The feminists who fell for a bleeding hoax

Originally posted on Justice for Men & Boys:

Kiran Gandhi is a 26-year-old Harvard graduate, who we’re guessing wildly may never make it onto a FTSE100 board. She started a period the night before she was due to run the London marathon in April, then decided to run it without any sanitary protection, with predictable results, of which she was apparently proud. The story was covered by numerous publications including the Telegraph. From the article:

On her blog, she wrote about the taboo and stigma behind periods: “By establishing a norm of period-shaming, [male-preferring] societies effectively prevent the ability to bond over an experience that 50% of us in the human population share monthly.

“Because it is all kept quiet, women are socialised not to complain or talk about their own bodily functions, since no one can see it happening. And if you can’t see it, it’s probably ‘not a big deal.’ Why is this an important…

View original 63 more words

Masculinity as seen by Paul Elam

Paul Elam recently established a new youtube channel by the name An Ear for Men on which he has published a few essays about masculinity in an attempt to counter the male shaming that is out there. Due to time constraints I have only uplodaded the audio versions now and will later discuss in details the points that I find most useful. What I can say already that these are many and that this will eventually become quite a long post :)


A New Psychology for Men

Self respect

Male Space

Servant, Slave, Scapegoat

Why men can’t say no to women

Why men can’t say no to women II

Canadian domestic violence in Pakistan

Last week I saw this article from a respected Pakistani newspaper pop up on my facebook newsfeed. How anyone could ever think that domestic violence was an issue that affected only women as victims and only men as perpetrators is beyond me but now that countless studies have proven (what is obvious to any common sense person) that men and women lash out at each other at equal numbers it really pains me to still see the old narrative being peddled.

My hope here was that it was just done to get people to click and that the actual article would address how both men and women suffer in cousin marriages. But the actual article turned out to be biased to the bone.

Dawn article

The article opens with this strange assertion:

For centuries, parents of young Muslim women have forced their daughters into arranged marriages, often with their cousins, to protect land holdings or conform to their tribal customs.

and ends with a similar statement, coming full circle and thus ensuring that the reader leaves with an image in their mind of a young, helpless women being pushed by their evil parents to a similarly evil man who can’t wait to subjugate her.

Despite the evidence showing less infrequent abuse in first cousin marriages, women should not be forced into marriages against their wishes so that they may avoid spousal abuse. In a just society, people are kind to all, and not just to their blood relatives.

It is strange, people, feminists in particular keep reiterating that women are objectified. Yet, the person in this article, who is completely stripped of any humanity is clearly the man. According to the view of this journalist, he has no desire for a partner together with whom he can go through life, who desires him as much as he does her. Apparenty all he needs is a female that he can stomp his foot on. As anyone who has ever met a male human being knows this is not true. So, how come the journalist is not at least bothered by men who are forced into marriages against their will? They say there is no respect for women, anywhere, but especially in South Asia. But when the situation of men being forced into a marriage is not even mentioned it really makes me wonder how much respect there is in the so called male dominated society. Women forced into marriage is seen as a problem. Men forced into marriage is not even worth a mention.

It comes as no surprise then that in the comments people will justify violence against the husband by the wife.

Violence aginst husbands is just fine So, this is what the archetypal patriarchy looks like. Men justifying women lashing out at their husbands. It is not really anything that surprises me as blaming men for violence they endure from their wives is also common in western countries. This is once more an area where people in the East and West do not differ from each other. Needless to say that in the rest of the comments men are trying to outdo each other in their proclamation of how they are condemning any mistreatment of women as if that would make them somehow special. Then there is the usual Pakistanies accuses Indians of mistreating their women and vice versa. Basically a miniature version of the age old “Muslim men mistreat their womenfolk”, said by Western men and “Western men mistreat their women folk”, said by Muslim / Asian men. A competition between different cultures and nations about who treats their women best?
It’s almost as if treating women well was an inherent part of masculinity

Another curious part of the article was that it revealed that the study was financed by USAID and conducted by Canadian researchers. It’s almost as if colonialism never ended. Once again theories that have proven to have done more harm than good in the native population and are nowadays being openly challenged by many are taken to foreign lands and are engrafted on people there.

Warren Farrell on relationships between men and women

I hope I live to see the day that Warren Farrell gets his honorary phd in psychology. He must be the person most knowledgeable about men and women on planet earth. The difference between reading his books or listening to his talks and reading anything by the most well known academic on men’s issues, Michael Kimmel, is that listening to Warren Farrell immediatly makes me think of men that I know and I get this ‘aha’ feeling of having witnessed the behaviour that he is describing, whereas with Michael Kimmel and his absurd theories that bear no relation to any men I have ever interacted with, I just wonder what has been done to that person.


One major difference between the two is certainly that Warren Farrell has run hundreds of couples workshops and has thus spoken directly to a huge number of men and women as well having observed them interact with each other. Michael Kimmel on the other hand has spent his life sitting in his office and making up theories. There is certainly a huge grain of truth in the accusation of academics being in an ivory tower, cut off from the real life that the rest of the people are living.

My own experience from the past year in a social science department can certainly attest to that. When I said that one reason I was interested in men’s issues was that relationships between men and women are falling apart at an alarming rate I was met with a surprised look by a young phd student who asserted that quite on the contrary, relationships in our generation were improving. I must admit that I myself used to think this way until I started looking into the issue and finding out that more children grow up in single parent households than in complete families these days. And it is no longer parents of teenage children who are getting a divorce amid a midlife crisis. An increasing number of couples these break up right after the baby is born, robbing the child of a close relationship with their father, depriving them of the opportunity to learn how relationships work and putting all the burden of caring for an infant, that should be resting on two shoulders, onto the woman alone. I spent the past year trying to support a close friend in that endeavour and have to say that it’s crazy. My friend did a stellar job and her little daughter is growing into a wonderful little girl but no one would deny that things would have been more pleasant for everyone involved, had the father been there. That is what the people who claim that, anyone who criticises the growing tendency of single motherhood and is looking for a way to stop this trend, is attacking single mothers, refuse to see. Studies over studies have shown (and so does common sense) that children who grow up in single mother households are disadvantaged as compared to children from intact families. It is quite ironic how people in social science departments, who have overwhelmingly grown up in intact families, refuse to see that their ‘tolerance’ is actually doing harm to people.

So why are relationships increasingly failing? Are we not meant to be together? Will we now, that the economic pressure to live together, spend our lives apart and only meet for procreation? Maybe some people will. But in general it has been established that both men and women derive psychological benefits from stable, long term relationships. The children growing up in these have better prospects in life. The feminist influenced media seems to think it’s too much choice, porn and of course the patriachy. That it is their very patriarchy theory that has driven us further apart is something that followers of the ideology do not like to hear. To me it is blatantly obvious that you cannot have a relationship, that by definition requires empathy, with someone who you see as powerful and privileged in society. You cannot emphasize with their struggles in life if you have been made to believe that they experience no struggles. You cannot realise that some words or actions of yours are hurting them if you think that they have a higher social status than you do. Warren Farrell expresses it poignantly in the second part of this talk:

“Believing that men are dominant makes us feel very fine about stepping over them because we feel like an ant, hitting an elephant. If the male is so strong and dominant he can’t possibly be hurt, so we don’t have to examine our behaviour in relation to him.” (min. 32:00)

This line explains in a nutshell why feminist theory is harmful towards men and is wrecking relationships between men and women. At the time when I started engaging with feminism as a reader of The Good Men Project it seemed benign at first with its talk of equality and ‘men should express feelings’ but once I came across patriarchy theory I knew that this was no force for good. A little while before, my long term relationship had come to a sad end. It had started out as a dream come true but suddenly I got it into my head that his family was perfect whereas mine was a mess and if they ever found out about my background they would no longer treat me as nicely as they used to. Without going into any more details it should not be too hard to understand that seeing another person’s life as flawless and devoid of strugles makes it impossible to any longer relate to them and thus have a relationship. I realised the big mistake that I had made and vowed to never again declare another person’s life as devoid of struggle which has helped me in my friendships as well as romantic life. Then I encountered feminism and saw that it was all about teaching women to make the mistake that I had made and basically ‘objectify’ men, to use one of their cherished phrases. Needless to say, that became desperate to find people whose views were more aligned with my own. When I read the title ‘Myth of male Power’ I knew that I had struck gold. The book has now been issued in an updated ebook version. But the original 1992 version is avilable as audio book on youtube and shall be uploaded in this blog soon.

Today I will share a talk that Warren Farrell gave in February 2015 at the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality.

Part 1

Part 2 of the talk and the parts that I found most useful:

“That women say who they want is crucial. Why is that so crucial? Because the data shows us that marriages and long term relationships that are more successful are more dependant as John Guttman has found on what? On the woman being happy. The woman being happy is the key ingredient in making the man happy. The man being happy is not that important in making the woman happy.”  (min. 26:00)

In the months after my long term relationship ended I suddenly remembered a situation where I was wearing a piece of clothing bearing the tagline Happy in Love. My partner looked at it and asked: “Are you?” to which I obviously replied: “Sure.” and didn’t think much of it. When that situation came back to me I realised that him making me happy had meant a lot to him and my increasing unhappiness was what made him fall out of love with me. I suddenly saw that women want to be reassured by their partner that he loves them whereas men want to have confirmation that they are making her happy. Instantly my brother and father came to mind and the almost physical pain that it causes them to see the women they are close to being unhappy. This simple revealation helped me understand many situations betwen men and women which usually seem puzzling to an outsider.

Thus, when I was recently listening to Paul Elam’s latest essays on masculinity in which he describes the extent to which men are dependent on female approval (on his new youtube channel An Ear for Men)

Part 3

“A woman needs to learn to be assertive. The originial choice power is chosing the guy she wants becasue that guy that reflects her intuitive sense of values and taking the risks to ask for that guy rather than doing what veto power gives the woman which is the ability to say Yes or No but often leaves her with having to settle for the 14th choice person. Somebody who might be her 14th choice person because she was never taught, trained, socialised to go up to the first 13 choices that she had a greater amount of interest in. So many women marry men that they feel deeply ambivalent about which is deeply sad. And when we study really good marriages one of the really crucial ingredients is that the women who were interviewed say: “I took more, for some reason I reached out to him. I don’t usually doo that but I did this time. Some version of that or “I am very assertive as a rule and I reach out and ask for what I want. Those women are happier as a rule than women who exercise veto power rather than what I call original choice power.”

Part 4

In part 4 Warren asks the audience to think about what their fathers enjoyed doing and what they ended up spending the majority of their days on, i.e. what paid enough to secure the family. Where feminists speak of a wage gap, realists can see the sacrifice that their fathers made in order to maximise their earnings that the family needed to survive.

Part 5

Twenty years after Srebrenica: Mass murder of men remains un-investigated to this day

The following article is my translation of an article, published a few days ago by the German writer on men’s issues Arne Hoffmann. I first read about the unequal treatment of men and women by NGO’s in conflict situations last summer in his book Not am Mann – Sexismus gegen Männer (Men in need – Sexism against men) and his book Plädoyer für eine linke Männerpolitik (Plea for a left wing men’s politics). It is not like I had not witnessed callous sexism against men before but that people were intentionally left to die by human rights organisations, i.e. the very groups of people who had devoted their lives to NOT shutting their eyes to human suffering but going into the places that others were fleeing from and helping those in need. The reality of those people who are the last hope for those in danger, leaving men back to die just because of the sex they were born with shook me to the core. It made me really sad for humanity. But then again I had met a person who was working in the UN, a young lecturer teaching a human rights seminar at the university, who had laughed her head off when I had replied to her question of which groups need human rights, with: “men”. Back then she asked me which rights men are lacking and all I could think of was father’s rights. Now, two years later, having done my research I would have a lot to tell her. But I am still astonished that with her research credentials she wouldn’t know herself. I don’t know if people do not want to know or are sincerely uninformed. For the general public the latter is certainly true. Which is why I wanted as many people as possible to be able to read the article that Arne Hoffmann published a few days ago on the gender aspects of the massacre in the Kosovo twenty years ago. 

These days, numerous media outlets are publishing articles on the 20th anniversary of the massacre of Srebenica. I have dealt with the gender political relevant aspects of this mass murder in my book Plädoyer für eine linke Männerpolitik (Plea for a left wing men’s politics)

This article was originally published in German on “Genderama” and then on “Cuncti”

In June 1995 the Serbian army attacked the city Srebrenica, in the East of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and systematically slaughtered almost 8,000 men and older boys and thus became responsible for the worst massacre since the end of WW II. Two years before this massacre, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had evacuated several thousand civilians from the besieged city.

Women, children and the elderly had been allowed to flee through the UN convoys; adult men from the civilian population had been left back in the city – despite the people in charge having been fully aware that, in such cases, it was almost always the male population murdered en masse. Men between the ages of 15 and 60, who had tried to hide among the throngs of refugees, were removed by the people in charge at the UNHCR, who refused to take responsibility for their protection.

Four years after the massacre, in 1999, the United Nations Security Council met in order to discuss the protection of the civilian population in war zones. While, once again primarily male, civilians were being massacred in the Kosovo, the delegates agreed that women and children have a special right to humanitarian support. A study by the human rights organization Human Rights Watch of 3,453 executions in the context of the Kosovo-conflict found that 92 per cent of all victims, whose sex was known, were male. Among other human rights violations, that largely and predominantly affected men, were capture and severe torture. This was also confirmed by reports on the human rights situation in the Kosovo by other organizations. An aid who had stayed back in the villages spoke of a “planet without men”, a world of only women and children. The men had been displaced or murdered.

When the gendercide expert, Professor Adam Jones, contacted the president of the human rights center of the United Nations to share his worries about the men who were facing death during the Kosovo conflict, the reply he received consisted of three sentences from an assistant, who thanked Jones but explained that these kinds of questions were not part of the UN-mandate. The women were brought to safety but were visibly distressed about having to leave their men behind in a situation of certain death. “It was not easy to watch, women and children being led away from their menfolk”, Adam Jones cites the reaction of a Dutch member of the UN-peacekeeping forces in the Kosovo and adds: “This statement serves well to summarize the predominant attitude.” Sympathy was directed at the distressed women, not at the men awaiting impending mass murder. Eight months later the massacre of Srebrenica took place. One year later, the UN institution, that Jones had contacted, founded an international coalition for the protection of the human rights of women in situations of conflict.

The international relations expert, Paula Drummond, for her article “invisible men”, examined in particular the Gender-Mainstreaming-policies of the United Nations in the context of the genocide in the Congo, that cost the lives of such a high number of men that in some regions 80 per cent of survivors consist of women and children. The result of Drummond‘s analysis: foundation of the UN policies is the adoption of the so called Gender-Mainstreaming-principle, which, according to the official definition, should address the needs of both genders, but is de facto only applied to benefit women. Despite the United Nations witnessing, again and again, that gender specific violence was mainly directed against men and boys, e.g. in Ruanda and the former Yugoslavia, for them “Gender Politics” consists of protecting women and girls.

Drummond shows that when, for example, boys and men are forced through threat of death to rape their own family members, the UN will later only provide support to the raped women. If the en masse slaughter of men is at all included in a UN report, then it is only because the “resulting scarcity of men leads to more insecurity for households that consist of only adult women” – meaning that dead men impair the life of women. Contrary to all existing findings, it is emphasized again and again, that women and children were particularly at risk in the conflicts mentioned. Generally, the engagement with the conflict in the Congo is dominated by a feminist perspective, which Drummond views as short sighted, since the marginalization of male victims reinforces the cliché of women as vulnerable and continually in need of assistance.

If Gender Studies really was a legitimate academic discipline, these aspects would be among the central research and teaching tenets. Instead they are dominated by the concerns of one gender only. For scientists in other disciplines, Professor Adam Jones, for example, is seen as one of the global leading experts on the topic of genocide, yet from the perspective of Gender Studies he is obviously an ‘unciteworthy’ “old white man”.

This camp takes even more aggressive action against human rights activists who would like to see the suffering of men put on the political agenda as well. By the Ausputzern der Genderszene (Gender activists) such activists are vilified as “Rechte” (far right-wing), as they are apparently pursuing a victim ideology just like the National Socialists did (the actual one-sided feminist victim ideology is not being questioned in the Gender-camp). One should not even talk with these human rights activists, demands, among others, Thomas Gesterkamp, but instead draw a “Cordon Sanitaire” around them. Public broadcast journalists, such as Ralf Homann and Nina Marie Bust-Bartels, like to spread this hatred and don’t seem particularly interested in mass murder that is specifically committed against men.

Thus, the next massacre of this kind will be take place unhindered. Its foundation cannot only be found in other cultures, it is also deeply entrenched in Western society: It is the conviction that only the suffering of women counts and anyone who speaks about the suffering of men is turned into an untouchable and socially executed.

The mindset, that even the death of a great number of humans accounts to nothing and the winning of recognition for one’s own political camp means everything, is familiar to us from several ideologies, which both far left and far right intellectuals indulged in: National Socialism, Stalinism, Maoism and now Feminism and Gender.  This mindset returns again and again but that should not keep us from doing all we can to finally overcome it, even if it means becoming ever more a target of hatred.

It is grotesque when, in the face of such hideousness, we are asked to stay emotionally detached and indifferent. Otherwise, one gets vilified as an “angry white man”, and thus declared not worthy of having an opinion. Then again, this mechanism only works in the mind of ideologues. Personally, I prefer anger in this context. It is by all means better than depression.

Dr. Tanveer Ahmed – former White Ribbon Ambassador

Australian psychiatrist and former White Ribbon ambassador, Dr. Tanveer Ahmed, recently gave a talk at the Domestic Violence Symposium in Toronto. I will share the audio of the talk here now and later add points from the talk that I find particulary important. He was asked a few months ago to step down from his position as ambassador of the feminist White Ribbon campaign after writing an article about male victims of domestic violence. Doing so he had not intended to cause outrage but to highlight an aspect of the domestic violence problem that was not getting any attention. He saw what he was doing as part of his job in the domestic violence campaign. What seems a long time ago now, I likewise was writing about men’s issues on fb, innocuous comments about things that I had observed, not under the banner of men’s rights activism / advocacy at all. I did not know then that such a thing existed. And just like Dr. Ahmed, I was stunned by the virulent reactions I was getting. But just like him, rather than silencing me, the accusations of me being a men’s rights activist lead me to check out what that is and discover a world out there that I didn’t know existed, people who are not evil as the media likes to claim but who are fed up with the ideologically driven narrative that they are being fed, which does not correspond to people’s lives reality and leads to division and strife between people instead of peace and harmony.

Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj on men’s issues in India

Finally Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj has uploaded the Tedx talk she gave on men’s issues in India about a month ago. She is a great resource of information for people who do not live in that country. I am very glad I found her after being puzzled for a long time abut why the European media is only presenting the women’s side of things. After all men and women exist together, so you can never have the whole picture by consistently excluding one half from the conversation. With this one sided perspective it has gotten to the point where people look at you like you’re the scum of the earth when you say that you’re not a vegetarian but the same people don’t blink an eye when you confront them with the astronomically high male suicide figures across the globe. So it just happened to me at a party I recently attended where upon me saying that I work on men’s issues a French lady went ballistic, exclaiming: “But ….. but … men are the perpetrators and women are the victims …” Note that this is NOT paraphrasing but the actual words used, from which she went on to say that she had recently been to India where the men enjoy so much more freedom than the women. She was completely untouched by the suicide figures that I confronted her with. When people have more empathy with chickens than with men my admiration for someone like Deepika, daring to go against the grain, grows even more.

One Indian lady fighting the empathy gap:

This is why I write about men’s issues

In the past few months – since my very non-nondescript blog about my six week trip through Pakistan almost two years ago – took this direction I have thinking about writing a new introduction that would explain my interest in this topic. I was never sure where to start, as I had so many experiences in my life that drew me in this direction and how personal it should be as personal attacks on people who write about and research these issues are not uncommon and I do not want to cause distress to my family. Now I have just come across a note under an article about male suicide from The Guardian that was posted on the facebook site of the ManKind Project. It makes the point very clear why drawing people’s attention across the globe to men’s issues is of vital importance.

This is why I write about men's issues

Intuitively we tend to focus on women and girls when there is a tragedy and completely black men and boys out. Having done my M.A. in Literature I encountered the phrase ‘writing women back into history’ more than once. In the same vein people claim that Men’s Studies is not needed as every history class is men’s studies as it recounts men’s lives in the past. But that is not true. It only recounts the lives of men in certain glorious roles and says nothing about the hardship they suffered under strenuous conditions. Yes, we need to write some of women’s achievements back into history books, as they were not always appreciated. But at the same time we need to write men’s suffering back into history books. And if someone now thinks that this is a big whining contest in the run up for the oppression Olympics they are still not aware of the real world implications of ignoring men’s suffering. As shown above they are deadly. While men always lived slightly shorter lives than women the life expectancy gap has widened globally in the past 100 years from one year to seven years in the worst affected countries. The male suicide rate is 4 times as high as the female suicide rate in most western countries. In India a married man takes his life every 8 minutes. And while suicide is a sin and considered a crime in many Muslim countries (and thus difficult to get numbers) evidence points to men outnumbering women in Pakistan as well. In western countries it is quite clear that these high numbers are not due to ‘male egos’ as Feminists like to claim. Men are certainly not exactly encouraged to come forward with their problems in a society where if they do so they are called cry babies, laughed at for their ‘male tears’ by journalist Jessica Valenti and told to go to a psychiatric ward instead when calling a domestic violence shelter hotline. Our natural inclination to focus on women and black out men has furthermore led us to make gender specific laws in the name of equality, that clearly have put men under severe hardship. 

Globally we now have the UN’s HeforShe campaign that once again asks men to don the armor to be the shining knight and enter the service of women’s protection. Knowing that western NGOs operating in developing countries already heavily favour women even when something affects mainly men I was rather shocked by this campaign that asks men once again to shut up about themselves and help women. Feminists and some anti-feminists alike like to claim that women in the ‘third world’ need Feminism. No one would deny that women in developing countries, such as Pakistan, are suffering. But Feminism will certainly not help them bring food on their table or protect their sons and husbands from being wrongfully incarcerated or killed in a fake police encounter. It is men and women who are struggling in these countries and focusing on improving the lives of only one group and claiming that the other is responsible for their hardship is the last thing the people in these countries need. With a lot of sectarian and communal strife that is already taking so many lives and putting psychological strain on people what is needed are strong communities and a rebuilding of trust in one’s neighbour! The very opposite of what feminist ideology aims for. What we need across the globe is respect for human lives, which grows out of empathy for each other. Claiming that a group of people somehow has privilege makes it impossible for us to have empathy towards them and consequently makes us blind to the fact that they are spending considerable less time in this world than the so called oppressed group. 

 PS: Feminists like to claim that speaking about men’s issues as long as women’s suffering has not been eliminated is ‘derailing’. As someone from a rail family I do not find this metaphor apt. I would rather say that people working on men’s issues are ‘expanding the network’ and bringing the rail system from 1848 into the 21st century: more lines, affordable fares and more frequent trains, so that anyone can go anywhere at any time they wish :)

Undoing most of the damage wrought by feminism in one simple step


“A return to vocational high schools will be strongly, desperately resisted by feminists, mark my words. Because at the very heart of that restoration is a very simple idea: men have worth. Vocational high schools treat all men (and the few women who are interested) as intelligent, ambitious, talented, driven, capable and valuable human beings not to be squandered to mistaken ideas about social justice. This isn’t about economic worth. That is merely a side effect. It begins with the idea that men have worth as human beings. Instilling that sense of worth by providing men with a real opportunity to discover their own worth and translate that into economic market value as they see fit is the result of treating men, especially low income and working class men as inherently valuable human beings.

The reverberations in the black community will be profound indeed. Find me a progressive or a feminist who claims that low income black men are intelligent, ambitious, talented, driven, capable and valuable human beings.

Want to find out just how true that is?

Bring back vocational high schools.”

Originally posted on judgybitch:


For the past two years, I have been unpacking the racist, classist, misogynist bullshit that is feminism, and exploring the ways that sexism harms men and boys – and always in the back of my mind is the whisper what do we do about this?

Watching President’s Obama’s SOTU address was an incredibly frustrating experience as he ignored all the key issues and proposed massive spending campaigns that effectively pour more fuel on the fire when we are trying to put the damn fire out! The one that struck me in particular was his suggestion that community college tuition be reduced to zero, and I was left shaking my head that the goddamn President of the most successful capitalist, free market economy in history does not appear to understand how markets function.

Here’s his idea: the markets have set community college tuition at $3800/yr. That is what students are able…

View original 1,655 more words

A Better Feminism for 2015


“While British feminist writer Laurie Penny asserts that our culture “hates women,” researchers including feminist psychologist Alice Eagly find that if anything, both sexes view women more favorably than men.

The perception of pervasive, one-sided male power and advantage can create a disturbing blindness to injustices toward men—even potentially life-ruining ones such as false accusations of rape. A true equality movement should address all gender-based wrongs, not create new ones.”

Originally posted on TIME:

Was 2014 the year feminism won the gender war, or jumped the shark? One could say it has had a pretty good year, with celebrity endorsements from the likes of Beyoncé Knowles and Emma Watson and with gender issues often dominating the news.

And yet all too often, the publicity backfired.

The campaign to nix the word “bossy” as a putdown of assertive girls was criticized and mocked not only by conservatives but by liberal and left-wing feminists. The #YesAllWomen Twitter hashtag created in response to Elliot Rodger’s shooting spree and his YouTube rants about female rejection elicited a groundswell of sympathy for women’s stories of violence and sexism—but also unease from pro-feminist men and women who felt all males were being unjustly shamed. A social media group called Women Against Feminism sprung up, many of its members stressing that they were for equality but against male-bashing, gender warfare…

View original 1,222 more words