The Sexist

Sexist Beatdown: Manly Masculine Male Edition

A couple of guys just hangin' out.

Two important developments in the World of Men this week:

1. A group of scholars, led by a man with the almost suspiciously masculine name of Lionel Tiger, established a new discipline of gender studies: Male Studies. Male Studies differs from the already existing discipline of Men's Studies in that it is devoted to studying the "male as male," as opposed to the "male as Easter Bunny" or whatever Men's Studies is passing off as scholarly research nowadays. Also, Male Studies really fucking resents Women's Studies. Cage match, anyone?

2. Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown, the preeminent scholar in the field of Lady Business Studies, invited some men to talk about their experiences for once. Sady's Visions of Manliness series (see A, B, and C) has addressed stuff like the simultaneous marginalization and privilege of trans men, ironically homophobic sports blogging, and how deeply Valentine's Day truly blows. Strangely, none of the posts are about how feminists have stolen their male identity, trampled upon their masculine phenomenon, and overall been super mean. In other words, this is total Men's Studies shit.

In this edition of Sexist Beatdown, Sady and I YELL ABOUT THESE THINGS AND ALSO bell hooks SO JOIN US!

SADY: hello, Fellow Lady Person!

AMANDA: Why hello! I am prepared to speak about the experiences of . . . Men People.

SADY: About which I know, I will tell you, not a whole lot! Like, I have known Men People throughout my lifetime. Sometimes in the sense that they are related to me! Or friends! Or I have known them BIBLICALLY! But also, like, pursuant to the Liz Lemonism critique of Times Past, I feel like I am privileged in 99% of the ways that people can be privileged on this our planet Earth. And it frustrates me — and has been a schism in The Feminist History — that, as a lady who is so very fucking privileged, I'm allowed to concentrate so much on my own Oppression By The Man and not notice that some of The Men are going through their own bullshit.

AMANDA: Right. In the Oppression Olympics, I would not qualify for the finals. I would be disqualified in the first heat. I also am really no good with sports metaphors!


AMANDA: I plan on blaming all of my deficiencies in forming metaphors, drawing conclusions, and overall making sense on my Oppression today. For the record.

SADY: I intuitively understand you, due to my woman's intuition. But, like, this is a long-standing Beef within the feminist community, in fact. Like, bell hooks covered it along with approximately everybody else.

AMANDA: Yeah, I mean, a distinction must be made between men and The Man.

SADY: Right. We oversimplify. And a ton of feminists have needed to clarify that "when we say 'men,' we mean the Platonic ideal of 'men!' The way 'men' are encouraged to behave and act and such!" And as a person who types the words 'dudes' and 'men' a lot, I am sympathetic. Because we DO need a word to denote all that junk. But, to revisit bell hooks for JUST A SECOND, here is how that works out in practice: Some white feminist ladies walk up to some ladies of color, and are like "join the cause, sister!" And the ladies of color are like, "sure, I've experienced sexism, let's go. On the way, can we talk about how you white ladies are enacting some bullshit that hurts me and also the men in my community?" And then the white ladies are like, "YOU ARE SO MALE-IDENTIFIED. WHY CAN'T YOU JOIN OUR GLORIOUS SISTERHOOD AND IDENTIFY AS A WOMAN FIRST."

AMANDA: Allow me to flip that dynamic around for a second, as I think the distinction between "Men's Studies" and the totally brand new discipline of "Male Studies" helps to illustrate that point. So, "Male Studies" just had its first conference on Wednesday, to declare "Male Studies" a thing, even though "Men's Studies" already exists and is welcoming of all who study men and masculinity. And the reason "Male Studies" has decided to branch off from "Men's Studies" is that Men's studies thinks too much about Women's Studies.

SADY: Oh, dear.

AMANDA: When there is just no reason to segregate these two studies, of course.

SADY: Well, unless you want to teach an entire seminar on barbecue grilling!

AMANDA: And I think feminism suffers from the impulse to segregate the experiences of people and treat our cultural systems (patriarchy, masculinity, femininity, race, class) as separate fields, and I think my work often suffers from that distinction, actually.

SADY: Well, I mean, to be honest, mine does, too. Mostly due to my vast narcissism, and the fact that I write mostly about my own experiences!

AMANDA: Right.

SADY: You could run over my foot with a shopping cart at the Costco, and I'd write this very ideological post that was like, "SHOPPING CART PRIVILEGE: Does It Lead You To Run Over My Foot, and Are You A Monster? Yes."

AMANDA: But it's a very tricky thing to attempt to write about the experiences of others, and that's why your masculinity series is so great! TIGER BEATDOWN PLUG!

SADY: Which is why I try to bring other people into the discussion.

AMANDA: But what about, in addition to bringing in these voices, also writing about issues that don't directly affect us and which we can't talk about from personal experience? I think it's important to do that too, but I think it's a lot trickier.

SADY: Right. And also, you have to be open to getting yelled at! Is my experience!

AMANDA: Agreed!

SADY: Because there's a big difference between "speaking about these things that do not affect me directly" and "speaking FOR these people who are having these experiences because I am A GENIUS and get your experience way better than you do." But, like, it is easy to cross the line?

AMANDA: Yeah. It is. And that's where the productive yelling comes in.

SADY: So you have to be a good listener, ESPECIALLY when people are yelling.

AMANDA: But, so, then I also sometimes get yelled at if I write about how something affects men? I get the "O but what about the menz!!!!!" comments. I don't know why it's written like an Internet cat is saying it, but it is. Even though I write about women a whole lot!

SADY: They are all basically internet cats, those dudes, though. Like, if you write a post about Vajazzling, to use a totally fictional example, and people are like, "did you know some dudes get CIRCUMSIZED??? Monstrous! Your vagina post has inspired me to talk about the ill fates of penises, instead, and at length!' Like, at a certain point, the "WHAT ABOUT ME" posts from dudes are just blatantly obnoxious, and blatantly intended to keep women from writing about their OWN experiences of manliness, ill or well.

AMANDA: Yeah. I have a good friend who is hurt that I don't write on the expectations on men to move furniture for girls.

SADY: OH MY GOD. OPPRESSION! I too am disappointed that you have not covered this topic Amanda! Also: Being asked to open pickle jars. WORSE THAN DEATH???

AMANDA: Well I'm waiting to roll out my big investigative series. On the possible lingering lower back problems.

SADY: "Once I Had To Carry Your Books Up Some Stairs: A Post About Traumatic Experiences, By A Dude."

AMANDA: But, I write about a lot of really minor shit that women are expected to do and about how these very little things are reminders of society's expectations of men and women. And a lot of times men get really pissed when I do that, too! For it is annoying to be forced to think about.

: Right. I mean, here's the thing: I'm a lady who gets called out on my privilege. A lot. As I see it, my job description is: Write about lady stuff, try to remember not all ladies have exactly the same life as I do, listen when ladies with different lives are like "uh, you missed something." So the plague of dudes on the Internet who are like, "WHAT DO YOU MEAN LADIES EXPERIENCE THINGS DIFFERENTLY THAN I DO, SOMETIMES NOT WELL?!???!" Like: I try to listen to people EVERY SINGLE DAY, dude, and I haven't actually had an aneurysm and died yet, so maybe it's not actually that fucking hard. You know? The Internet is not a thousand little knives stabbing you in the face. The Internet is some people talking. In conclusion, calm down.

AMANDA: Yeah. And that's when things get tough, for me, when we start talking about the experiences of men like that. Because it's so obvious how our culture is constructed to make guys like that never have to—and to actually avoid—listening to a woman's experience, just as it's constructed to help white people avoid listening to anyone else, and straight people, and cis people, &c.

SADY: Yeah. But then you have things like "Male Studies," where "The male as male will be permitted to appear in all his complexity as new values are being forged and traditional values that have proven the test of time are affirmed."

SADY: And I get the feeling those traditional values that have proven the test of time kind of involve OPPRESSING THE VAST MAJORITY OF MALES???

AMANDA: Yes. And that traditional man has always been permitted to appear. It's all the other men who haven't. But Male Studies cuts them out of the picture when it devotes itself to "males as males," as if we're only talking about one very clearly defined and biologically determined type of person.

: Right. Because "the male as male" means cisgendered. It means straight. It means white. It means, like, a lot of shit! Actually! As it is commonly employed! Everybody else, if they can even get recognized as dudes, is treated in the discourse as, "well, okay, you're a dude. But a SUBSET of dude. We have trouble imagining you as a character on 'Mad Men,' so, like, clearly you're not a part of the glorious history of The Male As Male to the same extent." But here's the thing. The ominous thing that I always phrase in a manner that brings to mind, like, the James Cameron movie 'Aliens.'


: All of those dudes excluded from the discourse of Traditional Old-Fashioned-Swilling Wife-Cheating-On Empowered Non-Chest-Waxing Masculinity? And all of the ladies? Add it up. THERE ARE MORE OF US than there are of anyone else. Which is why we need to start fucking talking to each other more.

AMANDA: This reminds me more of that Beyonce song than Aliens, but I see what you're getting at.

SADY: Like, if we start looking at "masculinity" as this very exclusive concept that has all of these other concepts and privileges packed into it, then we get to my I Went To Liberal Arts College And Have Simplistic Ideas Place where, like... we can create a discourse without you, substantially, Ultimately Privileged People. If we can get over our own bullshit and have each others' backs, we can do a lot. And maybe this conversation needs to take place on THOSE terms. Provided you're okay with getting yelled at when you fuck it up. Also, I have had three beers, because it's hot. THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE SOBER!

AMANDA: NO IT WILL NOT. And I will fight to the death for men to gain the right to drink as much as women do without being labeled irresponsible sluts who deserve whatever is coming to them.

SADY: Yes! Also, that person who ran over my foot in the Costco: A MONSTER. I think we need to centralize this issue. Because that hurt.

AMANDA: Kumbayah!

Photo via George Eastman House

  • Geniphur

    /cheer @ men for being men

  • LeftSidePositive

    Oh, and since the mansplainers LOVE to discuss coalminers here, I found these little gems:

    "Although male coal miners generally were negative toward female miners as coworkers, they strongly supported women's right to coal mine jobs. In contrast, female homemakers were somewhat more favorable toward women as coal miners, but they were less likely to support women's right to hold jobs in coal mines. There is evidence that attitudes toward women coal miners are changing. Futhermore, findings suggest that existing models used to account for women's work patterns are better suited to anonymous urban settings than to tightly knit rural communites where community censure may influence women's work opportunities. Recommendations are offered for community development practitioners to help increase acceptance of women as miners."

    So maybe the fact that mining communities have rigid (non-feminist) gender roles has more to do with why women aren't coalminers than feminists hating men...go figure! Hate to break it to you, but I really don't think Appalachia is at the forefront of feminist thought...

    And, y'all had more than a little resistance to women being coal miners in the first place:

    "On October 2, 1979, Marilyn McCusker was killed while working inside a deep coal mine in Pennsylvania. She was the first woman coal miner killed on the job. It had taken her 2 years and a sex discrimination suit in federal court to get a job as a coal miner. She was one of 144 fatalities in the mines that year. In later years, women perished in both the McClure and Wilberg disasters."

    So, it's only been just over 30 years that women have even had the *right* to work in coal mines, and you just can't imagine that more of them don't.


    The coal mines dug into the hills and mountains were once the domain of men, the only portal to prosperity in this land of jagged streams. Then, 20 years ago, Cosby Ann Totten laced up her steel-toed boots, slipped on a hard hat, and followed her brother beneath the earth. A mother of six with no health insurance, she earned $49.49 a day, nearly triple what the furniture factory paid her for assembling chair frames. Much has changed for Totten, who's now a grandmother, and for other women coal miners who daily faced grumbling, blackened men around the tipple. Cases of discrimination are fewer, and less time is spent plugging chewing gum into peepholes in bathrooms.

    Gotta love this, dudes. Women who are interested in traditionally "male," dangerous jobs have to take legal action to secure employment (and then face tons of harassment), and then you all sit back and say, "Well, we men have it so much harder because we work in these dangerous jobs!" (that only a few decades ago you little ladies were actually forbidden from working...)

  • LeftSidePositive

    Oh, damn, my post with all the other links on coal miners are in moderation. But, I found one more:

    On Minnesota's Iron Range, women coal miners were terrorized by the men with whom they worked to the point that some kept loaded guns in their homes and cars. Others brought knives to work to protect themselves against what had become a daily barrage of sexual assaults. Men exposed themselves to the women, pressured them for sex, fondled and grabbed them. After breaking into a woman's locker, three men ejaculated into their co-worker's clothing.

    "Jenson first began working at the site in March 1975 and along with other women, endured a continuous stream of abhorrent behavior from male employees, including sexual harassment, abusive language, threats, stalking and intimidation. On October 5, 1984, she mailed a complaint to the Minnesota Department of Human Rights [1] outlining the problems she experienced. In retaliation, her car tires were slashed a week later. In January 1987, the state requested that Ogelbay Norton Co.[2], a Cleveland, Ohio-based part-owner of the mine, pay US$6,000 in punitive damages and $5,000 to Jenson for mental anguish, but the company refused."

    So, yeah, thanks again for telling us how great you are that you're miners and we're not. You only have yourselves to thank for that!

  • Roland3337

    @LSP: I notice that the majority of comments that the men made here support their positions (particularly those of John D) immediately previous to yours, were respectful, and devoid of the kind of profanity that you decided to use:

    "...You seriously have no fucking idea..."

    "...I don’t know WHERE the fuck you’ve been for the last fifty years..."

    "...we object to men being pompous, arrogant, self-entitled, condescending bastards (like the majority of you here)."

    "...well, you come off like total dicks..."

    "...And then you have the fucking nerve to say “Can we call them firemen yet?”..."

  • LeftSidePositive

    Roland, this is a blog where salty language is used regularly. The authors use "fuck" (oh, my!) 5 times, "shit" 6, in the original article, after all. Acting shocked about it just looks juvenile. Besides, a few F-bombs (which, frankly, most people over the age of 15 should be used to, I mean really!) is nowhere near as offensive as some self-entitled mansplainer declaring in his own infinite wisdom that having men in positions of power works out GREAT for women, and that men are just sooo noble for serving in positions from which they actively exclude and/or harass women, and that we women should consider ourselves totally happy & lucky to be dependent. Content is more important than tone, and offensive attitudes are going to be met with strong language.

  • Arbitrary

    LSP, I have read your most recent comments; however, I hope you will excuse me if I address your comments in the order in which they were received. Rest assured that I do not intend to leave your most recent statements unanswered.

    Care to cite any evidence for that? I know too many links will put a post in a moderation queue, but at least state the name of a study or something!

    In order to defend this claim, it would first be necessary for me to determine the source of your initial assertion that the economic realities of divorce result in a decrease of 25 to 30% in standard of living for women and an increase of 10% in the standard of living for men. I have attempted to do so to the best of my ability.

    This statistic appears to be sourced in this 1996 article. It was written as a correction on the grossly larger claims of a book published in the 1980s. Both the book and the study itself use data from Los Angeles in 1977 and 1978 as their basis. Alas, I do not have access to the full text of the article in order to determine if the common MRA claim that this ignores alimony and child support is accurate.

    I have found no more recent study that would validate the assertion that these numbers are still accurate (or the assertion that these numbers are inaccurate). However, I would like to suggest that the economic realities of divorce may not be the same as the were three decades ago. It is my hope that Male Studies will supply new literature on this subject.

    If you know of another study, or some means by which I can access the full text of the original (legally and freely), I am certainly open to additional data being brought into this discussion.

    This is insane and too stereotypical to possibly take seriously. A divorce settlement entitles a party to a specific amount of money, whether they spend it irresponsibly or not.

    Except that the justification for uneven custody and the attendant child support is that this is supposed to benefit children. Frivolous spending, particularly of monies given for this purpose, is to their detriment. In the event that one parent--either parent--is highly fiscally irresponsible how can a system purportedly designed to benefit (or, at any rate, minimize the negative effects on) children, in good conscience, put that parent in charge of maintaining the bulk of the children's finances?

    Which is not to say that there are not fiscally responsible women, or fiscally irresponsible men. But this question of largely no concern to existing custody issues.

    Also, differences in spending habits can have a lot to do with who does household purchases and groceries, as an April 9th piece in Salon’s Broadsheet discussed.

    If you seriously believe that differences in intra-household spending habits account for the entirety of gender differences in saving and spending, then I suggest you poke around the data available from the consumer expenditure survey regarding the spending habits of single men and women living alone. Not all of it is indicative of men being more fiscally responsible than women (single men living alone spend vastly more on vehicles than single women do--and above certain income thresholds even own more than one car on average), nor indeed are the categories in which single women spend more necessarily unjustified (single women spend more on household cleaning supplies, for instance). However, you will find that men put a larger fraction of their incomes toward pensions/social security/retirement plans; in general they have a higher savings rate.

    Remember, however, that this is an average, and should never be used to draw conclusions about particular people. Also, if there are any gender differences that can be attributed almost entirely to culture rather than biology, spending habits certainly heads up the list (apart from differences in expenditures for food and certain personal hygiene products).

    Dude, at least do a wikipedia search before you make these claims. Alimony dates back way before even the 19th century, and thus way before feminism.

    Dude, if you're going to tell me to check wikipedia, you might want to check it yourself. Even the understanding of alimonia from the Ecclisiastical Courts was still fundamentally about differences in earning potential, and existed as a protection for a wronged wife so that she would still be cared for by a cheating husband (as she would have been had she married a non-cheating husband--which would, at that point, have been thought of as essentially the limit of her earning potential).

    Alimony is not, and never has been, about assets. Postmarital division of assets is about assets. Alimony is about income, and existed as a responsibility of a man to sustain a spouse whom he had cheated. Which brings us to where feminists enter the picture. With the introduction of no-fault divorce, the justification for alimony (that a man who cheats or abandons still has a responsibility to his wife) falls by the wayside. After all, the divorce is no one's fault. But feminists introducing no-fault divorce fight to keep alimony (even lifetime alimony) tooth and nail. After all, restitution is needed for a spouse's lost earning potential...even though the divorce is no one's fault.

    In a significant sense this is the same as the original argument recognizing the need for restitution to a wronged spouse (whether earning potential is looked at in terms of the possibility of marrying someone else who would still be taking care of the woman, or lost chances at experience and career advancement). Except it is being applied even in cases where the spouse was not wronged. For that it is entirely reasonable to blame feminist political groups.

    OK, I’m lost–WHAT is the gender claim here?!

    Among the positive claims made about whole language, as introduced in the 1980s, were the comparative advances made by girls over boys under whole-language instruction. In fact, both genders are harmed by the use of whole-language rather than phonics, but boys are harmed significantly more. (See, for instance, this reference briefly touching upon the subject--not academically. See this for an example of a feminist asserting the importance of the whole language approach due to its comparative advantage for girls. She also asserts that it shows improvements for both genders; this is false. See the results of the 1998 National Research Council and the 2000 National Reading Panel for more details.)

    Are you sure they weren’t saying things like, “Girls are the sexual gatekeepers” or “Girls are more interested in commitment than sex” or “Girls are more sexually responsible and boys always want it”? Because feminists find those attitudes pretty offensive, too! These are traditional gender roles at work, not feminism! You have the patriarchy to thank for those attitudes, and it does NOT mean that women are revered as “perfect”–it means that if we’re not perfect (which no one is!), we’re shamed for it, treated as abnormal, and told we’re “asking for it.”

    No. The high school teacher literally used the word superior. The elementary school teacher said better. The middle school teacher said smarter, with the same general implication of general superiority. The context surrounding these circumstances made this only slightly less offensive.

    Please cite some sources. Anything. Really.

    I am not an educational expert, but any of the many circumstances where focus is placed on a gender gap and not on absolute achievement, there is cause for concern. Similarly, any time we let existing political ideology get in the way of actually helping people we have gone astray. Consider my reference to sex-segregated schooling. Significant amounts of research (link to a review thereof) suggest that in sex-segregated learning environments, girls achieve similar or slightly better learning outcomes, while boys achieve significantly better learning outcomes. Even, in a feminist critique of this research throwing out the positive effects for white men, improvement is found. Yet feminist organizations stand opposed to sex-segregated schooling (see this).

    When MRAs complain that feminists are working directly against the interests of boys and men, they are not pulling this idea out of thin air.

    And I think every single parliamentarian and church official was male! One person doesn’t make everything okay…I didn’t cite one person. I cited male dominance in every single branch of government. The likelihood of the makeup of the current House & Senate occurring by chance is 9.49×10^-58. In other words, infinitesimal.

    If all the parliamentarians and church officials answered to the queen, does that really matter? (Remember, the king or queen of England is the leader of the church of England, so those church officials were indeed answering--directly or through levels of management--to her...the parliamentarian's had more say thanks to the Magna Carta, but still.)

    Also, your assertion of probability assumes equal populations interested in running for political office and an equal distribution of ability (note here that the relevant ability is not the ability to govern but the ability to get elected). Neither of these assertions is particularly well-founded.

    Like I’ve said multiple times, gender is not the ONLY means of oppression, and class & poverty are huge factors (but, remember that those male rulers had the rights to sleep with their female serfs willing or not before you complain too much! See Figaro, Marriage of)

    And they had the "right" to murder either of them. History contains vastly larger differences in rights and quality of life with respect to social class than it does with respect to gender. There were women who voted in the 17th century in what later became the US--being white landowners they had that right, while the poor and blacks did not (look up Margaret Brent and Deborah Moody). Of course, you wouldn't know it from a feminist read of history.

    Were there inequalities and injustices? Yes. Did women, in general not have the right to vote? Yes, and they didn't, in general, get it until after the vote was extended to all men. But a government not composed of women is not necessarily acting against the interests of women, and is not necessarily acting in the interests of men.

    Yeah. When people hold up a healthcare bill expressly for the purpose of denying you a legal medical procedure, then we’ll talk.

    Tell me, are other voluntary surgeries covered under the bill? Ignoring the moral question for the moment, do you really think that voluntary surgeries should, in general, be required to be covered by all health insurance programs? Do you want to be paying for someone else's nose job?

    In cases where the mother's life is in danger, it's a life-saving medical procedure and should be covered in order to be available as an option. In other cases (including extremely justifiable cases such as rape and incest) a consistent read of the existing feminist argument treats this the same way it treats any other elective medical procedure.

    Do I think this was held up for that reason? No, I'm not that naive. But do you think it would have been appropriate to insist that all health insurance programs cover, say, penis enlargement? (I have no idea if such a surgery exists, and doubt I could easily determine this via the internet given the amount of spam I'd find trying, so just suppose that it did.)

  • Arbitrary

    I am again guilty of failure to fully check my own spelling and grammar; "Ecclisiastical" is properly spelled "Ecclesiastical".

  • typhonblue


    "If you insist upon “studying” how you see yourself and your “values” without regard to how others are affected by what you say and do, how these beliefs of what it means to be “male” may or may not be appreciated by those who are not male, well, you’re going to have a lot of self-congratulatory nonsense like what you see here."

    Does this apply to feminists in terms of being 'female'? It seems like feminists take pride in ridding themselves of male influences and not considering the male point of view when analyzing the nature of femininity in society. Which, as you say, does lead to a lot of self-congratulatory nonsense.

  • typhonblue

    In fact, worse then 'self congratulatory nonsense' you get disgusting bigotry about men like: 'all men benefit from rape' and 'men are complicit in creating a "rape culture" that encourages rape.'

    The idea that anyone could say something like 'all men benefit from rape' leaves me speechless.

    Male studies is needed just to balance out this crap.

  • Arbitrary

    I should clarify, "But this question of largely no concern to existing custody issues." My intended reading of this sentence was, roughly:

    But this is question (of which parent is more fiscally responsible) is considered largely of no concern for existing custody issues.

  • John D

    Responding to LSP's comment # 150:
    A) "First, if you men have problems with the way other privileged men are treating you, take that up with those privileged men (or the power structures that enable them). Many women and especially feminists will likely support you in those efforts."

    [ In other words having run out of rebuttals and conceding that maybe men actually do face a significant amount of societal oppression, your mature (and *quite* egalitarian!) response is to tell men: fuck you, you're on your own buddy!

    That's quite an interesting remark considering feminists consider themselves the steadfast guardians of justice and equality for women *AND MEN* and profess to be concerned about *all oppression*. ]

    B) "Second, it’s juvenile and ridiculous to imagine that you can know that men being the breadwinners and policymakers works out great for women. You seriously have no fucking idea, and you’re not even trying to understand what it’s like from the other side."

    [ Your call for empathy and understanding is so touching considering your comment A) in which you profess to know whether or not most men are oppressed (with little or no research on the subject), and when conceding that it's likely many are, you tell them to fuck off and to advocate their own way out of oppression.

    Simultaneously calling for empathy for women's issues while telling men to fuck off (even if a good deal of men are oppressed) sure is a neat trick--but I've ceased being surprised by feminists. ]

    C) "staying home to take care of the family while the husband works is NOT an easy, cushy job, it is not respected, and it is fundamentally unequal"

    [ One of the reasons why Glenn Sacks got into the father's rights movement is b/c he was a stay at home dad for about 4 years and he realized (though he wouldn't state it quite so bluntly) that the "housework & child-care is misery & oppression" is total bunk.

    1. being a stay at home parent may not be easy, but it is *easier* then almost all paid work, and

    2. it is definitely *much* more fulfilling b/c you get to spend time with your own kids.

    3. As far as it being unequal--you're proven quite resoundingly your total unwillingness in the face of cold hard logic that you're *only* willing to look at the inequality from the woman's side, never from the man's side.

    4. Could this have something to do with why so many women choose it?????? Naaaaahhh. ]

    D) "I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but feminists really stress women being breadwinners with a full array of career options as an important means to independence, security, and equality"

    [ Unless the couple is divorced then feminists fight tooth and nail for mom to be burdened with the majority of child-care restricting her ability to go to school or pursue a career. Can't have mommy getting lower child support! All of a sudden feminists like dependence on me! A hypocrisy which I noticed you never addressed.]

    E) "Fourth, please open your eyes and imagine what it’s like for someone different from you. Grow up, and please try to have some empathy. "

    [ ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha HA HA HA HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha HA HA HA HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha HA HA HA HA, OHMIGOD CAN'T BREATHE! Ever hear of the word hypocrite? ]

    F)" The fact that some women are dismissive of men going into traditionally female jobs DOES NOT mean that “feminists” are responsible for those attitudes."

    [ Responsible? No. But feminists constantly decree themselves to be the honorable, *unimpeachable* steadfast guardians of justice and equality for women *AND MEN*.

    By standing idly by and doing nothing to help your brothers fight to break gender roles, FEMINISTS NO LONGER get to call themselves guardians of equality. Once again I have *never* seen feminists oppose women who shame men for being "unmanly"--only when they are shamed by other men. Apparently, women as "bad guy" is the major no-no of feminism.
    Feminists (and *you especially*) have proven quite handily that feminism is nothing more than an advocacy group for women's rights and women's privilege.

    It is no different than the way in which big tobacco advocates for what benefits itself, or big oil advocates for what benefits itself.

    Quite frankly you get the John D golf clap award for hypocrisy. I couldn't have made a poorer showing of what a feminist is then you have.

    If there is any indication of why male studies is needed, you just provided it on a silver platter. ]

  • John D

    Under comment D) the second to last sentence should have been:
    All of a sudden feminists like dependence on men!

    Not "dependence on me"


  • Harry Finkbein

    Male Studies will not only study sexual politics, but sexuality itself. Women are hypergamous; men are polygamous. Men that do not have jobs or money lead lives of sexual scarcity. If a woman wants a man all she has to do is show up. Can she lift her head up and down? She can have a man. Can she turn it from side to side? She can have a man. A man has to accumulate wealth and resources. This is completely different from females. Don't women think this is worthy of study? Of course not, they want men kept in the dark.

    Male Studies will be revolutionary in the sense it will allow men to choose roles more fitting to their needs. Our society can best be described as one of soft polygamy. Go to a Doctor's office and look around. What do you see? Mostly women: nurses, nurse's aids and office assistants. Soft polygamy. This is the Doctor's 'virtual harem'. The truth is, women are hypergamous, and would share a Doctor between several women than be monogamous with one man. Feminism never studies sexuality, because feminism is a political lobby group dedicated to female supremacy.

    Women use sex as way of rewarding and punishing male behavior. If a man doesn't have work, he gets no sex. If a man is successful, he is rewarded with a bounty of sex. Feminism never discusses these truths, because feminism is a political lobby group, dedicated to female supremacy.

  • swisscheese

    @leftside About your stories on the coal miners you just further proved that the feminists don't care to make the coal mining industry equally represented by males and females. Or they would be demanding changes. There is no excuse for this feminist hypocrisy.

    However you finding some stories doesn't really show anything. I would need something current and an actual study to be convinced.

    There are tons more risky and necessary jobs and women don't take them nor do feminists care.

  • kilgore


    LSP said "Scary-e, care to provide a link to that report?"

    Not sure which report you want so here are links to both. The first is a compilation of suicide stats on the site:

    Look towards the bottom of the page for the "Suicide methods by gender" table. I actually missed the exact number by a smidge. Lethal means of hanging and firearms for men was about 80% and for women was about 51%. I think I said 79 and 52. ooops. Still you get the idea that the percentage is not so dissimilar and cannot be used to account for the dramatic difference in completed suicides.

    The other report is titled: "NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR SUICIDE PREVENTION: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR ACTION" and was published by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES in 2001. I think it is the latest version of the nationsl strategy and is in a pdf file. Load it and then search the file for instances of "men" and see what you come up with. LOL It is absolutely unbelievable that a 200+ page document about the national strategy for the prevention of suicide should not focus AT ALL on men and boys. Totally unreal. Boys and men are 80% of the completed suicides and they don't even rate more than a sidebar on page 99? Our government misandry in action. Women and children first right? Fock sake.

  • typhonblue

    It's simple.

    All the things that men face--circumcision, greater risk of suicide, homicide, assault, drug abuse, homelessness, shorter life span, more workplace fatalities and injuries, forced to register for the draft, no services for domestic violence, rape, etc., far less health care funding, declining school performance--if women faced them there would be a public outcry(and was, in some cases).

    But there is no public outcry because men are supposed to help themselves. That's their gender role, being self-reliant. And if they can't help themselves they become objects of contempt and unworthy of help. A catch-22.

    Our cultural attitude that men should be ultra-self reliant also effects how people view women, namely as helpless and dependent. We've gone as far as we can helping women by convincing them that they are helpless as women(oppressed in other words).

    That's why Male Studies is needed.

  • kilgore

    Great post Typhonblue. Here is a short quote from Peter Marin that hammers away at the same point:

    "To put it simply: men are neither supposed nor allowed to be dependent. They are expected to take care of others and themselves. And when they cannot or will not do it, then the assumption at the heart of the culture is that they are somehow less than men and therefore unworthy of help. An irony asserts itself: by being in need of help, men forfeit the right to it."

    This thread exposes all of the monotonous and robotic voicings of this cultural norm. This is yet another reason that we desparately need male studies.

  • John D

    There is a great quote (unfortunately I don't remember who said it) that goes:
    A woman's greatest strength lies in her appearance of weakness.

    A Man's greatest weakness lies in his appearance of strength.

    Notice LSP's interesting one-two punch that women's rights are everybody's business, but men's rights definitely isn't her business.

    And she didn't even realize her hypocrisy when she's screeching that we all need to learn to empathize, while *simultaneously* yelling: men--fuck off, advocate your own way out of oppression.

    Quite an interesting comment considering that women have received billions upon billions of government largess (and 100's of millions in private & corp donations too). Not to mention female-only laws for business & educational grants greatly disproportionate healthcare research etc....

    Quite frankly, feminists and women should get down on their knees and thank the fact that the vast majority of men are not so close-minded and self-absorbed as left-side-positive or they still wouldn't have the right to vote.

    The last irony is that the ranks of MRA's are nearly 50% female (the ranks of politically active feminist groups are what? 2% men--when they're even *allowed* in). Good women who are *truly* concerned about justice for all who see the malicious massacre of men's civil rights and are willing to stand up for what is right.

    Now that men have helped everybody else, it is time to turn to our brothers and help them. With the help of courageous women like you.

    Our gender hegemony (and feminists lack of it) should be a clue to what everybody is *really* about.

  • Arbitrary

    Felidaeus, it is only after the “mancession” that women are employed in even roughly comparable numbers to men–according to the New York Times, 49.83% of the workforce is currently female. Obviously, I’d prefer workplace parity to come from women getting jobs rather than men losing them, but the fact is that women are not quite even at equality at the moment, and you’re acting oppressed and wanting to turn back the clock already!

    Except that a large part of the reason that there were differences in the number of men and women employed was the difference in the number of men and women seeking employment (as noted by the previously closely matching unemployment rates between men and women). Now the number of men and women who are employed is roughly at parity, but the number seeking employment still is not--leading to a significant gender differential in the unemployment rate. Calling this equality is not exactly accurate.

    Actually, I’m a medical student so I hear about prostate cancer rather a lot. The vast majority of cases are not life-limiting, and the medical community is addressing some significant morbidity (e.g. impotence) from over-treatment.

    While it is true that breast cancer has a somewhat earlier average age of onset than prostate cancer, and is more likely to be fatal (see the CDC on breast cancer and on prostate cancer), it enjoys double the federal research budget, significant private research funding, and a large awareness effort. Of these the first two are of some concern (though I expect some funding disparity), but given the greater incidence rate of prostate cancer, and importance of diagnosis in the earlier stages of a cancer, I'm left asking why no one hears anything about a prostate cancer awareness month (September, the month currently set aside for this purpose, is shared with Childhood Cancer Month, Health Literacy Month, Ovarian Cancer Month, Gynecological Cancer Month, and Leukemia and Lymphoma Awareness Month...breast cancer has October all to itself, and gets a lot more press for it--and August has no cancers associated with it at all). Given that tens of thousands of lives are lost each year to this disease, this complaint is less petulant than it may seem from my rendition of it.

    As regards the morbidity issue, I certainly am not a medical expert. However, my understanding of the current state of medical knowledge on the matter is that the issues of morbidity under discussion involve treatment of tumors that may not have been particularly aggressive or life threatening. In particular, I know of no linkage between any sort of morbidity problem and regular rectal examination.

    Regardless, the lack of public education on this issue is, quite frankly, appalling.

    I don’t suppose feeling unwelcome in educational and workplace environments has anything to do with women’s reluctance to go into these careers?! Look at your attitude and tell me you’re surprised that women aren’t beating down the door to be in the same field with you!

    Allow me to reflect this question back at you. If 60% of college enrollment is women, doesn't your argument suggest that this means that colleges are making men feel unwelcome?


    As a side note, it appears that my links for suicide data included session IDs for use of the WISQARS database run by the CDC. To access the same data, follow the WISQARS link, select the gender you are interested in, select age ranges, click the lower submit button. Then select suicide in order to get a breakdown by suicide method.

    First, if you men have problems with the way other privileged men are treating you, take that up with those privileged men (or the power structures that enable them). Many women and especially feminists will likely support you in those efforts. Do NOT try to claim that because you have some hardships that you automatically know what everyone else’s hardships are or that they cannot possibly matter. Try to bring yourselves UP, don’t try to keep others DOWN.

    There are several problems with this. First, it isn't just "privileged men" that we have a problem with; it's also privileged women. Second, as is abundantly clear from the coverage Male Studies has received here and elsewhere, feminists have little interest in supporting our efforts. Third, it seems a significant stretch to claim that an effort to study the male as male has anything to do with claiming to know anyone else's hardships--when was anyone else mentioned, except to say that this will occur outside of the auspices of feminism?

    Fourth, there are some problems that are zero sum...if you go from unequal custody arrangements to equal custody arrangements, someone has lost and someone has gained. It is precisely because of those issues that feminism has fought to suppress male studies.

    Second, it’s juvenile and ridiculous to imagine that you can know that men being the breadwinners and policymakers works out great for women. You seriously have no fucking idea, and you’re not even trying to understand what it’s like from the other side.

    Fortunately, we aren't imagining (or asserting) this. The claim is not that everything is perfect and peachy, it's that having a government composed of men doesn't guarantee that the interests of women won't be looked out for or that the interest of men will.

    Feminists have claimed that they are a movement for equity, equality, and freedom for both sexes. Yet this feminism, equity feminism, isn't actually the ideology that drives the principle feminist political organizations. Instead, while leaning upon the rhetoric of equity feminism and the presumption of fairness it implies, organizations such as NOW, the AAUW, and the Women's Bar Association pursue a political agenda of gender feminism. After decades of neglect, apart from a handful of anti-feminists and some gender feminists who became disillusioned with the movement, the internet has finally brought together these disparate forces to come to the defense of boys and men.

    We are not willfully trying to ignore the problems faced by women and girls. But an extraordinarily powerful advocacy for their interests already exists.

    Third, really basic tenant of feminism here and I don’t know WHERE the fuck you’ve been for the last fifty years: staying home to take care of the family while the husband works is NOT an easy, cushy job, it is not respected, and it is fundamentally unequal.

    I'm not really disputing any of this. Although I will note that it is easier than it was in the days before modern appliances (including everything from the washing machine to the induction stove, to the roomba). And it was respected more before feminism asserted that everyone ought to have a career.

    It is, however, unequal. It is a choice still largely available only to women despite feminism's promises to free men from their societal responsibility to the workplace. It slows or prevents the career advancement of one spouse, in return for which they get much greater access to their children. It saddles one spouse with a disproportionate fraction of certain menial tasks that are often largely taken for granted (such as household cleaning), while failing to expose that spouse to the difficulties and menial tasks associated with the other spouse's job.

    I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but feminists really stress women being breadwinners with a full array of career options as an important means to independence, security, and equality.

    This gets to the heart of the issue. Feminists, politically, are interested in giving women more options, by whatever means necessary. This means freeing them from existing gender roles, getting them out of tasks they consider menial. Yet, despite promising to also free men from the tasks they found undesirable, they have not delivered.


    If women don't do the menial tasks, the undesirable tasks, the deadly tasks, etc., and men don't do the menial tasks, the undesirable tasks, or the deadly tasks, then no one is left to do any of that work. Yet society needs these workers to function. So feminism, politically, sold out men to protect the interests of its core constituency--women. Sure it fought to give women the choice to do these things. That was the whole point--to give women more choices. But it never took an interest in fighting for any sort of equality, except where it would free up women from what they didn't want to do, or make space for them for what they did want to do--by making men take over for the less desirable work if it couldn't be automated, and forcing men out of the more desirable work by whatever means necessary.

    It’s those ultra-conservative “family values” types that want women to stay home. It’s just plain old condescension to imagine that men always provide well for women out of the goodness of their hearts and that we should be grateful. That is not equality. Not at all.

    Perhaps, but personal experience and divorce statistics suggest to me that providing for a woman out of the goodness of one's heart isn't likely to result in the woman being grateful either.

    I instead recommend learning some psychology and working to actually make her feel good directly. Given the risks and effort involved, it may not be worth it, and your mileage will almost certainly vary.

    Fourth, please open your eyes and imagine what it’s like for someone different from you. Goodness! You people don’t even realize how many privileges you have that you take for granted (and if you actually were made aware of the harassment, threats, belittling, condescension and hostility that women face you’d feel much differently!), and you resent any group of people struggling for equality in their own ways. Grow up, and please try to have some empathy. For instance, I really don’t know what it’s like to be a minority in this country–but I am at least cognizant that other people have challenges that I don’t, and I don’t resent social capital being spent to address these inequalities.

    The irony in you making this statement in response to a group trying to address problems faced by a minority (men...we are outnumbered by women, you know) is staggering. We are not here to minimize the problems faced by various races, those of any particular sexual orientation, gender identity, or economic status. Rather we are interested in shedding light on serious problems faced by a group ill-served by the existing framework of safeguards and corrections against injustice.

    Fifth, not all women are feminists. The fact that some women are dismissive of men going into traditionally female jobs DOES NOT mean that “feminists” are responsible for those attitudes. In fact, that’s good-old-fashioned patriarchal thinking right there. Actual feminists LOVE the idea of men having the ability to stay home and take care of the kids, and child-rearing being a more equal enterprise, and DO in fact favor a more neutral “parental leave.”

    Feminism has done a great deal to chastise and shame men who behave against its ideals of equality as much as possible. Where is the feminist outrage over women not meeting those same ideals of equality of behavior?

    Regarding parental leave, as noted above, feminism--politically--has been about giving women choices, even if it means forcing new restrictions on men. Neutral "parental leave" isn't about giving men more options, it's about taking them away by forcing them to take parental leave (as currently occurs in Sweden) whether they want it or not (to be fair, both parents have minimums for the parental leave they must take...but women were overwhelmingly already taking more than the current minimum before it was put into place).

    (Shared parenting, btw, is often about divorce custody, and that can be a great deal more fraught, especially when it is usually the woman who has been the primary caregiver.)

    It is usually the woman who has been the primary caregiver. And the woman still generally gets custody even when she wasn't (though it is then generally shared). Laws that would make 50-50 custody splits the default have been vehemently opposed by feminist organizations; in particular NOW. Your remark has added little to the issue.

    Sixth, feminists (as I’ve mentioned before) do not object to men being “manly”–we object to men being pompous, arrogant, self-entitled, condescending bastards (like the majority of you here).

    You seem to have no problem with women behaving that way, however.

    That said, name-calling isn't likely to get us anywhere.

    When you say that our under-representation works out *great* for us, and that our having much less access to financial independence and security is because you’re all soooo goodhearted, that we just aren’t good enough for/interested in certain careers or lifestyles, or you just assume that just because there’s an agency or a program to combat violence against women that all of a sudden *poof* those inequalities just disappear, well, you come off like total dicks.

    Tell me, if--through some sort of miracle--all of congress and the presidency were replaced by women, would that suddenly make men an oppressed group? How long after that instant would men become an oppressed group?

    Who is doing the representing matters less than the what that they represent. Men can oppress men. Women can oppress women. Little furry creatures from alpha Centauri can oppress little furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.

    No one is trying to make you less “manly”

    Except the companies using BPA in their plastics.

    but as long as you connote being “manly” with feeling entitled to women’s sexuality, entitled to authority, and entitled to throw your weight around, entitled to be dominant, well, the people you take for granted aren’t going to take kindly to it.

    How about being entitled to a presumption of innocence when accused of a crime, an equal opportunity to succeed, and freedom of speech and the press?

    Seventh, this really brings us to the whole problem of “Male Studies.” If you insist upon “studying” how you see yourself and your “values” without regard to how others are affected by what you say and do, how these beliefs of what it means to be “male” may or may not be appreciated by those who are not male, well, you’re going to have a lot of self-congratulatory nonsense like what you see here.

    You think the discussion of male suicide is self-congratulatory? Go us, we're better at killing ourselves?

    If you people insist on believing that you always provide perfectly for your families and that only ingrates would object to being financially dependent on you, you’re not going to actually learn anything about “maleness” any more than Virginians were going to learn about their history through the lens of “Confederate History Month.”

    You'd prefer that those Virginians blot out all reference to that period of their history, as if it never happened? As if that would make them more aware of their past?

    A significant point to this exercise is to examine the effects of the assumption that a man should provide for his family without demonizing him as an incarnate of evil for doing so. It's not a foregone conclusion that this will necessarily be seen as a plus any more than that it will be seen as a minus.

    If you just insist on congratulating yourselves for how you are mostly firefighters, engineers, etc., you’re going to completely miss the hostility that you (or your brethren–but judging from the comments here, it’s you) project to women who may otherwise consider it an option to work alongside you.

    And when feminists insist on turning themselves into perpetual victims of an intangible patriarchy they appear to completely miss the hostile bile they are spewing upon everyone around them. Arrogance and blindness to the big picture are real issues, but avoiding them by never looking at a subject in the first place is not a serious solution.

    If “Male Studies” is going to clap itself on the back for how more men are firefighters, isn’t it disingenuous and myopic to ignore the fact that when women wanted to be firefighters, they had to sue for the right to do so less than thirty years ago, and that male firefighters made DEATH THREATS to their colleagues?

    Yes and no. It is disingenuous to simultaneously assert that women are not qualified for combat and then complain about men making up the majority of combat deaths. Either individual position, however, is self-consistent.

    A similar tack can be taken for any other particular work environment.

    My personal position sets combat aside as an unusual case; being a fight against an opposing human force rather than a fight against nature means that optimizing the strength of the unit is critical to collective success, since an optimization you forego may be acted upon by the enemy in order to gain advantage. A fight against nature, such as mining coal or another dangerous job, has essentially fixed requirements for capability and should be open to anyone who meets them. Inequalities in employment in dangerous professions are then fair game to criticize as an inequality of society--except for combat.

    Can you really study the “manliness” of firefighting without the feminist implications of men being incredibly hostile to women who want to pursue this career?

    Yes and no. Unique cultures exist amongst these people that one can study anthropologically. Such a study would be incomplete without looking at its relation to the greater culture. It could well be complete without any direct reference to the treatment of women.

    And then you have the fucking nerve to say “Can we call them firemen yet?”

    I didn't understand why feminists cared enough about this issue to want to change it, and I don't understand his position of caring enough about this issue to want to change it back. As far as I'm concerned, this is an inanity for both sides.

    That said, you are entitled to your own experiences.

    That said, he's entitled to free speech.

    Oh, and since the mansplainers LOVE to discuss coalminers here, I found these little gems:
    [...] (redacted)

    This entire issue reiterates my claim above. Feminism, politically, is interested in taking action to increase women's choices--including the option to take hazard pay as a coal miner. But when it comes time to look at the other side of the coin--picking up half the tab of the dangerous and undesirable jobs of society--feminism shrinks its voice to a whisper at best.

    So maybe the fact that mining communities have rigid (non-feminist) gender roles has more to do with why women aren’t coalminers than feminists hating men…go figure! Hate to break it to you, but I really don’t think Appalachia is at the forefront of feminist thought…

    This bit deserves particular examination, as it offers some useful insights. (Obviously, as I have previously noted, I cannot speak for the experience of others. But I can usefully hypothesize.)

    At first, before any women were working in the mines, men opposed it. Like any change, it was feared, and for the usual reasons: the men were worried that it would increase their own risks, since they weren't sure that the women could keep up or would be safe to have down there.

    Fast forward a little while, and when having women there doesn't seem to cause any major catastrophes, the guys are suddenly all pretty much fine with it. Maybe a handful of them complain about the women taking away some of the work from the men, but really, it's not so bad having them around.

    The women in town, however, see this as a serious threat. 'If those women can work in the mine,' they think to themselves, 'How long until someone tries to send me into that hellhole? There's no way I'm going down there...'

    So yes, these women don't identify with feminists--seeing them as an assault on their way of life (with which they are rather happy). And they develop a negative attitude towards the few women coal miners, since it shifts the expectations for their own behavior. But neither of those facts causes them to cease to exist.

    And, if the buck stopped there for this story, there wouldn't be a real problem. There'd be more or less two Americas--the gender roles America, and the no gender roles America. There might be some issues with people getting back and forth between them, but mostly things would be okay.

    This is as far as we go with the coal miners and those immediately around them; this general narrative isn't perfect, but hopefully you can see how it matches up with what you've written. If you have a different interpretation, I'm open to it.

    Of course, our saga itself does not actually end there. Along comes our next character, Princess, who is the villain of this narrative. Princess looks at gender roles America and says, 'Awwww, how sweet, there's love, and romance, and kids, and marriage, and having a guy who's strong and manly and willing to go to the ends of the Earth to make you happy.' And then she looks at no gender roles America and says, 'Oh, SWEET! I can get a free leg up in school and college and getting a job! I can get rich without having to work at it, and do whatever the fuck I want without consequences!' Princess is not an equity feminist; she doesn't believe in the ideal of equality, since to do so would inconvenience her. She does, however, believe in keeping the freedom from gender restrictions--she just thinks that she should get these things because she is inherently special. She may identify as a gender feminist (she's certainly interested in any additional help that feminists might secure for her), or she may not (since the label might be inconvenient to her). Either way, she expects to get all the perks of both worlds--affirmative action in school and at work, and a magical Prince Charming who makes more money than her, is more powerful than her, meets the rest of her laundry list of demands, and bends himself totally to her will.

    Men aren't kept in their gender role by equity feminists. The ones kept in those roles by women who maintain their own original roles tend not to mind so much either. The problem lies in Princess, who keeps men in their roles while asserting as much freedom as possible for herself (an never being satisfied).

    Feminism, as a political movement, hasn't confronted Princess. Unless forced to do so by outside pressure, it never will confront Princess either; Princess is a sizable chunk of its constituency. This is why an effort to confront Princess and her effect on gender relations must come from outside of feminism--the existing political tools are set up to defend Princess, not attack her. How, exactly, the attack on Princess will look or work, I do not know. But this is a step in that direction.

  • Arbitrary

    (Its should be noted that Princess' observations of both Americas are delusional.)

  • John Dias

    Re: the post by Arbitrary (#170):

    I would define that post as the quintessential example of a "sexist beatdown." Kudos, Arbitrary.

  • steven deluca

    A friend with a PhD in literature once told me that I give others too much credit for IQ and wisdom. It's been decades since and I am sure he is correct.

    As a veteran with a 100 percent disability who grew up with a twin sister that was not drafted into the military it amazes me to see young women today suggesting men never pay a price for gender, not like her gender whose great, great, great grandmother didn't get to vote. Well, your mom's voted and sent males too young to vote to die in wars that the young men barely understood. I could cite many expamples of sexism at least equal to "girls didn't get to take shop class" ... but stupid people never listen to other opinons so what's the point? Men die everyday in work and war protecting or providing for families and in 40 years I have not ONCE heard feminist give men credit for that. Some men and women respect themselves and the other gender and some don't. Those that don't never listen, they just present tired arguments based on bullshit.