Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing and The Myth of Womanhood.


Am sure everybody knows the “wolves in sheeps clothing” expression, but in case you don’t, basically what it means is that in order to gain access to new victims, or to infiltrate an organisation a person will represent themselves as benign, as a friend, as someone with no ulterior motive.

Sounds scary doesn’t it? It is and it isn’t, really depends on what the mission, for want of a better word, of the group or organisation is, that this wolf is looking to sabotage or infiltrate.

The higher the stakes, for both parties, then the more devious and underhand the wolf has to be, the more this particular wolf must be adept at blending in, at presenting a sweet innocent public face, and of course the wolf must know their enemy even better than the enemy knows him or herself, knows which buttons to push, knows just the right subtle mechanism to use to elicit exactly the response, the lowering of the guard, that allows this wolf to gain a foothold.

Ok, this is all very esoteric and a bit – excuse the pun – woolly. So who are these wolves in sheep’s clothing?

Women. Women are past masters at donning sheep’s clothing, at hiding their ulterior motives behind a fragrant and appealing mask. They will soothe, they will flatter, they will caress your ego with just the right delicate touch to make you – a man – roll over – wag your tail and jump to do their bidding.  But this is not the most special gift that some women have, and know how to use, ah no, the best part is the ability to make you believe that you are doing all this wolf’s bidding independently, off your own bat, because it was YOUR idea.

Of all the male instincts that women will play on, to use to get a man to fight their battles, it is the instinct to protect from harm, whether real or perceived, to step up and shield a woman from being “hurt” or “upset” or in some cases, held to account.

In the mission that we of the MHRM are engaged in, the stakes are very very high, on the one the hand is the continuation of the legal social and cultural zeitgeist that relegates men and boys to lesser status, to utilities, to disposable entities to be used and discarded at the whim of any woman.  But it is more than that, this paradigm literally saturates our culture, our society, from top to bottom, from major to minor, from the legal and political structures right down to the everyday interactions of men and women. It is a state of mind as well as a state of being.

For women, maintaining this toxic paradigm is crucial, it is the thing which gives substance to the power of women. That power is in being able to position themselves as the recipients of male utility, to be the ones that receive rather than give, to be able to avoid adult responsibility and accountability for anything they do. It is what has created and sustains the Myth of Womanhood.

It is the ultimate get out of jail free card – sometimes literally.

To ensure that this Myth of Womanhood remains and continues to remain the status quo, there are guardians and gatekeepers of this female power, this Myth – we call them feminists. They will fight tooth and nail, fight dirty, lie, cheat and steal, to perpetuate and maintain this Myth of Womanhood, to ensure that no woman will ever be held truly accountable for her actions, will never be subject to censure, allowed to have her “feelings hurt” or to “be offended”

Now while feminists are the guardians and gatekeepers of the Myth of Womanhood, not all women who benefit from this are feminists, in fact the ones most likely to collude with feminists in ensuring this Myth of Womanhood remains the status quo are the “I’m not a feminist………..but” types.

Why on earth would they need to, when ranty screechy haranguing feminist are the perfect fall guys/gals to hide the more devious, more toxic, more sneaky female behaviour behind, one can simply point a well manicured finger at these visibly ridiculous females and say “Well, I’m NOT like that!”

Apologies in advance guys, but men are fools, not all men, and their foolishness is almost, and I mean almost understandable.  But one sniff of female approval, one tiny little subtle “complement” dropped and one coy and eyelash fluttering “I’m a bit hurt and confused” or “I really can’t imagine why anyone would think I was being mean or nasty” and they fold like wet cardboard.  All the core principles of the MHRM fly out the door, all of the urgent and sound reasons why the MHRM exists get trampled in the rush to come to the defence of the “helpless female”

I’m female, I have strong opinions, I express those opinions without fear or favour, I accept absolutely that those who disagree with my opinions are equally entitled to express that.

I will NOT demand or expect that in the event someone does take issue with an opinion I have expressed, that some man out of some misguided sense of honour, or chivalry, or impulse to protect little old me rushes in and shields me from the consequences of this, solely on the basis that I am female.

When I say I’m female, what I mean is that biologically I am a female human being, an adult female human being. What I am NOT is “a woman” I neither require nor need a Myth of Womanhood to define me, I reject utterly this toxic Myth of Womanhood that seeks to absolve me of personal accountability for my actions.

Men owe me NOTHING, men have no obligation to protect, shield or defend me, men are under no duty to give me one single solitary pass on anything I do or say.

