Old W[h]ines Fancy New Bottles – Part II

 

 Christina Hoff Sommers wrote an article for AVfM, where she casts her eye over a new documentary film called The Mask You Live In – even the title makes me shudder.

Anyway – in her first two paragraph, Hoff Sommers indulges herself in a bit of hand-wringing and worrying, about how this film might, just might be misrepresenting boys. Then goes on to do just exactly that herself.

“ It argues that American boys are captive to a rigid and harmful social code of masculinity. From the earliest age, they are told to “Be a man!” “Don’t cry!” “Stop with the emotion!” and “Man up!” This “guy code” suppresses their humanity, excites their drive for dominance and renders many of them dangerous. The trailer features adolescent men describing their isolation, despair and thoughts of suicide, artfully interspersed with terrifying images of school shooters and mass murderers.”

Fair enough, though the fact that the filmmaker is described BY Hoff Sommers as  “filmmaker and feminist activist Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s” might be a great big bloody honking clue as to how Newsome might view boys and all male human beings!

In light of the fact that it was Hoff Sommers own book – “The War Against Boys”, in which SHE described this “war” as a “war” initiated, waged and perpetuated by BLOODY FEMINISTS “Against Boys.” The rest of her “article” is………..bizarre.

But, alas, one of the things that feminists are famous for is, backpeddling, indulging in a little linguistic sleight of hand, depending on which way the wind blows, and how uncomfortable that fence they’ve been sitting on is getting. Sommers apparently is no exception as this article illustrates.

“Christina Hoff Sommers, who played a starring role in the anti-feminist backlash of the 1990s, is back again with a new edition of her book The War Against Boys. Originally subtitled How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, it’s now relabeled How Misguided Policies Are Harming Our Young Men;”

Well now! Isn’t that intriguing? All of a sudden feminism is quietly swept under the carpet, and “policies” are now the big bad wolf creeping up on the hen house. Such a nice “let’s not point the finger at anybody or anything in particular” just some unattributed vague neutral “policies

Eh, yeah, right!

The article was published on Feb 14th 2013  – the author of this piece, Jim Naureckas, is very obviously not a fan of Sommers, and in this instance who can blame him.

I’m wondering, to myself, is this a chance to seize an opportunity to come in from cold? It can be a mite chilly being outside the sisterhood, especially when one yearns for “nice feminism” to come back into fashion. Naureckas helpfully supplies a link to another article, this time penned by Hoff Sommers herself.

Perhaps we’ll just let Hoff Sommers explain the little word substitution herself – I took a screen shot of the relevant paragraph, because for some reason I couldn’t copy and paste it, and am no good at figuring out what the problem is.

In her own words then. Click on the link above to go read the article yourself.

“For a revised version of the book, due out this summer, I’ve changed the subtitle – to “How Misguided Policies Are Harming Our Young Men” from “How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men” – and moved away from criticizing feminism; instead I emphasized boy-averse trends like the decline of recess, zero-tolerence disciplinary policies, the tendency to criminilize minor juvenile misconduct and the turn away from single-sex schooling.  As our schools have become more feelings-centred, risk-averse, collaboration-orientated and sedentary, they have moved further and further from boys’ characteristic sensibilities.  Concerns about boys arose during a time of tech bubble prosperity; now, more that a decade later, there are major policy reasons – besides the stale “culture wars” of the 1990’s – to focus on boys schooling.”

Ah, well then, let’s all stopcriticising feminism” because obviously since from the first time Hoff Sommers published her ground-breaking book, it appears that  now, feminists have become so much nicer, so much more concerned about boys, it would be better if we all just learned to get along, and play nicely together. You read it from the horse’s mouth – feminism is OFF the hook.

B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T – B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T – B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T – B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T – B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T  – did I mention that this is B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T?

Sommers does make a few friendly and nicesuggestions” as to how Newsome can improve her film, but decides to regale us first with some nice descriptive words about what men are, and what women are.

“A recent study on sex differences by researchers from the University of Turin, in Italy, and the University of Manchester, in England, confirms what most of us see with our eyes: with some exceptions, women tend to be more sensitive, esthetic, sentimental, intuitive and tender-minded, while men tend to be more utilitarian, objective, unsentimental and tough-minded. We do not yet fully understand the biological underpinnings of these universal tendencies, but that is no reason to deny they exist.”

 Where is the link to this “study please? I’d like to read it myself, and make my own mind up about what it found, if that’s all right with you Dr. Sommers?  Because what I’m seeing here is a pithy little analysis that functions to confirm and perpetuate STEROTYPES – what is “stereotypical female behaviour, and stereotypical male behaviour or if you prefer. Myths.

 What are little girls made of? Sugar and spice and all things nice………..you all know the rest.

 I especially liked the words “sensitive” and “tender-minded” applied to women, I must have misinterpreted all those RED PILL stories from all those MEN on AVfM forum, where they described the horrors they endured at the hands of “sensitive” and “tender-minded” women – but the words she uses for men are classic gynocentrism wrapped up in nice feminist bullshit, my absolute favourite being “utilitarian” ah yes – men have always been “utilitarian” FOR the benefit of women.

 But it was Hoff Sommers suggestion No, 4 that made me literally drop my jaw in amazement – in one paragraph she chides Newsome for misrepresenting boy’s mental health, claims that most boys are basically as happy as Larry AND points out that “Among 10- to 24-year-olds, 81% of suicide victims are male.

