Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Is The Patriarchy Dead?

And does Feminism deserve to survive it?

When writer Hanna Rosin recently published an article on Slate.com stating that “the patriarchy is dead,” much of the feminist response amounted to “burn the heretic!” New Republic editor and blogger Nora Caplan-Bricker accused Rosin of “mansplaining”—the femosphere’s pejorative term for supposedly obtuse and arrogant male arguments on gender, apparently now also applied to female dissent—and being the patriarchy’s unwitting tool. San Jose State University philosophy professor Janet Stemwedel tweeted her gloating over Rosin’s Wikipedia page being vandalized to read, for a brief time, “Hanna Rosin (born 1970) is a terrible human being.”

Ironically, the feminist tendency to shoot the bringer of good news was the very topic of Rosin’s essay, adapted from the new epilogue to the paperback edition of her book, The End of Men—which, despite its title, is more about female ascendance than male decline. Rosin noted with bemusement that rebuttals to her report on women’s rising fortunes were greeted with palpable relief—not by male chauvinists but by feminists. (It isn’t just Rosin: when a recent study demonstrated that female political candidates are not judged more negatively than male ones, not even for their looks and dress, feminists reacted with either silence or sniping.)

So where is this dreaded American patriarchy Rosin is covering up? Some critiques of her argument boil down to “it’s only affluent white women who are doing well” (and poor minority men are presumably basking in privilege). A gentleman critic, fellow Slate.com author Matthew Yglesias, cites men’s numerical dominance in corporate America—as if Rosin might be unaware of these statistics. (One figure he omits: women control 60 percent of the wealth in the United States.) But mostly, Rosin’s detractors focus on women’s abuse by men and on pervasive cultural biases against women, from beauty pressures to so-called “slut-shaming.” Patriarchy, says Caplan-Bricker, is “living in a society where both women and men save their harshest judgment for women.”

Do they, though? Such nebulous statements are nearly impossible to prove or disprove. Actually, researchers such as feminist social psychologist Alice Eagly of Northwestern University have consistently found that both sexes tend to view women more positively than men. Sure, this pro-female bias has its flip side: women’s perceived “niceness” may cause them to be seen as less fit for leadership and to be penalized for not being nice. But crude generalizations about misogyny bear little relation to real life in modern Western society.

Gender-based biases are not a one-way street. If women are still stigmatized more for sleeping around, men are stigmatized more for not having enough sex—even by some feminists whose choice insult for sexist men is to imply sexual deprivation. Women may experience more disapproval for delegating child care; men, for failing to be providers. We can endlessly debate whether these norms are rooted in nature or culture and whether they are valuable or harmful (or some mix of both). The fact remains that such double standards are not only perpetuated by men and women alike but, in this day and age, at least as likely to be favorable to women as to men.

It’s really not that hard to find instances in which men are judged more harshly than women. Last May, after Arizona woman Jodi Arias was convicted in the brutal murder of her ex-boyfriend, jurors deadlocked on the death sentence because some saw mitigation in her alleged mental and verbal abuse by her victim—despite evidence that Arias was a habitual stalker. Around the same time, when novelist James Lasdun published a book about his nightmarish experience of being cyber-stalked by a former creative writing student whose romantic overtures he had rejected, a review in The New Yorker chided him for failing to admit his attraction to the woman and his role in leading her on. Reverse the genders in either case, and there would be howls of outrage about “victim-blaming.” (Both incidents are also reminders that women aren’t the only victims of abuse and violence from the opposite sex.)

Ultimately, the examples of patriarchy at work offered in responses to Rosin prove her point. They consist of complex issues oversimplified into a war on women (such as proposed abortion limits, which women in some cases support more than men); outlandish exaggerations (women can’t walk down the street without getting groped or catcalled); culturally marginal irrelevancies (some ultraconservative Catholic group advising against college education for women); or grievances so petty that it’s hard to tell if they’re satirical or serious. A list of “39 Things We’ll Miss About Patriarchy, Which Is Dead” on New York magazine’s website included “vibrators shaped like cupcakes,” public restroom lines, and men hogging space on public transit. And several writers mentioned “Titstare”—an incident both trivial and revealing of strong societal disapproval of even mild sexism.

Titstare,” if you were lucky enough to miss the brouhaha, was a joke presentation by two Australian techies at the TechCrunch Disrupt “hackathon” earlier this month: a smartphone app for men to share photos of themselves ogling women’s breasts. While the sixty-second demo featured nothing more graphic than a couple of cleavage shots, it was certainly a bad joke—though arguably mostly at the expense of leering men (complete with a comic-style image of a man getting punched by a woman). But none of the commentators who cited this juvenile stunt as evidence of rampant misogyny saw fit to acknowledge that it was promptly followed by apologies from the two TechCrunch runners—one of them a woman, as were two of the five hackathon judges—and a pledge to pre-screen submissions more carefully at future events. If this ends up on a list of patriarchal offenses, one may start wondering if feminism has any real battles to fight.

Which, actually, isn’t quite what Rosin was saying. When we spoke a few days after the publication of her article, she stressed that problems do exist—but focusing on “patriarchy” as “an enemy we can take down” is a counterproductive distraction from the real issues. Foremost among those is the career-family conundrum. Take the progress of women in the tech industry: for all the handwringing about Titstare as a symptom of the sexism holding them back, the evidence suggests that it’s hardly the main obstacle. In one study, women with advanced degrees in science, technology and engineering were 25 percent less likely than men to work in their field if they were married and raising children—but there was no gender gap for the single and childless.

Some sex differences in work and family roles may always persist; but we should certainly continue to work toward more flexibility, freedom, and options for everyone. Rosin believes these goals should be redefined as caregiving issues for both sexes rather than “women’s issues,” and here she is certainly on the right track, even if her favored solutions are probably more government-oriented than mine would be.

More broadly, I am convinced that if feminism is to have a positive future, it must reinvent itself as a gender equity movement advocating for both sexes and against all sexism. Focusing solely on female disadvantage was perfectly understandable when, whatever paternalistic benefits women might have enjoyed and whatever burdens men might have suffered, women were the ones lacking the basic rights of adult citizens. But today, there is simply no moral or rational justification for any fair-minded feminist to ignore (for instance) the more lenient treatment of female offenders in the justice system or the anti-father biases in family courts. The concept of feminism as equality of the sexes is increasingly on a collision course with feminism as a movement championing women.

In its present form—as a secular cult that should call itself the Sisters of Perpetual Grievance—feminism is far more a part of the problem than part of the solution. It clings to women’s wrongs and turns women’s rights into narcissistic entitlement. It is far too easily prone to bashing men while painting women as insultingly helpless and downplaying their human capacity for cruelty. (The notion that abuse and dominance would not exist without patriarchy is not only naively utopian but utterly sexist.) It is also deeply irrelevant to most women, only five percent of whom consider themselves “strong feminists” even though 82 percent believe that men and women should be social, political, and economic equals.

Of course the patriarchy—at least here in the West—is dead. Whether feminism deserves to survive it is up to the feminists.

A version of this article originally appeared at RealClearPolitics.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Ted S.||

    Go ahead and tell me I'm horrible for laughing at the Titstare joke.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Horrible *taste*, perhaps...