Men you owe no “woman” a single thing – not an inch, not a millimetre of “benefit of the doubt” simply because this individual is “a woman” because believe me or not, accept or reject this. Any woman who chooses to play the “woman card” or “the girl card” will stab you in the back in a heartbeat, will turn vicious in an instant, will look at you, and not as a human being but a utility, a resource, a well to be drained, a fool to be played, a tool to use to get her what SHE wants.

And what SHE wants is that you sign up to and fall into line behind this Myth of Womanhood.

 The reason?  Because the gatekeepers and guardians, the feminists, of this assidiously created Myth of Womanhood are being exposed, are being confronted and challenged, they are failing, feminism is dying, but the Myth of Womanhood?

That will take longer, that will take clear-eyed unflinching refusal to accept that women are mythological creatures imbued with “special” qualities that must be protected at all costs.




24 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. shmiggen
    Dec 13, 2013 @ 03:04:14

    I agree with this, but I also think the ‘myth’ is almost dead. Think of the Costa Condordia. From what I’ve heard on the news and online, the officers and crew basically said, “see ya”. I don’t see a lot of men these days rushing to save damsels in distress. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen…I guess what I’m saying is that ‘myth’ it seems to me is also nearly dead.


    • Anja Eriud
      Dec 13, 2013 @ 13:27:20

      Hi shmiggen.

      Yes and no, the “myth” is dying, but not quite dead, one has to take into account that feminism is the driving force behind this “myth of womanhood” feminism is what feeds this “myth” and feminism IS dying.

      The evidence of toxic females allowed to run unchecked is piling up, the ability to wave away examples of this toxic behaviour as “aberrations” as “anomalies” as “an exception” is starting to lose its potency. On the other side, the willingness of some men (MHRA’s) to have “the wool pulled over their eyes” is gone. alas, also even among MHRA’s not quite dead either.

      Which is not to say that there are not still way too many men who WANT to believe, to want to subscribe to this “myth of womanhood” and bizarrely actually want to have “the wool pulled over their eyes” because there are. Way too many of them are willing to suspend all common sense, all critical faculties, all objective reality at the first petulant lament of “but I’m a woooooooooooooooooooooman”



  2. shmiggen
    Dec 13, 2013 @ 17:37:05

    Yes, I must agree with you. If we were to say that roughly half of all men believe in the ‘myth of womanhood’, or even a third, that is a lot of men.


    • Anja Eriud
      Dec 13, 2013 @ 20:02:11

      Ah but what you have to factor in is that for even say a third of men believing in and supporting this “Myth of Womanhood” these men are being directed, instructed, perhaps even manipulated BY women.


      • shmiggen
        Dec 14, 2013 @ 08:57:27

        “The Manipulated Man” explains this phenomenon well. You can find it online and devour it in just a few hours. Being raised by a woman I am sure has something to do with it- the mother is the source of unconditional love. I think the whole purpose of a father (if he is doing his job) is to prevent his son from becoming to supplicating to females. The old sexism needed to be rooted out; I am all on board with Betty Friedan’s call for women’s rights. But a lot was also lost and and unfortunately we saw a lot of men grovelling before women. The first men’s movement back in the late 70’s were a bunch of new age guys who idolized the feminine. They truly felt men were the root of all evil and we needed to get in touch with our feelings. They listened to feminists, nodded their heads like good doggies, and then continued their ritual of self-abasement. It actually wasn’t until the 1990’s when a few men started to look around and say, “what the fuck…why am I apologizing”?

        What’s happened now is we have corrected those injustices from the 1960’s and 70’s. No one seriously expects women to stay at home and bake cookies. No one. And so the feminist movement has essentially become exhausted. *However* It is still powerful. It’s quiet, sure, but it is powerful. In Canada, where I grew up, there is a prominent feminist academic at the University of Ottawa who is publishing a book about battered women. Her message is that battered women should have the right to premeditatedly kill their husbands.


        You know, if you become involved in men’s issues, you will never run out of material. You do know that, right?

        On a final note, it is late here and I must go to bed. Here is Esther Vilar , a hero to many men:

      • wtfwtf13
        Dec 15, 2013 @ 15:04:38

        .. the mother is the source of unconditional love

        The culture proactively prevents this from being true.
        When was the last time you heard about a mother who didn’t mind giving birth to a physically handicapped [ooooops! challenged] child?

        Now if you tell me this guy’s mother had unconditional love for him, I would probably believe you !

        Why ‘probably’ ? Because it’s possible that religion was a factor in her not wanting to abort him. But even then ‘her unconditional love’ is the closest to ideal unconditional love and more credible than a modern mother’s.