 But the cherry on top of her “suggestion“ to Newsome is that in spite of all these happy go lucky boys that “Male suicide is a much neglected scourge, and Newsom’s efforts to raise awareness are admirable” BUT also that  “Each of these deaths is a tragedy. But it helps no one to pretend that suicide is typical male behavior.”

“4. Make clear that most boys are psychologically sound and resilient

 The Mask You Live In gives the impression that the average adolescent boy is severely depressed. In fact, clinical depression is rare among boys. (National Institute of Mental Health data show that the prevalence of depression among among 13- to 17-year-old boys is 4.3%; among girls of the same age group, it is 12.4%.)

Newsom’s film reports that every day in the U.S. three or more boys take their own lives. Suicide is, indeed, primarily a male disease. Among 10- to 24-year-olds, 81% of suicide victims are male. In 2010, a total of 3,951 young men died by their own hands. Male suicide is a much neglected scourge, and Newsom’s efforts to raise awareness are admirable. Still, in a nation of nearly 33 million boys, that means that the percentage of boys who commit suicide is close to 0.01%. Each of these deaths is a tragedy. But it helps no one to pretend that suicide is typical male behavior.”

 So, let me see if I have this right? Boys are NOT suffering from clinical depression, because MORE girls, almost three times as more get diagnosed with REAL clinical depression – yet MORE boys than girls actually take their own lives – but not because they are as depressed as girls?

What am I missing here? Oh yeah – when girls are depressed its REAL depression, but when boys are depressed it’s………? Because obviously with nearly “33 million boys” What difference does it make if 0.01% of them take their own lives, plenty more to spare. It’s the percentages that matter, NOT the actual real human beings – because after all, it’s just a FEW BOYS! I’ll be honest, that almost made me puke in disgust.

 Hoff Sommers next suggestion made me spray my coffee out all over my computer screen – she lauds the efforts in Australia to improve men’s “mental fitness” because of a report in the Medical Journal of Australia in 2006.

“Some of the most promising, innovative ideas are coming out of Australia. In 2006, a report in the Medical Journal of Australia argued for a paradigm shift in the nation’s mental-health system. Rather than blaming “masculinity” or trying to “re-educate” men away from their reluctance to seek help, the author asks, “Why not provide health services that better meet the needs of men?”

 I’m just going to leave the link to Janet Bloomfield’s (aka Judgybitch) brilliant article on the issue of Male Health Studies in Australia here and this link here, and say just one thing to Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers.

 What fucking planet, what parallel universe have you been living in since………being the poster girl for cool and trendy nice feminists, way back, when sitting on the fence was much more comfortable than it is now?

 You cite some report from 2006, from almost eight years ago, without actually providing a link to said report, yet seem oblivious to events of recent days regarding the FIRST attempt to offer a Male Studies course – that IS actually about Male Health in Australia?

 Here’s what I think – that Christina Hoff Sommers sees an opportunity to jump on the bandwagon of feminism 4.0 via two avenues, first by re-issuing her book – with a new suitably sanitised tag line under the title, that takes the heat OFF feminism, and two, by offering a half baked apologia/endorsement/half fat approval, for this execrable toxic little film that is a vehicle for a repackaged, rebranded, renewed, boy friendly feminism.

 The message is the same – men and boys bad – girls and women good – it’s still FEMINISM – it just got itself a makeover, has quietly nudged the screechy ranty bad feminists back into the shadows, or up into the attic and is now doing the fluffy feminist two step.

 Bullshit.

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

 

NB. I wrote this article yesterday, but held off posting it last night, because as I read the comments on AVfM on this article – with almost no exceptions the comments were all rather gushing in praise of Hoff Sommers.  So I slept on it – thinking – am I just imaging this? That this article is a thinly disguised apologia FOR feminism? That this article is a sloppy, poorly researched, lazy, knocked it off in an hour piece of pro feminist bullshit?  That Hoff Sommers is skating by on past glories?

Now to be fair to Hoff Sommers, her book The War against Boys was groundbreaking and rightly deserves kudos, but that was then, this is now. What I did notice about the comments as well, was that with the exception of a few minor “issues” pointed out in the actual BODY of her article – no- one directly critiqued it. No-one took this article point by point and examined it very closely. There was a lot of tippy toeing around, a few vague references to a few vague, as I said “issues” but overall it was a love fest – Christina Hoff Sommers was so cool, was so brilliant and the MHRM was sooooooooo lucky to have her!

 

Added this Morning: What is written above is my honest to God opinion – I stand by every word of it – should anyone wish to “take me to task” for taking swipes at the untouchable Christina Hoff Sommers – go ahead – I won’t stand in your way – won’t close comments, censor you or bar you from commenting, obviously if you decide you post poisonous ranty illiterate diatribes I might use my discretion – it is MY blog after all – otherwise nope.

 What I will point out is that A Voice for Men has my full 100% support, now and always, without AVfM and Paul Elam’s vision and persistence the MHRM would probably still be in the doldrums, still languishing in dark corners of the internet, and feminism would have won – Men’s Human Rights would probably be fast becoming a distant memory.