  • Lady Bertrum||

    In the interest of gender equality the TechCrunch folks should have created another app called CrotchShot. Women staring at men with bulging packages. Poof equality!

  • Ted S.||

    I'd laugh at that too.

  • ro2nn3||

    Start working at Home with Google. It’s the most financially rewarding I ve ever done. On Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292. I began this six months/ago and right away began to make at least $80 per-hour. Official site, www.Pow6.com
    WORK LESS EARN MORE

  • DJF||

    “”””While the sixty-second demo featured nothing more graphic than a couple of cleavage shots, it was certainly a bad joke”””

    If its a bad joke to look at cleavage then what is it called when woman show cleavage?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Gender doesn't really exist except when it does.

  • Troy muy grande boner||

    Those hooters aren't real. They are just a social construct.

  • wareagle||

    This is why feminism, along with civil rights and organized labor, is part of the trinity of griefer anachronisms - proponents insist on fighting battles that are largely won. And this is why each of the three grows increasingly irrelevant by the day.

  • DJF||

    They may have gotten their professed goals but not their real goals which is money and power for the organizations

  • PM||

    The thing about a grievance group, whatever its exact nature, is that once the grievance has been mitigated, solved, or even reversed, there's no more use for the grievance group. But once you've built your entire academic and professional life on a grievance that no longer exists, you still have to put bread on the table.

  • wareagle||

    that's pretty much my sentiment about most do-gooder groups and most govt. If the problem they claim to want solved was actually solved, what would they do tomorrow?

  • Finrod||

    Yep, and that's when Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy really takes hold.

  • robc||

    This is why I have respect for Candy Lightner.

    She founded MADD, achieved her goals, and quit. Unfortunately, she wasnt able to tear down the organization she had founded. But she has spoken out against MADD on multiple occasions.

  • John||

    Me too. She actually wanted to accomplish the right things instead of just making an endless jihad out of it.

  • robc||

    Well, some of the right things.

    She is apparently proud of the 21 drinking age, so fuck her over that.

    But, primarily, she managed to create a social change about how people think about drunk driving. And that is a good thing.

    She opposed lowering the ABV limit to .08%. She opposes the current proposal to lower it to .05%. She called out MADD when they were being neo-prohibitionist.

  • robc||

    BAC not ABV.

  • John||

    She was wrong about the drinking age. But, we are all wrong about something. She is at least not a fanatic. And that is pretty rare these days.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Now that victimhood carries a high moral and regulatory standing, don't expect any previously aggrieved group to want to give it up. In fact, every new group is out there competing for that status and its associated benefits. It's a race to the bottom to determine who's the biggest victim so the government can prescribe some advantage to the winner.

    Net result, we all become victims dependent on the good graces of the government. An outcome that the government surely won't mind.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I think that's part of the problem with America today.

    Kids have picked up on the empowerment through victimization thing, internalized it and actually want to be losers at some level.

  • John||

    More broadly, I am convinced that if feminism is to have a positive future,

    Any hope of feminism being anything positive ended in the 60s when the Marxists and their retarded cousins the Progs took over the movement. At that point it became like everything else they touch; a vehicle for advancing leftist politics and that is never positive and always hateful.

  • DJF||

    I am waiting for the battle between the feminists and the transgender movement. If a woman can be a man and a man a women or even something in between then who is suppose to be aggrieved against who.

    And if man and woman are not fixed then what about race. How do you define someone’s race especially when the government both denies race and gives out goodies based on race.

  • PM||

    Clarity will be found when you dissonate your cognate, my son.

  • DJF||

    But how many college credits in gender studies do I need to take before I can say that out loud without laughing?

  • Finrod||

    Too many.

  • John||

    What PM said. It goes back to the fact that the Left went insane post World War II. The entire movement is based on the internal contradiction that on the one hand "gender" is a social not a biological construct but on the other hand all of society is built on a patriarchy oppressing women. If there is no biological differences between men and women, then how are men so innately sinful for lack of a better term?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The left was at least as insane prior to WWII - that's when they sent emissaries to the soviet union - who returned with glowing reports; and thought that destroying food was good policy in the great depression. Among countless other examples of their insanity.

  • robc||

    How do you define someone’s race

    There is no valid way to do it.

  • John||

    I was stuck at my wife's college reunion last night. I had a rather drunken conversation with a pleasant but obviously liberal woman there. She could not refute but just could never quite understand the idea that what separates people is more economic and social class not the color of their skin. People's minds really are poisoned with an obsession with race. Yeah, you have more in common with the black attorney who went to your school than you do with the white waitress in Richmond.

  • Atanarjuat||

    That's because they're paternalistic racists. Like a young kid I know who thinks black folks need him to tell them how to eat healthy food.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    This is very insightful. Feminisms embrace of Marxism relegates it to angry, foolish irrelevance. The greatest force for equality in the world has been capitalism and liberal democracy, but modern feminists wedded to Marxism have to oppose them both, making their positions and pronouncements increasingly silly and pernicious.

  • wareagle||

    modern feminism, hell - feminism period, is rooted in the concept of victimhood. And the only way for an oppressor, real or imagined, to be dealt with is through govt force.

    Today's feminists choose to ignore the massive improvements in the lives of most women, from economics to social standing to opportunities. At some point, one must conclude that their goal has nothing to do with actually helping women and everything to do with retaining, or expanding, their power.

  • wareagle||

    modern feminism, hell - feminism period, is rooted in the concept of victimhood. And the only way for an oppressor, real or imagined, to be dealt with is through govt force.

    Today's feminists choose to ignore the massive improvements in the lives of most women, from economics to social standing to opportunities. At some point, one must conclude that their goal has nothing to do with actually helping women and everything to do with retaining, or expanding, their power.

  • liam.lah||

    The cultural Marxism of feminism is actually incompatible with regular Marxism. If you were to analyse it from a Marxist perspective, It would be placed in the same category of divisive bourgeois bullshit as racism and nationalism.

  • Bill||

    Very well written and logical. Well done sir, well done! :)

  • PM||

    Well done sir

    Pretty sure Cathy Young is a woman. SEXIST!

  • John||

    Gender is a construct. Who says Cathy can't be a sir?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Kit Young?

  • PM||

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I can't wait for the transracial white kid who identifies as black and asks to be counted as such for affirmative action purposes. I mean, it's one thing for a guy to use the girls' locker room because "I identify as a woman, man" - but mess with the racial-preference programs and see what happens!

  • C. Anacreon||

    There was a dustup a few years ago about a white kid who had been born and raised in Uganda, I believe, who was applying for some racial benefit as an African-American. His point was pretty valid -- he really was from Africa, and now lived in America. It was really quite amusing to see people bending over backwards to explain that a black kid whose family had been in the USA for several generations was an African American, but he was not (and of course, he was a racist KKK neo-nazi for even suggesting that he was.)

  • John||

    The liberal temper tantrum over the shut down is reaching a full boil. Judging from Facebook at least, I am starting to think voting to delay it might have been smart. It gives Republicans the chance to look reasonable and makes Progs look even more nuts than usual. Because it is a delay and not a repeal, it allows Republicans to interrupt the giant storm of prog butt hurt with the entirely reasonable statement "no one is repealing anything, it is just being delayed so maybe we can fix it before it goes into affect". That drives Progs nuts. But it is the kind of thing that sounds reasonable to your typical low information voter.