  3. Anja Eriud
    Dec 14, 2013 @ 11:16:37

    Thank you shmiggen for your thought provoking and clearly articulated comment. I have been remiss and not gotten around to reading Ms. Vilar’s book, I will now correct that.

    I actually agree with you up to a point, as I was discussing with a friend recently, in Ireland in particular, the women’s rights movement had legitimate cause. Those issues were addressed and yet here we still are – fighting a ideology, a “movement” that makes issues out of shadows, out of thin air, out of personal grievances, creates “issues using false data and statistics.

    Other than some minor scuffles over votes for women – strangely enough WITH women at the forefront – including Queen Victoria – there has never been, nor could I imagine ANY organisation of men campaigning to demonise women – to misrepresent women, to seek to disenfranchise women.

    Telling the truth about abuses of men BY women does NOT, in my opinion count as “anti-women”

    With regard to men being willing, to allow themselves to be “hoodwinked” – sigh – THIS is the one area in which I sometimes find myself at a loss for words.

    You have presented an interesting and compelling perspective. Thank you for the clip, wtfwtf13 will be pleased 🙂



  4. shmiggen
    Dec 15, 2013 @ 04:50:39

    I don’t agree with you that women never had any real issues with men. (I’m not sure if that’s what you’re saying). It isn’t that men oppressed women; that I am certain never happened. To me, oppression is being tied to a tree and whipped, or lynched. Although I wasn’t around back then, I am willing to bet that on a micro-level, women were disrespected. Or, shall I say, women that were high-achieving and ambitious. It was motherhood, and motherhood alone, which was venerated. Mothers were not disrespected, so long as they stuck to their role. If a woman decided she did not want to simply be a mother, then I suspect she was subject to very heavy male (and some female) disapproval. This is not oppression; it’s merely an issue that women would have had with men, back in the late ’60’s and early ’70’s. So I don’t entirely agree with you that the women’s movement was wholly nefarious.

    I think what we agree upon is what grew out of the women’s movement, which is suspicious, and that is feminist ideology. Betty Friedan wanted equal rights, and no more. In fact, even she was taken aback by what happened to the women’s movement. The ones who succeeded her – Gloria Steinem, Germaine Greer, and so on – they took over the women’s movement and that is the movement that we have today, even forty years later. “Patriarchy”, “rape culture” – this is not the women’s rights movement, the movement which simply wanted to allow women to become something other than mothers. This is feminism, and it’s what men are faced with today. Now I agree with you on this, that this is evil. But the women’s rights movement, at least to my mind, is legitimate.

    The reason I say this is because there is a temptation in the men’s movement to reverse the pendulum swing, to blame women for everything, for being “evil”. Then we’re back at square one again. What’s really needed is for the pendulum to be arrested and stop swinging.

    Now, as for a male’s inability to know whether or not he is being manipulated by a female, that is a problem, to be sure. There are a number of reasons for that. Most men today do want to get to know a woman, just as men have always wanted. But in a short space of time, say fifty years, the mating dance has altered. In short, men don’t know what is happening to them. They are like the proverbial deer caught in the headlights. They know that the patriarchal system has been abolished, but they don’t know what the new dispensation means. After all, for the most part we are talking about young men. How could they know? They do know that a connection with a woman provides entry to another world, to something they can’t get with their male friends, but they don’t know the end game, or the terms. But what does a woman get? She is faced with a man who has less achievements than her father’s generation. She doesn’t really need a husband. So she has options, and options create instability. Why wouldn’t a woman under our current dispensation, well…manipulate the system? There is no downside for her. The legal enforcement regime will ensure that if she does have a child and wants a divorce, she will nonetheless still have a revenue stream, even if she initiated the divorce for frivolous reasons. I guess what I am saying is (plus I want to sum up) you are asking me why so many men are easily duped, and I am trying to answer that. Since we are talking about young men, the answer is that young men haven’t acquired wisdom yet. So they cannot be expected to know any better, that women have the upper hand in interpersonal affairs. They trust women; they chase after them, thinking they are angels, because that is what society has taught them.


    • Anja Eriud
      Dec 15, 2013 @ 15:48:51

      Hi shmiggen.

      First, thank you for your comment, and before I get into responding let me just preface my remarks with this to illustrate where I’m coming from:

      Have you ever seen Pirates of the Caribbean? – At Worlds End, I believe, and the map that was comprised of concentric circles that moved independently of one another, and if one stopped two separate circles along various points and that if they were lined up correctly a “clue” manifested itself?