 Anja

 

23 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. alanbowker
    Jan 17, 2014 @ 14:51:04

    Anja,

    Strangely enough..
    I read your article then went through the comments tracking the same.
    A Feminist. You called Hoff-Sommers a Feminist?
    Now, I have a copy of War Against Boys which I have yet to read, but I have read Who Stole Feminism and that was a real eye opener.
    In fact that was probably my Red Pill moment. It was already under my tongue, but as I finished that book, I swallowed.
    It was well researched, insightful, and a WARNING.
    Sadly that warning went unheeded. The takeover of Academia is almost complete.
    What I don’t recall (and I’m writing this without first easily checking this fact on Google) is whether Hoff-Sommers ever called herself a Feminist?
    I say this as it is far from inconceivable that she may be pro MRM AND a Feminist at once.
    Just as Warren Farrell, someone else who is held in greater esteem within AVfM, declared early in his Myth of Male Power,
    Yes. He IS a Feminist (or was at the time of writing).
    Whatever they both call themselves, i am grateful both for heir writings and for their support. As I am with yours.
    (Incidentally, doesn’t Michael Kimmel claim to be a Men’s Rights activist, or an expert at least? I’d rather have a Feminist Sommers than an MRM Kimmel, personally).
    There is absolutely nothing wrong with stating your beliefs and not bowing to the Emperor’s New Clothes syndrome, so… post post away.
    There is a world of difference between an Opinion and a Fact.
    Voice your opinion, let others twist the Facts.
    Debate is healthy. Why would you always have to write (or even THINK you ought to write) only what you may think that others’ welcome?. .

    Reply

    • Anja Eriud
      Jan 17, 2014 @ 16:32:25

      Hi Alan,

      Fist I have to say, that Hoff Sommers has contributed an enormous and valuable amount to the cause of the MHRM, in particular in relation to boys – you’ll get no argument from me on that. But, despite at this, clinging doggedly to an allegiance to feminism has always been something that has made me pause from giving her 100% approval.

      This is because in my opinion she too easily and too quickly sidesteps, pretends not to really see, and very carefully picks her way through the various toxic little ideological turds that feminism has, to be blunt shat out ad nauseum for nigh on 50 years now. Its the “but I’m not THAT kind of feminist.

      Just doesn’t wash with me – at all – it’s a bit like being pregnant – you either are or you aren’t – you cannot be a little bit pregnant.

      “What I don’t recall (and I’m writing this without first easily checking this fact on Google) is whether Hoff-Sommers ever called herself a Feminist?

      I say this as it is far from inconceivable that she may be pro MRM AND a Feminist at once.

      Christina Hoff Sommers is most definitely and proudly a feminist – in fact has been making efforts to rehabilitate feminism, to sweep the nastiness of feminism under some ancient historical carpet and declare that feminism just needs a bit of tarting up, that feminism is, was and can be – warm and fuzzy, kind and caring, soft hearted and sweet as pie.

      From: How to Get More Women (and Men) to Call Themselves Feminists: Focus on injustice, poverty, and women in parts of the world beyond the United States.

      By Christina Hoff Sommers Jun 25 2013,

      http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/06/how-to-get-more-women-and-men-to-call-themselves-feminists/277179/

      “The emancipation of women is one of the glories of Western civilization and one of the great chapters in the history of freedom. Why is the term that describes that heritage in such disrepute?”

      See this? Though I would not quite call things like The White Feather Campaign that shamed boys, some as young as 14 or 15 into going off to get themselves killed on Flanders Field, boys and young men who did NOT have the right to vote as “glories, this gloriousemancipation of women” came as the death toll for men climbed to approximately 10 million, with another 20 million injured.

      http://www.abmc.gov/cemeteries/cemeteries/ff.php

      “Though the major battles for equality and opportunity in the United States have been fought and largely won, the work of feminism remains unfinished. Across the globe, fledgling women’s groups struggle to survive in the face of genuine and often violent oppression. In the West, popular culture contains strong elements of misogyny. Women, far more than men, struggle with the challenge of combining work and family. Despite women’s immense progress, poverty rolls are disproportionately filled with women with children.

      Who needs feminism? We do. The world does. But an effective women’s movement needs to be rescued from its current outcast state. Anyone who cares about improving the status of women around the world should be working to create a women’s movement that resonates with women. A reality-based, male-respecting, judicious feminism could greatly help women both in the United States and throughout the world. I call it “freedom feminism.”

      Need I say, that there is so much wrong with this, that it would bore you and anyone else for me to go into it here.

      She continues further down:

      “Although British comedic writer Caitlin Moran calls herself a “strident feminist,” many passages in her funny book How to be a Woman capture the spirit of freedom feminism. What is feminism? she asks. “Simply the belief that women should be as free as men, however nuts, dim, deluded, badly dressed, fat, receding, lazy, and smug they might be.”

      Women should be “as free as men” – hmmm – is that so? We’ll just pretend that men don’t get incarcerated at higher rates for crimes that women get off scot free with – including murder – that men don’t get falsely accused, that men don’t get shafted in Family Court, than men don’t get the ever living shit kicked out of them by women then THEY get arrested – we’ll just pretend – la la la la that none of this happens – none of the laws, policies or programmes that allow these injustices to happen had anything to do WITH feminism. At all.

      She has advice for today’s young women:

      My advice to today’s young women: Reform feminism. Give moderate and conservative women a voice. Most of all, make common cause with women across the globe who are struggling for their basic freedoms. Supporting truly oppressed women would give today’s Western feminism something it has lacked for many years: a contemporary purpose worthy of its illustrious past.”

      I remember reading this, and that last phrase “its illustrious past” made me physically sick to my stomach.

      Illustrious past??? Redstockings? SCUM Manifesto, Andrea Dworkin? Catherine MacKinnon? VAWA? Title IX? Dear Colleague letter? And on and on and on and on……

      “There is absolutely nothing wrong with stating your beliefs and not bowing to the Emperor’s New Clothes syndrome, so… post post away.”