    And the Little Sisters of the Poor thing is comedy gold. Just tell a Prog, "right now the federal government is telling a bunch of elderly nuns they can no longer serve the poor because they won't provide birth control to their largely old and entirely celibate members, is this the kind of country you want to make?" Epic butt hurt will always ensue.

  • DJF||

    Unfortunately many of them believe "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need " and as long as the nuns have money they need to pay up so that someone else will get the pill.

  • John||

    That is totally what they think. But they have spent 70 years claiming they didn't and were the only ones who cared about the poor. They really don't like having to take the mask off.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Just tell a Prog, "right now the federal government is telling a bunch of elderly nuns they can no longer serve the poor because they won't provide birth control to their largely old and entirely celibate members, is this the kind of country you want to make?" Epic butt hurt will always ensue.

    I doubt that, they will just say 'the government is not telling nuns they can no longer serve the poor but rather that if they choose to serve the poor and employ people they must provide a health care option that covers contraceptives.'

  • John||

    the government is not telling nuns they can no longer serve the poor but rather that if they choose to serve the poor and employ people they must provide a health care option that covers contraceptives.'

    Which is not true. They have to stop serving the poor and only serve Catholics or pay for birth control. Yeah, they are going to lie. But that is what they do.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -They have to stop serving the poor and only serve Catholics or pay for birth control.

    I do not think that is correct. As I understand it an employer with a certain number of employees that work a certain number of hours has to provide coverage which includes contraception coverage. So it does not matter who the employer serves or whether it is for-profit or not.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The religious exemptions mandate that a religious based charity not serve anyone outside their faith to get the exemption. It is convoluted.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yeah, kind of how they spin Hairy Reed telling the HoR to go fuck itself as reasonable and blame the HoR for not compromising.

  • Bee Tagger||

    more broadly, I am convinced that if feminism is to have a positive future

    "Broadly" sounds like mansplaining to me.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    To become a useful movement, the feminists will basically have to repudiate most of their existing positions. So...not gonna happen. End it, don't mend it.

    Feminism is to female-ness what Islamism is to Islam.

  • John||

    Yeah. When it is not just promoting old fashioned Marxism, it is mostly just a tool for a certain class of upper middle and upper class white women to feel superior and become of a privileged class. Episiarch is right about that. It is all about projection with these people. Feminists go on and on about everyone else' privilege because for them it is all about creating their own.

  • robc||

    Semi OT: I got my letter related to my health insurance for next year.

    The whole situation is a clusterfuck. The letter referenced a Sept 23rd letter which I hadnt received. So I called the company and talked to a rep. She said the 9/23 letter wont mail to KY residents until 10/4.

    WTF?

    The letter also referenced a link on the website that doesnt exist. It will either be up on 10/1 or 10/13, she got different numbers asking around her office.

    And the default plan I would switch too if I do nothing is 80% more expensive than my current plan, which isnt ACA valid. As of Jan 1, they cant renew my current plan. However, it turns out I can renew my current plan for next year, as long as I do it on Dec 1, which requires me to fill out paperwork before Nov 15.

    I hope things get pushed back 1 year so I can keep my current plan another two years.

  • John||

    This is where the shit is going to hit the fan. Unless your wife is pregnant or you have a kid who has some kind of chronic illness, most families do not have the most expensive insurance option. Thanks to Obamacare, they are getting that. The whole system is designed around not just forcing the young to pay for stuff they don't want, but forcing everyone to pay for things they don't want.

    If you are say a 50 year old married couple whose kids are off on their own, you are paying extra for birth control coverage that you will never need and extra for mental health coverage and all sorts of things you used to be able to opt out of. That is going to drive everyone's insurance through the roof.

  • PM||

    The genius of this law is that we get a lot of the more expensive and burdensome trappings of a single payer system, but people still get to hate the greedy, faceless, KKKorporashun insurance companies who get all the blame for it.

  • John||

    I don't agree with that. They are not going to hate the insurance companies. They are going to hate the government for making them buy shit they don't want.

    I know people can be really clueless. But the majority of them are not so clueless that they won't see that they are paying for shit they don't want. The progs really fucked this one up. They didn't hide the costs well enough.

  • PM||

    We'll have to see how it goes. I hope you're right. But people already despise insurance companies, largely ignoring that a lot of the dysfunction in the health insurance market is government created in the first place. I would be more surprised if they finally snapped to the fact that government is fucking them than if they doubled down on hating the insurance cos.

  • John||

    For sure. But again, you have to know the insurance industry and a bit of economics to understand that. But here, you just have to read your bill and wonder "why the fuck am I paying $200 for pregnancy coverage when I am a 45 year old guy".

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Does it get broken down into that detail?

  • robc||

    Does it get broken down into that detail?

    Not really, but when the price changes and a bunch of stuff has been added in, you can estimate pretty well.

  • wareagle||

    But the majority of them are not so clueless that they won't see that they are paying for shit they don't want.

    totally explains Obama's re-election.

  • robc||

    Yeah, that is clearly the thing.

    My current policy specifically excludes pregnancy. Which, as a single male, wasnt an issue. But under the new plan, I will be covered if I somehow get pregnant!

  • John||

    That is where I think PM and other pessimists are wrong. People are not going to blame that on the insurance companies. They are going to blame it on the law forcing them to buy stuff they don't want.

    It is just like if the government forced every car company to only sell luxury sedans. When no one could buy a new car for less than $75,000, they wouldn't blame the greedy auto companies. They would want their old Accords and minivans back. That is what is going to happen here.

  • DJF||

    Of course it should cover pregnancy, what happens if you discover you are a woman trapped in a mans body?

  • John||

    Obamacare is basically a giant entitlement for people who for whatever reason didn't have insurance or and this is the most important part that no one is mentioning, people who for whatever reason needed really comprehensive and expensive insurance. That is the reason why they are requiring every insurance policy to cover so much. It is to dilute the risk pool and get people to effectively subsidize insurance to those who need it.

    Every other prog entitlement has hid its costs either through borrowing or fungible taxes. This one funds itself directly. That is why it is so unpopular and will only get more so. And it is also why the normal prog appeals to "we have to help people" are not going to work this time. Everyone loves to help the less fortunate as long as we are doing so with someone else' money. This is the first time the Progs won't be able to make it seem like someone else is paying for it.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It would have been cheaper and less distorting to have expand medicare or medicaid to cover people with expensive pre-existing condition.

    The real reason they pushed Obamacare is that it was there chance to get the 60 year old dream of healthcare and make history. Douche Mathews just said as much on Meet the Press. It was an emotional wish fulfillment and they didn't much care about the details.

    Which is going to fuck them hard. This abortion can be the turning point if the republicans (or whoever) run half way intelligent opposition (a really big if).

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -It was an emotional wish fulfillment and they didn't much care about the details.

    Spot on. And it gave them more control over the entire sector in a way that expanding Medicare or Medicaid would not have. Now it can be more of a political football than ever before (which they will realize when the next Republican administration steps in and tries to eliminate the contraception mandate and do something such as mandate coverage for pro-life pregnancy crisis center counseling).

  • General Butt Naked||

    I got mine last week as well.

    The cheap catastrophic/high deductible coverage I now have will not meet the requirements of the new law and they won't even be offering it anymore. They listed the new plans I would need to have but not the prices. I imagine that they'll be higher.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Oh yeah, I'm young and healthy. I've been to see a doctor 3 times in the past decade (sprained ankle, strep throat, insurance check up)

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Cathy Young Asks if The Patriarchy is Dead

    Yeah! Down with the Kzinti ratcats!

  • JWatts||

    That is an awesome post! Fracking fur balls goin' down.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    I've always loved Niven's Known Space. I slowed down a lot during the Man-Kzin arc, but I've been collecting Niven's audiobooks to listen to during my "windshield time" once I finish up the Ian Fleming stuff.

  • Sevo||

    Other lost causes:
    Fresno city 'patriarchs' find that people really don't want to carry stuff home on their backs, they'd rather stuff it in one of those icky cars and drive home.
    "Fresno moving to tear up historic pedestrian mall"
    "Built during urban renewal in the 1960s, the Fulton Mall has lapsed into decay, its mostly empty 1920s-vintage office buildings attracting little revenue in this city of 500,000 in California's agricultural heartland."
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/sci.....852375.php

  • John||

    Urban renewal, just one more sin the Progs never will be forced to answer for.

  • ||

    "...critics say reconstruction would destroy one of the city’s few walkable areas, displace immigrant merchants and harm air quality."

    Harm air quality. I hardly know what to say to that. Nobody is walking it, they are just driving further to another mall where they can park.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The funnier part is displace immigrant merchants. Why? How?

  • Cdr Lytton||

    critics say the mall has failed because the city did not promote it, abandoned the urban core and allowed developers to build out housing, strip malls and upscale shopping centers on the wealthy north side of town

    It failed because the city just didn't try hard enough! And people were allowed to live and shop where they want instead of where they were supposed to.

  • ||

    Telling professional grievance mongerers that the source of their grievance is gone elicits hysteria. No surprise there. Also no surprise that those professional grievance mongerers will move heaven and earth to ensure the survival of the source of that grievance.

    They are among the vilest kinds of people.

  • John||

    They have created a cult of victim-hood. For them being a victim is a good thing. It is their identity. It used to be if something bad happened to you, you were expected to and rewarded for putting it behind you and moving on. Now, society rewards you for dwelling on it and making it essential to who you are. It is really sick.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -It used to be if something bad happened to you, you were expected to and rewarded for putting it behind you and moving on. Now, society rewards you for dwelling on it and making it essential to who you are. It is really sick.

    This is remarkably easy for us as men to say. Women did have some terrible government backed oppression for a very long time. They were deprived of basic property, economic, political and civil rights for most our nation's history. It has created and fostered troubling sexist attitudes which persist today.

    Yes, feminists make many mountains over molehills, they beat many a dead horse and they overlook the progress made to focus on the ever fewer remaining areas of concern. But if you think of the epic 'butthurt' that, say, SoCons express over recent and slight losses in cultural dominance ('war on Christmas!') or conservative whining about 'media bias' it is evident that feminists have no especial tendency in this area, and indeed likely have far more justification for it when they do so engage in it.

  • wareagle||

    the socons aren't griefing for special status; they are pointing out that Christmas is not a new concept that snuck up on everyone...it's something clearly labeled on every calendar.

    Besides, life for women is exponentially better than it was when I was born or when my mother was born. But feminism, like labor and civil rights, persists in fighting battles that have largely been won for no reason other than maintaining its relevance.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The SoCon outrage over people simply saying 'happy holidays' rather than 'merry Christmas' is incredible, and highlights that feminists are not some unusually sensitive group in comparison.

  • ||

    I dont think the complaint is that people are saying Happy Holiday. The complaint is that some people are forbidding people to say Merry Christmas.

    When this topic comes up I usually point out that many Socons have exactly the same attitude about Halloween.

    I had a disagreement with one over a Halloween party at a hospital once. She was insisting that we call it 'Harvest Celebration'. I pointed out the so-called War on Christmas. In a nutshell my argument was "Fuck you, it is Halloween".

    She dropped it that year, but the next year she was at it again.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -I dont think the complaint is that people are saying Happy Holiday. The complaint is that some people are forbidding people to say Merry Christmas.

    Not at all. The 'War on Christmas' 'butthurt' is often explicitly about places like Walmart deciding to greet people with 'Happy Holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas.'

    Conservative Christians used government to establish a cultural dominance for most of our history. Prayers were made to be said in schools, religious messages were written on our legal tender, religious values were used to censor entertainment, blue laws used religious beliefs to constrict trade.

    They started to lose elements of that dominance and have been screaming 'bloody murder' since.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

  • wareagle||

    there is a difference between govt mandating a particular form of prayer and companies mandating that you not call something what it is. Not even the atheists want to take Christmas off the calendar; calling it "happy holidays" isn't fooling them or anyone else.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -there is a difference between govt mandating a particular form of prayer and companies mandating that you not call something what it is

    Yes, the difference is the second should be allowed of course. Companies should be free to say whatever they wish.

    And it is not necessarily 'what it is.' For an increasingly large amount of people in this nation it is more about 'happy holidays' than merry Christmas.'

  • PM||

    The 'War on Christmas' 'butthurt' is often explicitly about places like Walmart deciding to greet people with 'Happy Holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas.'

    Funny, I thought you were a huge proponent of protest as a fundamental and legitimate form of expression, including - nay, especially - protest against private organizations undertaken by private individuals and consumers. A discussion involving union-financed labor activists shouting and disrupting the dining experience of patrons in fast food restaurants, vis-a-vis the $15/hr minimum wage, springs immediately to mind.

    As silly as getting pissed off over the equally silly attempts by large corporations to conspicuously avoid acknowledging arguably the best-known holiday on the planet may be, at least it is, in point of fact, actually happening. Wal Mart, as you say, has made a decision with which they disagree. "War on wimmins!" feminists are stuck battling a wage gap that even sympathetic economists agree probably doesn't exist, and lobbying a male-dominated federal government to pay for their reproductive decisions while simultaneously railing against the patriarchy and its suppression of female independence without even an inkling of the irony. We're coming up on a hundred years since women's suffrage. Let's pretend that's still a valid issue...

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am all for the right of them to protest, but that does not mean I have to agree with their goal.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Not at all. The 'War on Christmas' 'butthurt' is often explicitly about places like Walmart deciding to greet people with 'Happy Holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas.'

    Yes, that's an example of people (the workers there) being prohibited from saying "Merry Christmas" for politically correct reasons (management being morons).

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -that's an example of people (the workers there) being prohibited from saying "Merry Christmas" for politically correct reasons (management being morons).

    It is their business.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And the SoCons are free to protest their business practices.

    Somehow I doubt that you'd have a problem with teh blacks protesting a business using little black sambo as a logo or teh feminists protesting the using of hot chicks to promote a business.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Let us understand what is outraging them: it is not enough that their religious holiday season is acknowledged in law and culture in ways few others are. It is not enough that they are greeted with a wish for a happy holiday during their holiday season. They are upset that other people, who may or may not share their holiday, are not expressly and explicitly wishing them it.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    No, they're outraged that distant elites are preventing people from saying the name of the holiday.... and seeing that as part of a slippery slope.

  • Acosmist||

    Stop replying to the concern troll and it'll go away, or log in under it's other name, Tony.

  • PM||

    They are upset that other people, who may or may not share their holiday, are not expressly and explicitly wishing them it.

    Here again, I don't think anybody has advocated forcing anyone to say "Merry Christmas". It is the prohibition by companies on the use of the phrase by their employees that they object to. It's all a fairly stupid song and dance, like blanking out the syllables of curse words on terrestrial radio when everybody listening knows full well what the redacted word is. If you don't want to say the word "Christmas" because of some bizarre hangup about language that the rest of society, up to and including the federal government that legislatively declared the holiday, doesn't, then don't say it. But if you do want to say "Merry Christmas", having to "holiday" in place of "Christmas" because your company will fire you otherwise is retarded. Petty retardation, but retarded nonetheless. If people were refusing to say the word "Labor" in "Labor day" and going to bizarre lengths to molest the language to do so, people would rightly think them insane. Ditto Thanksgiving, Columbus Day, MLK Day or any of the other federal excuses for paid time off.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "It is the prohibition by companies on the use of the phrase by their employees that they object to."

    Who the fuck, exactly, are the people making this argument? Cuz it sure as shit isn't the Conservatives. Every fucking whinge I've ever heard from the Right about this "War on Christmas" BS begins and ends with, "WAH! WAH! WAH! OUR HOLIDAY ISN'T RECEIVING PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT! CHRISTIAN NATION! FAMILY VALUES! MORAL DECAY OF SOCIETY BECAUSE WE DON'T STONE THE FAGS!". Hell, the human aspect -the greeters- rarely if ever enters their argument. Most angry letters (that I've read, anyway) from assholes like Andy Rooney on the subject specifically mention seeing "Happy Holidays" printed on banners.

    And let's not even pretend priviledge-obsessed shitbags like Bill Donohue would have any problem whatsoever if it were the other way around, and the Waltons were forcing everybody to say "Merry Christmas".

    There sure as fuck SHOULDN'T be any Libertarians making this argument. I can't think of a single reason as to why any Libertarian should give a shit about how a private business is run in this regard -especially when the qualm is so damn meaningless- except that maybe, possibly, likely they themselves are Christian, and like all religious people put that religion in high priority above any other principles or beliefs they may have. But the incompatability between religion and Libertarianism is another elephant in another room.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "If you don't want to say the word "Christmas" because of some bizarre hangup about language that the rest of society, up to and including the federal government that legislatively declared the holiday, doesn't, then don't say it. "

    Funny, not a single one of the retorts I read managed to even so much as mention the fact that there's a handful of other holidays that occur right around the same time period. Everything just seems to revolve around "They're attacking Christmas and want to hide the fact that it's Christmas"
    Even if you're the WASPiest cocksucker who ever live, you're celebrating New Year's Eve and Day less than a week after Christmas.

    And please, please, PLEASE don't give me that, "Kwanzaa isn't a valid holiday because it's meaningless and was just arbitrarily invented" argument when we're sitting here talking about one in a loooooong line of succesful efforts by Christians to plagiarize Pagan holidays and customs and rework them into chapters in their biography of a man who never fucking existed.

  • PM||

    Funny, not a single one of the retorts I read managed to even so much as mention the fact that there's a handful of other holidays that occur right around the same time period.

    That's because no company so far in the history of mankind has been stupid enough to think they could put up a menorah with a "Happy Holiday!" banner on it without their customers realizing that they were referring to Hanukkah, or to sell bottles of champagne on a promo rack that says "Happy Festivities!" or some equally stupid euphemism for New Years Day, or write an employee handbook telling their store associates to use the greeting "Happy Long Weekend!" when they're selling cases of discounted beer and chips for Labor Day. Like I said, it's really absurdly patronizing to be shoving all the trappings of one particular holiday in my face and then telling me you're referring to anything besides that holiday.

    Even if you're the WASPiest cocksucker who ever live, you're celebrating New Year's Eve and Day less than a week after Christmas.

    You use the Gregorian calendar? CHRISTFAG!!! (this is seriously how stupid you sound)

    (cont'd)

  • PM||

    And please, please, PLEASE don't give me that, "Kwanzaa isn't a valid holiday because it's meaningless and was just arbitrarily invented"

    I personally don't celebrate Kwanzaa because I'm not a racial separatist or a communist, so a holiday created to commemorate those values holds no appeal to me. However, if I walked into Big Box Mart and they had Kwanzaa products for sale, I wouldn't clutch my pearls because the display said "Happy Kwanzaa!" or "Huge Rollbacks on everything you need for Kwanzaa!" and insist that the store management pretend they were selling the products for anything other than Kwanzaa, because I'm not a retard who thinks calling something by a different name changes what it is.

    a man who never fucking existed.

    Ahh, see, you should have led off with this. Had I known I was engaging with Sevo's slightly more articulate but equally butthurt cousin who sits in the company of all of about 3 modern scholars who deny the existence of a historical figure, I wouldn't have bothered taking you all that seriously.

  • PM||

    I can't think of a single reason as to why any Libertarian should give a shit about how a private business is run in this regard

    It's odd then that you're having a rage-fest about it. Like I said before, this is one aspect of the "culture war" that nobody is really obligated to care about since it's about private interest groups trying to influence the behavior of private companies.

    Most angry letters (that I've read, anyway) from assholes like Andy Rooney on the subject specifically mention seeing "Happy Holidays" printed on banners.

    And? It's the same concept as far as the socons are concerned, and the objective absurdity still remains. Do you honestly think anybody with more functioning brain cells than they can count on one hand genuinely believes that Frosty the Snowman, Rudolph the Reindeer and old St. Nicholas are intended to be wishing anyone a prosperous Hanukkah or a particularly racially separatist Kwanzaa when they are adorned with a "Happy Holiday!" banner? If you're a business, your atheist, Muslim, Jewish, racist separatist, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist or Jainist customers aren't functional retards. They know that Frosty the Snowman and Rudolph the Reindeer and jolly St Nick are there representing Christmas. I find it incredibly patronizing, myself.

  • PM||

    the incompatability between religion and Libertarianism is another elephant in another room.

    Yeah, how could anyone possibly pursue personal spiritual enlightenment in the way they see fit while simultaneously following a political and personal philosophy that eschews the initiation of force?

  • BardMetal||

    I think I'm with the socons on this one.

    This "war of Christmas" is just more of the same multi-cultural bullshit we've seen for years.

    It's no different then how history textbooks now change AD and BC to that meaningless CE and BCE. We could teach how different cultures use different ways of measure time, and why we use AD and BC in the west, but of course multi-culturalism has nothing to do with actually learning about other cultures. It's just a way for the West to deny it's own cultural.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    No one is stopping them from saying 'Merry Christmas' to each other, they are upset because people are deciding, for quite rational reasons, to not say it to them.

  • wareagle||

    what is the rational reason? Every calendar in the country designates 12/25 as Christmas Day. People are not arbitrarily taking time off them, schools are not arbitrarily shutting down, and most businesses are not arbitrarily slowing down ops that time of year.

    It's not even about the religious part since this holiday has so many secular components to it that believers and atheists alike enjoy. It is the irrationality of not calling something by the name that most people identify it. And yes, numerous organizations ARE stopping people from saying it.

  • PM||

    And yes, numerous organizations ARE stopping people from saying it.

    That's their prerogative, as pointless as it is (I'm not sure who was actually offended by using the term "Christmas" to describe "Christmas", or whose suffering is alleviated by leaving all the trappings of "Christmas" intact but referring to it by a different name, as if snowmen, pine trees and the baby Jesus all just came into fashion like the Versace fall line somewhere around November). Just as it is the SoCons' prerogative to get pissed off about it. That's actually one part of the "culture war" that I think libertarians can embrace, regardless of their persuasion on the issue, in that neither side in the "war" is trying to rain down fire from the central government. It's the kind of cultural squabble people are bound to have, and that nobody has to care about since it doesn't involve any force of government.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    That's their prerogative, as pointless as it is...

    Well sure, but you're ignoring the context that the culture is being pushed in a certain direction by out of area elites - the corporate management - and not evolving organically.

    Personally, I don't care much, but they do have a point.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -what is the rational reason?

    Not everyone is celebrating that on that day or in that season. Not assuming everyone who comes into your store is seems pretty rational to me.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    I never saw how BCE and CE were any improvement for purposes of multiculturalism. Historically, it's ridiculous to claim that there was anything "common" to humanity that happened at that time. About the only remarkable thing that did occur in that year was the birth of history's most famous Jewish carpenter. If it offends you that our date system is based on his birth, and you want to have a date system based on an event common to all or most of humanity, you're going to have to choose a more recent event like the arrival of global telecommunications, and adopt a whole new numbering system.

  • BardMetal||

    "I never saw how BCE and CE were any improvement for purposes of multiculturalism."

    Well if you believe the purpose of multiculturalism is about being open about other cultures then it isn't.

    If multiculturalism is about the west denying it's own culture then it has succeeded in erasing a part of our culture.

    I've never believed that multiculturalism had anything to do with actually knowing about other cultures, mostly because the biggest proponents of multiculturalism I have met also seem to be the most ignorant people I have met when it comes to having any sort of knowledge about other cultures.

  • PM||

    BCE and CE is another one of those things where it's so unbelievably silly because everybody knows the historical event that spawned the numbering system, and it feels retarded to pretend you're referring to anything else when you're still using the same dates and numbers. If they had actually changed the numbering system or even bothered picking a different historical landmark to denote the same set of numbers it would at least have some semblance of utility (although to what end I don't really know).

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I never saw how BCE and CE were any improvement for purposes of multiculturalism. Historically, it's ridiculous to claim that there was anything "common" to humanity that happened at that time.

    Originally, like 20 years or so ago, BCE and CE were pushed as meaning Before Christian Era and Christian Era as a politically correct replacement for the more personal Before Christ and In the Year of Our Lord.

    It was only later that even that was seen as offensive and Christ was replaced with Common.

    And yeah, it's moronic political correctness.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    Or, even better, a more distant event.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_calendar

    ... Hobbit

  • cavalier973||

    CE: Christian Era

    BCE: Before the Christian Era.

    I've no problem with that...

  • John||

    This is remarkably easy for us as men to say

    Yeah because nothing bad ever happened to men. And men can never be in a victim group.

    And disagreeing with and objecting to a cultural trend is not "butt hurt". SOCONs have a right to object to shit. They like their Christmas trees on the city lawn. If you don't like it, fine. That is called disagreement. But calling your opponents "victims" makes a fascist twit who thinks it is somehow illegitimate for anyone to expresses or fight for an issue you don't like.

    Is there any fucking issue that you can't tiresomely try to turn into a forum for your hatred of Social Conservatives? We get it, you don't like SOCONS.

    SOCONS are feminists. They are on the defensive. People like you are free to express total and utter hatred towards them. Every day you are on here ranting and raving like some kind secular Father Caughlin about SOCONS. They have lost the culture war. Them fighting back is not the same as feminists. Feminist won. They were the cultural aggressors and transformed society. Yet, they continue to claim to be victims and act like it is forever 1963. You have completely missed the point here.

    But it gave you a chance to rant about SOCONs and change the subject away from criticism of a liberal group you like. It is almost like you are trolling and that was the idea or something.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -And men can never be in a victim group.

    Of course they can, but historically it is not even close.

    -And disagreeing with and objecting to a cultural trend is not "butt hurt". SOCONs have a right to object to shit.

    The outrage over amazingly small slights would put many feminists even to shame. You are simply allied with this group and so want to explain it away.

    -Every day you are on here ranting and raving like some kind secular Father Caughlin about SOCONS.

    I thought you invited me to post examples of SoCons acting as outrageously silly as feminists? In fact, I am sure you did.

    -They have lost the culture war. Them fighting back is not the same as feminists. Feminist won.

    So now you seem to concede they are similarly 'butt hurt,' but theirs is for some reason 'ok' because they are losing their historical dominance over our culture and feminists is not because they are overcoming their historical oppression. Interesting theory.

  • ||

    "....historically it is not even close."

    So what? Today is today. The vast majority of women alive today have never been oppressed in any meaningful way. Their bitching is just as irrelevant as the blacks who whine about slavery.

    My advice to both groups? Quit bitching and whining, get an education and go out and kick some ass.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    To some extent I agree here. Whining is not very productive, and realizing that things are better than for both groups is important. And as individuals, a life of getting educated and 'kicking butt' is better advice than wallowing in victimhood.

    But there do remain some obstacles for women and blacks whose origins can to a large extent be traced to oppressive government action for most of our history. The effects of such policy do not fad away instantly. So I am fine with some amount of pointing this out. The problem with me is how these groups tend to invert what is going on: instead of noting the historic role of government in creating these problems they constantly talk about how government is, with no sense of irony, going to be the solution to the very same problems.

  • ||

    Not a bad point. No amount of government action will change social attitudes, and changing social attitudes is the only solution.

    I am curious, what obstacles remain? The only one I can come up with is "Hey, that guy over there is a shithead and doesnt like women or blacks". Yeah? So, what? The world was, is and always will be full of shitheads, what are you going to do about it?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think there are still a lot of people who have negative stereotypes about women (and for that matter men) that were at the least in some part fostered by government action in the past.

    It is odd that while women are half the population they make up so few of our leaders in government, industry and other institutions. I do not expect women not to notice that or to not see it as a concern.

  • C. Anacreon||

    It is odd that while women are half the population they make up so few of our leaders in government, industry and other institutions. I do not expect women not to notice that or to not see it as a concern.

    But women only really started to enter the workplace en masse about 40 years ago or so, and until then "housewife" was a very common situation. In the last forty years more and more women have indeed entered the workplace. But women as a group just have not had enough overall time competing as equals to be equally represented in politics and business. But they will continue to be more and more, and probably 20-30 years from now this won't even be an argument to have.

  • ||

    This is remarkably easy for us as men to say. Women did have some terrible government backed oppression for a very long time.

    Well, shit, guys. As men we've never been oppressed by the government, so we just can't understand. That about right?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Again, of course men are at times oppressed. And when they are many men scream about it (with some justification). My point is simply that as a historical matter the oppression of men by government pales in comparison to the oppression of women. Not even close.

    I am willing to cut groups that were harmed by government for more of our history than not some slack. When a Native American complains about their treatment by government I could point out how less of a problem this has been recently, or I can think, 'yes, they did have it bad for a long time.' I do the latter. I feel the same way with women. They have a right to complain. I draw the line when they advocate violation of the NAP since I think that is immoral (two wrongs do not a right make) and is usually counterproductive (creating more resentment and 'victimhood mentality' that hold women back). But by all means complain.

  • Irish||

    Yes, but now feminists are advocating for increased government oppression. Sorry, but when you are agitating in favor of the government oppressing other people, you forfeit your right to complain about the past oppression of you.

    I'd also argue that none of the 23 year old, fresh from gender studies feminists have ever been oppressed by their government, at least not for their gender. Saying "The government oppressed people with the same kind of genitals as mine 50 years ago" is not a valid reason to claim you're oppressed today.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    ...you forfeit your right to complain about the past oppression of you.

    Unless these broads are like 100 years old, they have never experienced legal oppression.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is not that this is not an important point, it is. But it does not tell the entire story.

    Few 23 year old black men have experienced 'legal oppression' yet black men are disproportionately poor, incarcerated, unemployed, you name it. If that does not have some basis in some past legal oppression I would be quite surprised. And if I were black I do not think that I should have to close my eyes to that or not complain about it, though I grant that focusing on it too much is counterproductive (to say the least).

  • Irish||

    Few 23 year old black men have experienced 'legal oppression' yet black men are disproportionately poor, incarcerated, unemployed, you name it.

    Yes, but women are in no rational way oppressed or poorer than average. As Cathy pointed out, women actually control 60% of the wealth in this country.

    You cannot compare women, who are only suffering from past oppression in the deluded fever dreams of far left feminists, with black people living in ghettos partially because of past racism.

    I'd also like to point out that African-Americans were actually more likely to be middle class and to have opportunities to move up in the era of oppression than they do in today's 'enlightened' times. This further buttresses my point.

    Modern black people are held down by left-wing oppression in that it is virtually impossible for anyone to start a business in the inner cities since they are far too regulated for someone to get any value out of poorly educated inner city workers. By the same token, women are more likely to be held down by feminist ideas of what women 'should be' than old style patriarchy. The people who are trying to force everyone into certain gender roles in modern times are almost all feminists.

    Their gender roles may be different than the old patriarchy, but they're just as oppressive. If feminists want me to applaud them for fighting against the patriarchy, maybe they should stop emotionally bullying women first.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Telling professional grievance mongerers that the source of their grievance is gone elicits hysteria.

    Which is why I start every conversation with these types by reminding them they wanted this, they decided to start talking to me about it. Then I set about trying to outrage them with verifiable facts, like women graduate college almost 2 to 1 compared to men, so Title IX is obsolete. Then when they scream, I remind them they wanted this, they decided to start talking to me about it.
    Fun.

  • Acosmist||

    Nonsense, Title IX is not obsolete. It's a great way for rich white women to squeeze out the sports of poor black men. Win for everyone! No more scary black sports at college! Yayyyyyy

  • Live Free or Diet||

    The point is to get them caught between the rock and the hard place and enjoy watching them twist and writhe to keep from openly admitting their position is indefensible. Amazing how many supposed intellectuals will finally admit that they consider facts to be subordinate to dogma, usually beginning in the form of bursting out with, "I don't care about (insert central fact here)!"
    Quite entertaining.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    House majority whip says Republicans aren't shutting the govt down:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/.....73787.html

    His name is Kevin McCarthy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se20_Tpvsb8

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The House is not only asking for a one year delay of Obamacare. Given that the administration plans to delay several facets of it this seems like an eminently reasonable position. Reid and Obama's immediate insistence on not allowing it strike me as putting them out there as plainly unreasonable.

  • John||

    http://online.wsj.com/article_.....DcyWj.html

    Thank you NSA for destroying America's tech industry.

  • DJF||

    And we don’t even get good intelligence in return since the government always seems surprised by what is happening in the world.

  • ||

    It is too soon to tell if a major shift is under way. But the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation estimates that fallout from revelations about NSA activities could cost Silicon Valley up to $35 billion in annual revenue, much of it from lost overseas business.

    What's the Fed's take of corporate taxes on $35,000,000,000? Then add in the income taxes, FICA, etc., on the employees who would have been hired to service those accounts. The left keeps saying we don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem. With the NSA, we get both at once.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Working to make the NSA a non-problem by cutting its funding is exactly the kind of project that should, in theory, bring together civil libertarian Democrats, libertarians and anti-spending Republicans in a rare moment of agreement.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    BUT JERBZ! YOU CAN'T CUT NERD WORKFARE!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    civil libertarian Democrats

    are about as real as skittle shitting unicorns.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Oh, that is demonstrably silly, especially on this issue. One does not even have to bring up the 111 Democrats who voted for the Amash-Conyers Amendment (more, by the way, than the 94 Republicans who did so) or Senators like Wyden and Udall who have opposed it. One can point to organizations like the ACLU which has been vigorously legally engaged with the issue. I do not think any other organization has fought it as hard and as long, and they almost surely pull the 'D' lever every November.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's all a con Bo.

    When push comes to shove the civil liberty democrats always help to restrict civil liberties.

    They were a real part of the democrat party coalition in the 60s and 70s - not so much in the 21st century.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I do not think any other organization has fought it as hard and as long, and they almost surely pull the 'D' lever every November.

    That's the fucking problem, Bo. They'd vote for national security democrats like hillary or obama before voting for actual civil libertarians like ron or rand paul.

  • ||

    Yet two knuckleheads, barely old enough to shave, manage to get into the country, go back and train in a jihadist camp, come back, set off a bomb and kill americans, then shut down a major american city.

    Yay NSA.

  • Irish||

    Yet two knuckleheads, barely old enough to shave, manage to get into the country, go back and train in a jihadist camp, come back, set off a bomb and kill americans, then shut down a major american city.

    They managed to do that while the Russians were warning us about them. We can't handle two morons who we are being warned about by a foreign government.

  • ||

    You are correct. I forgot to put the cherry on top. They were specifically warned about them.

    And who's head rolled?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And don't forget about the Army Major that was openly proselytizing jihad and calling a known terrorist in a foreign country. And yet surprising slipped through the cracks

    But yeah, the NSA spying has totallllly stopped major terror attacks. Just take Clapper's word for it.

  • Greg83||

    Richard Reid's own father provided multiple warnings about his son who was still allowed on the plane, but we're supposed to feel safe with everyone now having to take their shoes off.

  • PM||

    You can always count on the fedgov to be vigilantly pursuing the last terrorist tactic.

  • Hawk Spitui||

    Patriarchy, indeed. What a wonderful opportunity to post this.

    Let the outraged howling begin!

  • ||

    I cant read that. Just scrolling through and looking at the photos makes a sharp pain shoot through my temples.

    I especially like the ugly fat girl holding the sign with a strike through the playboy symbol.

  • Eric Bana||

    Thank you Cathy.

  • Greg83||

    Hillary Clinton articulated the feminist viewpoint perfectly years ago:

    "Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children." Conference on domestic violence in San Salvador, El Salvador (17 November 1998). http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EO.....81117.html

  • Number 2||

    "It is also deeply irrelevant to most women, only five percent of whom consider themselves “strong feminists” "

    Seriously, what more needs to be said, when the people on who's behalf you supposedly speak overwhelmingly reject you? And why should we care about what is clearly a fringe movement has to say about anything?

  • Astrokid||

    The % that identify as feminists is irrelevant. Republicans dont largely identify as feminists, but they will pass every law to Protect The Wimminz. 600M$ p.y VAWA that is based on feminist man-perpetrator woman-victim model? No problem for GOP. Affirmative Action? Rape Shield laws that violate common sense? No problems.

    The basic problem is Gynocentrism, which is part of human nature.. in both men and women. Thats why you have White Knights bashing other men to save the damsel in distress.
    (False, but who cares?) Rape allegation against a man? Jury says Jail him. Thats Gynocentrism for you.

    Feminism is just a politicization of this innate gynocentrism.

    Harry Crouch the president of NCFM.org explains:
    http://youtu.be/1TwgSKx4FBs

    And John The Other explains "Patriarchy" much better than Cathy Young ever could.
    How Patriarchy Works: an improved definition
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV8F0TSLwOY

  • Astrokid||

    Yet another article from Cathy Young where she regurgitates the same old points about feminists. While she is mostly correct, she doesnt go far enough.
    Others have said what she's saying decades ago, and said it much better by analyzing and revealing the big picture.
    for e.g Neil Lyndon of UK in the early 90s, in his book No More Sex War: The failures of feminism.

    What is preventing society from working towards resolving injustice towards men? Men's groups have been campaigning since the 70s, but feminism coupled with State and Media suppress them. And even Cathy Young badmouths them. There's a wolf in sheep's clothing for you.

    One is much better served reading about how humans evolved, with women and The Long Childhood of humans as a huge reproductive bottleneck. This made men the disposable, hyperagentic sex and women the preserved, hypoagentic sex. Civilization was built on top of this exploiting male surplus labour.

    Psychologist Roy Baumeister's 2010 book: 'Is there anything good about men? How cultures flourish by exploiting men' is much more informative than Cathy Young's regurgitations.

  • Ebriosa||

    More broadly, I am convinced that if feminism is to have a positive future, it must reinvent itself as a gender equity movement advocating for both sexes and against all sexism.

    This, this, a hundred times this. This is me and my feminists, who do worry about revenge objectification of men, of paternity legal issues that are biased towards women, and media stuff like how men are often portrayed and bumbling and incompetent. Don't complain about rape jokes and then turn around and hope that some scumbag man gets raped in prison. I'll take rape jokes over actual rape any day.

    I probably can't read any of the comments on this or the Robin thicke thing just because I know they'll make me upset, but on average, a libertarian is a better feminist than most feminists because they ultimately want people to be treated as individuals. And they have better senses of humor. But libertarians confronting feminist stuff on the internet are pretty horrible and come across like ignorant children with terrible arguing skills, with stuff like "but what about men?", "this should be more important!", and other derailments. Examination and discussion of even the smallest problems, even if the final conclusion is that it isn't actually a problem, is useful. And just because some feminists want to use government/power/force to bludgeon us all into their vision of perfect equality, obviously that's not necessary to be feminist.

  • Astrokid||

    ALL the points you mentioned are outright rejected by mainstream feminists. standard narrative is ALL mens problems are caused by Patriarchy.. and the way to fix them is "more feminism" i.e more of the same

    liberal feminist org NOW is actively involved in demonizing men. for e.g Fall 2012 Newslatter http://www.nowfoundation.org/i.....ll2012.pdf

    Page 1:
    This Special Report of the NOW Family Law Ad Hoc Advisory Committee focuses on the destructive ability of abusive parents (usually the father) – aided by fathers’ advocacy groups or fathers’ rights groups – to deny the protective parent (usually the mother) custody of minor children. Discussed in this issue is how abusers deny custody, and the damage it causes to a half million or more children exposed to continuing physical, psychological and sexual abuse.

    Anti-Science and Anti-common sense as well.
    NOW TO DENOUNCE SO-CALLED PARENTAL ALIENATION (SYNDROME)2006
    WHEREAS, the term Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) was created by the psychiatrist, Richard Gardner. It is used as a tactic in courts by litigating attorneys as a defense strategy for batterers and sexual predators that purports to explain a child's estrangement from one parent, or explains away allegations against the estranged parent of abuse/sex abuse of child, by blaming the protective parent;
    ...
    THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Organization for Women (NOW)
    denounces Parental Alienation Syndrome and recommends...

  • Ann N||

    I would put evil on 2 dimensions/axis.

    on 1 axis is right/wrong (topical), and on the other is freedom/compulsion (universal).

    by all standards men are the perpetrators in right/wrong paradigms. 90% of those in prison are men. but we ignore the freedom/force axis entirely, which is where the majority of feminine vice comes from.

    the stereotypical 5 year old tyrant girl is immortalized by Rugrats Angelica. When they grow up they overwhelmingly support tyrannical forms of organization, from family to politics to social cliques.

    the end of western civilization looks like a bunch of angry women complaining about life that has more choice, power, safety, opportunity than any generation of women in the history of the world. claiming they are oppressed even.

    it doesnt fall apart because its overrun by evil, it falls apart because its overrun by compulsion. thinking with their womb instead of their brain: for the children, this is why we need to trample your gun rights.

    good is an elusive thing. its not enough to do the right thing (lawful) if its for the wrong reasons (compulsion). and its not enough to do the wrong thing (unlawful) if its for the right reasons (free choice). genders complement each other, but its quite insane to say women are morally superior. you have to do the right thing for the right reason.

    sure women are wellknown to be much better do-gooders than men, but men are far more likely to actually give a fuck about someone elses liberty.

  • anewrepublic||

    Ahhhh, fooey. It all boils down to the following realities:

    Women will never feel comfortable with the knowledge that, in the end, mostly any man can turn to any woman within his reach, and put an end to her, bare handed. That's gotta suck for them.
    And men will forever have angst toward women bc men generally cant (legally) screw whatever ones he chooses. At least, not as often as he would want.

    Mostly everything we experience branches forth from the above.

  • nina.Malik||

    my best friend's sister-in-law makes $74 hourly on the computer. She has been laid off for 5 months but last month her pay was $14134 just working on the computer for a few hours. have a peek at this website....

    http://www.Works23.Com

  • shipley130||

    If feminism involves people like Benghazi Clinton and Slumlord Jarrett, it does need to be burned out.

  • jolieena||

    my classmate's step-sister makes $84/h hourly on the internet. She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $20791 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this site.. Bay89.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online