      Well, this is partly how I see society, except the individual circles have evolved and changed and the points of intersection, where the individual circles match up have increased.

      At the innermost circle, the core, the fulcrum if you will, that which controls the movement of the outer circles lies the elite, the aristocracy, the small group in every society and culture that “sets the tone” that “dictates the rules” and perhaps most importantly, holds and exerts the most power over resources and wealth, be it, as in feudal times, land, or in our time, money and influence.

      The next circle comprises the visible face of power, those who provide the bridge or the link, or perhaps the interface between that inner core and the next circle, which represents everybody else, the wider culture and society, those who have power exerted upon them, those are acted upon rather than being independent actors. Ostensibly this “political” circle should face out towards that next circle, should be the bridge FROM that wider cultural next circle, and should be a buffer, a failsafe, a means of limiting the power of the elite on those in the largest circle, but alas, they do not, they exercise no brake, no defence, no mechanism of control on this elite inner core.

      This wider cultural and societal circle actually contains a series of circles within itself; one could characterise them as classes or economic groups, but within this circle and these multiple sub circles, lies a tension, a constant juggling for position to be closet the second circle. Because the closer you are to that circle, the closer you are to both overt and covert power. The grand prize of course is entering that inner core, that elite inner circle.

      I’m not saying or suggesting that power is inherently good or bad, it really depends on the individuals who exercise that power in the circle they occupy. What I am saying is that our society, our culture has evolved in such a way that those closest to, those in direct connection to, and in receipt of the benefits of being in close connection to that “power” circle are WOMEN, almost exclusively. Economic status per se is not that relevant, position is. Visibility is. If one can position oneself directly in the line of sight of those in the “power circle” then one commands access to and benefits from being in that position.

      One can be in that position regardless of economic status. When all these circles are turned and lined up, and the points of intersection comprise a direct line of sight to the source of economic, political and societal power then one has hit the cultural jackpot, and ONLY one group, one class of persons has ever managed that feat, has ever deliberately and with knowledge aforethought and with determination to hustle everybody else OUT of position. WOMEN.

      Again as I said within this wider cultural and societal circle are various sub circles, comprising special interest groups, groups that have agitated for, lobbied for and juggled for position as close to the line of sight of that “power circle” as they can get, but it is the ones right up next to it who control that positioning, and right now it is feminists.

      At the very outermost ring or circle, lies the least important, the most invisible, the ones who are not even ON the radar of those in the “power circle”. MEN and BOYS.

      Any concessions, any access to that power circle is at the behest, at the discretion of those who abut that circle of power, and it is, and has been sparsely granted, if at all. Because one of benefits of being directly in the line of sight of those in the power circle is that one’s also controls the lines of communication, controls the language of communication, controls WHAT information about everybody in this wider culture circles gets passed on, passed up, gets listened to. Gets the attention of those in the “power circle”

      Encircling all this. is the outer circle, this circle contains the levers that control the cultural atmosphere, that control the mood if you will, that informs the mindset of all those in all circles, with perhaps those in the inner core being least affected by this cultural atmosphere. Because in effect, whatever the cultural atmosphere is, they benefit from the economic activities of all those in all outer circles, because they exert covert and invisible power in ALL areas of society and culture, including law and politics.

      That cultural atmosphere is toxic, it is imbued with a poisonous and debilitating pathogen, feminism, there are those who are immune to the deleterious effects of this poisonous atmosphere, there are those who are mildly affected, and there are those who breathe deeply and greedily of this atmosphere. Are they ALL women? Nope. But in the latter category, of those who revel and relish this toxic cultural atmosphere, the vast majority ARE female, but not just female – FEMINISTS.

      For some this toxic atmosphere has a narcotic effect, a hallucinogenic effect, it numbs them to injustices committed right in front of their eyes, and it allows them to see things that are NOT there, like patriarchy, and as wtfwtf13 said so eloquently in a previous comment gives them a “twisted perspective” that sees a skewed and distorted reality. That ALL men are inherently bad, or at the very least potentially dangerous, and that ALL women are inherently good, or if they do any actual bad, then – THEY HAD GOOD REASON!

      I agree with you up to a point about drawing a distinction between feminism and “women’s rights” especially when, in particular here in Ireland, we DID have laws that actively discriminated against women. Those laws were repealed, rescinded and are no longer on our Statute Books and have not been for a long long time.