      I have no problem stating my beliefs or opinions, and as long as my fingers work and I can get my crappy broadband to work I’ll keep plugging away. :)

      There is a world of difference between an Opinion and a Fact.

      True, but one forms one’s opinions on whatever facts are available to one, or actually spends some time to go look for, wouldn’t you agree?

      Voice your opinion, let others twist the Facts.

      Always do. :)

      Debate is healthy. Why would you always have to write (or even THINK you ought to write) only what you may think that others’ welcome?. .

      Ah, that was never the issue, was more “Can’t believe what I’m seeing here” but hey ho – that’s how the cookie crumbles.

      Thank you for your thoughtful and interesting comment Alan.

      Anja 

      Reply

  2. independentshock
    Jan 17, 2014 @ 17:57:06

    I read that AVfM article and it seemed to be whatever. Not good, not bad. But I loved your investigation of money from yesterday as well as today’s post. I have two quick comments.
    1) I think Dr. Sommers did not put links because older people often don’t have this habit. I am basing it on absolutely nothing other than my anecdotal observations but even journalists, if they are a bit older, they do not put links in their blogs. They probably did their fact checking but they are not used to the idea that readers (and not just the Editor as it used to) want to see all those facts and links. I might be wrong here, but I noticed several times, mostly outside of gender debates.

    2) Substitution from Feminism to Policy actually made sense to me. And this is why. Feminism these days is so wide-spread and so much of a norm that even when you hear feminism you think about some marginalized groups that are rarely, if ever, seen on most campuses or on the streets protesting something. You don’t realize that feminism is an HR seminars explaining how to minimize a chance of hiring a white man. That feminism is Obama saying that “women can do everything men can and do it in heels”.

    SO: blaming feminism seems to be a mismatch with reality b/c not so many people call themselves feminists anymore. Blaming policies that do all the damage well, yeah, they do all the damage. Definitely sounds more relevant than blaming feminism.

    Reply

    • Anja Eriud
      Jan 17, 2014 @ 19:28:44

      Indy! Can’t keep up with ya :)

      “I read that AVfM article and it seemed to be whatever. Not good, not bad. But I loved your investigation of money from yesterday as well as today’s post. I have two quick comments.”

      Thank you.

      ” 1) I think Dr. Sommers did not put links because older people often don’t have this habit. I am basing it on absolutely nothing other than my anecdotal observations but even journalists, if they are a bit older, they do not put links in their blogs. They probably did their fact checking but they are not used to the idea that readers (and not just the Editor as it used to) want to see all those facts and links. I might be wrong here, but I noticed several times, mostly outside of gender debates.”

      Ah – on the surface that sounds like a reasonable observation, but – Dr. Sommers is an academic – I am an academic – and she knows as well as I do that one does NOT refer to “studies” in an article or paper for that matter, without either putting a damn link to it, or putting a bibliography, or list of references – not if you want to be taken seriously.

      And DR. Sommers takes great pride in her “academic” background – though I’m not sure she would appreciate being excused on the grounds she is an “older person” in her dotage? :)

      It is beaten into you (not literally) in college – WHERE ARE YOUR CITATIONS? Till it becomes or should become second nature to you.

      “2) Substitution from Feminism to Policy actually made sense to me. And this is why. Feminism these days is so wide-spread and so much of a norm that even when you hear feminism you think about some marginalized groups that are rarely, if ever, seen on most campuses or on the streets protesting something. “

      Again, on the surface it seems plausible, until you realise that “policy” is an ideologically neutral, rather bland word – feminism is NOT – feminism is an ideologically driven agenda of misandry, of hatred, of vitriol disguised as “feminist theory”.

      Feminism is a multi-faceted, multi-layered creature, not all its most powerful agents operate in plain view, not all its most influential actors ever show their faces in public – the antics and carry on of the pop culture feminists are camouflage, useful distractions, misdirection’s.

      Not many people, off the top of their heads could tell you who the Director General of the WHO (World Health Organisation) is?

      Dr. Margaret Chan.

      “Dr Margaret Chan is the Director-General of WHO, appointed by the World Health Assembly on 9 November 2006. The Assembly appointed Dr Chan for a second five-year term at its sixty-fifth session in May 2012. Dr Chan’s new term will begin on 1 July 2012 and continue until 30 June 2017.”

      Appointed to a second five year term in 2012, having already been “in charge” of World Health “issues” since 2006.

      From: Got the Whole World in my Hands….Dec 4th 2013 on this blog

      The WHO has an enormous budget, and Global influence, and Dr.Chan is a feminist.

      “SO: blaming feminism seems to be a mismatch with reality b/c not so many people call themselves feminists anymore. Blaming policies that do all the damage well, yeah, they do all the damage. Definitely sounds more relevant than blaming feminism.”

      Feminism has been and IS the driving ideological force behind ALL policy decisions on a GLOBAL scale for nigh on 40 years – one simply cannot separate policy, and global policy from feminism – it actually doesn’t matter what people call themselves – what matters is WHAT drives policy? who drives policy?

      The answer to both those questions is feminism and feminists.

      Reply

      • independentshock
        Jan 17, 2014 @ 20:05:51

        Ok, you got me there! I forgot that she is an academic. In my defense Google Scholar is not sure either :) Her last paper that I found is 1993. Only books are after that and therefore no peer-reviewed discipline. I guess that’s why I never thought of her as a scholar and always thought as a journalist.

      • Anja Eriud
        Jan 17, 2014 @ 21:17:54

        Try this

        http://www.aei.org/scholar/christina-hoff-sommers/

        Hoff Sommers has done some good work in relation to highlighting the issues around boys and education, but her agenda if you will is fuelled by feminism – a particular kind of feminism, that has more than a sprinkling of traditionalism in it.

        I have no doubt she is sincere, but, and it is a very big but – because boys are lagging behind, THAT makes them less useful…………………to women – when they become men.

        My impression is that Hoff Sommers see’s the growing hostility towards feminism and it’s eventual demise and SHE is a feminist – so she is trying to reposition herself, and reposition feminism as THE answer – just HER brand of feminism.

        I have zero tolerence for feminism – by its very nature it is divisive, discriminatory, and without merit – I don’t care how “nice” the acolyte is or how she presents herself.

        I advocate for boys and men and I DONT need to be a feminist to do it – just a human being who cares about the Human Rights of men and boys – in fact any human being who is having their human rights violated.

        See, my head didnt explode, I didnt get sucked into an alien vortex for NOT being a feminist.
        :)

      • Greg Allan
        Jan 18, 2014 @ 08:42:53

        The establishment is now feminist. Anybody claiming to be a feminist AND a progressive is, therefore, kidding themselves.

  3. John mws
    Jan 17, 2014 @ 18:59:56

    I just read you blog and decided to reread the Christina Hoff article and watch the embedded video.

    It is clear from the video, and Chrisina, the feminists are let off for the problem. The feminists want a radical redesign of masculinity to some benign tomboy femininity, that completely ignores boy are not girls and never will be. Christina wants in general a white knight only, compliant man that still wants to buy into a provider only role despite women are suppose to be independent now. We are therefore their so the women can spend their money on spoiling themselves while the bills get paid by men. We can look forward to the odd bone(sex) thrown our way.

    As for the study- women tend to be more sensitive, esthetic, sentimental, intuitive and tender-minded. Men are very sensitive, esthetic, sentimental and tender-minded. How the hell do you think we handle being in love with a woman and raising children. We are let down by intuition which allow women to better read of body language and therefore emotions to better manipulate us. Women brainwashed by feminists are as cold as an iceberg when breaking up relationships with men. Compassion is reserved for mythical problems of other women.

    Here is the comment.

    The key quote in the video for me was by Dr Niobe Way. It lets the cat of the bag.

    “They (boys) really buy into a culture(masculinity) that doesn’t value what we have feminised”

    So she admits society and the school environment has been feminised. Directly afterwards she describes what the current feminised culture is.

    “If we are in a culture that doesn’t value caring, doesn’t value relationships, doesn’t value empathy, you are going to have boy & girls, men & women go crazy”

    An absolutely perfect description of what our feminist society has achieved.Talk about a foot in mouth moment.

    The purpose of the video is clear. A new better funded effort to brainwash boys into a more subdued, compliant mangina work force. Because the feminised society is here to stay and boys are just a social problem to reprogamme away.

    It can be seen that they have the equivalent creationism to darwinism concept of gender. You can design away true masculine “gender” behaviour for the new shiny feminist masculine #2 design. Short of eugenics that is impossible.

    How they expect any of these boys to open up with their emotions to the very system that is crushing them is beyond me. As Dr Way says it has no empathy for boys and never will.

    Reply

    • Anja Eriud
      Jan 17, 2014 @ 22:23:21

      My apologies for taking so long to reply John.

      I just read you blog and decided to reread the Christina Hoff article and watch the embedded video.

      A man after my own heart John – you went with your critical faculties intact and looked at something objectively and reviewed it with clear eyes and an open mind.

      It is clear from the video, and Chrisina, the feminists are let off for the problem. The feministwant a radical redesign of masculinity to some benign tomboy femininity, that completely ignores boy are not girls and never will be. Christina wants in general a white knight only, compliant man that still wants to buy into a provider only role despite women are suppose to be independent now. We are therefore their so the women can spend their money on spoiling themselves while the bills get paid by men. We can look forward to the odd bone(sex) thrown our way.

      Now that is a very interesting concept “benign tomboy femininity” can I steal it? You’ve hit on the core issue – boys and girls, men and women are DIFFERENT. Neither is more “equal” than the other – equal is a mathematical concept that simply cannot be applied to human beings.

      Again – men pay, women pray – for a knight in shining armour with a big fat………………………wallet, to come and save them, make all their unrealistic dreams come true and to have to GIVE nothing in return.

      As for the study- women tend to be more sensitive, esthetic, sentimental, intuitive and tender-minded. Men are very sensitive, esthetic, sentimental and tender-minded. How the hell do you think we handle being in love with a woman and raising children. We are let down by intuition which allow women to better read of body language and therefore emotions to better manipulate us. Women brainwashed by feminists are as cold as an iceberg when breaking up relationships with men. Compassion is reserved for mythical problems of other women.

      I’ll agree that men can be just as sentimental and soft-hearted as some women, in men and also that they have an appreciation for the finer things – with regard to the intuition thing – personally I believe it manifests itself in different ways in men and women – women are better at reading non verbal clues – and quicker to adapt their behaviour to changing cues – with men – my experience is that what you see is what you get.

      Here is the comment.

      The key quote in the video for me was by Dr Niobe Way. It lets the cat of the bag.

      “They (boys) really buy into a culture(masculinity) that doesn’t value what we have feminised”
      So she admits society and the school environment has been feminised. Directly afterwards she describes what the current feminised culture is.

      “If we are in a culture that doesn’t value caring, doesn’t value relationships, doesn’t value empathy, you are going to have boy & girls, men & women go crazy”

      An absolutely perfect description of what our feminist society has achieved.Talk about a foot in mouth moment.

      Bingo! You will be assimilated – but now – nicely! But assimilated all the same.

      The purpose of the video is clear. A new better funded effort to brainwash boys into a more subdued, compliant mangina work force. Because the feminised society is here to stay and boys are just a social problem to reprogamme away.

      Exactly – boys and men as they are – just do not fit into the vision of a feminised world – therefore THEY must be moulded, or as you said “reprogrammed”

      It can be seen that they have the equivalent creationism to darwinism concept of gender. You can design away true masculine “gender” behaviour for the new shiny feminist masculine #2 design. Short of eugenics that is impossible.

      How they expect any of these boys to open up with their emotions to the very system that is crushing them is beyond me. As Dr Way says it has no empathy for boys and never will.

      It never ceases to amaze me – just how far do feminists think they can push, demonise and deride the essence of being male – and NOT expect a backlash – not expect more and more men to say “sod this I’m off” (MGTOW) – and more and more to just give up – or go off the rails?

      Many thanks John for your comment,and insights.

      Anja :)

      Reply

      • John mws
        Jan 18, 2014 @ 00:49:19

        On the intuition I took the average view. Sometimes women use the intuition card to hide they are really illogical or a bit of a “dumb” blonde stereotype. Men do notice the difference but say nothing for an easy life. LOL.

        Men can be intuitive too, more in solving real world problems i would say. In relationships I am not so sure, i think women are more instinctive at using it to decide on emotions and a husband can be the last to know something is seriously wrong.

        - “women are better at reading non verbal clues – and quicker to adapt their behaviour to changing cues – with men – my experience is that what you see is what you get.”

        Being very visual, when dealing with a new woman we find attractive to look at, we instinctively get led astray and distracted by our hind animal sub-brain. MRA scans have shown part of our logical centres should down when looking at a beautiful woman for the first time. Confidence, experience and a MGTOW world view help to tune it out and get our logical head back on, unless you are Bruce Willis and this is academic of course. LOL

        Studies have claimed that men notice 5 emotional tones of voice and women notice 7. Women on average also have better colour vision, sense of smell and acute hearing. All these make sense from caring for smelly, screaming babies, checking gathered foods for poisons, and listening for predators in our distant past. The tone of voice recognition also helped with language development no doubt. Thats why when some women nag, the guy just does not get all the content of emotion in the voice that women think we hear. That is why I suppose they like a good listener who gives fed back to show they got it.

        Personally I do quite well at reading faces. i have done several online tests and come out in the top 2% to 5%.

        Here is a fun one to try. Click each face and select the correct emotion.
        http://www.dnalc.org/view/867-Reading-Faces.html

        Given all the above, i really hate when I see a feminist try to gloss over everything and blatantly lie in live interviews. You can just see how far down the rabbit hole they are, and they have got no soul inside their eyes.

  4. Anja Eriud
    Jan 17, 2014 @ 21:28:44

    For what it’s worth I posted my one and only comment on the Hoff Sommers article on AVfM, if I was a betting person – I’d say that there will be at least 6 comments posted vilifying me, and leaping to the defence of Hoff Sommers – cos thats what guys do – rescue the damsel in distress.

    And because this IS my blog I’m going to say this:

    That expression – “every MRA is just one blow job away from being a mangina” – in this instance I’d describe this as more a mind fuck (excuse the crudity) than a blow job.

    Let the White Knighting commence – :)

    Reply

    • robertcrayle
      Jan 18, 2014 @ 11:00:48

      With respect to your comment on AVfM…most of the responses are actually positive towards your criticisms of Hoff Sommers’ piece. It turns out it’s possible to think for oneself one way or another.

      Reply

      • Anja Eriud
        Jan 18, 2014 @ 13:06:34

        Hello Robert and welcome.

        I’m actually a bit surprised – maybe I should take my own advice that I gave to Scotty and have a bit more faith.

        Probably got a touch too snarky there – actually yeah – too snarky. Do I have a defence?

        Not really, more a reason, until that article – the “How to get more women (and men) to call themselves feminists) I had a lot of respect for Hoff Sommers – I wouldn’t say I was her number one fan – but she did good work.

        I actually always thought – one day she is going to wake up and say “this is stupid, calling myself a feminist, I don’t need to be a feminist to care about boys – but she never did.

        She is a “traditionalist” which is fair enough – if BOTH parties are cool with that arrangement – and of course if she was ALSO advocating for changes in the law which unjustly penalises men, and their children if a “traditional” marriage breaks down – which they do.

        But again – she never did – Gynocentrism has posted a great comment on further down which lays out her “stance”

        So, while I will never go as far to find fault (much) with her groundbreaking work The War Against Boys: How misguided FEMINISM …….etc.

        This volte face – this sly little subsitution of “feminism” for the bland blamefree “policies” was I suppose the straw that broke this camels back.

        But, it was the “moving away from criticising feminism” that hammered that final nail in – my thought as I recall at the time was:

        “Oh yeah – and who or what exactly should we “criticise” for the appalling anti – male, anti boy policies, programmes laws and attitudes then?

        Aliens? Leprachauns? Who? What?

        Thank you for your comment Robert.

        Anja

  5. DxM Scotty MxD
    Jan 18, 2014 @ 00:20:47

    Hi Scotty

    Long time no see – welcome back :)

    I was just sitting here, after reading through some of the inimitable Fidelbogens writings, jotting down some random thoughts thinking – what now?

    Has it begun?

    When I first read that article I was flabbergasted, I thought to myself “how can summers get away with this hand waving and redefining of feminism, when not three weeks ago an article was posted chewing out another feminist “academic” who wanted to redefine feminism.”

    I’m kind of in the same frame of mind – flabbergasted – when I finished writing last night – I went over and over that article – but there it was. Feminism. Not just one feminist, but one feminist “admiring” and approving the spewing of another feminist on AVfM!

    The comments though were mind-blowing – the “I’m a big fan” and “Oh gosh, It’s Christina Hoff Sommers”

    The one comment that asked for a reason “why should we like……..” Jinnbottle it was – was slapped down pronto – it was and is a bloody reasonable question to ask.

    What really made it beyond bizarre, was NO-ONE seemed to have actually read the bloody article! It was the excitement of having a real live celebrity feminist on AVfM that got everyone all excited. Bizarre.

    It seems to me a certainty now that the MRM WILL be co-opted at some point in the future under this new “man friendly” feminism. In my opinion the last best hope for the western world no longer resides in the MRM but with the inevitable economic abortion that will play out in the next half century. The MRM just has to awaken enough people so that when the hit hits the fan men are ready to build civilisation once again.

    I wouldn’t say that Scotty – I wouldn’t give up hope, just yet – this is, in my opinion, one of those bizarre inexplicable and incomprehensible moments of mangina meltdown – I personally don’t give a flying rats arse how nice – how conciliatory, how sincere or plausible anyone come across as, and in the case of Hoff Sommers, yeah she’s done some good, been in the forefront of raising awareness about boys.

    But she’s a BLOODY FEMINIST.

    One of the things I was just actually thinking about was, I wonder have any of those new fans of Hoff Sommers ever met in real life, an actual in your face, completely indoctrinated academic feminist? Ever actually sat and listened to a lecture given by a dyed in the wool feminist?

    Hoff Sommers is an academic – she spent a long long time in universities and colleges, so she is no novice when it comes to knowing how these gals speak, operate, lecture and think – she KNOWS. She bloody wrote a book about it.

    Bad though they are here in Ireland, they’re in the tuppennyha’penny place when it comes to American or Canadian feminists– I should know – my own personal bête noir is Canadian – and she hates, HATES, loathes and despises all things male.

    This faux innocence that Hoff Sommers has going on regarding feminism – there is no way she does not KNOW what goes on inside the feminist indoctrination camps laughingly called universities. This delicately picking her way through the ideological turds as if she is above stepping in them! Please.

    Ranty screechy rabid feminists are the clowns of feminism, they make fools of themselves, but worse, they make a mockery of feminism – for the “nice” feminists.

    It’s the same bloody toxic ideology – they just say it – nicely – and smile – and come over all sorrowful and worried and concerned.

    Don’t give up on the MHRM yet Scotty, there’s good people in it, good solid people working away, doing their part, in whatever way they can. This crap was always going to be on the cards – the sidling up to the MHRM, the sighs and the smiles and the worries and concerns – and the “we should work together” feminism is really good – see how nice I am.

    Keep the faith lad

    Anja :)

    PS. but just in case, I’m pretty handy with a hammer and nails :)

    Reply

    • Anja Eriud
      Jan 18, 2014 @ 01:25:58

      Scotty, I dont know what the fuck I did, but somehow managed to insert my reply to you INTO your comment – apologies – I’m tired and cranky – and still have two “things” to read – two very boring “things”

      I dont think I erased any of your original comment – sorry about that.

      Anja

      Reply

  6. Bombay
    Jan 18, 2014 @ 01:37:28

    First the correction – “The article was published on Feb 14th 2014 – three days ago ” – perhaps you mean Jan?

    I am glad you pounced on this. It reminds me of when Peggy Noonan did her piece on the World Trade Center about “real men” and the MRA did not see that she was not supporting men, but channeling them into a particular role. I hope your well documented article will wake a few people up at AVFM.

    Reply

    • Anja Eriud
      Jan 18, 2014 @ 02:04:59

      Hello Bombay and welcome.

      First thank you for spotting my error, duh! will correct it :)

      I am reminded of that phrase – “beware of Greeks bearing gifts”
      :)

      Reply

  7. Anja Eriud
    Jan 18, 2014 @ 02:13:11

    My thanks once again to Bombay for pointing out a factual error in the above post, I have now corrected it – the date for Jim Naureckas article I linked to is Feb 14th 2013, not Feb 14th 2014.

    My apologies for the confusion.

    Anja

    Reply

  8. gynocentrism
    Jan 18, 2014 @ 10:35:15

    Anja: “What is written above is my honest to God opinion – I stand by every word of it – should anyone wish to “take me to task” for taking swipes at the untouchable Christina Hoff Sommers – go ahead”

    Ok, you are a naughty, naughty, naughty woman for criticising a feminist who wants men to return to being chivalric gentlemen indentured to the service of the Ladyfolk.

    Na… I’m joking. You are a legend. :-)

    Reply

    • Anja Eriud
      Jan 18, 2014 @ 15:23:47

      Sigh – ok

      :( <<<<<<< this is my suitably chastised face.

      Lol – Thanks Gyno – a legend in me own lunchtime! :)

      Reply

  9. gynocentrism
    Jan 18, 2014 @ 10:39:46

    Here’s a quote of Christina from a 2013 radio interview for your interest:

    The Acculturated Podcast: Ladies and Gentlemen – Jan 9, 2013
    http://acculturated.com/2013/01/09/the-acculturated-podcast-ladies-and-gentlemen/

    Christina: Codes of gallantry and civility that developed over the centuries have served women very well. We badly need more of that male gallantry, but I hasten to say it’s a reciprocal system. If males are going to be gallant then women also have a role to play. So today I think both sexes are remiss in nurturing this system.

    Ben: What in this era of post feminism that we live in today relationally would be the possible incentive for any man to be gallant when there doesn’t seem to be any particular reason that he has to be in order to function within today’s relationship world?

    Christina: It’s an interesting question because one of the things you find today is that most young men are gallant, and they are respectful, at least they are struggling to be. When I interview young men I ask them if they think it’s a good thing to be a gentleman and almost all of them say yes- that word gentleman has a positive resonance with young men. Now, do they know how to be gentlemen, do they know what it entails? Many do not. And same with some young women, they are not necessarily behaving like ladies. So there’s a lot of misunderstanding and lack of, perhaps, motivation. But it’s still alive in people. I think still on a typical date a young man would pay for his date – it doesn’t always happen in which case a girl would be resentful, and I can understand that…. These are gestures, I’m talking about certain gestures of respect – they need to be there and I think most women want them and I think men do too.

    Ben: So why is that important – and I don’t just mean that in the sense of continuing a relationship but in the larger sense of the term, and this is a frame that I have to ask you about: if the incentive there is a relationship that is going to lead to something, does it matter that the something is beyond the typical aspirations of today’s men and women which seems to be more along the lines of a sex based relationship as opposed to one that actually has a longer term value beyond that prognosis.

    Christina: I think human beings at some point in their lives want something beyond a sex based relation. If you are going to build a relationship with someone it has been the case that women are going to be more likely to want to stay home and take care of the children, or certainly be more focused on that than the men, and I don’t see that changing.

    Ben: As a single dating male in today’s environment there’s a much lower bar that they have to clear, frankly, in order to bounce around the relationship scene with a good deal of happiness, at least in the temporary sense.

    Christina: Oh I have to agree, and I think in a way women sort of undid the social contract with men and released them from all the constraints. And we pay the price.
    __________________________

    And another quote:

    Let’s Give Chivalry Another Chance
    Emily Esfahani Smith – Dec 2012

    http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/lets-give-chivalry-another-chance/266085/

    Christina Hoff Sommers tells me in an interview, “Masculinity with morality and civility is a very powerful force for good. But masculinity without these virtues is dangerous—even lethal.” Chivalry is grounded in a fundamental reality that defines the relationship between the sexes, she explains. Given that most men are physically stronger than most women, men can overpower women at any time to get what they want. Gentlemen developed symbolic practices to communicate to women that they would not inflict harm upon them and would even protect them against harm. The tacit assumption that men would risk their lives to protect women only underscores how valued women are—how elevated their status is—under the system of chivalry… “If women give up on chivalry, it will be gone,” Sommers tells me. “If boys can get away with being boorish, they will, happily. Women will pay the price.”
    _________________________

    [me here] Christina regularly refers to the tradtional thing she calls “The Contract” between men and women – a contract she describes as having been ruptured in recent times, and one which she advocates a return to. The contract she refers to is the one where males are “gallant” “chivalrous” and “gentlemanly” toward women, and women play some kind of complimentary feminine role. I’m not sure how deeply down the historical rabbit-hole Christina has researched this tradition, but it is basically the sexual relations contract laid out here, and also here.

    Reply

  10. Greg Allan
    Jan 18, 2014 @ 10:42:36

    re Hoff Summers…

    As far as I understand it she continues to identify as an “equity” feminist. I’ve crossed (internet) paths with her at various times over more than fifteen years. For a long time she did have a fairly overt internet presence. Some difficulties on a web forum – name of which I cannot recall – which was permissive of criticisms of feminism led to her limiting her internet activity. All this predates The War on Boys.

    I’ve always thought of her as a “seventies” feminist. It’s the phase that immediately precedes the radical takeover circa 1980ish. That’s where “feminism” shifted from a growing grasp of the importance of self actualisation to an assertion that men deny women that ability. Thus the dialect now is all about men AND boys acting to “empower” women through action or inaction or whatever variant feminists presume to be appropriate. They fail to understand that the act of empowerment they require merely reinforces the existing dynamic.

    Or maybe they ARE fully aware.

    Reply

  11. Russell
    Jan 19, 2014 @ 21:55:24

    For a couple of decades now, the Australian education system has described its curriculum as examining society through the lens of sexism, racism and environmentalism. Recently, this description has changed to examining society through environmentalism and in the context of the Asia-pacific region.

    Apparently, officially, feminism has been dropped from the core curriculum. Don’t be fooled. Feminism is now so much the sea students swim in, that to mention it in the curriculum is just redundant.

    Concern for the environment and racism are legitimate subjects. However, the students don’t learn about the world – only to judge it through approved means. They judge the world before learning anything about it.

    Environmentalism has become ecofeminism and of course racism is only even practiced by males. The school curriculum has not dropped feminism as it implicitly suggests. Now, the only way to view anything is through the unmentioned yet ubiquitous feminism.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers

%d bloggers like this: