have?
Well, Carol Gilligan, for those who don't know, almost single-handedly
started the process of making elementary and secondary education in the
USA hostile to the way boys learn. You can read about it here:
This, of course, is another point of denial for earnest feminists. The
schools aren't hostile to the way boys learn. They've just stopped being
hostile to the ways girls learn, and the girls are catching up -- nay,
surpassing -- boys.
And this defense of feminism frequently comes from women who say they
have sons. Gilligan starts her article noting that she has three of them.
Regardless of how earnest feminists choose to see it, feminism is shot
through with manhating. If education truly was hostile to the way little
girls learn once, the remedy would have been to make it accomodating of
them without harming boys. The fact that the road chosen included hostility
not only to the way boys learn, but to boys themselves, has now resulted
in an educational boy-crisis that is difficult for even feminists to deny.
And how many folks believe that Title Nining college sports would have
been so popular among certain cirles if it had only made sports equally
available to female students? No, it is the eradication of so many male
sports that rouse feminists to a fist-pumping "Yes!"
I could go on, but that should illustrate it well enough. What underlies
so much of the feminist push to change culture in the guise of helping
women is really a hostilility to men, the same hostility that equates a
man accused of rape with "perpetrator" and the accuser with "victim," before
it has even been determined that rape occurred.
Earnest feminists can deny it all they wish but misandry is an integral
and visible component of feminism.