      But feminism was never about “rights” per se, never about addressing true inequities in society, NEVER about cultural attitudes that entrenched some nebulous and covert “oppression of women” by men, or patriarchy as feminism likes to misname it – it was and is about POWER, about advancing the cause of female supremacy, and male disposability and utility in service to that female supremacy.

      Was there a need for a readjustment of cultural and social roles after the Industrial age? Yes indeed there was, on BOTH sides of the “gender equation” but that is not what happened, not only did the “male role” remain unchanged, but the burdens increased, and the “male role” became despised, even while feminists insisted on its continuation. Including those early feminists such as Betty Friedan.

      Friedan was outsmarted by Steinem, and Steinem was more useful as a front for the so called “women’s liberation movement” she was also more photogenic and she had powerful “friends”

      Friedan was a frumpy whiney bored housewife with a chip on her shoulder and a grudge against the world………of men and a dissatisfaction with her own life, I’ll grant that she gave substance and form to a particular feminine “unhappiness” but she missed the mark by a mile, and then some, because she failed to recognise it as a MUTUAL problem, and in typical female fashion, she failed to include men in the conversation.

      “It is better for a woman to compete impersonally in society, as men do, than to compete for dominance in her own home with her husband, compete with her neighbors for empty status, and so smother her son that he cannot compete at all.”

      Betty Friedan: http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Betty_Friedan/

      As you can see Friedan saw male/female interaction as a battle for “dominance”, and her whine about competing “with her neighbours for empty status” conveniently ignores one simple fact – if this is problem for YOU, then DON’T COMPETE!

      The “success” of the “women’s liberation movement” took them all by surprise, they were caught “on the hop” as we say here and as Camille Paglia so acerbically put it.

      “Women’s studies needed a syllabus and so invented a canon overnight. It puffed up clunky, mundane contemporary women authors into Oz-like, skywriting dirigibles. Our best women students are being force-fed an appalling diet of cant, drivel and malarkey.”


      So, while changing attitudes and cultural paradigms that misrepresent or distort reality is and always has been a necessity, one cannot LEGISLATE for that, nor should one be permitted to. But that is what feminism seeks and has always sought to do, make everything about how people feeeeeeeeeeeeeel, about how people think.

      The law should be above legislating on the basis of feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings, nor should it be used to impose thought control, or speech control, or to bestow “special” status on ONE SINGLE group of individuals – WOMEN – but THAT is again, exactly what feminism seeks, and has sought to do, aided and abetted by not just those in the “power circle” but by those in the elite inner core.

      I support Human Rights for all Human Beings, universal Human Rights, what people believe or think, or how they behave, obviously within the law (just laws equitably applied) and with due regard for the Universal Human Rights of ALL others, is nobody’s business but their own.

      There are no laws, none whatsoever extant, that accord lesser legal status to women, not in the western hemisphere, nor have there been for over fifty decades, quite the reverse in fact.

      I don’t actually “blame women for everything” but what I do have an issue with, is women who know, who KNOW that our culture, our society is predicated upon elevating women to a higher legal status than men, that they are, and will be deemed unaccountable for their actions, who benefit from maintaining this and all other advantages that accrue from simply being born FEMALE and that visibly, perniciously and deliberately disadvantage men and boys, for no other reason that being born MALE.


  5. wtfwtf13
    Dec 15, 2013 @ 14:19:18

    I don’t agree with you that women never had any real issues with men
    I am positive that individual women had real issues with individual men and vice versa.I am even more positive that this will go on till the end of the world, no matter what the utopians say, because that’s life. But to have issues/problems is one thing and to dramatize them and call them ‘oppression’ is quite another.
    Doesn’t the mantra “making the personal political ” suggest anything to you?

    Although I wasn’t around back then, I am willing to bet thaton a micro-level, women were disrespected. Or, shall I say, women that were high-achieving and ambitious.

    It was wise of you to declare that you were speculating here.
    Anyway,how can you be certain about the bolded part ?
    I would say, envied–probably yes !,disrespected–No!
    Truly great achievers are self-motivated,fussing about respect is a criminal waste of nervous energy in their books.
    We should be thankful that Copernicus,<em.Madame Curie et al did what they did without bothering about respect from fools.

    It was motherhood, and motherhood alone, which was venerated. Mothers were not disrespected, so long as they stuck to their role. If a woman decided she did not want to simply be a mother, then I suspect she was subject to very heavy male (and some female) disapproval.

    Are you saying disapproval and disrespect are synonyms?
    It’s to be expected that if you want to be a face in the crowd you can’t bank on popular support.The thing, is you can’t blame society for your lack of self-confidence.
    The onus is on you to prove your detractors wrong.
    As for motherhood, it’s not rocket science to know why it was venerated.
    I see the creation of pussy passes as a corollary to this veneration.
    They must have been issued to *good* [not self-proclaimed good] mothers who rendered what was perceived as an important selfless service to society.
    Which decent person in his senses would grudge them that ?
    But like with other things in life it got corrupted over time and ALL women got to jump into the gravy train based on the erroneous premise that ALL women are/potentially are good mothers ! So there always was a good excuse for whatever evil they might be caught doing.
    So we are condemned to watch the sorry spectacle of women behaving like sluts but yet expecting the respect accorded to mothers !
    Veneration is so subjective anyway. Compare a scientist who has discovered/invented something that’s really useful for mankind and a sports superstar. Who is venerated more ?


  6. shmiggen
    Dec 15, 2013 @ 22:30:06

    I agree that is how things stand today. My point is that is not how things always were. However, yes, today women do set the tone and control the milieu:


    My point was simply that is not how things were roughly forty years ago. Then, the zeitgeist was entirely masculine. “Men are awesome, women aren’t”. That’s all I am saying. Of course, now that has reversed. It is women who are awesome and men are shit. That is indisputable.

    Now, it is interesting that men never deliberately enacted laws for the express purposes of dominating women. I just think it happened on a micro-level. By that I mean things which are really quite innocent (by male standards) like patting a girl on the behind and whistling at her. That was commonplace way back when. That’s not oppression, it is just disrespectful. There was no law that said “men are allowed to pat women on the behind”. It just happened. So all of this is recent, the anti-male laws, it just happened in the last few decades, and so I think women, or shall I say, feminists, are really doing what the law allows them to do, and for that reason I do not blame them. They are human, and as such are prone to all the vices we know of, for example, greed and gluttony. There is simply no reason to not take advantage of something when it is laid out on the table for you.

    Now as for men and men’s troubles, here is what they are to me:

    Number one is suicide.

    Number two is being alienated from your children and paying child support for a family you can’t have, and being threatened with jail if you miss your payments, and being threatened with the “silver bullet” (being accused of child abuse on your own children) which is actually the norm in Canada and the US now.

    Number three is the unwanted feeling a young man has on any university campus in Canada and the US if he is going to the Schools of Social Science or Arts. There he will look around him, our young lad, and for the most part all he will feel towards him is hostility. He will witness Take Back the Night, March for Consent, Vagina Monologues, and the White Ribbon Campaign, and it will be constant and it will be daily. He will be safe if he goes into engineering, or the trades, but that’s all. Because we like it when men fix things, especially when its outside and in the rain and snow. But If he has an interest in the Arts or the Social Sciences, he is a persona non grata. We can’t have men influencing public policy. We don’t like that.

    Those are the top three to come to my mind. I hope you don’t think I’m spamming. Let me know if you want me to condense my thoughts into smaller pieces.


    • Anja Eriud
      Dec 16, 2013 @ 02:21:04

      Hi shmiggen

      Just a quick response, its late and I just logged on for a minute.

      “Those are the top three to come to my mind. I hope you don’t think I’m spamming. Let me know if you want me to condense my thoughts into smaller pieces.”

      I agree in principle with your top three as priorities, and would put the demonisation of young boys in primary/elementary educationon that list.

      Spamming? heck no, I enjoy reading your comments and appreciate the time and trouble you go to in composing them. As for condensing them, not at all, though if you posted a 2,000 word comment I might have to charge you rent! 🙂

      Post away with my blessing.



    • wtfwtf13
      Dec 16, 2013 @ 08:17:26

      Then, the zeitgeist was entirely masculine. “Men are awesome, women aren’t”.
      Could you elaborate on this please? Assume that I was not around at that time,how would you go about proving it to me ? Did they ever discuss ” The end of women” and gloat about it?
      Even if you are able to prove that there was an exclusive“masculine”zeitgeist my point is that,that “masculine” zeigeist was far less dismissive of women and more benign than the present “feminine” zeitgeist is in the treatment of men.
      Let us say we have a bashing contest,can you guess which sex will win it hands down?


