Yep. Feminist language is really schizophrenic. They celebrate the modern woman as "strong and independent." Yet whenever undesirable consequences rear their ugly head, suddenly women are helpless, infantile victims without any agency or intelligence, helpless to resist the terrifyingly stronger man or "the patriarchy."
Their success at pushing the victimhood mentality has truly been a bane on our society.
I think the best response is "I don't put up with that sh*t."
I saw an interview yesterday where the interviewee's comment stopped me cold: "Calling President Trump a racist has absolutely no effect on him, and that attitude has spread across America."
As for the so-called feminists? Ditto. All these buzzwords have no effect anymore. Call me a misogynist? "Honey, you have no idea." Accuse me of mansplaining - not a word, by the way... "Man-splaining is appropriate in the face of woman-stupiding." Claim to be a feminist? "A feminist, really? Isn't that cute!"
Once you don't care, words have no effect. As they talk, just "heist up (your) shoulders - so - like a Frenchman" (HT to Twain), turn your back, walk away and leave them talking to themselves, and say something to the effect, "Heading to the Philippines to look for a wife. Enjoy your cats."
It's something I learned in dealing with my asshole older brother: once you - in your heart of hearts - don't care what they think, you can say anything you want. I do. What is she going to do - assault you? Speaking as a feminist myself - one who treats men and women equally - that might have a very low rate-of-return.
Great article, I got droned by a neighbour who I thought was a 'safe' woman, she had been through a big day so when cooking my dinner I decided to share my food.
She had given me a key and invited me to watch her special TV so I felt safe putting food in her empty fridge with a friendly note.
On discovering it she screamed at me "But you're a Man".
Obviously something she had picked up at a Women's meeting that she frequents.
I suggested that gratitude might be more appropriate and that was met with "who are you to decide what is appropriate?"
That is a prime example of Feminist weaponry when faced with kindness from a man.
No Fred, I don't understand either, but it was a Feminist missile meant to castrate me for being kind when all Feminists think Men are incapable of genuine mindfulness and kindness.
You list a male CEO as an example of male privilege. That's wrong, Tom. I doubt there are any CEOs who have their position because they are male.
It is easier, because they get better education, free grants, widespread sex-specific support, and favourable 'diversity' allowances for a woman to become CEO (if she really wants the poor home life, the stress, the risk). A male CEO is not privileged to be there, he's a survivor of a society working against him from pre-school onwards.
Women are the beneficiaries of males who have power and influence because their money is almost always spent on their female partner and children. So, they have all of the privileges and power with none of the responsibilities.
I for one and there are many, am so absolutely fed up with this mutual denigration of both male and female.
Anyone who feels like being nasty, unpleasant and or threatening is getting a hearing. Men and women both are destroying what should be a mutually helpful role toward one another. Why? There’s an old saying, divide and conquer. So, we are manufacturing a divisive system, for what reason? To gain power, not necessarily for either men or women but for those who benefit from the disruption of what should be a mutually beneficial partnership. Who gets paid financially from this disruption? Who gains fame from this encouraged dislike of each sex for the other? In other words that famous saying”Follow the money” can be joined by another “ Follow the power and fame that can accrue from seizing control of public opinion”.
Stop being influenced by ideas and practices that only benefit the creators of division.Do all men drug their wives and offer them up for unknowing perversions to be practiced upon them by strangers? Do all women hunt and harry men for their own gain? Stop being manipulated men and women and start being aware that this hideous division is being created for the benefit of different groups who are gaining power and influence that they do not deserve.
Thank you, Tom, for a thoughtful description of the method of attack. Victimhood is a powerful rationale for war, and the anti-male epithets pummel our culture.
Women have protection, men don't, i would be happy to change places with women any day. I dont need woman splaining, or any kind of feminist double standard sexism.
What women say about men, especially when it is dressed up with jargon, is always news to the news makers. The news makers, desperate to show off their progressive feminism to each other, don't see name-calling for what it is, a form of bullying and an attempt at intimidation. Reporters and commentators could not hang on to their jobs if they pointed out the emptiness of these terms, which are merely improvised descriptions, a few of which catch on. Writers and reporters repeat them rather than analyze them. Eventually the terms start to sound as if they were founded on something other than spite and envy. True, there are always men who do their part to validate these hollow explanations of men's speech and behavior. But I side with the men who dismiss the pseudo-science and smugness of this kind of feminism, which you, Tom, describe so well in this post.
As if the actual world is not mixed up and fraught with danger, you add to our collective problems with killer feminazi-controlled hunting drones loaded with life-changing bias bombs... yikes
St Joseph is a core example for boys and men who aspire to a life of diligence, vigilance, and service.
For a real man is one who produces more than he consumes.
And St Michael, the second lowest order of messengers, faces the opponent a cherubim the second most powerful creature in heaven who prefers separation from God and rebellion against the natural order in a hell of his own making.
His flaming sword is also the tool of the second coming of the Word, rationality which restores us, and binds that opponent and casts him into the abyss for a thousand years.
Boys need to know their moral compass points to a leadership of ordered love which will be with us until the end of the age to come after the defeat of satanic Ideologies of the inferior logos corrupting our western civilization.
Each man is a brick in the wall of the cathedral of our collective self over the generations.
As surely as each man in the shield wall protects the man to his side.
The return of the word will allow us to instantly call out evil corruption as community notes of feminism as psychological, fallacious, and sinful.
We'll lose all structures from the cultural revolution of the 1960s but each boy and man has the seed of the rational way to build a new.
The second lantern becomes a mirror the trait you constantly condemn in another person maybe standing there because you own identity refused to claim it, Your stongest judgement may be pointing towards your deepest denial.
Brilliant article, Tom. Thanks for your ongoing courage and compassion. Men and boys have never been more in need of voices to speak up and pushback against the poisonous ideology known as feminism.
This is thought-provoking, not because every term listed here is necessarily wrong, but because it raises a much bigger question about the power of language to determine the conclusion before we have examined the evidence.
“Mansplaining”, “toxic masculinity”, “male privilege” and “fragile masculinity” can sometimes describe something real. But once we attach sex to undesirable behaviour, we should be willing to apply exactly the same intellectual test in the opposite direction.
If condescension is objectionable when a man does it, it is objectionable when a woman does it.
If coercive control is abusive when exercised by a man, it remains abusive when exercised by a woman.
If we care about female victims of violence, we should care about male victims too.
And if generalising about women from the behaviour of a minority of women is sexism, then generalising about men from the behaviour of a minority of men cannot somehow become enlightened social analysis.
Where I think Tom Golden is particularly interesting is his observation about what our language trains us to notice.
We notice the male CEO and ask questions about opportunity and power. But do we notice with equal enthusiasm the overwhelmingly male prison population, rough sleepers, workplace fatalities, combat deaths and suicides? Do we ask whether sex might be relevant there too?
Equality surely cannot mean examining male advantage while treating male disadvantage as an inconvenient statistical anomaly.
Nor should concern for men and boys require hostility towards women or feminism. That simply replaces one form of tribalism with another.
The better principle is much simpler:
Judge behaviour before sex. Judge evidence before ideology. Extend compassion before assigning collective guilt.
Women face real problems that deserve serious attention. Men face real problems that deserve serious attention. Neither truth invalidates the other.
Perhaps the most revealing test of any theory about gender is therefore this: if we reversed the sexes, would we still describe the behaviour, assign responsibility and extend sympathy in exactly the same way?
If the answer is no, we may not be looking at equality at all.
Yep. Feminist language is really schizophrenic. They celebrate the modern woman as "strong and independent." Yet whenever undesirable consequences rear their ugly head, suddenly women are helpless, infantile victims without any agency or intelligence, helpless to resist the terrifyingly stronger man or "the patriarchy."
Their success at pushing the victimhood mentality has truly been a bane on our society.
It's the cowardice displayed by most men which has made feminism the most dominant, damaging and influential ideology in our society.
I think the best response is "I don't put up with that sh*t."
I saw an interview yesterday where the interviewee's comment stopped me cold: "Calling President Trump a racist has absolutely no effect on him, and that attitude has spread across America."
As for the so-called feminists? Ditto. All these buzzwords have no effect anymore. Call me a misogynist? "Honey, you have no idea." Accuse me of mansplaining - not a word, by the way... "Man-splaining is appropriate in the face of woman-stupiding." Claim to be a feminist? "A feminist, really? Isn't that cute!"
Once you don't care, words have no effect. As they talk, just "heist up (your) shoulders - so - like a Frenchman" (HT to Twain), turn your back, walk away and leave them talking to themselves, and say something to the effect, "Heading to the Philippines to look for a wife. Enjoy your cats."
It's something I learned in dealing with my asshole older brother: once you - in your heart of hearts - don't care what they think, you can say anything you want. I do. What is she going to do - assault you? Speaking as a feminist myself - one who treats men and women equally - that might have a very low rate-of-return.
Great article, I got droned by a neighbour who I thought was a 'safe' woman, she had been through a big day so when cooking my dinner I decided to share my food.
She had given me a key and invited me to watch her special TV so I felt safe putting food in her empty fridge with a friendly note.
On discovering it she screamed at me "But you're a Man".
Obviously something she had picked up at a Women's meeting that she frequents.
I suggested that gratitude might be more appropriate and that was met with "who are you to decide what is appropriate?"
That is a prime example of Feminist weaponry when faced with kindness from a man.
I don't even know what she meant by "But you're a man!" What was she implying? Anyway, I hope you took the food back with you.
No Fred, I don't understand either, but it was a Feminist missile meant to castrate me for being kind when all Feminists think Men are incapable of genuine mindfulness and kindness.
ill manners is her thing.
Im surprised the word patriarchy is not part of the list of buzzwords since thats one of feminisms most fundamental theories they use to criticize men
You list a male CEO as an example of male privilege. That's wrong, Tom. I doubt there are any CEOs who have their position because they are male.
It is easier, because they get better education, free grants, widespread sex-specific support, and favourable 'diversity' allowances for a woman to become CEO (if she really wants the poor home life, the stress, the risk). A male CEO is not privileged to be there, he's a survivor of a society working against him from pre-school onwards.
Women are the beneficiaries of males who have power and influence because their money is almost always spent on their female partner and children. So, they have all of the privileges and power with none of the responsibilities.
What wonderful scam!
I for one and there are many, am so absolutely fed up with this mutual denigration of both male and female.
Anyone who feels like being nasty, unpleasant and or threatening is getting a hearing. Men and women both are destroying what should be a mutually helpful role toward one another. Why? There’s an old saying, divide and conquer. So, we are manufacturing a divisive system, for what reason? To gain power, not necessarily for either men or women but for those who benefit from the disruption of what should be a mutually beneficial partnership. Who gets paid financially from this disruption? Who gains fame from this encouraged dislike of each sex for the other? In other words that famous saying”Follow the money” can be joined by another “ Follow the power and fame that can accrue from seizing control of public opinion”.
Stop being influenced by ideas and practices that only benefit the creators of division.Do all men drug their wives and offer them up for unknowing perversions to be practiced upon them by strangers? Do all women hunt and harry men for their own gain? Stop being manipulated men and women and start being aware that this hideous division is being created for the benefit of different groups who are gaining power and influence that they do not deserve.
Thank you, Tom, for a thoughtful description of the method of attack. Victimhood is a powerful rationale for war, and the anti-male epithets pummel our culture.
Women have protection, men don't, i would be happy to change places with women any day. I dont need woman splaining, or any kind of feminist double standard sexism.
What women say about men, especially when it is dressed up with jargon, is always news to the news makers. The news makers, desperate to show off their progressive feminism to each other, don't see name-calling for what it is, a form of bullying and an attempt at intimidation. Reporters and commentators could not hang on to their jobs if they pointed out the emptiness of these terms, which are merely improvised descriptions, a few of which catch on. Writers and reporters repeat them rather than analyze them. Eventually the terms start to sound as if they were founded on something other than spite and envy. True, there are always men who do their part to validate these hollow explanations of men's speech and behavior. But I side with the men who dismiss the pseudo-science and smugness of this kind of feminism, which you, Tom, describe so well in this post.
As if the actual world is not mixed up and fraught with danger, you add to our collective problems with killer feminazi-controlled hunting drones loaded with life-changing bias bombs... yikes
Excellent.
Martial metaphors speak to every boy and man.
St Joseph is a core example for boys and men who aspire to a life of diligence, vigilance, and service.
For a real man is one who produces more than he consumes.
And St Michael, the second lowest order of messengers, faces the opponent a cherubim the second most powerful creature in heaven who prefers separation from God and rebellion against the natural order in a hell of his own making.
His flaming sword is also the tool of the second coming of the Word, rationality which restores us, and binds that opponent and casts him into the abyss for a thousand years.
Boys need to know their moral compass points to a leadership of ordered love which will be with us until the end of the age to come after the defeat of satanic Ideologies of the inferior logos corrupting our western civilization.
Each man is a brick in the wall of the cathedral of our collective self over the generations.
As surely as each man in the shield wall protects the man to his side.
The return of the word will allow us to instantly call out evil corruption as community notes of feminism as psychological, fallacious, and sinful.
We'll lose all structures from the cultural revolution of the 1960s but each boy and man has the seed of the rational way to build a new.
Dark Psychology, Jungs shadows
The second lantern becomes a mirror the trait you constantly condemn in another person maybe standing there because you own identity refused to claim it, Your stongest judgement may be pointing towards your deepest denial.
Holy smokes, that was good. Bravo.
Brilliant article, Tom. Thanks for your ongoing courage and compassion. Men and boys have never been more in need of voices to speak up and pushback against the poisonous ideology known as feminism.
This is a good piece of cognitive information to have: These words do more than describe. They arrive with the verdict already loaded.
This is thought-provoking, not because every term listed here is necessarily wrong, but because it raises a much bigger question about the power of language to determine the conclusion before we have examined the evidence.
“Mansplaining”, “toxic masculinity”, “male privilege” and “fragile masculinity” can sometimes describe something real. But once we attach sex to undesirable behaviour, we should be willing to apply exactly the same intellectual test in the opposite direction.
If condescension is objectionable when a man does it, it is objectionable when a woman does it.
If coercive control is abusive when exercised by a man, it remains abusive when exercised by a woman.
If we care about female victims of violence, we should care about male victims too.
And if generalising about women from the behaviour of a minority of women is sexism, then generalising about men from the behaviour of a minority of men cannot somehow become enlightened social analysis.
Where I think Tom Golden is particularly interesting is his observation about what our language trains us to notice.
We notice the male CEO and ask questions about opportunity and power. But do we notice with equal enthusiasm the overwhelmingly male prison population, rough sleepers, workplace fatalities, combat deaths and suicides? Do we ask whether sex might be relevant there too?
Equality surely cannot mean examining male advantage while treating male disadvantage as an inconvenient statistical anomaly.
Nor should concern for men and boys require hostility towards women or feminism. That simply replaces one form of tribalism with another.
The better principle is much simpler:
Judge behaviour before sex. Judge evidence before ideology. Extend compassion before assigning collective guilt.
Women face real problems that deserve serious attention. Men face real problems that deserve serious attention. Neither truth invalidates the other.
Perhaps the most revealing test of any theory about gender is therefore this: if we reversed the sexes, would we still describe the behaviour, assign responsibility and extend sympathy in exactly the same way?
If the answer is no, we may not be looking at equality at all.