  7. V Missirian
    Mar 26, 2014 @ 19:49:45

    i agree with your specific points in principle. its true that we are all restricted by the cultural system, men as well as women. it is most likely true that those embracing feminism as a social movement will be subject to its worst influences (calling people out blindly, not condoning traditional choices). but troubling biases can arise in any cohesive social movement, regardless of original intent. i just dont understand why it makes sense to put down a movement, not for what it was meant to be, but what it has become


    • V Missirian
      Mar 26, 2014 @ 20:15:40

      And under the same reasoning as above, feminists (possibly including me :-/) shouldnt your criticize your movement based on its worst elements either.

      on second thought- i think what i was trying to say doesnt really reflect this article, or this movement, but really just people in general


      • anjaeriud
        Mar 26, 2014 @ 20:35:50

        What is “my movement” from your perspective, and what would you define and describe as “the worst elements”?

        Can one actually present a reasonble hypothesis based on using as your construct – “people in general” – a rather vague and nebulous foundation upon which to build any hypothesis – wouldnt you say?


      • V Missirian
        Mar 26, 2014 @ 21:22:16

        Sorry, I think I put that wrong.

        I meant your movement as men’s rights. “worst elements” was an impolite term. I think I just meant to say i didn’t think through my first post enough

      • anjaeriud
        Mar 26, 2014 @ 21:28:23

        Relax V – your post was just fine – intrigueing – but fine – will get to your other comment shortly – just in the middle of something right now.

        Feel free to expand on your thesis, take your time.

        Anja 🙂

      • V Missirian
        Mar 26, 2014 @ 21:34:30

        Thanks! But I think what I was going to say is in my later post.

    • anjaeriud
      Mar 26, 2014 @ 20:30:05

      I would be interested in hearing your answers to a couple of questions before I address your comment – mostly so that I am clear about what it is you are saying.

      Are you saying that that the original origins of feminism were socially positive and benign and therefore the current form of feminism is simply a “good movement gone bad!?

      With regard to the first part about cultural systems – do you mean the complex interactions between civil and political society – informed from both the top down by the imposition of an agreed legal system and from the grassroots up and out, informed from the prevailing ebb and flow of human interactions and activities at a societal level, all of course “managed” by the presence of a fourth estate that brings attention to, and in some instances creates attention for a particular “way of doing things”

      A cultural system or a society or a network of societies is not a static entity with rigid and hard borders, nor is it an inanimate entity that exists apart from and separate from its component elements – the most important of which, are the human beings without whom “culture” or cultural systems would be an imagined but nonexistent “thing”

      Margaret Thatcher famously said “there is no such thing as society” she was wrong”

      We are society, you, me and everybody with whom we share this planet – how we choose to behave and interact with one another is culture.

      They are two sides of the same coin – that coin is humanity.


      • V Missirian
        Mar 26, 2014 @ 21:15:11

        I agree with you that society is complex and not static.

        I think that most social movements, including feminism and mens rights, are based around a positive idea, a desire to improve society, as they see it.

        The ideas I see at the core of feminism (which may not be the starting ideas) are “gender equality and correcting biases in the system”. These seem to be good on the surface, but they are often implemented badly in practice.

        My first post was unfair to you. Almost everyone in the feminist and mens rights movements points out that the other is wrong, most of them not even giving any reasoning. Whereas you have presented a reasoned argument.

        I just think that the two groups see some of the same issues with society.

      • anjaeriud
        Mar 26, 2014 @ 22:46:24

        I agree with you that society is complex and not static.

        Have you ever heard of Hans Kelsen and his theory of the Grundnorm – in a nutshell and rather simplified most human societies have at their core a set of universally agreed upon principles – basic rules for conduct within that society – objectively those basic principles can be either good or bad but the essence of them is that they are the “groundrules” if you like for that society.

        Laws and social taboos and customs evolved and layered themselves upon that Grundnorm, with Laws being enforceable by utilising the power of the state – a coercive power.

        Western societies evolved around a very particular Grundnorm – gynocentrism – societies built around the needs of women.

        Not necessarily a bad thing as women are the carriers of the next generation and needed to be protected and provided for, along with the young.

        A sound principle upon which to build a human society – except human beings are rather clever clogs and quite quickly developed more and more efficient ways to do that – leaving more time for “improving” the physical structures of societies and less and less time needing to be spent on protect and provide duties.

        Feminism harnessed that deeply embedded human evolutionary impulse and to be blunt twisted it, warped it and created a toxic social ecology around that principle.

        I think that most social movements, including feminism and mens rights, are based around a positive idea, a desire to improve society, as they see it.

        Really? How about Nazism? Or Communism? Or Fascism? These are all “social movements” whose stated aims were to “improve society”?

        One dictator’s improvement is another human beings worst nightmare. One does not improve society – one establishes a framework of laws and social principles – a Grundnorm – and leaves society to its own devices – society is people – culture is what people do – a framework of laws and principles in place that applies to EVERYBODY – sets the parameters for how far people can do what they want to do and how they do it – and basically draws a line in the sand – figuratively speaking for a code of conduct that limits and controls the ability of people to harm other people.

        Feminism kicked that line in the sand away – FOR WOMEN – but drew another one – a hard unyielding one – FOR MEN.

        The ideas I see at the core of feminism (which may not be the starting ideas) are “gender equality and correcting biases in the system”. These seem to be good on the surface, but they are often implemented badly in practice.

        Then my dear you know very little about the origins of feminism, or what informs feminism or even I regret to say what motivates feminism – it is not “equality” and is most definitely nothing to do with biases in “the system” feminism has injected and manufactured those biases and continues to do so.

        “Implemented badly in practice”

        Where shall I begin? How about.

        “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor

        “To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” -– Valerie Solanas

        “I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin

        “Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” — Susan Brownmiller

        “The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone

        “In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” — Catherine MacKinnon

        “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart

        “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” – Catherine Comins

        “All men are rapists and that’s all they are” — Marilyn French

        “Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.” — Germaine Greer.

        Every single one of these quotes and the premise upon which these quotes are based has informed public policies and LAWS – every single one of these feminists has had some part to play in advancing those policies and LAWS.

        My first post was unfair to you. Almost everyone in the feminist and mens rights movements points out that the other is wrong, most of them not even giving any reasoning. Whereas you have presented a reasoned argument.

        V – unfair is subjective – and believe me when I say – I’m not a feminist – ergo – people disagreeing with me doesn’t incite me to rage or petulance or reduce me to a snivelling weeping heap of snot faced tears because my feelings are hurt.

        So, criticise away to your heart’s content – you seem like a smart girl – at least you present your point of view coherently without threatening to cut off peoples genitalia – have you had the pleasure! Of Ellie Slee? A real treat – but not for those of a sensitive nature.

        I just think that the two groups see some of the same issues with society.

        And you are entitled to your view – but you are wrong – this isn’t a case of two opposing points of view arguing about some knotty little problem that exists “out there” feminism IS the problem.

        Amja 🙂

        Ya know – for a feminist you seem almost…………………..sane!

      • V Missirian
        Mar 26, 2014 @ 21:37:15

        Oops- I was saying ‘society’ here, but I meant ‘culture’.

      • V Missirian
        Mar 27, 2014 @ 01:34:05

        Hi Amja,

        I agree with the concept that women are traditionally culturally protected, and I agree that they were valued mainly for their ability to provide childbearing. If I understand correctly, you are saying feminists are taking our urges to protect women as a group and using them to drive women into a more powerful position. Basically trying to re-frame the cultural protective instinct into something it was not really designed for. In principle, I can agree that that seems unfair.

        In terms of social movements trying to improve society- yeah . . . you raise a good point. A few war movements really do seem based around “lets gain power”. While you could say that they were trying to protect their families, they would have had to overlook a lot of suffering or put themselves above others to go along with it.

        I guess I originally stumbled upon feminism for altruistic motives, so I may be projecting my behavior on others 🙂

        I totally agree that having double standards is wrong, although that’s what I had hoped feminism would address. I disagree with Robin Morgan’s attitude of hating the upper class. I can understand her sentiment, but Nelson Mandela would probably not have approved (at least the Mandela in Invictus). Anger at a broad group of people harms the long-term relationship between two groups. My guess is that she is just saying what readers want to hear 😦

        I do want to point out that I was shocked when I heard the Andrea Dworkin quote too, but I looked it up — and online I read that the quote is from a character in her book. Andrea Dworkin actually seemed pretty well reasoned to me, considering her background, she seems to think that male domination is ingrained into the human nature.

        For me being unfair – I just meant that I was being illogical to apply the same standard to you and not to myself. And I appreciate that you consider me smart, though I’m actually a guy – I may write a bit feminine though…

        I’ve spend a lot of time thinking through these issues, and I’ve come to realize that I’m less of a boilerplate femininst and more against oppressive culture in general. I still identify with feminism to some extent, but maybe that’s because I am reading different feminist sources (mostly webcomics and blogs, though I don’t always agree with them). I feel like a lot of journalists throw the term “feminist” around, but I guess a term can take on different meanings.

        I’d be willing to bet that there are a lot of people identifying as feminist who do have more moderate views. I don’t know much about Bell Hooks’ politics, but at one point she decided to say she “advocated” feminism rather than directly claim she was a feminist

        I’m glad I seem almost sane to you- and you seem pretty sane to me too!

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: