Anti-Feminist Karen Straughan Does Not Give a Shit

The first International Conference on Men’s Issues in Detroit last week has given a facelift to a movement that, until recently, I mostly associated with misogynists and lunatics on pathetic internet forums for “pick-up artists” and mass murderers like Elliot Rodger–lonely men in the darker corners of the Internet.

However, most of the speakers on the first full day of the men’s rights conference were women.

One of these women was self-proclaimed “anti-feminist” Karen Straughan. Straughan is a blogger, known by her YouTube handle, GirlWritesWhat. She proudly stated in the beginning of her speech that she has been anti-feminist long before identifying as a men’s rights activist.

Straughan has short, cropped hair and is involved in the LGBTQ movement.  She is quick to point this out, because she doesn’t want her fellow MRAs to judge her by these qualities.  She says that although she is “not a feminine-presenting person,” she is certainly not a feminist.  Why? Because feminism isn’t even an equality movement.

“Everything I read that comes from feminists is backwards, wrong … and comes from a set of unfalsifiable hypotheses.”

Straughan’s argument is essentially the same as most MRAs. She believes that feminism is rooted in a desire to oppress men.  She cites examples from history, such as the Seneca Falls Convention, where 40 men showed up to speak and were told they could only listen.  She repeatedly states that women are persuasive and powerful—and that this is a problem.

Many of her examples are anecdotal, dredged up from court rulings that took place centuries ago.  She even cited an incident in Ancient Rome, when women protested a law that banned them from wearing multicolored dresses and more than two ounces of gold jewelry in public.  According to Straughan, this demonstrated their powers of manipulation.

She mentions the White Feather Movement during World War I in England, where suffragettes pinned white feathers to men who were seen out without a military uniform—thus branding them as cowards.  One particularly unsubstantial anecdote was of a young boy who was forced to resign from the military in WWI after he was discovered to be underage. The young boy was walking home, recently returned from the war, when a suffragette found him and pinned the dreaded white feather on his uniform.  The boy was apparently so shamed by this woman for his status as a deserter that he immediately reenlisted.

According to Straughan’s logic, this one vague story should be enough to prove that women are manipulative and powerful.  Although I couldn’t find anything online to substantiate this story, I did find some information on the White Feather Movement.  Surprisingly, it was not as one-sided as Straughan would like us to think.  While some suffragettes like Emmeline Pankhurst were extremists and took part in shaming soldiers who did not enlist, many others did not.  Emmeline’s daughter, Sylvia Pankhurst, made a name for herself as a suffragette who campaigned wholeheartedly against the draft.

One of Straughan’s most thorough examples is based on a 1910 New York Times article written by an anti-suffragette.  It discusses the changing laws regarding property rights, alimony, and divorce.  The article is essentially lamenting “the loss of privileges the men had over the properties of their wives and children.”

Again, some of Straughan’s points are valid.  It appears that this particular court case was unfair, and left the husband financially responsible for his children despite the fact that his wife made more money. She cites various cases from the same time where men unfairly lost custody of their children.  However, nearly every one of Straughan’s valid examples is from the Victorian era. Why isn’t she talking about more recent laws?

Is it because the percentage of divorce cases that end up with equal custody granted to both parents has recently doubled?

Or is it because, according to Reuters, more than half of divorce lawyers in the country are seeing an increase in mothers paying child support?

Alton Abramowitz, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, told Reuters why more women were being given more financial responsibility.

“The glass ceiling has been pierced and more and more women have taken over the financial responsibilities and have been saddled with them as well,” said Abramowitz. “It is a fact of the way our society has evolved over the last number of years.”

Straughan manipulates feminist history–and global history–throughout her speech. The glaring irony is that she claims feminism is rooted in lies, hypocrisy, and propaganda.  She has a rigid opinion of an ever-changing movement.  Honestly, I don’t think she is a bigot, or a hateful person.  She is clearly a woman with a hunger for social justice, which is why I find it strange that she also aligns with the LGBTQ movement.  It seems she either has no idea what feminism is, or has a skewed perception of men’s rights.  Because true feminism—like every other movement promoting equality—is not about denying men equal rights.

We have come a long way from the suffragettes. And if Straughan and other MRAs want to define feminism by the actions of women who have been dead for over a century, so be it.  Men have committed some of the worst atrocities in history. I don’t hold it against their gender. And I’m still a feminist.

Towards the end of her speech, Straughan mentions the “1 is 2 Many” campaign against sexual assault with disdain.

“The power that women have, that women have always had,” Straughan said, “Is the power to convince Barack Obama, Joe Biden, David Beckham … all of these male celebrities, that one woman assaulted is too many.”

Out of context, this statement might sound empowering.  However, in the video, it’s clear from her body language and tone that this is not the case.  She looks and sounds outraged at the fact that these men could possibly be supporting such a cause.

Why would anyone—let alone a woman, but anyone—be upset that men are supporting a campaign against violence?  Because society still has a long way to go when it comes to taking male victims seriously?  It’s bizarre that anyone interested in equality would take the stance of, “If I can’t have it my way, no one can.”  This does not further male equality, it makes them look stubborn and insane.

My goal while watching and analyzing Straughan’s speech was to try and understand the MRA movement from a woman’s perspective. Though she was eloquent at times, the message was as scattered and incoherent as Elliot Rodger’s manifesto. She ended the speech talking about how she’s called Honey Badger because of that YouTube video about the honey badger that “doesn’t give a shit.”  Like the honey badger, Straughan says, she does not give a shit about her critics.

Yet what is the men’s rights movement, if throughout an entire 35-minute speech, Karen Straughan spoke only about feminism?  She failed to mention any specific principles.  She might not give a shit what some feminist site has to say, and that’s fine.

But her lack of substance leaves me with no better understanding of her “movement” except that it is based solely on a hatred of feminism.

The men’s rights movement kind of reminds me of when white people cry reversed racism, or express outrage that there is not a “White History Month.”

Men have been the dominant sex for centuries when it comes to having rights and power over women.  The history of human life on this planet has been a men’s rights movement.  What do men need so desperately to defend? What basic human rights are being taken away?  The conference has not shed light on any grave injustices for men.  Instead, it has been a cesspool for bitter individuals who want to find something to blame for their problems–why their divorce didn’t go as planned, or why they didn’t get that promotion.  Feminists are as good of a scapegoat as any.

Men’s rights activists are concerned because their gender is losing power and control.  Feminism began because we did not have any.  And today, it is about so much more than a right to vote.  It is about being able to walk down the street in peace.  It is about not having to put up with sexual advances from our boss just to keep our job.   In some countries, it is still legal for men to beat their wives.  Yet men’s rights activists are upset about having to pay alimony?

Although Louis CK is not a feminist (although maybe he is, I don’t know) one of his jokes really captures this sentiment.  He’s talking about the courage women must have to go out on dates with men.

“How do women still go out with guys, when you consider that there is no greater threat to women than men? Globally and historically, we’re the number one cause of injury and mayhem to women.”

He goes on to say about men, “You know what our number one threat is? Heart disease.”

There is no point in trying to explain to an MRA that their logic is flawed.  They don’t give a shit.  Luckily, as Straughan pointed out, the rest of the world does.

Lisa Divenuta
Lisa is a freelance writer and editor living in Brooklyn. She is currently working on her master's degree in nonfiction creative writing (a bit of an oxymoron) at the New School. Her poetry can be found on divenutadrags.wordpress.com. Follow her on Twitter @lisadivenuta
http://www.lisadivenuta.com
  • http://www.theflounce.com AlexisO

    Really glad she’s keeping things relevant with stories from Ancient Rome, WWI and 1910. Great article Lisa!

    • http://twitter.com/ashliejefferson Ashlie

      Why did you leave this comment?

      • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink

        because he clearly doesn’t hate women.

        • Guy Smiley

          Perhaps not. Maybe he just dislikes delusional feminist hypocrites and knows what riles you up.

          Of course I’m not suggesting that what he said was okay. I’m just saying that you simply do not know why he said what he did, which makes the conclusion that you jumped to seem awfully self-serving.

          • Lisasaysss

            I think it’s actually because he’s a troll with a poor grasp on the English language, who enjoys reading feminist blogs in his spare time because it’s the closest he can get to the ladiez

          • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink

            pobrecito.

          • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink

            Even if he just dislikes delusional feminist hypocrites (I mean, don’t we all?), there is no context in which his comments here would NOT be illustrative of a “fuck women” attitude. But hey, if the response to those comments are what y’all consider “riled up,” it’s no wonder you’re lost here.

          • Lisasaysss

            Because “ready to go suck a cock now?” … has SUCH a wide variety of interpretations, none of which are misogynistic.

          • Keith Emery

            “Because “ready to go suck a cock now?” … has SUCH a wide variety of interpretations”

            Yes it does.
            Misogyny by the way refers to hatred of women. If I ask my girlfriend to suck my cock. It does not mean that I hate her. Typically it means that she is willing to be covered in hot man chowder for my amusment.
            The tradeoff is that if I am not extreemly wealthy.
            She get’s to do pretty much the same thing.
            (as long as her mother doesn’t try to get involved, it’s a long story)

            In this specific case it is intended as an insult.
            But as I untangle my pubic dreadlocks; matted and intertwined by the onslought of girly cum.

            I realise it is curious that the most intimate things that two people might share. Can so commonly be used as insults.

            It is almost as though the extremities of our human emotions. If in any context that such orgazmic extreems,
            should be reserved for people so deserving.
            When such powerfull emotions are conserved for the most negative expression, as opposed to the most postive.

            Those people are usually feminists. :)

          • Mr. E

            You know, the irony is that if the Patriarchy actually existed, being called a Misogynist would be a good thing.

          • Keith Emery

            Sorry to interupt your dispondency.
            But the vast majority of the time the fuck women attitude is not directed at all women. Even if it might seem so.

          • Mr. E

            Self-Serve Feminism.

            Now there’s a concept.

        • Vanessa Ray

          Right!

      • http://www.theflounce.com AlexisO

        I didn’t understand it!

      • Mr. E

        Because he knows it will get a rise out of some women.

      • Randall Nelson

        Maybe he knows enough to be angry.

    • metronomic1

      Seriously, dude? You are the kind of person who gives the normal MRA’s a bad rap.

    • Keith Emery

      All relevant asshole!!!

      • http://www.theflounce.com AlexisO

        I believe we have different views of what relevant means. Also, welcome to the discussion 3 months later.

        • Mr. E

          Welcome to Internet time. Why does it matter so much to you? Just something to nitpick about, right?

    • S Childers

      It’s because she comes to her conclusions from a historical perspective, and one that utilizes “Evolutionary Psychology”. She also “keeps things relevant” with analogies of Chimpanzee and Bonobo social structure, because – biologically and culturally – that’s what we were ~6 million years ago.

      She attacks the historical perspective of feminism ie “men have oppressed women for thousands of years”, with references to archaeology, biology, and psychology (though I do not know her education). Let me paraphrase an argument of hers:

      Feminism: “Men have never let women leave the kitchen”

      Karen: This is because humans are sexually dimorphic; Men are larger, stronger, more muscular compared to mass, etc. Men will never be constrained by pregnancy, thus they spend more time hunting and fighting. Men bring home food = women take care of home and children.

      That’s why she uses dated anecdotes, because ~6 million years of our genetic branch, 200 thousand years of homo-sapiens development, and 12 thousand years of agrarian civilization will not be negated by 150 years of industrial revolution.

      It has only been very recently that women haven’t had to have 6-7 kids in order for 1-3 to live to adulthood, and if the woman didn’t take care of the kids then it spelled the end of that genetic line. Nature selects for the social and biological system that propagates successfully, you can call it “patriarchy” or you can call it “Darwinism”.

      Whether you like it or not, you’re the product of a line of men who hunted the sabertooth, defended the tribe, tilled the land, fought for his king, buried his brother, fought in the rebellion, settled the country, braved the wilds, fought for his president, toiled in the mills, and always came home with something to feed the family. The woman that was not allowed a few things because her duty to her family was to make sure they lived to the end of the day while the father was away.

    • Jamie Brahm

      Well she understands the origin and nature of the social contract of family and marriage that existed under patriarchy. Like, what it was for. Feminists have never uttered a word of comprehension about what they were destroying, and never replaced it with anything. Perhaps you feminists ought to brush up on your non-feminist revisionist history, and see what all this stuff is actually about? It might pay to have a clue.

  • C_Mads_Go

    Great piece!

    • Guy Smiley

      …of shit!

  • Duni Arnold

    I feel like in some ways female anti-feminists are even harder to argue with (or at least it always seems that way to me) than MRAs and other male opponents. I just had an argument with a (now-former) friend who is an anti-feminist a few days ago, and it seems like she did her damndest to convince me (maybe even herself) that gender inequality isn’t real. While she seemed earnest in her belief that men are just as disadvantaged as women, it also seemed very much like she was seeking approval from men in her argument in a way that I rarely see male anti-feminists do. “Look at me, so unbiased and special and shit! I’m a woman and I think bitches be cray. So brave.”

    • WrongAsRain

      It seems like a person is an anti-feminist if they believe women have achieved equality politically, socially, and economically, and that person becomes an MRA when they think that women have gone beyond equality and are now the oppressive sex. Karen Straughan is certainly an MRA convert after she has given example after example of how women can be “more” influential on politics than men. One of her examples is, oddly, the suffrage movement (of course she also uses the temperance movement/prohibition to demonstrate that women are more politically persuasive)..

      She also is very hung up on the idea that feminists “blame men” instead of “the system” and I think this is kind of amusing, because yes, men happen to be in majority positions of power in “the system” that she agrees we should all be fighting against.

      • Cordovan Splotch

        By “The System” do you perchance mean “The Patriarchy”? That so-called system allegedly set in place by men, maintained by men, for the benefit of men at the cost of women? Because yes, that is blaming men for all your problems and calling it something else.

        • WrongAsRain

          I am paraphrasing Straughan. I assume what she means by “the system” is the larger socio-political establishment.

          If it is the case that blaming “the system” (as it’s referred to by Straughan) is inherently blaming men for “all your problems” then she herself is apparently a feminist.

          • Cordovan Splotch

            Except there are more ways to split people up than by sex.
            The system is run by money. And positions of power are held by those with either enough money on their own to be there or by those with the most backers to pool their money for them.
            Women are the slight majority of voters and the clear majority of market consumers, so without substantial support from women, you’ll never be in a position of power unless you’re already stonking rich.
            This is what’s called a kyriarchy, and has very little to do with people’s biological sex.

          • Keith Emery

            awwww… not this again.

            Any word used to shift attribution of causation is effectivley generating the same problem.

    • Lisasaysss

      Absolutely. You can see that in Karen’s speech, too, when she pauses after things she knows will provoke laughter or applause from her male audience. And the whole “I have short hair and it might make me seem like a feminist but don’t worry guys I’m just like you” thing was really evident of that desire to justify herself. She shouldn’t have to mention her hair or her shoes but she’s insecure about herself, and needs to make sure they don’t judge her. Because she knew that if she didn’t say something, they probably would.

      I actually have never met anyone who was openly anti-feminist and female. That’s why I was so intrigued with this topic.

      • Duni Arnold

        Yeah, that made me super embarrassed for her. It reminds me so much of minorities who befriend bigots because “they’re okay”. I don’t get how people live their lives comfortably being the exception to the rule.

        I encounter female anti-feminists on a regular basis (I’m a member of a sort of skeptics group that tends to skew pretty anti-feminist) and the need for male validation is something I see so, so often. I know I suffered from it when I was a kid, too, and in fact I distinctly remember that it ultimately took a male feminist that I respected highly (and still very much do) as a thinker to convince me of feminism’s validity. It’s bitterly amusing how deep internalized misogyny can run — one can live their lives having difficulty being convinced of anything by women because men are deemed more competent and level-headed. I spent more of my childhood than I’m proud of thinking that I was some sort of exception to some female rule of irrationality and it made me grossly complacent.

        • Lisasaysss

          yes, that’s exactly what it reminded me of. And sure, everyone is entitled to their opinions and whatnot, but denouncing an entire movement for the approval of a room full of guys is just silly. I think it’s something all women go through at some point, like when I used to hang out with a group of guy friends in college I would find myself subconsciously slipping into their mindset that (while not even close to what Karen Straughan is advocating) had misogynistic undertones. It is so ingrained in our every day lives that we don’t realize it.

          • Mr. E

            Yes, just like a man hanging out with a bunch of Feminists and saying things he thinks they’ll find cute.

        • Mr. E

          Yes, it’s kind of like deeply ingrained Misandry.

          • Randall Nelson

            Except Misandry isn’t cared about. Which is what you would expect if a gender was actually hated. If misogyny was real, it wouldn’t / couldn’t be used as a effective insult. Misandry, despite examples as extreme as the draft, isn’t taken seriously at all.

            Rape culture is when a child gets raped and has to support their rapist. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/

            Yet women think they are the victims of a rape culture

          • Mr. E

            I agree completely.

          • Darknut

            “Except Misandry isn’t cared about. Which is what you would expect if a gender was actually hated.”

            Let me try that logic…

            (looks around desk…picks up first thing) Staple gun hatred isn’t cared about… which is what you would expect if a tool was actually hated… therefor staple guns are hated.

            If racism was real, it wouldn’t / couldn’t be used as an effective insult…

            LOL.. That’s the most ridiculous, laughably stupid mental gymnastics I’ve heard in a while. I can’t even.

            I just have a couple of questions: If that blathering you typed makes sense to you, then How do you dress yourself? How do you figure out light switches… and that they are somehow connected to lights turning on and off? It must be a new surprise to you every time.

          • Darknut

            “Yet women think they are the victims of a rape culture” Which women are you talking about?

            Can you show me the women who say that women are the ONLY victims of rape culture? or that men never ever suffer from it? Feminists have been fighting for male rape victims way more than any MRAs have.

            https://mic.com/articles/88277/23-ways-feminism-has-made-the-world-a-better-place-for-men#.ltMFaRTs4

            All you have are straw man and non sequitur arguments.

            Even in your extremely exceptional scenario there, the guy WANTS to see HIS daughter. “She needs a father.” IT’s not child support for the rapist, it’s support for THE CHILD. If the child was a boy would you say it was men oppressing men?

            On the other hand woman rape victims can be and are sued for visitation rights by their rapists. That’s rape culture. Not for the child… for the rapist.

            Why am I bothering.

        • Randall Nelson

          Did you realize that you’re a bigot. That’s been sold one viewpoint not based on fact or objectivity.

      • Kostas Ntalianis

        you are such a pitiful creature

      • shmiggen

        so its not the content of her speech which bothers you, its her hair?

        • Pablo García-Campo

          THIS

        • Mr. E

          Yes, she believes so fervently in the tenets of Feminism that she’s body-shaming her for having a different opinion.

          The levels of irony here are deep and rich.

      • TheKing

        Seriously? How could you not know that that was a joke?

    • Cordovan Splotch

      Well of course… male anti-feminists can just be dismissed as misogynists, whether it’s true or not.
      By the way, how can you tell whether male anti-feminists are seeking approval from others like them or not?

    • Derek_V

      Ah the good old Stockholm syndrome smear of women who don’t agree with your narrow definition of what being a feminist or what being a woman means. And it seems you unfriended somebody who doesn’t agree with your liberal politics. What a sad existence you must lead …

      • Duni Arnold

        Mmmm…nope. Actually, while I don’t recall having ever “unfriended” anyone for the political views (especially not in recent times), I would hesitate to describe “my politics” as exceptionally liberal, anyway. 2/10.

        • Rms158

          You just stated in your first post that you unfriended this “friend” and then stated that you had some issues with her opinions about feminism. You set the stage up for those to think you unfriended her due to this but, then made those who brought that out, feel crazy for even thinking so?

          Ohhhhh, I got you now. You’re one of those that keeps making the story out to seem that you’re the right party. No matter how many twists from the truth it takes. Okay, good to know.

    • Keith Emery

      “I feel like in some ways female anti-feminists are even harder to argue
      with (or at least it always seems that way to me) than MRAs and other
      male opponents.”

      Because you cant use the; your a misogynist panacea?

      “I just had an argument with a (now-former) friend who is an
      anti-feminist a few days ago, and it seems like she did her damndest to
      convince me (maybe even herself) that gender inequality isn’t real.”

      Perhaps she ralises that gender inequallity is very real. Perhaps you are NOT the victim of it?

      I am so convinced by the way that you are totally not seeking approval from your fellow ideologues?

    • Mr. E

      Yeah, you can’t use any of those “You don’t know what it’s like to be female” lines on them.

    • Randall Nelson

      Oh gender inequality is real. Women have more rights than men. More help then men. Don’t have as many responsibilities as men.

  • http://humminghawk.tumblr.com/ Devin Ryback

    Thanks for this healthy perspective. I am trying to learn more about feminism. I would like to understand how the theory and praxis of feminism become so contorted. As I understand it, the fundamental goal is sex/gender equality, but there are inevitably women who go out of their way to be jerks about it and just plain mean to men. I align with the notion of equal rights and equal respect among sexes/genders, but I do not align with the ways some “feminists” promote the movement. I have much to learn about it.

    • Lisasaysss

      I think it’s awesome and rare that you, not knowing about feminism, want to learn more about it rather than jump to the conclusions that Ms. Straughan did. As for not agreeing with the way some feminists act, I feel the same way. Every movement that originates out of a desire for equality inevitably attracts some people who have extreme opinions, and their behavior can give the movement a bad name.

      • Cordovan Splotch

        You do realize that Karen Straughan used to be a feminist, gender studies and all, right?
        So she can hardly be jumping to conclusions.

        • Lisasaysss

          According to this speech, she was never a feminist. She was an anti feminist before anything else. Although I haven’t had the pleasure of watching many of her other videos, so there might be something I’m missing.

          • Cordovan Splotch

            I definitely remember her saying she was a feminist during high-school and at least some of college.
            No idea which of her videos she said it in though.

          • Roland Strauss

            You probably mistake her for Janice Fiamengo. Karen was never a feminist.

          • CwHart

            Mind linking a video to this speech where she says she was never a feminist?

          • Blahblee

            The video is linked in the article: “I was a non-feminist my entire life.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZgr6939MPU

          • disqus_Z5xT8SPFdq

            I agree she is an anti feminist before anything else. I sat through and made myself watch her videos. All of them gave me tangles in my stomach and I could not believe how careless she was with her words and facts. The majority of her “ideas” come from very one sided facts and she comes up with one-dimensional solutions. I am sure she does not understand the idea of feminism because she misses the point in equality between people of all different background, races, sexes, gender, beliefs etc. She is in favor of men’s rights at the expense of women’s rights (which she conveniently prefers to use the word “privilege”).
            I am sure anyone educated about the history of equal rights and the history of women’s studies that Karen makes up a lot of things. This is very irresponsible of her because people actually take her seriously. She needs to get her history facts and current facts in CHECK.

            If Karen truly cared about men’s rights she wouldnt have to focus on being anti-feminist. After all it is feminism that taught me to not conform to gender specific roles. That is beneficial to BOTH MEN AND WOMEN! Because i wont go into a relationship EXPECTING a man to support me financially because I have no issue in supporting my boyfriend or husband in a financial way! Feminism has taught me to be flexible, to be independent, to be self sufficient and to not “burden” men with the social roles that men also fall victim to.

            If Karen truly cared about men’s rights why does she not defend homosexual men? I think she could contribute great things to this world if she fought for a man’s right to marry another man. Hopefully she can do a video on that…without blaming women while doing so.

          • http://www.paolability.com/ Paola Kathuria

            Well said.

          • Keith Emery

            “She is in favor of men’s rights at the expense of women’s rights”

            Defend this !!!

          • bergmcj

            Care to refute her “careless facts” with some facts of your own instead of simply espousing your opinion?

          • Daniel Baines

            LOL. She isn’t ‘educated in womens studies?’ Doesn’t that mean shes LESS likely to be cherrypicking facts? Isn’t that the whole of Women’s Studies? You can’t just stick to your own cherrypicked versions of things, then complain when the rest of the facts are cherrypicked out, finally giving you a complete whole. She presents the other side. That IS a completion of your education. Its presenting you new info you never had before. And no, I don’t think defending gay men is a key to men’s rights… defending MEN is the key to men’s rights. Why specifically focus on gays? There are plenty of groups already for that. You sound very feminist. To feminists, everything is about the minority groups, when you have a whole lot more people – a majority – being oppressed. Thats priority number one. I’d rather help 10 people than 1 person.

          • Carlos Kingston

            This video she’s made recently (July 15 2015) so you couldn’t have seen it, but it fully explains the situation.
            Watch “Why do MRAs attack feminism?” on YouTube

          • Rms158

            The only thing I deduce from your comment is that you just don’t like hearing what she said. She is not cherrypicking or blaming, she is exposing with facts and figures. If you really listen and research, you’ll see she’s right and she’s very, very intelligent. But, if you’re going off of what the media and feminism is spoon feeding you in terms of facts, then, yes, her facts are different. They are right.

            Read that again.

            They are RIGHT.

            Also from your comment, it looks as though you really dont like facts, figures or researching. You like “feelings”. That’s the problem with feminism, it has people like you who are more interested in how things feel than cold, hard evidence. If the evidence shows one party is more at fault than the other, then so be it. That is NOT blaming, that is honest facts finding. Get used to it.

            Oh, and she does defend homosexual men, who feminist groups leave out entirely. She is in full support of the LGTB movement. Again, do your research before you comment.

          • Jamie Brahm

            yeah it’s funny to think it’s weird karen supports LGBT. Half of those are men, even the transexuals are ill considered and second fiddle next to feminists. You can’t support LGBT and be a feminist. You just can’t. Because feminist villanizes men and makes them second class citizens, whether they still have their junk or not, the bigotry remains.

          • Roland Strauss

            Sorry, but the statistics speak otherwise. Only 25% of all women would date a man without a job. You can’t get rid of hypergamy just by personal declaration.

          • Jamie Brahm

            She was an anti-feminist first, because her feminist friend defended a violent female DV perpetrator because she was a woman, and therefor could only be a victim. She saw how cult-like and hate driven it was.

      • metronomic1

        Karen has an Einstein level IQ and doesn’t “jump to conclusions”. Unlike most feminists who just parrot what they are told, Miss Straughn actually puts in countless hours doing research and putting this stuff together. You may not like what she has to say but to say she jumps to conclusions is nothing short of asinine.

        • Adrian M. Kleinbergen

          How do you know that?

          • astroboy

            Karen has an Einstein level IQ? I would like you to substantiate this, please. A woman who got kicked out of college and has done nothing of demonstrable intelligence in any field, worked as a waitress until she jumped on the MRA wagon and now supports herself through generous donations by men she appeals to… in what way has she demonstrated Einstein level IQ? I come from an apolitical perspective. I am, though, a person of the hard sciences with immense adoration of dear ol’ Albert. So this throws me off. What do you suppose you mean when you say Einstein level IQ? For the lack of productive demonstration, is she, by any chance, a MENSA member? (That last one was rhetorical, to be perfectly fair. She’s not. I know).

          • Adrian M. Kleinbergen

            I’m guessing you’re replying to metronomic and not to me.
            I never made claims about her IQ, genius or otherwise…

          • astroboy

            Apologies. Tiny phones cause wrongful reply button clicking. Let me just fix that.

          • Adrian M. Kleinbergen

            Not at all… 😀
            I was trying to remember if I had made such a claim. She’s an articulate speaker but I’m no fan of MRAs, or at least the ones everyone hears about.

          • astroboy

            I appreciate that position. I couldn’t care less about MRAs or Feminists, either way. I’m an amoral observer of things, at best. A misanthropic fuck, at worst. Dogmatic conviction in any direction repels me. Ended up here completely by fluke.

            What I am tired of is pop media and general masses frequently equating wit, and even sophistry, with intelligence and IQ. The gift of the gab has little to do with demonstrable intelligence. “IQ” as a term is thrown around willy nilly. Saddens me.

          • astroboy

            I appreciate that position. I couldn’t care less about MRAs or Feminists, either way. I am an amoral observer of things, at best. A misanthropic fuck, at worst. Dogmatic conviction in any direction repels me. Ended up here completely by fluke.

            What I do take issue with is how pop media and general masses frequently equate wit, and even sophistry, with intelligence and IQ. The gift of the gab has little to do with demonstrable intelligence; one does not naturally entail the other. The term “IQ” is thrown around willy-nilly. Irksome, wouldn’t you agree?

        • Alton Williams

          Exactly, Kaz is a very knowledgeble woman.

        • astroboy

          Karen has an Einstein level IQ? I would like you to substantiate this, please. A woman who got kicked out of college and has done nothing of demonstrable intelligence in any field, worked as a waitress until she jumped on the MRA wagon and now supports herself through generous donations by men she appeals to… in what way has she demonstrated Einstein level IQ? I come from an apolitical perspective. I am, though, a person of the hard sciences with immense adoration of dear ol’ Albert. So this throws me off. What do you suppose you mean when you say Einstein level IQ? For the lack of productive demonstration, is she, by any chance, a MENSA member? That last one was rhetorical, to be perfectly fair. She’s not. I know

      • Daniel Baines

        Umm… the extremists were the very founders of the movement. It didn’t just ‘attract a few’ at the end. The ones we label extremists are the ones feminists themselves uphold as role models. Feminists try and tar MRAs with Elliot Rodger… thing is, he wasn’t even part of the MRA movement. Even if he was, (which he wasn’t,) he certainly wasn’t a leader.

        • artiefischel

          As Karen has said, if Eliot Rodger visited an MRA website he would be advised to stop basing his self-worth on the approval of women, something he certainly wouldn’t have wanted to hear.

          • Daniel Baines

            SO TRUE. His opinions were COMPLETELY the opposite of MRA opinions. NOBODY on MRA sites bases their self worth on the approval of women.

        • http://counterfem2.blogspot.com fidelbogen

          The subtle truth that most people continually miss, is that “MRAs” is a (mostly) mythical demographic. It is simply not a coherent category that will stand up to analysis — mainly because different people use that word to signify a bewildering variety of different things.

          “MRA”, as a set, has no clear boundaries and no consistently understood list of defining criteria.

          In a nutshell, this is why most feminist conversation in this subject area is essentially clueless. It simply is not possibly to generalize the non-feminist population under any particular “brand”. . . and yet, that is exactly what they are trying to do.

          • Jamie Brahm

            Exactly. It’s not like a monolithic fascist group that enforces all the same values *cough feminism*. Men’s rights is a disparate group of people. As disparate as gay rights. We have radicals, pick up artists, academics, moderates, mgtow. Plus we as a disparate group often say contraversial things just to stir the nest. That’s the context as modern feminism, which opposes us naturally has an even more inflammatory dialogue that has just not had attention drawn to it in the public awareness. They shame as hard as anyone did enforcing the patriarchy on solo mothers or similar – if you don’t fit the mold, you are under assault. These days its doxxing and harassment. But it’s the same beast. We have radical values – egalitarianism in this age. And that means to break the gynocracy we have to say things occasionally that piss them off. Otherwise we are muted, and not meeting the assault. That’s the true context of these inflammatory types of statements within men’s rights. It’s a counterblow. It’s having the right to say whatever we damn please.

      • ou812

        #NAFALT

    • Duni Arnold

      As much as it sort of pains me to see people who are (from a prescriptivist perspective) clearly feminists refuse to identify as such because they don’t like the implications, the most important thing at the end of the day is that you honestly believe in equality and mutual respect. Someone who acts like a feminist is, for all intents, a feminist and an ally.

      Good luck in your inquiry!

      • Keith Emery

        “Someone who acts like a feminist is, for all intents, a feminist and an ally.”

        Somebody who acts like a feminist is a child.

      • Sean

        True. I do actually care about equality between the genders to as great a degree as is possible. I refuse to identify as a feminist not because I don’t care about or am indifferent to the plight of women, but because the first world definition is a complete destruction of the original principles of feminism. Feminism is still of vital importance in the third world, but I nonetheless prefer the team equalist – or better yet, egalitarian – going forward.

      • Randall Nelson

        We need equality, just not in a gynocentric way. The very word feminism is gynocentric. When so many feminists and organizations like NOW actually do things to actively hurt men, you think we want that word to describe equality.

      • Jamie Brahm

        If you expect men to do things, that you don’t do – that’s not your entitlement. And it’s not a glass ceiling. Women aren’t blocked from these things. It’s men doing some things, generally speaking, better and offering those talents to women, in generousity. They pay more taxes. They make our armies. That is not equality, what we have right now. It’s men doing what they always did as a part of the social contract, while women have walked away from their obligations to others around them, to society. If you want equality, become a fire fighter. Get a job. Be a stay at home mum, but value your man more for what he brings. Because pretty soon, men are going to stop doing all those kinds of things. They actually are. They are just going to start quitting.

    • Carlos Kingston

      Read Christina Hoff Sommers book “Who stole Feminism?” I bought the Audible audio book narrated by her herself and it’s a joy to listen to. Brilliant, scary, enlightening and a great historical recap of what went wrong.

      • LHathaway

        Ah yes, feminism was a great thing until it started moving in the wrong direction . . . . sarcasm over. .

      • Jamie Brahm

        Well to be fair, early feminist thinking was basically derived from marxism and anarchism. Which as core principles for the movement, have not been particularly effective strategies for dealing with the social contract. In fact, feminism has produced an essentially economy threatening plague of broken families, because it never really understood the social contract, or what it was so intent on destroying. So no, I don’t think you can say ‘feminist went wrong’, because despite the fact that the early radicals were liberal, and the current feminism is authoritarian, stark contrast and they would not agree – feminist began from the position that there was no purpose to the traditional family unit, for society. That it was redundant. Which was a wrongminded assumption to build the entire thing on. The nuclear family created balanced children, who were more likely to contribute, and the division of labour between men and women, utilized their best talents – even though the exact model we had was outdated because of the equalizing effects of agriculture and medicine in modern civilisation, the whole thing still had a purpose. Now that system is broken, and we have no new social contract, there is nothing to encourage members of society to contribute well. Nothing to stop them from contributing negatively. Because freedom has been put before responsibility. Men, as higher tax payers, and lower benefit claimers – they are propping up this current system with nothing for it in return from the social contract. They won’t want to do that forever.

        • Carlos Kingston

          Yeah, that was 7 months ago and I’ve learned a lot since. I too have since realized what you said and that the foundation was flawed to begin with in its core of dismantling the family. Some goals, despite this were noble (example: http://law.jrank.org/pages/2602/Hester-Vaughan-Trial-1868.html), and such things drew in some decent fair-minded people who were duped into thinking only of the good things, after all to the pure at heart all things are pure. I put Sommers in that category. Currently in El Salvador women who give birth to a stillborn child or have miscarriages risk prison and have been convicted up to 30 years. I saw one case of a young (now mother of 2) who got out “early” after serving 8 years. One doesn’t need to be anti-family to think that shit needs to end (religion to blame again, sigh). Example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/elsalvador/11412928/El-Salvadors-Las-17-the-women-jailed-for-30-years-for-losing-their-babies-by-miscarriage.html

          I can see how such things can lead equality minded women (and men) to turn to the Dark Side of feminism because they’re unaware of the origins and core tenants of feminism and bought the dictionary definition horseshit. They should have stayed with us humanists on the light side who believe in equality of opportunity (not outcome) for women (but ALSO for men) instead of feminists who, apart from maybe Sommers, Paglia and few others, only pay lip service to men’s issues.

    • Jamie Brahm

      Feminism is not about equal rights. It’s about no accountability and complete freedom from social contracts for women, while expecting men to remain in the social contracts they used to actually benefit from. It is essentially a flawed synthesis of marxist facism in terms of authoritarianism, and anarchy theory – the founding feminists were essentially anti-establishment, they wanted to break the system, not to replace it. And they would not even have liked the pro-establishment and pro-authority fixed gender role place feminism has arrived in. Which is why men are going to just have a man strike, and stop doing it all too. To go their own way.

      • Roland Strauss

        I was waiting for such a comment. Feminism is not oppression of men, that is not even possible. It is freeing women of all obligations. As a result, men go on strike and don’t marry anymore. Every feministic society will die sooner or later.

  • BobcatCorduroy

    A female misogynist. How refreshing! :

  • JulaiOhMy

    Am I being city-ist if I say I’m somehow not surprised that the men’s rights convention was held in Detroit? It just seems right somehow.

    • Vanessa Ray

      I’m from a Detroit and we did not want that group here!

  • Cycovision

    You do know she was addressing the history of the Feminist movement right? As a response to Dr. Warren Farrell who spoke before her? Anyway.

    That quote from Louis C.K. is so laughably wrong or skewed it took but seconds on Google searches to bring up.

    “Of the 12,765 murder victims in 2012 for which supplemental data were received, most (77.7 percent) were male”

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide

    Leading causes of death in Men
    http://www.cdc.gov/men/lcod/2010/index.htm

    Leading causes of death in Women
    http://www.cdc.gov/women/lcod/2010/index.htm

    • Duni Arnold

      Oooooooh myyyyy gooooood. Are we serious? No, really, do you not see how incredibly piss-poor your grasp of statistics is? For the “but seconds” it took you on google to find those stats, it took but an instant for me to see what’s wrong with them.

      For men to be the primary threat to other men does not contradict the idea that (in terms of violence) men are also possibly the greatest threat to women. Why did you even include this stat except to be intentionally dense? It boggles the mind.

      Further, yes, the leading cause of death in men AND women is heart disease. Louis CK was obviously referring to violent, non-natural causes of death in his routine.

      Sorry, bro. Try a little harder next time.

      • Cycovision

        The point was Men are not the greatest threat to women and neither men the biggest threat to men. He was comparing apples to oranges. And if he were to compare homicides he would have said, why do men hang around men when men are the greatest threat to men…
        Also I would like to point out women are more likely to kill men then women too.
        Also on that same day Stephen Molyneux would later go on stage explaining how the reason many men are violent as adults is because they are much more likely to be beaten as a child than girls. And much more likely to be beaten by a female adult than a male adult.

        • Duni Arnold

          Broe. When we exempt natural causes (e.g., heart disease) and catastrophic events (e.g., car accidents), men are certainly the greatest threat to women. The same can be said about men for the greatest threat to men.

          If women kill more men than they kill women (cite your sources, mang!), it’s because women are predominantly in relationships with men, and women are most likely to kill intimate partners or family members. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/02/20/why-women-kill.html This still has no relevance to the main topic of discussion, which is that men are, statistically speaking, one of the greatest dangers to women (women also being a great danger to women, I would imagine).

          >the reason many men are violent as adults is because they are much more likely to be beaten as a child than girls

          Yo, it’d be really cool if you’d cite your sources. I mean, I get that Molyneux is your source, but do you know where he got that? No? Again, it is irrelevant. Are we supposed to cast sympathy upon violent men because they were abused (even if by women – likely their mothers) as children?

          I don’t think you understand what it is we’re discussing, here.

          • Cordovan Splotch

            Can you tell me, when we exempt natural causes (e.g., heart disease) and catastrophic events (e.g., car accidents), and then just as a thought experiment exempt men as well.
            What’s left for women to die from? Falling pinecones in the redwoods? Alligators? Divine Intervention?
            What you did is basically say
            “Well if we ignore every single common cause of death for women EXCEPT violence by men, then viola! Men are the leading cause of death for women! Aren’t I good at statistics?”
            Yes you are sweet-cheeks, you’re almost as good at them as Mary P. Koss.

          • http://counterfem2.blogspot.com fidelbogen

            This smells like belief perseverance.

          • Randall Nelson

            Perhaps if mothers treated their sons better. Or the legal system would allow dads to be equal parents, things would change.

            Abuse is generational. The problem with many of these studies is they often use terms that only allow abuse to be by a male to a female. This was a system setup by feminists.

            Women and primary educators are almost all women. Boy’s simply do not get the attention they need. Meanwhile girls get all the help and support by society.

          • Jamie Brahm

            There is actually a practical reason why birth out of wedlock, and solo parenting, and divorce used to be shamed. They are part of the social contract. Broken familes produce broken familes, which also make teenage pregnancies and criminals and more unemployed. Statistically, economically, feminism is destroying out society – it will collapse this way. We need a new social contract, and a way of enforcing, or encouraging it. That’s just what is pragmatically needed. Society can’t operate if some of its members have no obligations to society benefit, and at this point, that is sort of where women sit – all benefits, no obligations. Maximum fun and freedom, minimum responsibility. Your kids actually have to be good kids, if other members of society are helping you pay for it.

          • Jamie Brahm

            Nonsense. Women aren’t the primary victims of violence. Men are the primary victims. You are still trying to cling onto this men as perpetrators, women as victims bigotry/myth. We get uneven criminal sentencing because of that hate mongering. When men, as the primary victims are considered more than women, proportional to the level of violence they recieve, then we can talk about womens violence. When it is seem that women can be perps, and are in around half of DV. At the moment they are not, so screw womens issues, until shit gets fair. Tit for tat. Not gimme gimme.

      • Cordovan Splotch

        Wait… so you’re saying that statistically, men are a bigger threat to women than say… bears?
        And since when is heart disease a violent non-natural cause of death only when it happens to men?
        Oh my god… so many people who apparently learned how statistics work in Women’s Studies in stead of say… STATISTICS!

      • Jamie Brahm

        Women are responsible for half of domestic abuse, and men are more likely to be effected by any violence. What you have basically said is ‘sure it’s much worse for men but we are only concerned about how violence effects women for some reason and making men out to be perpetrators and never victims’. My emancipation began with realizing I had no responsibility to parties that have no sense of responsibility to me. It’s men who are the biggest victims of violence by far – from men and from women. Until that’s on the table, and being addressed, fuck women’s violence issues. They can get my support, when I have theirs.

  • Cuthulu

    I think you missed the point of her talk. feminism has always said that women are oppressed and men are the culpable party. She was simply demonstrating how women had power previous to the feminist movement it just wasn’t overt. Women didn’t have certain privileges for reasons, not because men are dicks. I will repeat something I have heard both Paul Elam and Karen say “a women’s right’s movement was needed, just not one that blames men.” which for some reason people don’t repeat, curious. As for MRA’s maybe people shouldn’t read blogs written by feminists and go the some sites that they source and actually see what they are about. Lastly you mention the “1 is 2 many” campaign but don’t talk about why she is up set. Her anger comes from the insinuation that all men are violent evil creatures who are barely able to hold back the wanton violent rages that is the default setting of the human male. posters that say “don’t be that guy”

    how would you feel if a poster like the following was put up.

    You would be offended and you would have every right to be. Why can’t men be offended about a poster that implies they are all rapists waiting for their turn. It is offensive and I must say a bit hurtful as well. the fact of the matter is there are a lot of men’s right’s issues that need addressing like bodily integrity, suicide, education, and others like domestic violence where proper studies show that it’s reciprocal almost a 50-50 split but men are arrested at a much higher rate then women because of predominant aggressor criteria which almost assures men will be arrested.

    • Duni Arnold

      >Women didn’t have certain privileges for reasons, not because men are dicks.

      lel

      >”a women’s right’s movement was needed, just not one that blames men.”

      How about a women’s rights movement that gives credit (and blame) where it’s due? You know, like blaming women when they perpetuate rape culture/patriarchal attitudes and also blaming men for enforcing those ideas for thousands of years? Yeah, that sounds about right. If men are to blame, they need to be called the fuck out. Same for women. *People* need to be taken to task for their transgressions.

      >As for MRA’s maybe people shouldn’t read blogs written by feminists and go the some sites that they source and actually see what they are about.

      As someone who is eminently familiar with the “true face” of the MRM (communities like r/Mensrights that actually self-identify as MRAs and discuss men’s issues in earnest), I can say that most feminists are usually pretty on-the-money with regards to how they characterize the movement. Is it the kind of thing that inspires killing sprees? Not so much. But is it hateful, bitter, irrational, and sad? Yes it is.

      >Why can’t men be offended about a poster that implies they are all rapists waiting for their turn.

      They can and should be offended at that notion. Most feminist do not argue that most men are rapists. Straaaaaawmaaaan!

      >there are a lot of men’s right’s issues that need addressing like bodily integrity, suicide, education, and others like domestic violence where proper studies show that it’s reciprocal almost a 50-50 split but men are arrested at a much higher rate then women because of predominant aggressor criteria

      A serious issue, to be sure. Men should not be arrested more frequently than women if they’re committing the exact same crime. Now, whether they are committing the same crimes as women is disputable. But all of those are serious issues that many feminists care about (and should focus on much more, in my opinion!).

      • Cuthulu

        “*People* need to be taken to task for their transgressions.”

        No they don’t, this kind of visceral reaction is probably the underlying problem. They need to be convinced that their ways are counter productive. What is not needed is more anger and violence.

        “As someone who is (intimately?) familiar with the “true face” of the MRM (communities like r/Mensrights that actually self-identify as MRAs and discuss men’s issues in earnest)”

        Are we using things like Reddit to confirm our preconceived notions now i wonder how i would about feminism if i went to #feminism on tumbler? Using reddit to figure out if people are what they say they are is probably a bad source not to mention there is no tone involved in what they are saying so you cant speak to whether some of the things they are saying are just jokes.

        “But is it hateful, bitter, irrational, and sad? Yes it is.”

        How would you feel if your significant other shafted you the way some of these men got shafted? I don’t think anger, hateful, bitter, irrational words would be far from your lips either.

        “They can and should be offended at that notion. Most feminist do not argue that most men are rapists. Straaaaaawmaaaan!”

        Where did I say feminists say that? I said that the posters put up by the “don’t be that guy” campaign were offensive to me because they implied I was a rapist. Maybe you could explain to me how it is a straw-man?

        “Now, whether they are committing the same crimes as women is disputable. But all of those are serious issues that many feminists care about”

        Are you suggesting that women can’t commit the same crimes as men?(not saying you are it just kinda reads that way.) And yet no progress has been made in programs at all.

      • the_mouse_

        >and also blaming men for enforcing those ideas for thousands of years? Yeah, that sounds about right. If men are to blame, they need to be called the fuck out. Same for
        women. *People* need to be taken to task for their transgressions.

        I’m not sure I remotely follow what you mean by this. What transgressions are you talking about? Do men who’ve never supported sexism “owe” currently living women something? You’re hostile towards people who’ve never oppressed or prejudged you in any way simply because of their genitals? How about this: Do I get to lynch white people once a month because of “their” past deeds, even if the guy I lynch was born in 1986 and is in no way racist? Your preoccupation with gender identity is completely incompatible with any fanciful idea of gender equality, since, as we should all know by now, “separate but equal” is a farce. It sounds like women’s issues are more important to you than men’s issues since you feel men owe you something for oppressing you (or your mother, or your grandmothers). Instead of worrying about human rights and human issues, regardless of sex, you seem to desire some sort of reparations for crimes you barely if at all experienced. (Tell your grandmothers how oppressed you are, see what they tell you.)

        I’d also appreciate if you could cite some specific values of popular MRAs that are hateful, bitter, or irrational. As far as I can see, they are on the whole just a backlash to flavors of feminism that are inherently incompatible with gender equality, exactly as Straughan asserts. I agree with Straughan in her belief that contemporary Feminism is inherently contradictory to gender equality since strong, contrasting conceptions of masculine and feminine identity and culture are central to its various philosophical varieties. If it’s any consolation, female voters outnumber male voters by a substantial margin, so you can play the role of vengeful oppressor if you’d like, just don’t expect men to humor your nonsense beliefs about being oppressed. Women have been the electoral majority since 1980; before MRAs appeared in substantial numbers, and before I was born.

      • Daniel Baines

        How do you know men perpetuated rape for 1000s of years? Because thats what you’ve been told? Where’s your evidence? Can you find evidence of rape being illegal? I know that if we go far back in history, to 1828 anyway, rape was a felony punishable by death here in the UK. That was harsher than what we have today!

        • Erica24

          Rape was illegal even back then simply because it was seen as a crime against the MAN. A man took what belonged to her husband/owner. Same way it would have been illegal in the States to take the slave of another man because that would have been considered theft.

          • Daniel Baines

            And your evidence is? Even if that’s true, it was still illegal, whatever the reason. So women were still protected. But its not the case. Women’s ‘honour’ was also a concept.

          • Daniel Baines

            OK looks like you are right, but only for ancient Assyria and Babylonia. Hardly relevant to the present day, or any timeperiod in which feminism has existed. And here in England, it has never been true that rape was considered a crime against the man. Or the USA. In fact, here in the UK, rape was historically punished even MORE than today.

          • ksuek

            Props for checking out an opposing opinion and giving credit where credit is due. And still standing your ground.

          • FireBits

            Someones life is less valuable than someones property, someones property is more valuable than someones life. Sometimes property has more rights than non-property. All men are considered government’s property to use in wars, their purpose is to keep women, children and businesses safe. On titanic men gave their lives for property?

            We all have been property, we all still are. But right now women have it better by far, because women are valuables and men are disposables. On Titanic disposables were sacrificed in order to safe valuables. That’s the true gender gap. We both are property, but our value and role has been different.

            Man’s value is his utility value, when woman’s value is her uterus, therefore women are diamonds men are workhorses. Man’s utility value has to exceed the value of woman’s sexual market value in order to have family with her. Because his duty is to take care of her.

          • ksuek

            I upvoted you. I do not understand why we continue to try to equalize two completely different sets of assets. Or why we try to deny two completely different sets of assets because of some kind of unreasonable competition of sorts. Women are different from men. Different biological functions, different chemistry. Not better, not worse, different. Some women and men may have biology and chemistry that is not so clearly defined (science has proven chromasonal and other abnormalities…meaning differening from the majority, and visual medical proof has evidence of it) and may cover some gray area between the two, but in no way does accepting the variations of a few mandate the equalizing of everyone. Both men and women have different but equally valuable roles to play in society and survival of our species. How can you say that everything from employment and salary, to gender roles, to sexual consent and other areas of life where the differences between men and women are supposed to compliment each other, maybe overlap in some areas but not equate each other as if one could substitute or the other…as if, if one sex didn’t exist, their absence wouldn’t matter,,,how can you say that everything that results from those differences can be measured by a single standard?

          • RSDavies

            If your argument held water, then rape would not be a crime if perpetrated against an adult single female. Simply because this is a woman independent of a man, and history shows that they were plentiful enough. But rape was and remains a crime regardless of the status of the woman. This can be evidenced in Mabinogion that reflects social values and the law of a pre-Anglo Saxon Britain.
            The issue of slavery and bond is separate and distinct, and has no relevance to the laws relating to rape.

          • Darknut

            Not if you’re married. Just because something is “illegal” doesn’t mean it’s enforced, or anyone believes the victim or doesn’t blame the victim.

        • Darknut

          “I know that if we go far back in history, to 1828 anyway, rape was a felony punishable by death here in the UK. That was harsher than what we have today!”

          Stealing property carried the death penalty back then, and rape was rarely even looked at let alone prosecuted unless you were above working-class. Then it was more of a property crime because you render an unmarried woman worthless if you rape her.

          And there was no such thing as “rape” legally if you were married until the 1970s in the UK..

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape#England_and_Wales

          And beating your wife half to death? Well that was just what you did if she back sassed you.

          One definition of “rule of thumb” comes from British Common Law.

          “a man may beat his wife so long as he uses ‘a rod not thicker than his thumb’. ”

          http://www.theguardian.com/society-professionals/ng-interactive/2014/nov/28/domestic-violence-legislation-timeline

          Must be all that “not overt” power women had. Because of how “protected” they were. LOL..

          • G Trieste

            That rule of thumb chestnut has been thoroughly debunked.

          • Darknut

            True the truth is there really was no rule.

        • Jamie Brahm

          Who cares what was legal? How does the past matter except how it informs decisions in the present.

          • Darknut

            I was correcting an incorrect assertion about the past that was made earlier, that’s all. Though the past certainly affects the present and the reasons those laws were so massively sexist didn’t magically go away when the laws were changed.

      • ou812

        “Most feminist do not argue that most men are rapists…” i.e. #notallfeminists

        • Darknut

          Most anti feminists dont go on shooting sprees, I e #notallantifeminists

          Please show me the main stream feminist articles or books saying all men are rapists. 1 crazy person on a blog somewhere doesn’t count.

          #strawfeministphobia

          • ou812

            I recommend writings by Andrea Dworkin, Susan Brownmiller, and Catharine MacKinnon, many of which are still used in gender studies courses.

          • Darknut

            I have. And not word bytes taken out of context and willfully misrepresented.

          • ou812

            How about this gem from Dworkin: “Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.” Let me guess, the word “potential” makes it okay?

          • Darknut

            It’s cool that you had to mine a 40+ year old book for an out of context quote about the history of violence against women to even find something that sounds mean from mainstream feminism. Bravo.

            I recommend you read the whole book. It’s right here:
            http://www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Andrea-DWORKIN-Our-Blood-Prophesies-and-Discourses-on-Sexual-Politics-1976.pdf

            Some of it is quite provocative and sounds mean. Be sure you read it in a safe space. LOL..

            But if you don’t like Dworkin, there’s a more up to date book by a MALE historical war author that says the same things only not so “feminist-ish” I mean what do women know about misogyny really?

            https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Misogyny-Prejudice-Histories-ebook/dp/B00718VFGC#nav-subnav

            We, after all, invented it.

          • ou812

            I don’t see why the book being 40 years old matters, unless she disavowed it. Anyway, I don’t need a Safe Space because I’m privileged and the whole world is my safe space! lol

          • Darknut

            “I don’t see why the age of the quote matters” So you don’t understand historical context. I don’t see how I can teach you that in comment form.

            “Anyway, I don’t need a Safe Space because I’m privileged and the whole world is my safe space! ”

            YES. Yes it is. And every month is OUR history month.

          • ou812

            Go ahead. ‘Splain it to me.

          • nemo

            Marxist rhetoric detected.
            You are not privileged , you are not a social class.

            Pure feminist propaganda and auto persuasion , as usual.
            http://phys.org/news/2009-04-feminist-social-theories.html

          • Darknut

            Facist rhetoric detected. Nobody said “I” am a social class ,but people do have varying degrees of privilege whether or not that fact agrees with your feelings.

            Pure anti-feminist propaganda and bullshit, as usual.

          • nemo

            You are the only fascist here. Get over it.
            Stop reducing people to classes , because , yes , this is exactly what you are doing with this privilege thing . The fucking Belief that we all share the same experience in a monolithic society that never changed.
            You are ideologically brainwashed just like other intersectional feminists .
            Now start considering people as individuals , get their social determinism out of your mind , and analyse society without their ideological glasses .

            Till then , never talk about equality again.

          • Scholar Jen Zin

            I don’t think Karen really cares about men. She seems to be a capitalist, and capitalism hurts men too, as well as women.

          • sobrietysux
          • Darknut

            Oh a meme? Yeah that’s mainstream feminism right there. You got us. And you missed even the point of that.

          • sobrietysux

            You’re so out of touch with reality I actually feel sorry for you.

            :(

            “Is it the kind of thing that inspires killing sprees?”

            Well… yes. Definitely.”

          • Darknut

            “Well… yes. Definitely.”

            And I gave you REAL examples, which you failed to refute. Save your pity for yourself.

      • Darknut

        “. Is it the kind of thing that inspires killing sprees?”

        Well… yes. Definitely. Mass shooters have OFTEN identified with the MRM and are rabit anti-feminists.

        John Russel Houser
        http://www.newsweek.com/john-russel-houser-lafayatte-theater-shooter-356899

        Elliot Roger
        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/24/1301671/-Elliot-Roger-Gunman-in-California-Mass-Shooting-was-influenced-by-the-Men-s-Rights-Movement

        Anders Brevek
        http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2011/07/24/norweigian-terrorist-anders-breiviks-manifesto-reveals-him-to-be-a-rabid-antifeminist-with-views-strikingly-similar-to-many-mras/

        The list goes on and on. Now let someone show me the list of modern 3rd wave feminist mass murderers. I can save them some time… here’s the list.

        • Jamie Brahm

          There should be feminists on that list. Maybe that makes their movement invalid too yeah, because they have bad associations? lol. modern feminists are the most likely of anyone online to doxx, to swot, or the harress someone. Look at gamergate. I think they are the most unhinged, and I would not be at all surprised to see a serial killer or two.

          • Darknut

            “Modern feminists are,most likely to dox swat bla bla bla”

            Bullshit.

            Citation needed. Oh the source is you’re ass? That’s what I thought.

      • Jamie Brahm

        Wow that’s pretty bigoted. You think feminists were charming moderates when they just started pushing back? I think you’ll find they weren’t. I think you’ll find they were a bunch of angry radicals. That doesn’t make them sad, that makes them justifiably pissed off. So, you know, stones, glass houses.

      • Jamie Brahm

        Whether most feminists consider all men rapists are not, this is what their ideology when they present it says ‘men are monsters. They are responsible for all wrongdoing, and all danger. They are never victims, never vulnerable. Every man you meet is a risk’. That’s the message feminists are sending. Whether they realize it or not. And the ‘facts’ they use to sell this story are really scientifically bad (such as the realistic that IPV is gender symmetrical, rather than all men). So it’s hate being sold, with lies. I’d try to avoid that if you wanted to be fair minded.

    • Lisasaysss

      I don’t think I missed the point in her speech. I watched her speech over and over, honestly trying to find something reasonable she had to say, because I didn’t want to write a one sided article. What was evident was that she had good intentions (to promote equality) but she was carrying them out in an immature, scattered manner. Everything she mentioned was about what feminism was doing wrong, not what men need. As far as the 1 is 2 many campaign, I can’t read her mind as to why she was disgusted, but I didn’t get the impression it was because she was upset that men are being accused of violence. It seemed much more like she thought it was preposterous that we have campaigns like that for women, because men are victims too.

      • Cuthulu

        Have you watched any of her other videos? That would probably put the video in better light. As you stated in the article shes an anti-feminist before a MRA she’s more about debunking feminism then Men’s Rights stuff. There is this idea that feminism is above reproach which is a problem because all things need to be scrutinized as for the “1 is 2 many” shes up set because it is extremely easy for feminists to get finical help from the government but it is almost impossible for people working for men’s rights to get any money. Not an unreasonable thing to be mad about.

        • Jamie Brahm

          They are the same goal. Destroying feminism is directly linked with the enancipation of men.

      • Lisasaysss

        Thanks for reading!

        • WrongAsRain

          New stoner prank: Every article you read, write the first comment: “Ready to suck a cock now?” or some variation thereof. Reap the benefits of shouting that joke into the abyss.

      • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink

        Way to contribute something of value to the conversation.

      • Jamie Brahm

        What men need, is the imminent death of feminism. #feminismisdead #mgtow

        • Darknut

          God you’re fucking deranged. If all the feminists quit today, which of your problems would go away? Youd still be a ridiculous douchebag and probably find something else to bitch about being the perpetual victim you are.

          Which things do we men need to be “emancipated from” exactly? If you’re MGToW THEN go your own way and quit bothering sane people.

      • Slayer

        Would you not live your life feeling disgusted if you had to see THAT in the mirror? Would you not hate people if you were unable to present yourself any better than hogging alcohol in front of your PC screen, coughing and snorting? Would you not join an opposition group of mad haters, if you were constantly seen as a angry/confused lesbian/feminist? You’ve gotta feel some empathy for a person who hits the rock bottom.

    • Darknut

      “a women’s right’s movement was needed, just not one that blames men”

      So who shall they blame? Unicorns?

      “Why can’t men be offended about a poster that implies they are all rapists waiting for their turn.”

      Because that’s not what it implies. At all.

      “proper studies show that it’s reciprocal almost a 50-50 split ”

      Apparently “proper studies” = studies that say things that make you feel better.

      Citation please. Every time MRAs show me a “proper study” it leads back to their own crap with no primary source.

      “how would you feel if a poster like the following was put up.”

      Those memes blame women for their own assaults. They are NOTHING LIKE the poster you are whining about.

      Show me a case where a man was raped and the rapists attorney brought up what he was wearing as evidence against him.

      I’ll wait.

  • http://twitter.com/ashliejefferson Ashlie

    Just curious: what made you come here to leave this comment?

  • Lisasaysss

    Zinger! Thanks for completely reinforcing every stereotype of an MRA! Xoxo

  • Andy Dimo

    There isn’t really anything of value in the commentary of this article…

    1) Straughan is examining things that happened in a particular era because that was the aim of that speech: To examine that era and present how things weren’t black & white at that time. There are plenty of other articles and speeches examining contemporary issues

    2) The inequality against men of not being taken seriously as victims is directly connected with the idea that men’s problem are secondary to women’s issues, something clear in pretty much all facets of feminist ideologies, even in this article

    3) Then you make some claims about what MRA are or aren’t without any evidence to back it up. I am not MRA but I found at least a few of them to make good arguments like Karen or Warren Farrell. Yes there are probably some misogynists but then again feminism is full of misandrists.

    4) This is the part where the article starts “slipping” and the bullcrap start to smell:

    “It is about not having to put up with sexual advances from our boss just to keep our job. In some countries, it is still legal for men to beat their wives.Yet men’s rights activists are upset about having to pay alimony?”

    Wait, what? First of all, what on earth do women in such countries have to do with feminism in a Western context? Yeah I agree that Saudi Arabia might be in need of some feminism, feel free to go spread it, what does this has to do with gender inequalities in a Western context? Do you honestly think that you can “absorb” some victim points by using the torture of these women in countries and cultures not affecting anything in your life? I’m sorry but that’s disgusting.

    And second, really, North-American white woman? You are going with “how dare men think of X when it is trivial at the plight of women at another continent?” Well in that case, how dare you feminists whine about, let’s say, representations of women in movies when there are starving children in Africa? Or what,they don’t count because they are not a group of women?

    5) “Globally and historically, we’re the number one cause of injury and mayhem to women.”

    Sorry to disappoint both you and Lewis but men are three times more likely to kill other men rather than women (and that’s not counting wars, just crimes in the U.S.). So if men are a threat to women, they are a triple threat against other men (and no, feminists, the fact that men are attacked by other men does not make it somehow to “not count”, having the same genitalia as the attacker does not really mean anything when counting up the victims).

    • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink

      So, wait. You take issue with the argument that when one considers global trends in violence against women, an MRA complaining of alimony is trivial… you don’t like that line of thinking because one thing has nothing to do with the other. And then you go on to assert that while men ARE the number one cause of injury (and death) to women (in the U.S. alone, not on another continent, women make up 70% of domestic violence homicides), feminists shouldn’t be that upset, because on the whole, men still kill more men?

      • Andy Dimo

        The article is quoting a joke by CK Louis. The implication of this joke is that men can pose a threat to women by causing them injury and death (How do…to women) and that men don’t have the same worry (“heart disease” bit).

        This is not true since men are three times as likely to cause deadly injuries to other men compared to causing them to women. Even if we put other factors and statistics in (such as the possibility of rape) men still, unlike to what Louis’ quote (and by extension the article) implies, do have plenty of reasons to worry (not for dates specifically but generally speaking). If we count only deaths, men actually have three times the amount of reasons to worry.

        • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink

          “If we count only deaths, men actually have three times the amount of reasons to worry.”

          Therefore, by comparison, feminists’ worry about violence against women is trivial? Right? And using the same logic (yours), when considering global rates of violence against women, MRA’s worry about alimony is also trivial. Right?

          Here. I fixed it for you:

          “And second, really, North-American white men? You are going with “how dare women think of X when it is trivial at the plight of men on any continent anywhere?” Well in that case, how dare you MRA’s whine about, let’s say, paying alimony after a divorce, when an estimated 350 million women worldwide have suffered severe physical violence from their intimate partner? Or what, they don’t count because they are not a group of men?”

          • Andy Dimo

            Uhh the argument you “fixed” is not my argument… That’s the logic used by the author of the article. I only presented that as an “argument” to show how nonsensical the author’s argument was. So you are not actually disagreeing with me there, you are disagreeing with the logic used in the article.
            (Not that there is anything wrong with discussing privileges of some countries vs others, but not in a disingenuous, cross-gender-related cherry-picking manner.)

            “Therefore, by comparison, feminists’ worry about violence against women is trivial? Right?”

            Really funny how this “accusation” comes from a member of an ideology in which main tenant is that the other gender’s problem are unimportant and trivial.

            I’m sorry to disappoint you but I haven’t said, implied (or believed at any time) such a thing.

            Don’t get me wrong, I realize that you are just trying to bait me into posting something which (if twisted properly) can portray me as a misogynist or anti-woman. I realize that, since you cannot make any actual arguments against my position, you instead try to get a “soundbite” so you can say:
            “A-HA! That guy is sexist so now I can go lalalalala and dismiss his arguments!”

            Anyway that’s all I had to say in this conversation. Have fun knocking down that strawman!

          • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink

            I assure you, I have no interest in baiting you or trying to get a “soundbite.” I simply found it hypocritical for you to attack the author’s view — that feminism is about so much more than being sexually harassed at work, that it’s about things like living in a world where laws permit women to be abused in their homes — then proceed to imply that it doesn’t matter if men are the primary perpetrators of violence against women, because “Sorry to disappoint you, they’re also the primary perpetrators of violence against men who are victims at three times the rate of women,” therefore, “Boo hoo, we’re bigger victims than you are… so STFU.”

      • Cordovan Splotch

        Actually, if we take away all the diseases and other things that don’t cause injuries per se, men are still not the leading cause of injury and death for women, that would be traffic accidents.
        Violence by men doesn’t even figure in the top 10 leading causes of death for women.
        So seriously… maybe you shouldn’t get your “statistical facts” from comedians.

        • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink

          There’s a reason I specifically said “injuries.” And those numbers come from the CDC and WHO.

          So, seriously…

          • Cordovan Splotch

            Yes, then traffic accidents are the leading cause, not men.
            I know where the stats come from, I read statistics on this stuff every day.

          • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink

            If you know where the stats come from (not Louis CK, someone I’m barely familiar with), then you’ll know the WHO calls violence against women “pervasive” and considers it “a global public health problem of epidemic proportions.”

            It’s the leading cause of injury for US WOMEN ages 15-44.

            Why are you so invested in arguing this point?

          • Alex Yactine

            Could you please link me to the WHO page where you find these statistics? I’ve only found “Violence against women” which imo is sort of biased. Violence on men isn’t being addressed, is there any data on this?

          • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink
  • http://www.paolability.com/ Paola Kathuria

    Thanks for writing this article. I’ve never heard of Karen until today. I had been asked to a video she made “NAFALT!” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQWoNhrY_fM by someone on Twitter who claims she explains it all.

    I told him I found a flaw in her idea in the first 30 secs. I then spent a while arguing with him about how she’d made false inferences about Harriet Harman’s statement. And the quote from Baroness Hale was taken out of context.

    I agree, she has an agenda. Perhaps the irony is that she has fallen for the lie that women have to be validated by men or are nothing.

    Someone else pointed me to the Eric Hoffer Wikipedia page. This seems especially pertinent:

    “Hoffer argued that fanatical and extremist cultural movements, whether religious or political, arose under predictable circumstances: when large numbers of people come to believe that their individual lives are worthless and ruined, that the modern world is irreparably corrupt, and that hope lies only in joining a larger group that demands radical changes. Hoffer believed that self-esteem and a sense of satisfaction with one’s life was of central importance to psychological well-being.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Hoffer

    • Sean

      Karen Straughan needs to feel validated by men?
      What a ridiculous and snide argument.

  • https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/109961569994303540799 Deb Maggiell

    What can one say .. the mra are a cult .. male supremacysts .. not for equality but male superiority .. they are all a bunch of clowns .. well they make me laugh .. hahaha

    • hitboxcrazy

      *supremacist*

  • Vilyan Warel

    NAFALT argument is invalid. There is no “Real Feminism” in real life. The true movement for gender equality definitely exists, but it doesn’t identify as “feminism”.

    • Jamie Brahm

      Yes, the feminist movement has tight gender role concepts based on patriarchy. And they enforce them with all the same zeal. They are patriarchy 2.0

      • Darknut

        Anti feminism is a cult and loves to hijack gender studies terminaology with completely non sequitur unsupportd nonsense like that.

  • UrbanCyclist666

    I watched one of her videos. She says a lot of words, but the substance of her arguments are weak in general.

  • Santiago Reyes

    I think you’re missing some of the big picture here, because if you look at things from an antropological and historical point of view I think men were seen as the dominant gender in most part of the human history is because of war, a big peace of the puzzle of humanity a as whole. War is a man’s land, and going back in history the lifes of man were sacrificed for the survival (not exactly well being) of the woman, it was just a matter of the means of our species. We’re not that far from the monkeys as we have kid ourselves though gaining knowledge of the world around us, the best course of action is use this ability to shed light in our biological shortcomings. Women should be paid ecually for doing the same job, study whatever they want, be safe to express their sexuality however they please and decide over the outcome of their pregnancy. But there’s a face of feminism that goes to ridiculous heights in the called “war againts patirarchy”, it just loses focus over the real issues. We’re humans, men and women are subsets of the species hence we have similarities but a group of significant diferences, embracing the diversity and walking towards the same path of human development with the greatest tool evolution gave us, the mind, is the path we need to take to save us from our great flaws. She had some really good points about real gender equality maybe the name “anti-feminism” it’s a bit harsh, but the structure of the argument is valid. And then again we’re wasting time arguing the non vital points of the discussion in real fight for ALL civil rights and social justice.

    • Randall Nelson

      yep, most of these systems simply existed because they were the most successful. It’s just natural selection, men had no explicit say in it. Unless you believe men thought it’d be great to be forced out of their lives and into a war where they die of some horrible disease.

      Both sexes were oppressed, but men suffered more and I don’t see how anyone could even deny that. Everything about a mans physiology is made to allow him to endear more and cry less.

    • Jamie Brahm

      Don’t agree on the pregnancy. Especially not if we are paying for it. If you take from society, you owe society a return. We can’t have crap tonnes of mums raising kids in broken families, because it what she wants, not what is the best outcome for the child – that child as a member of our society, is our asset or burden. We are owed that it is an asset, and not a burden, if possible. And for that, we require more than one parent or active extended family – according to all the science it has to be one parent plus, parent with extra parent access, multi-parents, extended family, not _just one parent_. However that is generated, I don’t care. We are not free roaming antelope. We are engaged in a complex social contract. If you dip out of that contract, I am not supporting you. You immediately become a liability to everyone if you do that. And feminism has told people they owe nothing to no one, no consequences, just ‘freedom’. The ideology of zero accountability and zero social contracts. It’s complete foolishness. We were only judging our neighbours because it prevented economic meltdown, however old fashioned the system – those rules and systems all had a purpose. One which had not been replaced. And until it is, our civilisation is under threat of a massive economic collapse. I shit you not.

  • Alec Stewart

    At the end of the day ladies, you still have intact genitals. Quit whining.

    • Vanessa Ray

      I bet you have lots of friends.

      • Mr. E

        Hmm– how come he’s got up-votes and you don’t have any?

      • Randall Nelson

        Love that dismissive misandry bullshit. Why do you hate men so much?

        • Darknut

          I hate idiots. Sometimes they’re men, sometimes not.

    • Darknut

      Right, because unless you’re circumcised you have zero problems. I guess I have zero problems.

  • Pianogamer

    I’ve seen some of this woman’s videos, and she appears a lot more reasonable than the impression given by this article. The kind of issues she discusses mostly are the male disposability and violence against men being justified ideas.

    Now she has a lot of criticize of feminists, but that is one particular type of feminists: Those that are harassing men going to men-rights meetings, or are otherwise hostile to men. And since she is going to many of these meetings, that’s probably the kind of feminist she meets the most.

    Now having dealt mostly with those, she does end up painting a very black picture of feminism by talking as if they’re the only type. Just looking at the worst part of a group is a bad way to gain understanding and agreement, just like reading Elliot Rodger’s manifesto probably won’t help you much in understanding men’s rights movements.

    • http://www.sanichegehog.com sanic the hegehog

      Elliot was never a MRA.
      Not even close.
      If anything he was closer to feminism, because his world view was very similar, which in the end drove him mad.

      • Blahblee

        Because feminists believe that every man has a right to get sex from women in college? That’s about what his manifesto amounted to: I look good, I use honey almond scrub and do a thousand crunches every day, where’s my sex?

        • http://www.sanichegehog.com sanic the hegehog

          Elliot was very autistic, which means that he is socially retarded. He didn’t understand, because social situations where out of his grasp.
          And I believe feminism is to blame for this, rather than MRM. Because in his mind, he did everything right(Polite, gentleman, was feminine and was sophisticated). But it didn’t work in reality, because of his autism and very low Confidence.
          He didn’t understand that himself, so he blamed it on everyone else and an oppressive social system(Similar to feminism, but out of context),

          • Blahblee

            Okay, derailing from the original topic. I’ve worked with autistic adults most of my life. Even if Rodger’s Asperger’s was verified (it’s not, but implied by family members) he is individually responsible for his own violent actions. This in no way reflects on other people with similar disorders. To suggest that is to shift the blame to a disorder that does not result in violent crimes of this magnitude (statistically) to any greater degree than having cancer. I still don’t see how feminism was the spark that ignited his murders unless you are saying that those women should have fucked him to prevent this? And feminism is the reason they didn’t?

          • http://www.sanichegehog.com sanic the hegehog

            I never said that his autism was the reason for the killings, but it was his weakness. Elliot didn’t understand though, because he was the perfect Bf as described by feminist, cultured, slightly feminine and a gentleman.
            What i’m saying is, that feminism is a cancer to modern society, and it’s especially harmful to young men, without confidence, like Elliot. And feminism is spoiling girls, so that when the majority finally swallows the red pill, they’re fucked…

          • Blahblee

            Okay. See, if I met a feminist who thought girls should be spoiled by demanding rich, educated, well groomed men ONLY as sex partners, then I would think she was a snob. I have met women like that, but I don’t find them to be the best representatives of what feminism should be. At the Flounce we’re more working class, we don’t subscribe to that. Our husbands and boyfriends are all shapes and sizes and come from different economic and educational backgrounds, and the only thing I think women deserve from their partners is being treated decently and equally (if that is spoiled, then so be it).

          • Mr. E

            Equal is fine. I don’t think anybody has a problem with that.

          • John Smith

            “Equal is fine. I don’t think anybody has a problem with that.”
            Feminists do.

          • Rms158

            What feminists have you been encountering? Because the one’s in the main stream, you know, the one’s shaping this nations laws, just passed a law that states if a man and a woman have drunk sex, the man has raped the woman. This is feminism, this is what it is and does and it’s killing society. Its teaching girls and women that it’s okay to not have any responsibility for your actions and for boys and men to be women’s pawns. And don’t even get me started on the court system, laws, custody battles..the list goes on where women are spoiled. Who you referenced is a miniscule percentage of the feminist population. It’s not about gender equality, its about gender domination. And if you’re not okay with that, I encourage you to stand up for the feminism you want to be part of. Because right now, it is portrayed by the femnazi unrealistic, man hating individual and this is a correct way to view it. Do something to change it, if that upsets you.

          • Darknut

            No they did not pass a law that says that. Show me that law.

            You can’t.

            This is why feminists do shape policies because all you have is straw man Bullshit you heard somewhere.

            Feminists DID get the legal definition of rape changed so men could be included as victims. And they fought to get women access to front line combat… And single fathers now have the same tax breaks single moms had thanks to feminists, which is more than any MRA has accomplished for men.

            But there’s no fucking feminist law that says any drunk sex is rape.

          • Jamie Brahm

            How can you ‘treat men equally’ if you expect them to do a bunch of stuff that you don’t want to do (fight in the military, design tech, pick up rubbish, build buildings) or can’t? I mean if men are treated equally as women, then they don’t have to do that stuff anymore, just like you don’t. And you have to do it for them (Because thats how they treat you). If men and women were treated equally, then you would woo a man, give him gifts, open his door, fight in his army, carry his luggage, offer him your jacket, go out and be the breadwinner etc. If you do ALL of that, your treating him equally. Otherwise there’s a high probability your just taking him for granted, and expecting the same praise and reward for things he’d happily do – wash the dishes, vacuum the carpet, look after the kids, have sex as things you’d really rather not do, like be conscripted into the army. Generally men and women, and men and women in society have an uneven deal. Men give more, women have less accountability. The thing is, things are never equal. there is really no such thing as equality. There are always skills, powers, opportunities different between every individual. Women are better at some things, and men better at some things, on average. But the thing the men are doing, pays the majority of taxes, and props up our economy. It’s not an optional role. It’s a vital component of civilization. There needs to be someone in that role, just as we need to have mothers, or stay at home dads. Nobody is entitled to having men do those things, protect you, or any of the things men do. Those are ours to give, and this society doesn’t see them as worth shit, despite the fact, that in fact our contribution is part of the very heart of our society.

          • Rebecca Chance

            I’m actually pretty tired of the whole “men should act like this,” and “women should act like that,” and “men are like this” and “women are like that” bullshit. Even when comics perform a “Men, amirite?” or “Women always be nagging,” set of jokes, I find it incredibly boring. Chivalry like carrying jackets and luggage and opening doors is boring, too. I’m all for basic decency and politeness to our fellow human beings. If someone is struggling with something, help them, if you’re able to, regardless of what gender you perceive them to be. I don’t think anyone deserves “credit” for splitting their household chores. Be willing to fight in the military? Sure, if that’s your thing. That’s how our volunteer military system works right now, people enter into that field because they want to. Men aren’t being drafted. If there were a draft (and I find this highly unlikely) do I think men and women should both be registered? Yeah, sure. There are a ton of jobs in the military that can be done equally as well by any gender.

          • Darknut

            What feminists dont want women to fight in the military or do tech design? Tons of women do that and want to do that. Who are you talking about?

          • Keith Emery

            “Okay, derailing from the original topic. I’ve worked with autistic adults most of my life.”

            I am an autistic adult, so… more qualified at the moment.

            “I still don’t see how feminism was the spark that ignited his murders
            unless you are saying that those women should have fucked him to prevent
            this? And feminism is the reason they didn’t?”

            I am saying that feminist ideology has demonized SEX.
            Feminist ideology has made a needlessly complex ritual, even worse. Almost imposible if you are a man; beyond that if you are a man with aspergers syndrome.

            There is an entire facet of feminism desperatley trying to bail the lifeboat that is called sex positive feminism.
            In direct realisation of what feminism has done to sex in general, we have this new version of feminism. That will totally fix feminism. As long as we dont say the problem was feminism.

      • Vanessa Ray

        You’re in denial. MRA leaders like Forney, Elam, Roosh, Heartiste, Dalrock, etc are the ones who shaped Eliot’s world view. Parts of his manifesto sounded exactly like a Return of Kings post. The scary part … this is going to happen again. You guys are a breeding ground for angry men who feel they’re owed women.

        • christiania

          Except that RoK isn’t an MRA site. Roosh isn’t an MRA leader.

          Are you telling me that Rodger’s views were shaped by a movement that advocates against the sentencing gap, the lack of the right to bodily integrity for men (circumcision), biased family courts and the very high male rate of suicide that skyrockets during divorce? Is there a single peep of this in his manifesto? No, there wasn’t, and this is exactly why we did not shape his views. Maybe the PUAs did (whom, by the way, are completely different to MRAs, and the two groups dislike each other), I don’t know. What’s clear is that MRAs didn’t.

          You’re not just in denial – you are willfully ignorant and spouting BS against a movement you know nothing about because those who share your worldview think that it’s a fashionable thing to do these days. You probably sate your thirst for information about the MRM by using biased and outright propagandist secondary sources found on these sites which already agree with your ideology. Have you ever bothered looking at the primary source? Before saying Rodger’s killing spree was enabled by the MRM, have you ever verified yourself by checking the list of his Youtube subscriptions and forums he frequented to see if this was indeed exact? I don’t think you did.

          I’m sure there are some MRAs who hate women, just as I’m sure there are some feminists who hate men. Wouldn’t you agree that these people are the very bottom of the barrel of any group? Would you accept being defined by them by proxy? If you want to argue rationally against a movement, you must not take into account the loonies that compose a minority of the movement, but look at its true positions and issues. It is as fair to judge MRM by using Rodger (who wasn’t even an MRA) as it is fair to judge feminism by using Solanas, Dworkin or Femitheist Divine (who do not even have this alibi) or any other number of loony radfems on the Internet who don’t want kids simply because that baby might be a man and he will surely grow up to be a rapist. However, these three people and hardcore radfems are statistical outliers – I personally know better than to define a movement based on their behaviour. Elliot Rodger isn’t a statistical outlier; he’s not even a fucking statistic because he never was himself and never was influenced by the MRM!

          It would be very easy to depict feminism as a bunch of sexually frustrated, psychotic and irrational butch half-lesbians if I were to only use the SCUM manifesto as a basis for my argument. For good measure, I could also use the “works” of Andrea Dworkin or the “videos” of Femitheist Divine. Feminists would be quick to jump on me and proclaim that “we are not all like that” and that the only reason I’m saying such a thing is because I’m a misogynist myself.

          Then why is it fair game to paint the MRM as, just like the author of this bit of two-bit, hack journalism did, as “lonely men from the dark corners of the Internet”? Or, as is often heard, “bitter men who can’t get laid and live in their mother’s basement, sporting a fedora and a neckbeard”? That’s okay, but the opposite isn’t? See, you’re even doing it yourself : we’re “angry men who feel they’re owed women”. What if I said “you’re angry women with penis envy”? Those two statements are the same thing on the deeper level : a gross, unfair, intellectually disgusting generalization. The difference between you and me is that I know my version to be false.

          The MRM focuses on issues that affect men. The single fucking reason why a lot of MRAs talk about feminism is that it monopolizes the gender discourse, claiming that it is a movement for equality yet never doing a single goddamn thing to advance men’s issues like a true movement for equality should, instead demonizing us all as potential rapists by using academically dishonest hypotheses at best and using these to get unfair advantages over men. Examples of both follow :

          Why is it okay to advocate that “men need to be taught not to rape women” like it is a natural instinct for us to do so, receiving almost no criticism for that very offensive position, while people claiming just as fallaciously that “women need to be taught not to dress like sluts” receive barrages of indignation? Don’t you think that it is funny that a Canadian poster campaign claiming the former was _satirized_ by MRAs with the latter, causing a literal swarm of ultra-PC police members to open the misogynist floodgates, defending the former campaign and blasting the latter when the concept, the underlying message, is really no different? The point the participating MRAs were trying to prove that day was vastly proven : it’s okay to claim all males are rapists or rape enablers and need to be taught otherwise, but it isn’t okay to claim all females are out looking to get raped and deserve it when it happens. However, as I’ve said, these claims aren’t all that different, once you go beyond the surface.

          Or why is it okay that feminists who receive death threats are taken so seriously (they should, BTW), but an MRA organization putting together a convention to discuss men’s issues like those I have listed earlier in the second paragraph also received death threats which were ignored, misinterpreted or even excused by other hack journalists like the author? Is it that feminists are incapable of making death threats, that feminists are too good for this but MRAs are just the type?

          Why is it okay that feminists can campaign for closing women’s prisons entirely when a sentencing gap already exists in women’s favour, or can campaign for a process to investigate rape on campus while stripping the accused of the most fundamental legal right, that of due process? Why can feminists claim incorrectly that in cases of domestic abuses, women are the victims and men the aggressors, despite numerous studies showing that the reality is much more muddled (anywhere from 40/60 to 60/40 W/M victims)? Why is it okay to have laws that forcibly remove even a male victim of domestic abuse from his home to be sent to jail based solely on his gender? Why can feminists even fucking claim that an underage _boy_ statutorily raped by a female adult somehow deserved it, was looking for it, or even worse, actually somehow was the aggressor and the woman, the victim? Sure sounds like victim blaming to me! Is this fighting for equality? Sounds like a combination of a perpetual victim complex and (in the case of the prisons) simply seeking an undue advantage over male criminals.

          If you’d like links to any of the above, reply and I will oblige – my post is already too long for something that probably won’t be read.

          MRAs aren’t out to get women and the vast majority of MRAs don’t hate women. However, most of us _do_ dislike feminism because of the above and so much more. The truth is that criticizing feminism is nowhere near the same as criticizing or hating women. Feminism is an ideology and like any ideology, it can be scrutinized and criticized. Feminists evidently aren’t enjoying our criticism of their ideology – isn’t it normal to be even more pissed off when criticism becomes slander and propaganda once applied to us? Don’t you think it weird that while MRAs try to debunk such things as the patriarchy, the rape culture, the “women are almost always victims of domestic abuse” thing and other feminist theories, almost no one tries to debunk MRA theories such as the sentencing gap or the harm done by male circumcision and why it should be banned just like FGM? Why do people have to rely instead on dirty propagandist tricks like falsely claiming Elliot Rodger was one of us or influenced by us when evidence points to the contrary or simply shooting a bunch of ad homs our way and calling it a day? Who’s wrong and who’s right should be obvious.

          There is a personal law I abide by : any theory, movement or advocacy that believes itself to be both true and correct and has to resort to lies, slander or misdirection to achieve their goal is neither true nor correct. A theory or movement that is right doesn’t need to lie about other movements or slander them, nor does it need to rely on false or misleading statistics or simply untrue gross generalizations like “rape culture” to get its point across because it should be apparent that the theory or movement is right once examined with a critical, objective eye. That feminism needs to rely on all of the above instead of debunking what we base our actual issues on shows me that its objective is neither true or correct. It may have been true and correct at one point in time; however, I think that modern feminism’s goals are not because they go beyond gender equality and in the territory of bias in favour of one gender to the detriment or another (again, prisons). In other words, today’s feminism is going on a slippery slope that is far from its original intent.

          All MRAs do is advocate for men’s issues. In many ways, it’s simply men’s feminism – hominism, if you will. We are attacked relentlessly because we dare to propose an alternative to a feminism that co-opts on paper the issues of both genders while favouring those of one over the other. In other words, we simply wish to fight for ourselves and our own problems. We do not want rape to be an acceptable practice in society, we do not want to have an inalienable claim on a woman’s body, we do not want to be able to force her to have an abortion against her will and we surely do not wish to murder women because they are women. We want to ban male circumcision. We want men and women to be awarded the same sentence for the same crime. We want men to be able to have equal, shared custody of their children with their mother. We want programs to alleviate the rates of male homelessness and male suicide.

          What is so wrong with these things that we have to be demonized and dragged through the mud? You tell me.

          PS : I apologize for any bad English in there. French is my native language.

        • Mr. E

          So then, what was Valerie Solanis’ (SCUM Manifesto) excuse when she shot Andy Warhol?

          Misandrist Much??

          • Darknut

            That’s 1 crazy person who shot one guy. The number one killer of pregnant women is men, and I can name half a dozen anti feminist mass shooters. “But but this one time…..”

            Straw grasping much?

          • karen straughan

            Ti-Grace Atkinson and Florynce Kennedy (two prominent feminists of the day) praised her as a champion and spokesperson of women’s rights, and Robin Morgan, who is still a fairly well-known name in feminism, picketed for her release from prison.

            I don’t know that you’d be able to find any MRA praising Elliot Rodger.

          • Darknut

            Valarie Solonas killed zero people and injured one, Elliot Rodger killed six people and injured 14. Do the math.

            Also, Elliot Rodger is only one of many mass shooters with heavy anti-feminist rhetoric.

            And do you have some examples of any feminists “praising” her assault on Andy Warhol?

          • karen straughan

            First thing: Solanas shot two men, not one, then put the gun to another man’s head and pulled the trigger, but the gun jammed.

            Elliot Rodger was not an MRA, nor was he embraced by MRAs, nor is there any evidence he’d ever heard of the MRM. He was, however, subscribed to The Young Turks. A commenter above claims he was inspired by “MRA leaders like Forney, Elam, Roosh, Heartiste, Dalrock”, however, as far as I know, only one of these people is an MRA (Elam). Dalrock may consider himself one, but I’m not sure because he’s not particularly well-read by MRAs. There’s no evidence he knew of these men’s existence.

            Forney, Roosh and Heartiste are pick-up artists. Rodger was subscribed to and participated in a forum called “pua hate” that was devoted to criticizing pick-up artists. Hard to argue that, even if he was aware of these guys, he was inspired by them, since he detested them and what they do, and in fact, seemed to have lived by the opposite philosophy (PUAs are about “negging” and “pump and dump”, while Rodger was about being “the perfect gentleman” to try to get an LTR). The only similarities between them and Rodger is a desire to be successful with women and a disillusionment over the lie that women are all angels. Quite the smoking gun there.

            And in my above comment, I gave you two examples of prominent feminists of that time who praised her actions *after* her attempted murder of Warhol and two other men, and one who is still prominent today, who picketed (with other feminists) for her release from prison.

          • Darknut

            Oh that’s right she grazed the back of an art critic who later needed a band-aid. Gosh. Meanwhile a guy in Canada was gunning people down yelling “You’re all a bunch of feminists…”

            http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/07/world/montreal-gunman-kills-14-women-and-himself.html

            but yeah “radical feminism” is the problem… lol

            No true Scotsman… bla bla bla… OK Eliot Rogers wasn’t an MRA just a regular super entitled misogynist.

          • karen straughan

            Really? You’re going to play the “Mario Amaya was just a big whiny baby,” card? Because Solanas had shitty aim, he couldn’t possibly have been traumatized by the incident, and her actions were not serious?

            And let me guess, if I told Anita Sarkeesian to go get raped, that would be a big fat hairy deal to you, but yeah, being shot at for no other reason than that you’re a man and you’re there, no biggie. No need to feel upset about it either, because women just can’t figure out how these gun thingies work. He probably should have just patted her on the head and called her “muffin”.

            I also fail to see your point. The difference between Solanas and Lepine was not intention or their level of hostility or hate but, apparently, competence. Well, and the feedback they received from the feminist movement and wider society.

            You gonna call Lepine an MRA now? You gonna claim he was inspired by Elam’s writings? Or are you gonna claim Elam was inspired by Lepine?

            Has Elam ever described Lepine as “the first outstanding champion of men’s rights”? Has he ever said anything that would excuse Lepine’s actions?

            Also I fail to see how someone who died a virgin at 22 felt entitled to women. If he felt entitled to women, he’d have died a 22 year old rapist.

            The reality is that you can’t pin a single act of political violence on men’s rights activism. The closest you’ll come is Thomas Ball, whose single act of political violence was against himself.

          • Darknut

            HOLY SH%^! THE KAREN STRAUGHAN! I’m starstruck! But OK…

            ” You’re going to play the “Mario Amaya was just a big whiny baby,” card?

            Come on, how awesome would that be if it were a literal card!

            Aha you weren’t counting on my “Mario Amaya was just a big whiny baby” card! I win!

            –except I didn’t really say that now did I?

            I’m saying there’s a hell of a lot more actual deadly violence from professed anti-feminist than from feminists themselves no matter how you cut the deck or how “radical” you want to claim their movement is.

            “if I told Anita Sarkeesian to go get raped, that would be a big fat hairy deal to you…”

            No if ONE person told her to “get raped” that person would be kind of a classless pos, but not a huge deal, no.

            It’s when tons of people credibly threaten her with her doxxed home address and literally say they ARE GOING TO RAPE HER and murder her family such that she and her family are legitimately afraid as most reasonable people would be, yeah that would be kind of a “big fat hairy deal.” Also it would be a crime.

            http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/criminal-threats.htm

            But Seriously This is your line of reasoning? I just.. I expected more ya know?

            No, I’m not crying… there’s something in my eye… sniffle.. heh..

            Good luck with the whole exploiting misogyny and drumming up outrage thing. It seems to be all the rage here in the US right now. I might have to jump on it.

        • Jamie Brahm

          That’s better than destroying civilisation. Not that feminism isn’t the same for breeding radicals, and being founded on radicalism.

    • http://counterfem2.blogspot.com fidelbogen

      You make it sound like there are different types of feminist that are worth the trouble of sorting out.

      • Jamie Brahm

        There is not. It’s all hate and oppression.

    • Jamie Brahm

      No she opposes feminism because it’s built on oppressive ideas, and because it’s an economic danger to civilization. She isn’t a ‘some feminists aren’t like that’ person. She understands that feminist theory, the core feminist ideas are fundamentalist, authoritarian, and oppressive to men, as well as the cause of the breakdown of the family social contract – which should have been renegotiated, not destroyed. Our economy is only hanging by a thread – and only because of those hard workers that pay so much tax to support those who are drain on the system. But these primary tax payers get nothing but more drain in return, and they are by and large men. They won’t put up with that for long. Plus more broken familes means forever increasing unemployment, criminality, teenager pregnancy. No, feminism is a danger to civilisation. It’s enemy number 1. We cannot support it, or agree with anyone who is part of it. We can only tell them ‘you should really think about being an egalitarian’ to women, and give them some credit for not getting that it’s bigoted, even though that’s a bit like telling someone in the KKK that perhaps they should take up knitting instead.

  • Vanessa Ray

    “The men’s rights movement kind of reminds me of when white people cry reversed racism, or express outrage that there is not a “White History Month.””

    Pretty much!! Perfect example is happening right now. If Mike Brown had been white, the MRA’s would be throwing a fit. Their current silence on the matter is deafening. They are for the power of white men. No different than the KKK or the rest of those bigots.

    • ScribblerG1

      Mike Brown was a thug fleeing one violent felony while in midst of another violent felony. Shooting him, from the evidence on offer in the press (admittedly not a sound source), seems entirely justified based on the law and the way LE is trained to use force.

      You see, after once trying to wrestle the officers gun away from him, to the point of the weapon discharging, Brown once again decided to launch himself at the officer. Brown, 6’4″, 294 lbs, could easily be perceived as a threat to the officers physical safety and life. A single cop is not expected to enter into a fistfight with a marauding monster who has already assaulted him.

      It’s also true that in most jurisdictions, certain violent felons can be shot if fleeing based on the theory that such people have identified themselves as a threat to the safety of other citizens.

      You see, Vanessa, I (and many men) base our views events, politics and the larger world based on pure conjecture and emotion. In any event, we’ll know more soon because the grand jury deliberating this will soon hand down a charge and then much of the evidence will become public one way or the other.

      People who choose reason reduce the Brown shooting to “cop shoots unarmed teen.” Here’s a pic of your poor little Mike Brown that he himself posted on facebook, because I’m a dick.

  • AMRA

    I think you need to educate yourself. Might interest you to know that almost all legal and lethal discrimination in the western world is against men. http://www.realsexism.com

  • Prophet George W Bush PBUH

    “Men’s rights activists are concerned because their gender is losing power and control.”

    That statement says it all. There was no need to have written anything else. It says what your heart feels……hate.

  • metronomic1

    Karen is an inspiration. It is unfortunate that it takes a woman speaking for us for anyone to take men’s gender issues seriously.

    • Mr. E

      And it is very telling.

    • Jamie Brahm

      Here here. She understands more about the former patriarchy and gender than 1 billion feminists.

  • Ibai Canales

    *A movement for women’s rights appears, it automatically garners the support of every major politician in the civilized world.*

    *A men’s rights movement appears. It immediately gets scorned and ridiculed, even outlawed in some places of the civilized world.*

    *The message continues to be: Women don’t have any power, and they never had.*

    • Mr. E

      One of the most insidious aspects of Feminism is its blindness to its own bigotry.

    • ksuek

      I am a woman. Single, straight, with a young daughter. Own my own home, do not receive welfare of any kind (although because I am below US poverty standards, I am forced to enroll on Obamacare yet I refuse to take advantage of these forced “benefits” and instead pay my doctors directly, some how some way for my healthcare…keep your laws off my body). I am ashamed that woemn do not recoginze their strength independant of any prejudice or socially/politically engineered position to the contrary.

      I wanted to travel, but I’m poor…got my CDL and drove an 18 wheeler for 6 years to experience our great country. Comparing what you have against others is a recipe for discontent and self loathing (or outright blame, envy and hatred) , whether it be the neighbor next door, ot the guy in the next cubicle. I’ve been mistreated and my wishes disregarded many times by men on dates. They don’t get a second date. End of it. Do I tolerate abuse? Not for a minute. Men and women alike will reap what they sow. Am I a feminist? If you mean do I and the people who know me consider myself strong, capable, intelligent and worthy, why yes. Do I need government or people I don’t know to validate that or give me a leg up, “you poor dear”, or dictate what I should be outraged about? no. Do I enjoy the guy at the garage airing up my tires for me because he’s a decent man, heck yeah! Hot!! Probably for both of us! And I don’t think for a minute he doesn’t think I’m capable of doing it myself.

      • http://theflounce.com/ Blahblee

        I just want you to know that I appreciate your comment and telling your story, however briefly, because it’s something I can relate to. But sometimes I do meet men that make me feel grateful that feminism exists — men who treat women as a whole as “unable to understand cars” are among some of the most annoying, and they completely disregard that women like you exist. I hope it’s becoming a less prevalent opinion that anyone, of any gender, represents their entire gender, since no one speaks for everyone. I really hope that will be how mainstream society works.

        • ksuek

          I agree, and share that hope. Yet bias is bias. We cannot favor bias when it swings in our favor. And for goodness sakes, no one wins hearts with “equality” demands when the demands themselves are unequally applied. The intention is valid, but the application is biased. Bias is bias. Do not veer off the path for a shortcut that does to others what you would perceive to be injustice if done to you. AND just to say, I couldn’t care less if a man thinks I don’t understand cars. I have nothing to prove. Some men like to feel “needed” in areas where they feel they have knowledge and can help. I don’t perceive it as belittling, even if it actually is meant to be. I continue the conversation if I have something to contribute, mindful that I am NOT tring to “prove” my worth. They may continue to try to have the upper hand, and that, to me, shows more weakness on their part, and I can either 1. Let it go. 2. Point out his flaws and weaknesses 3. Give him the praise, recognition and respect he cleary seeks, and soften the blow to his ego. (Whether or not I would want that type of man as a partner is another matter. And without getting to know someone deeper, it would be unwise to judge.)
          My experience in a HEAVILY male dominated career of TRUCK DRIVING, has shown me that most men appreciate you not blowing their cover. It’s a trust issue. Abusives will not see it that way, but will begin more aggressive abuses. Abusers are abusers, but I have not found that to be the majority. Most are just vulnerable human beings looking for validation and acceptance, just like women.

        • Jamie Brahm

          That’s dumb. Do women assume men know about sewing, or cooking, or interior design? If a man doesn’t know about cars, is he treated well? Store people just guess what people are about based on their experiences. Same with people in life. That’s not gender bias, that’s life. And it works for you, as much as it works against you. Just show them, or state that you do know about cars, and move on. Bet you get twice as much respect, for half as much knowledge. That isn’t fair is it? But you never complained about that. You want equality – what would a man do with this sort of situation?

      • Jamie Brahm

        Do you fight in the army? Done any construction work recently? A true feminist would own her shit. men do stuff women need. And they really get nothing for it. And that’s what they don’t do feminists – own their shit. Which is why we live in the age of the broken family. Not a replacement societal structure, but the worn out hollow of the frame of the blown out building of a social structure.

        • ksuek

          I don’t get how your point applies to me. I am not a feminist, but I did want to travel, so I went to truck driving school, and eventually bought my own truck and traveled for many years delivering freight over the 48 states.

          I don’t know what I said that contradicts your statement. I am a single mom, true, but I don’t blame anyone or depend on anyone. I’m independent, but not a “feminist” in that I don’t have anything to prove to be valued, or considered “equal”.

          I respect the differences between men and women, and their contributions, whatever they may be, even different contributions are equal in value.

          I think that just makes me a free-thinking reasonable woman.

          • Adrian M. Kleinbergen

            Jamie is afraid of women like you. You’re too independent.

        • Darknut

          Who made the rule that women couldn’t be in front line combat? Feminists? LOL. Well thanks to Feminists they now CAN.

          What feminist writings are forbidding women from working in construction? Which feminists wrote the male only selective service act? Women couldn’t even vote when that was passed so it’s hard to blame feminists.

    • ksuek

      I agree!

    • Randall Nelson

      Which is odd considering men were slaves ( involuntary servitude is slavery as far as I’m concerned) up until the 70’s and still have to sign up for that system. I just fail to see any woman’s rights violations as bad as that. Many places around the world still does this.

      • Ibai Canales

        Because men are expendable. The same rules applied to women would be unthinkable, because they’re valuable.

      • Jamie Brahm

        it’s bound to be exactly important as how many women are in movies in certain roles. lol.

  • Greg

    You can’t define a movement by the way it defines itself. If you do that with Feminism, then Karen Straughan is a Feminist!

  • Frank Furter

    Well not really much to say to this. It was dishonest from the outset and you know it was simply a dishonest hit piece devoid of any intellectual merit and biased.

    You kind of proved this by saying that Feminism is “Because true feminism—like every other movement promoting equality—is not about denying men equal rights”

    But hey I will give you 60 years. Now there are PLENTY of areas in society that women are favourably treated over men. IF Feminism is about “gender equality” I want you to list there areas that Feminism has demonstrably benefitted men by design. You have 60 years. To work with. Next show me a list of all the rights that men have that women don’t….because we understand that the fight for equality is ongoing.

    • Jamie Brahm

      That’s such a lol statement isn’t it? Feminism has never achieved anything for male equality. To claim it is about equality, when all the movement has even done is improve the lot of women, is pretty dishonest. I mean, how can you even compare, being drafted, or serving more time in jail with like, too many slutty chicks in movies? lol. What is feminisms biggest real concern even these days? Rapey men? Well maybe you should stop 60 odd percent of women who accuse falsely accusing men of rape? That might make us take you more seriously on that issue. I mean we can hardly take the talk of ‘rape culture’ too seriously, when apparently most of it is made up and oppressive to men!

      • Adrian M. Kleinbergen

        Those true colours of yours are showing proudly…

  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClfqxOGWFlOMQWpIhbhzL2w Bane666Au

    You lose all journalistic credibility in the first paragraph when you falsely associate the men’s rights movement with the pick up artists (2 totally different groups with totally different goals and methods, and that don’t even like each other), and then go on to falsely associate the MRM with elliot rodger, who had nothing to do with any men’s rights group, webpage, or youtube channel (despite what some “journalists” have reported), but by all means prove me wrong, name one, just one, MRM website, group, or youtube channel he was associated with.
    Just one will do.

    But of course you can’t, because you are not interested in the truth, or facts, or a silly little thing called journalistic integrity (admittedly hard to find anywhere these days), oh no, repeating ideological propaganda is much easier isn’t it?

    • Mr. E

      Smearing and slander is a heck of a lot easier than actually investigating something objectively and reporting the results.

    • Jamie Brahm

      Unfortunately they are associated. But so are radfems and feminism, or the men boy love group and gay rights. Radicalism in human rights movements is normal. It’s just worth keeping in mind, most of us don’t follow that kind of crap.

  • Gary O. D.

    some balance

  • Elvick

    God forbid Karen cite historical facts when presenting the idea that women have power… which they do and have for a long time. She actually puts effort into her arguments. Rather than the “effort” it takes to lie.

    If you’re going to say women have always been ‘powerless’ which feminism is all about, then you have to show that. Karen paints reality. Some situations women got the short end, but they still held plenty of VALUE to society. Where as men, never have. And still don’t. We probably have less value now than we’ve ever had historically.

    The fact that our issues are tossed out of the realm of “what matters” because we are basically “white people complaining about ‘reverse’ racism!” is only evidence of how women DO have power. They have been able to completely control the discussion and make it all about them. Whether it’s valid or not (wage gap myth). The way we are unfairly treated doesn’t matter at all. It’s okay to not have equality if you’re a man. Because women matter more. How is that not power? How is it not discrimination?

    The fantasy of feminism being about equality needs to end. It’s not. Not at all. Feminists running Erin PIzzey out of her home and out of the country because she dared to acknowledge that domestic violence wasn’t a gendered issue is evidence of this. Erin dared to see the truth, despite her having opened the first women’s shelter. They demonized her, killed her dog and threaten her and her families’ lives. Feminism is and always has been a thug organization.

    Even if we all admitted to it being about equality, which it isn’t, we can retire it because it would be redundant. We have other terms for equality already.

    By the way, racism is racism. People citing “reverse” racism are misguided in calling it ‘reverse racism’. Otherwise yes, racism DOES affect white people as well. To deny this is to prove your own ignorance and bias.

  • daniel

    having suffered physical and sexual abuse from women all my life . . . I am happy to see women like Karen standing up for equality. Thank you so much Karen.

  • Pablo García-Campo

    Feminism is sexism.
    Egalitarism is the way.

    In Chile a study recently appeared and says men are bigger victims of domestic abuse than women (and we have less rights on our children, Patriarchy? yeeeeah sure).

    Domestic abuse is a humanity issue. We must be against human problems.
    Egalitarism (or humanism) is the way we are in 2014 for god’s sake!

    • Ben

      The Humanist or Egalitarian movements are largely ignored, rather people focus on the one-sided focused on one specific group moments like feminism and MRAs. It is easy for people to see all problems as being from a singular cause, it is much harder to see the world for the faceted, grays and multiple interactions that it is.

      • Mr. E

        Yes, Ben, you are right on the mark. It is a shame that Feminism is such a lop-sided construct because the idea of tru and actual gender equality is a noble and laudable goal.

      • Randall Nelson

        Yea, but at least MRA’s don’t pretend otherwise. Often they are careful enough to explain the opposing (feminist) view point, and why it’s important. Even if they disagree.

        • Darknut

          By “explain” you mean mischaracterize and straw man to the point of insanity.

          Never seen an,MRA “explain” a feminist viewpoint correctly. Instead they “oppose” some non existent made up cartoon version of feminism derived from quote mining and various applied logical fallacies.

    • Darknut

      Sexism is sexism.

      Egalitarianism assumes a level playing field.
      Feminism doesn’t make that false assumption.

      Say 2 guys are in a foot race and one is wearing shackles, the free guy is on the 50th yard, but shackle guy is on yard 5. Then the shackles are removed.

      Egalitarian would say hey it’s a fair race now. The shackles are gone so it’s all fair now! continue the race!

      …but there’s still a gap caused by the now removed shackles! Shouldn’t we …

      “No! I’m egalitarian so they should be treated equally! Aren’t you about equality?”

      Yes, but

      “Silence besides the gap is a myth!”

      Lol

  • Lecram Hernández

    feminism is an outdated movement which has lost its reason to exist, stop shoving it down everyone’s throat please.

  • Mick Price

    Note that you haven’t actually pointed out a single thing she said that was wrong. All you did was claim she was wrong, without any actual evidence. You did try to pretend you have evidence.
    “Is it because the percentage of divorce cases that end up with equal custody granted to both parents has recently doubled?”
    Note that doesn’t affect her point, the fact that something doubled doesn’t mean that it was or is even close to fair.

    “Or is it because, according to Reuters, more than half of divorce lawyers in the country are seeing an increase in mothers paying child support?”
    An increase doesn’t mean that men are getting a fair deal, just a better deal than they used to get.

    ” The conference has not shed light on any grave injustices for men.”
    Hmmm. so when a feminist admitted that there wasn’t a single problem with the agenda, on national TV no less, she was wrong?

  • MGTOW

    I cannot believe that you wrote this. Yes many laws and court decisions
    are more equal today, but there is inequality towards men and you know
    it. The only time a woman has to pay child support or allimony from a
    devorce is when sh makes more money than the man does and saddles him
    with the children. Join custody is more prevalent these days, but when
    the woman gets custody of the children the man still has to pay child
    support even if the woman earns more than he does simply because it is
    considered HIS responsibility. Women have ALWAYS had control over how
    much sex their is in a relationship and how many children SHE wants. I
    think the truth might be somewhere between your agument and Ms.
    Straughan’s.

  • Paul Wray

    Love those first two paras, essentially “I had assumed the MRA movement consisted of mass murderers, mysogynists etc., but then I found there were some women. “

  • Avatar

    She speaks the truth .I have seen many ,many abusive women .

  • Max

    I don’t want to take responsibility for any action another human being has committed.
    Everybody needs to remember that human rights apply to everyone.
    There are evil men and women you are blind if you generalize and project your hatred to one gender.
    Any judgement can be biased just through misinformation. Which seems to be the case in this article and in the speech the article was about.

  • Matt Lyte

    1) The number of commenters who fault Karen because they don’t like her approach to men’s rights, when she CLEARLY states she’s anti-feminist, not an activist for men’s rights, is so revealing.

    2)”The history of human life on this planet has been a men’s rights movement. What do men need so desperately to defend? What basic human rights are being taken away?”
    Pretty much all of them, actually, by an oppressive government that piggy-backs the removal of those rights on supposedly “good” issues like equality and terrorism. The history of human life on Earth has been about the rich oppressing the poor, not men vs. women, and again, the author’s ignorance in this regard is wonderfully revealing as well.

    3)Why do “feminists” seem to believe without fail that they can define both their own cause/beliefs, and their opponents’? Does there come a point where anyone else’s opinions and ideas are heard? Or is silent consent the only option, such as at that conference Karen mentioned?

    • Mr. E

      “The history of human life on Earth has been about the rich oppressing the poor, not men vs. women”

      Bingo. There’s your problem right there. THAT is “The System” that the Feminists keep calling “Patriarchy”.

      • Matt Lyte

        The problem, mr e, is that patriarchy already HAS a meaning. It is a complete misconception to label this system patriarchy.

        • Mr. E

          It only has meaning if you (and the rest of us) *AGREE* it has meaning. Just because some bimbo makes up a word, doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to go along with it. Toss it back.

          • Matt Lyte

            Are you even reading bro? What are you trying to argue?

          • Mr. E

            Sure I’m reading. I completely resent– and categorically reject– the word “Patriarchy”. It is a nonsense, bullshit word made up by man-hating women to disguise their man-hating and make it seem more palatable. What else is there left to argue?

          • Matt Lyte

            Ok, then I think I just misunderstood your initial comment. It sounded like you were trying to validate the feminist claims of patriarchy as the One True Evil. It’s not made up, just redefined.

            If you even just google “patriarchy,” and “matriarchy,” you get resoundingly different definitions. Matriarchy is the traditional definiton, a social structure headed by a woman, and often leadership is passed hereditarily. PATRIARCHY, however, is full-on evil, according to Google’s auto-result for the words. Very Orwellian.

          • Mr. E

            I agree. Patriarchy– Feminism, is all about man-hating, it’s baked in from the very beginning. Right in the declaration of sentiments in fact:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sentiments

            You should read it and see how women accuse men of every base and vile thing which befalls a woman.

    • Jamie Brahm

      Anti-feminist, egalitarian, mens rights activists, these things all have so much overlap as to nearly the same thing. Opposing the oppressive ideas of feminism, it’s many lies, is core to mens rights. BTW, for someone who dismisses history, she sure likes to pull it out as if “you had stuff yesterday, so you cannot have any stuff today’. Or as karen translates ‘get to the back of the line men’.

  • Geppetto

    Pssh…Karen Straughan and her facts. How dare she be so factual!

  • Daniel Baines

    So, about half the divorce lawyers are seeing an increase in mothers paying child support? So, right, about half are seeing a decrease? Whats your point? Karen can give many, many times more examples, especially from the modern day. The thing is, she wants to start by deconstructing feminism from its roots. There is a myth that feminism is about equality, not female dominance. But history says otherwise. Those rotten roots are still in feminism today. I don’t see whats so unsubstantial about Karen’s points. They’re all pretty valid. Isn’t it you who’s cherrypicking? The feminists Karen refers to are the really famous ones. The ones most feminists see as the godmothers of the movement. They were really nasty pieces of work. The fact they got SOME laws changed for the better was coincidence. They didn’t care if new laws made things better… that was just an incidental step on the way to making women SUPERIOR.

    • Jen10

      An important question is, how can mother’s afford to pay child support if there is a very biased pay gap against women? Is it because paying a woman less than a man for the exact same quality and quantity of work has been illegal for about five decades? Is it because the sensationalized pay gap does not exist? Feminists seem ok with making claims that don’t support their previous claims, but to question any of it, is to be labelled a misogynist. Oh, unless you’re a woman like Karen, in which case you are just ignorant.
      Also both the journalist and Louis C.K. need to check their facts considering the latest statistics on the CDC website advises the #1 cause of death for women is heart disease (just like men).
      Somehow I doubt this ‘journalist’ is concerned with facts though.

      • Daniel Baines

        Yeah. I remember the first time I became aware of the pay gap myth. I’d kept hearing about it, but every time I picked up the newspaper to apply for a job, the salary would be listed with the advert. I thought ‘hang on. How does this newspaper advert know if I’m a man or a woman?’ The pay gap is purely the result of women’s own choices.

        • Jen10

          lol that is a very sensible way to draw the conclusion. I’m embarrassed to say that I didn’t come to the conclusion that it was a myth until someone else pointed it out to me. It’s so strange how everyone is so comfortable harping on about this fictional 22% pay gap that ‘proves’ women are undervalued in the work place yet no one mentions that an overwhelming 93% of workplace/work-related deaths were men.

      • Randall Nelson

        There are simply different forces directing both.

        How do they expect women to earn more when feminists without children from men and force them too work longer and harder. What do they want, women to get payed more for less time, less dangerous jobs.

        NOW is responsible for killing shared parenting.

      • Jamie Brahm

        Probably stop believing feminist lies might be a start. There’s no pay gap. But in general -Get a job. Get an education. Get off her arse. Quit complaining like a child, and just do shit, like men expected to, like a freaking adult.

    • Jamie Brahm

      Karen is the reason I understand where feminism came from (essentially anti-authoritarianism, it was never supposed to fix society, only tear stuff down), where patriarchy came from (ie the social contract, and why that is essential for the survival of civilisation), why we are where we are, and what do to about it (man strike eg MGTOW). If we man strike on everything women expect from us, with no return, we are backing out of a contract, they have already left. The vacuum it will leave will threaten to tear apart society, making obviously the need for a solution. That’s the obvious outcome of all the historical analysis – men and women are not supposed to be interchangeable, and even when they are, we still need social contracts. It’s not every man or woman for themselves, we are all in this boat. And until women see their role, their accountability in all of that, to do so as a man would be selfishly sustaining something dangerous to society (far more dangerous than a man strike)

    • Jamie Brahm

      She has dissected this whole issue with cold, logical precision. With no moral or political bias, or agenda. Just splayed it open. No feminist writer, or spokesperson could dream of the intellectual curiousity, and logical talent of Karen. In just years she’s accomplished what feminists never could – an actual understanding of gender issues, from day one, up to now.

  • Jen10

    Women like Karen bring light to issues worth talking about, and even though she can garner a lot of hate for not following the societal narrative, that only women have problems and men’s problems are either non-existent, or their own fault, she does it anyway, and helps women like me realise all the lies that we are forced to believe about our ‘oppression’ in the first world (sorry third world, we’re still oppressed enough to be able to use that word, apparently.)

    Yet women like you, risk nothing, and slander, defame and misrepresent women like Karen, for reasons that I can not even imagine.

    If I ever have a daughter, she will know of brave women like Karen. I will also teach her to avoid toxic women like you, and if she is confronted by writings such as yours, she will know to dig deeper to find her own truth. I watched the presentation you wrote about, and I can say, in good conscience, that you are a dishonest person, who should feel ashamed to call herself a ‘journalist.’

    • Mr. E

      Thank you Jen.

  • Murilo

    I was reading interested, but then i realized you made the same mistake you accuse her. You did not take her seriously at all. You simplified her. And them you try to characterize her personality in a simplistic way. Finally, as allways, you confuse disagreement with misunderstanding when you say she doesn know feminism. This si a sin of bigot people: they always think that dissent from their own views must be based in ignorance, lack of education or information. It is the epitome of self-indulgence: you think you are in-comprehended and that all that takes for someone to support you is to have some intelligence and good sense. In other words, in your perfect world, only dumb people disagrees with you. So, why do you even bother commenting? Your star point is already denying that feminism has a lot of weak spots and fails, both theoretical, ideological and practical. But if you deny to recognize that this is in discussion, you should not discuss this at all.

    • Mr. E

      Time honored Feminist tactics – belittle and demean.

  • piwwo

    You don’t need to go back to victorian centuries and WWI to show how feminists hate men. You just need to look at modern campus laws, that strip civil rights from

    men, because there is a potential that a female student might be raped. Who cover up the “1 in 5 women will be raped” myth that has been debunked hundred times, as it is a number that was taken from a *single* telefon survey where not convicted rape cases were asked but “unwanted approach” and beliefs.

    Or you could look at feminists, that raid men’s rights speeches, pulling the firealarm to cancel it and shout “shut the fuck up” on the streets at questioners.

    Or you could look at feminists, that write a letter to Obama, demanding him not to suport men that lost their jobs, when the government planned to run a support program for those, that lost their jobs in the crisis of 2008 which were 80% held by men.

    Or you could look at feminist con artists, that create videos and campaigns filled with false facts, manipulation and lies to fill their bank account and push their publicity.

    When Karen lists examples from suffragettes it only shows, that feminists always had downsides, even where there clearly been real issues like voting rights or financial freedom women had to fight for.

  • Wedge Masamune

    This article is off. Way off.

  • http://www.mymanandme03.wordpress.com AquariusMoon

    She did not manipulate feminist history. It’s feminist guerillas who manipulate feminist history as an excuse to deny men their rights and shame women who still believe in traditional men’s and women’s roles in a partnership.

    • Darknut

      She makes up feminist history. It’s anti-feminist arangotans who pull “history” out of their asses as an excuse to create fake outrage and convince uninformed men that they’re “oppressed” to take their money.

      Also fuck “traditional men’s and women’s roles.” Who decides those exactly? Her? lol.

  • Matt Brenner

    Lisa, you owe it to yourself to watch the rest of her videos, clearly you don’t understand.

  • Joey-BagaDonuts

    God, did you ever miss the point. One wonders if you did that on purpose.

  • D C

    already on the first paragraph

    “……….I mostly associated with misogynists and lunatics on pathetic internet forums for “pick-up artists” and mass murderers like Elliot Rodger–lonely men in the darker corners of the Internet.”

    ………………….aaaaaand we can all stop reading

  • Senzu

    If the feminists want equality, then why is it they put down every article that brings up any inequality that men face. The feminists movement today do not care about men’s rights, but only women’s. Claiming to care about men’s rights and going against it on every front only shows the lies behind the entire movement. Anything related to men’s rights online brings up more feminism opposition than the men’s issue itself….go google anything and you’ll see feminism show up more….is google broken? No one can talk about men’s rights today without any backlash, this article an example of this just like the millions of others online. The feminist fight for “more than equal rights”, but where are the men to right for our “equal” rights? Men face the worse end of it in the U.S. also, but no one speaks up, there’re no organizations that fights for Men’s rights similar to the feminists organizations who fight for more than equal rights….here’re some examples of what I mean and it’s only a few, I can write a book on this topic if I cared to:

    I’ll post this again to show that society has double standards all around. Men should start fighting for their rights as well, since these double standards seems perfect to all feminists who helped implement them. What equal rights? Men do not have it better or easier. In the U.S. issues for men are just as bad, if anything worse. Here are some double standards that are overlooked and considered normal here.

    The Medical Field in general, statistically they say that men don’t go get check up as much as women, yet no one knows why or claim that they do not. Well ask any male and you’ll find out why. In the U.S. men are left on display for everyone to see, and it’s the norm here. Even in situations where there’s no reason to be exposed, they will if you’re a male. Most of the medical workers are female and they tend to cover up the female body right away. Men they leave naked (completely undressed) even if there’s no need, especially if you’re unconscious when you get to the ER. Most men just follow along because they don’t even know the basic HIPAA laws that hospitals don’t care about this when it comes to male privacy as well. The comparable would be a female exposed with legs wide open spread eagle….that’s the equivalent if you want to compare it to a male being exposed.

    Another one are female sports reporters being able to go into the men’s locker room even while athletes are completely naked. Their reasoning is that they’re being discriminated against due to being female and it’s unfair. The feminists movement fought for this and somehow got it to past legislature. Where are the male activists to fight against this? We have no one fighting for men’s rights, so things like this happens. Again the equivalent of this would be male reporters in the female athletes locker room while they’re spread open for all to see…..that’s the only comparison. See how ridiculous that sounds, that’s because it is, but yet it’s accepted as a norm for men to go through that, but not women. Also male athletes are the pinnacle of male society, not the same for women…..so really the equivalent would be the a male reporter inside the locker room of miss universe or other pageants while they were naked and spread…..think about that. Male reporters are not even allowed in the lockers rooms while the female athlete’s are undressed, let alone legs spread apart…..so why are female reporters allowed in locker rooms while men are naked and on full display? This should be illegal, and if not, then let the men inside when the female athlete’s are naked….then and only then it would be “equal”

    Another one in the U.S. is male circumcision. The main reason given is that left uncircumcised, men are more prone to infections and such, and it’s unclean. We all know that a vagina is a lot more “unclean” than a penis, why are women not subjected to parts being cut off? Another ridiculous feminist idea that everyone just accepted. Less than 5% of the U.S. are of the religions where this practice is a tradition, so why is the circumcision rated around 80%. The ironic part about this is that women are voluntarily cutting their vaginas themselves because when they get older or if it’s to “ugly” they want the option to make it look better. Look up vaginal rejuvenation, or Vaginoplasty and Labiaplasty. So women make this choice by themselves, but they took it away from men, they make that choice for men also. How fucking boldface is that?

    All of this will change in time as later generations would see how backward thinking the people of our time were and they’ll look back in disbelief. An example of that in current day is now we look back at the days when men were only allowed to swim if they were naked or nude while women were fully clothed. Seems unreal but it’s true. Now a man would go against swimming naked, because it’s unheard of today. Isn’t being forced to swim naked in front of the opposite gender backward, wrong an invasion of your human rights? Which one of you all would do that now in front of women who’re fully clothed? So why are men not fighting for their rights in the medical environment or in the locker rooms. Male modesty is out there but the feminists only fight to take it away. They don’t fight for equal rights, they fight for more.

    Time changes everything, and the double standards that we see today will change as well. Later generations will look back and wonder what was wrong with ours. We’ll be labeled as a backward civilization just as how we look back and label past civilizations as such, and they’ll be right to say that.

  • ruthven78

    she was taking a historical look, watch her vlogs and she will show you modern examples

  • John DeAndrade

    I don’t agree with everything Karen writes but I fundamentally respect her. I used to consider myself a male feminist. But I have been through the family law system. It is, if you are lucky, merely filled with incompetent overpaid professionals. In my own case I faced out right corruption and perjury, in the actions of my former wife, and most of the professionals involved in my case. Until you experience consistent systemic dishonesty and corruption it is difficult to believe that this can be true. Please re-read that previous sentence. When I ruminate on the specifics of my own experience it is so extreme that if I had not experienced it myself I would not believe it. The family law system is all about power and money. “The best interests of the child” are clearly subordinated to the financial interests of lawyers, psychologists, evaluators, etc.

    I believe it is important to realize that our society is highly stratified and hierarchal. Most of the time those seeking”equality” for themselves are not genuinely interested in equality but in obtaining higher status within the hierarchy. I’ve seen this in every group that considers itself to be in some measure discriminated against. We all want equality for ourselves. We are less able to grapple with equality for those we experience as “other”. In this particular Karen has a very strong point when she mentions that men’s humanity can be ignored. I believe that “feminists” do themselves an immense disservice because the backlash won’t stop at getting equality for men. I strongly support genuine equality for all human beings. As such, reality, rather than ideology, must be used to navigate these troubled waters.
    I’ve been told repeatedly, and openly, by women, that women are better than men. Because I tend to hold my tongue they do not know that they are speaking to a man who fulfilled the role of “mother” to both my sons, doing the essential bonding and nurturance that has allowed them to grow into happy secure kids. This was universally recognized by teachers and others who were intimately involved with my children. When it came to getting divorced all that I did was denied. I live with knowing that my children are only emotionally intact because of my consistent loving attention to them. To have that then dismissed, and to be presented as entirely different from what had actually occurred, is beyond painful.
    I remember, from a psychology class, an experiment in which they raised kittens in an environment in which all of the structures consisted of vertical/horizontal elements. When those kittens reached adulthood and were presented with an environment in which slanted structures were present they could not perceive them and would walk right into them. For me this is a metaphor for the difficulty that many humans have for perceiving what they claim to desire but are largely unfamiliar with. If you grew up perceiving the world as a place were someone wins and someone loses it can really mess you up when someone genuinely offers you equality. I believe this happens on both sides of the man/woman divide. My ex had admitted to me in writing (I still have the signed letter) that she learned to stay on top at all times in order to be safe. My offer of genuine acceptance of her was perceived as a threat. She literally was unable to safely experience vulnerability and hated me for wanting to be safely intimate. Because of the degree of neglect and abuse she suffered as a child I believe that she was fundamentally emotionally stunted. If you do not receive appropriate attention and care, particularly in infancy, parts of your brain miss the developmental windows of opportunity and “neural pruning” occurs. The brain, failing to get what it needs, more or less gives up and discards potential neural connections. Once lost, those potentials are, for the most part, unable to be recreated. Hence, someone may long for love, and simultaneously be unable to accept love. Someone needed to do the dance of love with them when they were little for them to do the dance later. Both of my sons can do the dance of love. And, I, a man, am the reason why they can.
    My sons both needed speech therapy. Their speech provider, a woman, who knew me for a decade, and who had seen me interact with, and implement her therapeutic advice, with my sons described me, in a written recommendation, as having the highest ability to behave collaboratively. To have someone like myself, who clearly put my own needs and interests second to my wife’s career and my children’s needs, then be actively damaged with malicious intent in the family law system is appalling. My wife told me that she would destroy me in family court. If you attack, with intent to destroy, what can you possibly hope the outcome will be? If you dismiss and discount the honest description of my experience this only reveals a lack of basic human decency. If I had participated in the kind of actions that have been directed at me towards anyone, either male or female, I would experience intense shame. That anyone could possibly justify what happened only reveals a moral void in the center of their being.

  • RevSpinnaker

    Women perpetrate the most child abuse. By a long shot. Child abuse can lead to adult problems including criminal behavior.
    Feminists want to stop “violence against women & girls” and “rape culture.” Perhaps they should start with maternal child abuse.

    • Darknut

      “Women perpetrate the most child abuse. By a long shot.”

      Citation please. Yep. That’s what I thought.

  • http://counterfem2.blogspot.com fidelbogen

    Maybe some day Lisa Divenuta will learn to write an article that does not completely ignore political context and misrepresent the subject. Is that too much to hope for?

    • Lisadivenuta

      Google me

  • James Dewitt

    Whilst louis CK’s bit may be funny, it is wrong.

    The leading cause of death for women is also heart disease

    http://www.cdc.gov/women/lcod/2010/

  • Christopher Horner

    Well isn’t the writer of this a pussy whipped apologist?

  • Robert Orwell

    “A movement that, until recently, I mostly associated with misogynists and lunatics on pathetic internet forums for “pick-up artists” and mass murderers like Elliot Rodger–lonely men in the darker corners of the Internet.” Lisa, you are just another bigoted feminist bitch and I have nothing to say to your twisted mind. I rest my case.

  • Flavinus

    “Because true feminism…” Ah, of course, the no true scotsman HAD to show up in this article.

  • mrmaxpowers1

    “The history of human life on this planet has been a men’s rights movement. ” Yikes. It only seems that way because modern society is patriarchal. Modern societies are inextricably linked with a history, so people assume societies have always been patriarchal (because they are thinking in the context of history). Prehistory was marked by matriarchy and was likely around much longer than the blip in time marked by history.

  • Owen Thomas

    The author is a brainwashed or sociopathic feminist who is utterly against equality, of course she’s going to write an article like this. If she were in favor of equality she’d be asking “where are the shelters for men getting away from abusive relationships?”. Or “how can it be legal for a woman to take all of the marital property, lie her way into a protective order, and leave her husband homeless, when he hasn’t actually done anything wrong?”, or “when was the last time a woman was convicted of perjury for lying about a rape or domestic violence?”. It’s a woman’s world out there, and if you’re a lying fecalith who claims it isn’t, you have already proven yourself too unstable and dishonest to be around me. TYVM.

  • Astriaicow

    “Men have been the dominant sex for centuries when it comes to having rights and power over women.”
    Adults before senior-to-retirement age have been the dominant age group when it comes to having rights and power over minors and seniors, yet we fought very hard for both minors and seniors. So yeah, let’s not talk about adults and the hardships they face. They CLEARLY have it better than minors or seniors right? Gosh adults are privileged!
    “What basic human rights are being taken away?”
    How about the basic rights of due process (innocent before proven guilty in the case of rape accusations)? How about parental rights and the rights to say whether to have a child or not? How about equal rights of jail time for the same crimes? I could go on and on.
    “why their divorce didn’t go as planned, or why they didn’t get that promotion”
    Yeah I know. Because when a woman divorced her husband just to get his money and she knows that the court will always go in her favor (as well as the expensive lawyer fee being paid not by her) is not a serious issue right? Or, when a woman gets promoted even when she’s clearly not as competent or hard-working as a guy, she just got promoted because of her genitals because of affirmative action laws, the guy should just take it right like a gentleman right? What a human being you are!
    “Men’s rights activists are concerned because their gender is losing
    power and control.”
    Don’t think men as a group ever had “control” really. The men who had power did, but then, so did the women who had power. If you want statistics–that more men than women had power–that is a result of the dynamic interactions of both genders and women putting responsibilities upon men as well as men taking on responsibilities in turn.
    “Feminism began because we did not have any.”
    No, feminism began because women want more privileges without responsibilities. For fuck’s sake listen to Karen’s interview with the Young Turk.
    “And today, it is about so much more than a right to vote.”
    Which women didn’t have because they also didn’t want it if that means that they had to take on male responsibilities, such as being drafted into direct combat.
    “It is about
    being able to walk down the street in peace. It is about not having to
    put up with sexual advances from our boss just to keep our job.”
    Clearly selective attention bias–one of the main feminist poisons. Feminists want you to see all the problems that YOU deal with on a daily-basis. The similar or counterpart problems that men deal with? Yeah, don’t talk about that. You should watch Norah Vincent’s testimony on living as a man, and her final conclusions.
    And btw, there are plenty of cases where a female superior flirts with a male subordinate.
    “In some countries, it is still legal for men to beat their wives.”
    I’m pretty sure in those countries it is also legal for men to get a far worse punishment, such as torture (but women do not), as well as still forcefully getting the draft (women don’t) when any fighting breaks out.
    Once again, selective attention-bias. People are terrible to people. In countries where men can beat women, men are also cruel to each other, and powerful women are also cruel to men.
    “Yet men’s rights activists are upset about having to pay alimony?”
    I’m pretty sure if paying alimony falls one-sided on women feminists would blow up about this. In cases such as in a divorce, even when it is the woman’s fault, her husband had to pay alimony (one of my housemates even testified on this–she cheated on her husband, her husband had to pay the lawyer AND alimony for her, not a small sum either mind you). OR, when the woman tricks the man into having a child, he has no say and has to end up paying alimony for a child that he had no say in creating. Once again, why can’t you put yourself in men’s shoes for once and think about the implications of this? Imagine if in the future many babies were created artificially in-vitro or something, and you donated your eggs, and a guy used your eggs and ended up having three children with it. Then he came to you and tells you that you are in fact responsible for paying the alimony for not only him, but these three children that you had no say in coming into existence. You go to court, and the court tend to massively side in the guy’s favor. Would you like that? Would you think it’s fair? And would you not say that that would be a serious problem? but oh yeah demean the dude who had to pay alimony! How condescending are you?
    ““How do women still go out with guys, when you consider that there is no
    greater threat to women than men? Globally and historically, we’re the
    number one cause of injury and mayhem to women.”
    Or maybe, every time a woman does something, it is not considered an injury because women get so many free passes. We really don’t know actually. Statistics on domestic violence at least have shown that it’s equal: women are just as violent as men in committing domestic violence. Just that when it’s women, it’s not taken as seriously.
    A direct evidence of this can be found on youtube where a social experiment was conducted in public place: a woman assaulting a man versus a man assaulting a woman. The former: people laughed and nobody did a damn thing, the latter, that guy was almost beaten by by-standers who rushed on the first sight of this to the woman’s aid–and yes, they BOTH did exactly the same kind of assaulting.
    ““You know what our number one threat is? Heart disease.”
    Really? And is the number one threat to a woman’s life men? Please honey. I’m pretty sure it’s also some kind of health issue.

  • Donny Yao

    You are right on just one thing- the rest of the world is starting to give a shit. That’s why Feminists start seeing the need to present themselves as not men- and boys-hating everytime after they start another smearing campaign that attempt to paint most (if not all) men and boys as potential rapists who are eager to be real rapists.

    You are trying to make your movement perpetually relevant by forcing men and boys to relate to what most of them never can so as to guilt-trip them into do your dirty works. And the rest of the world is starting to notice.

  • Tertia Giffen

    To anybody defending Karen Straughan, I have one piece of advice; do some research into mental illness.

    Karen touts the principle that you should “own your s**t”, right? Great…then she’ll be the first one to turn herself into the police when one of her followers listens to her and at her suggestion, discovers Elam’s article about assaulting any woman you come across and he actually thinks it’s serious. Because people who are mentally ill will not be able to make the distinction between satire and sincere intent, which Elam claims it is, they are vulnerable to things like scams or suggestive messaging. They don’t–do–nuance. This is why Charles Manson is in jail even though he wasn’t present for the murders. Sharon Tate was two weeks away from giving birth and begged them to just let her have her baby. She’d never met them before or even heard of them. But because these people believed so deeply that they needed to rise up against oppression that didn’t even exist, they did whatever they were told no matter how reprehensible it was. They were vulnerable and got targeted by a psychopath who promised them glory. The worst part? Charles Manson is still alive. The same system that people like Karen say is prejudiced against men is the one that could have given him the death penalty or even just refused to protect him in prison so that another inmate could potentially kill him, gave him the right to live out the rest of his natural life. Did Sharon Tate get that chance? Did her baby? If Karen Straughan is so concerned about taking personal responsibility, she should, as she puts it “man up”! Go into the police station, Karen, and say “Hey, that guy who murdered his former co-worker because she reported him for harassment? I just wanted you to know that he listened to my channel every single day. And instead of telling my listeners to never assault anyone, I encouraged them and pointed them towards other people who wrote articles about killing women and didn’t think it would matter that I know nothing about psychology or sociology other than what I read on the internet and then go to http://www.ImRight.com and look up statistics to broadcast to all those men out there who might want to show women a thing or two. And what do you know, somebody listened!”
    If there’s nothing wrong with what Karen is saying, the police will just send her on her way. Women get pretty lax treatment from law enforcement, right? So they’ll just say “Ah, well of course you have the right to consequence free speech! After all, you’re a woman! We just put Manson in prison to throw off the feminists! You have a nice day, now.”
    Anybody who supports her ideology needs serious help. I would love to see her pull off that attitude in Saudi Arabia, and she can take her plebian drones with her. She does NOT represent Canada and I completely denounce her.

    • Lisadivenuta

      Thank you. The internalized misogyny in this thread is disgusting.

  • Tyler McCail

    Haha. Go have a live debate with Karen Straugh. Go. Right now. Challenge her. Please, please, please do. Just make sure I get an invite to watch you get curb-stomped.

    • Lisadivenuta

      Thanks for reading boo

  • Terry Torres

    What the fuck happened in this comment section

  • Randall Nelson

    She uses anecdotal evidence, along with peer reviewed research and facts.

  • Paul

    Great story Lisa. That’s what you article is… A story. You claim to be a freelance writer while your “story” bends right down the feminism line. Karen, by the way is not confused by feminism, nor was she incoherent during her message, it’s just because woman like you and all feminists are terrified that men have a smart, truthful and confronting woman on their side actually talking the truth about the feminism story. That’s all it is. If you hear any statement she makes, it is backed up by real data, what we like to call facts, not like what you and ithe feminists make statements , they are based on “feeling” this or that and quite often actually outright lies.
    Don’t worry, you won’t be losing your position in society because there are far more woman like you willing to write about this then men are. I just think it’s time that some of you actually just admit that you are freakin terrified of this well articulated woman instead of all writing about her for appetantly “no reason”.
    Why did you not comment on any of the other speakers Lisa?
    And if your so confident, why not have a debate with Karen Lisa? I am quite confident she would agree. Would you?…

    • Lisadivenuta

      Let’s do it Karen!

  • Jamie Brahm

    I think it’s you that doesn’t understand feminism. Feminism is about expecting men to do all the things they had as part of the old ‘deal’, while women take not responsibility for themselves within society – and do as they choose, regardless of the outcomes for others. We have now, instead of the nuclear family, the broken family. Instead of families at all, we have men paying more taxes and women taking more benefits. Feminism has never been about accountability within society, and it has never understood why the social contract of marriage under patriarchy even existed. It so poorly comprehends the issues, that it ends up talking about the abstract, rather the real or pragmatic. An equality movement has to be about social accountability. Where if men say do 99% of the fighting in the army, or pay more taxes, then rather than this being regarded as a ‘right of women’ (for men to these things) and a form of oppression (if you can do it, don’t whinge, step up to the plate), that it is regarded as a benefit to women and society. You cannot have equality when your expectations for different groups, is different. Men are cast not as financial workhorses, scientifically intelligent, strategic, physically strong – but as rapists, murderers, child molesters. I fail to see how any of this, has any relation whatsoever to equality. It’s about entitlement and a lack of responsibility to others or society.

  • Jamie Brahm

    Karen’s neat little translation for this sort of thing ‘Get to the back of the line’.

  • Brock

    “How do women still go out with guys, when you consider that there is no greater threat to women than men? Globally and historically, we’re the number one cause of injury and mayhem to women.” by this logic; how do men even speak to each other, when you consider that there is no greater threat to men than other men? Globally and historically, men are the number one cause of injury and death to other men. Men die have died more frequently and more violently than women all throughout history. “There is no point in trying to explain to an MRA that their logic is flawed. They don’t give a shit. Luckily, as Straughan pointed out, the rest of the world does.” Their logic is flawed? “We have come a long way from the suffragettes. And if Straughan and other MRAs want to define feminism by the actions of women who have been dead for over a century, so be it.” The scum manifesto was published in 1967 and #Killallmen was only a few years ago. “Men have been the dominant sex for centuries when it comes to having rights and power over women.” When did dominance become breaking your back in a field for the benefit of others? “The history of human life on this planet has been a men’s rights movement. What do men need so desperately to defend?” What men need so desperately to defend is what we have always defended, EVERYTHING! Our lives. Our sons. Our brothers. We die to protect women. “What basic human rights are being taken away?” The basic rights being taken from men are the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are born, we live, and we die in service to women. “Why would anyone—let alone a woman, but anyone—be upset that men are supporting a campaign against violence?” Maybe it’s because this movement actively ignored that one in one men experience some form of violence in their life. ” Because society still has a long way to go when it comes to taking male victims seriously?” Society does have a long way to go to accept that men can be victims but Feminists aren’t going to succeed at reaching this point when they keep saying “Men have been the dominant sex for centuries when it comes to having rights and power over women. The history of human life on this planet has been a men’s rights movement. What do men need so desperately to defend? What basic human rights are being taken away?” “It’s bizarre that anyone interested in equality would take the stance of, “If I can’t have it my way, no one can.” This does not further male equality, it makes them look stubborn and insane.” This is a giant straw-man that only serves to highlight the fact that you don’t understand the subject matter. “Men’s rights activists are concerned because their gender is losing power and control.” Men are concerned about losing our lives, our liberties, and the happiness that we fight for. “It is about being able to walk down the street in peace.” We are more likely to be mugged than you. “It is about not having to put up with sexual advances from our boss just to keep our job.” this has already been taken care of just go talk to HR, and this affects men too. “In some countries, it is still legal for men to beat their wives.” Yeah and when we decide to fix that it’ll be men going to die for those women. “Yet men’s rights activists are upset about having to pay alimony?” Alimony is a horribly unjust institution that men have a right to be pissed about, and if you really cared about equality you’d understand that. “My goal while watching and analyzing Straughan’s speech was to try and understand the MRA movement from a woman’s perspective.” you failed. “Straughan manipulates feminist history–and global history–throughout her speech.” I think you mean tells the truth about Feminist and global history. “Is it because the percentage of divorce cases that end up with equal custody granted to both parents has recently doubled?” Yeah no thanks to Feminism which actually blocked a highly popular revision to divorce law in Florida because it sought to mend a legal injustice against men. “Many of her examples are anecdotal, dredged up from court rulings that took place centuries ago.” these cases poke a giant hole in the feminist narrative. “She even cited an incident in Ancient Rome, when women protested a law that banned them from wearing multicolored dresses and more than two ounces of gold jewelry in public.” this pokes a hole in the feminist narrative big enough to drive a semi through. “Emmeline Pankhurst were extremists and took part in shaming soldiers who did not enlist, many others did not.” How many? a substantial amount? did you poll them? did the have their own pole? how do you know that the Suffragettes’ pining white feathers on men were a minority? “Emmeline’s daughter, Sylvia Pankhurst, made a name for herself as a suffragette who campaigned wholeheartedly against the draft.” So your evidence that “many others did not” support the white feather movement is one woman? surely there should be other names if they were any sort of definable group.

    • Darknut

      “Globally and historically, we’re the number one cause of injury and mayhem to women.” by this logic bla bla bla…”

      It’s a fact. And yes you’re right Men attack men more than they attack women.

      #killallmen is an ironic joke hash tag, and nobody is considering following the scum manifesto. However MRAs with lots of youtube followers talk about legallizing rape and every couple of years an anti-feminist mass shooter guns down some people, so if you’re going to play guilt by association you’re going to lose.

  • SlyNine

    Go back, listen to Karen closely, and than rethink your opinions.

  • Beth Corver

    there is no greater threat to women than men? Globally and historically, we’re the number one cause of injury and mayhem to women.” He goes on to say about men, “You know what our number one threat is? Heart disease.” There is no point in trying to explain to an MRA that their logic is flawed…

    Leading Causes of Death in Females United States
    1) Heart disease
    2) Cancer
    3) Stroke
    4) Chronic lower respiratory diseases
    5) Alzheimer’s disease
    6) Unintentional injuries
    7) Diabetes
    8) Influenza and pneumonia
    9) Kidney disease
    10) Septicemia

    I’m female, by the way. Go ahead and tell me I’m “not logical.”

    Stop being paranoid.

    • Lisadivenuta

      That was a quote from Louis C.K. He’s male, by the way.

      Thanks for reading!!

    • Darknut

      Louis CK is right. Violence is the MOST common cause of injury of women ages 15-44. Most of that is intimate partner violence so yeah men are a pretty big physical threat. He didn’t say “cause of death in the United States” now did he?

      The number one cause of death of pregnant women is murder at the hands of her partner in the us. Number ONE.

      http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20010320/number-1-cause-of-death-in-pregnant-women-murder

      Heart disease comes in second.

      How worried are you walking home at night that you might be attacked by a gang of women? I’m not too worried about that.

      • Verum Serum

        You reaaaallly should be careful with statistics. As the old quote goes “There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies & statistics”. And by the last one it’s meant statistics that isn’t accompanied by context, which is a problem with most reporting that they don’t report the context of the study where the statistics came from. And that has been a problem since we started using statistics but at least now we have the internet and can help our self to read the studies and see if they were completly upright with it.

        —–

        Just as the studies done during the 90’s of which the link you gave based it on in November 2011, issue of the Obstetrics & Gynecology medical journal did say somthing not as outright but still close. The researchers summed it up: “Pregnancy-associated homicide and suicide each account for more deaths” than obstetric complications “including haemorrhage, obstetric embolism or pre-eclampsia and eclampsia.”

        That’s not quite saying murder is the prime killer of pregnant women. Rather, the study suggests that homicide accounts for more deaths than specific individual complications of pregnancy.

        The study says the researchers determined that there were two suicides and 2.9 homicides among pregnant or postpartum mothers for every 100,000 live births from 2003 through 2007.

        Over the years, the study says, rates of death due to cardiac disease, infection and haemorrhage and other such medical causes have decreased but maternal mortality due to injury has remained constant. “Homicide and suicide are two important and potentially preventable causes of maternal injury,” the study says.

        In an interview, the study’s lead researcher, Christie Palladino, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Georgia Health Sciences University, pointed out that the 2010 study led by Cynthia Berg of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimating that from 1998 through 2005, the U.S. death rate of women from all pregnancy-related complications was 14.5 per 100,000 live births. The study was described in the December 2010 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

        Palladino noted that her study’s figures on slain pregnant and postpartum women were drawn from the National Violent Death Reporting System, a federal database including all records of violent deaths in 16 participating states.

        She noted that compared to the 2.9 homicides of pregnant and postpartum women per 100,000 live births, other research has found that 1.81 pregnant and postpartum women per 100,0000 live births die from haemorrhage, with fewer pregnant women dying from other causes associated with pregnancy, including cardiovascular conditions, thrombotic pulmonary embolisms, hypertensive disorders, infections, cardiomyopathy and amniotic fluid embolisms.

        Then again, Palladino said, her team’s study did not look into all possible causes of death for pregnant women; car wrecks, for example, were not included. By email, Palladino said that “while we can’t say that homicide is THE #1 cause (of) pregnancy-associated mortality, our data when compared to other data on maternal mortality” points to the fact that homicide and suicide are “among the leading causes of pregnancy-associated deaths.”

        Palladino also provided a federal study, published in 2005, concluding that the murder rate for pregnant and postpartum women was 1.7 per 100,000 live births.

        Murder risk factors for mothers, the federal study says, include being younger than 20, being African American and having late or no prenatal care. “Homicide,” the authors wrote in the March 2005 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, “is a leading cause of pregnancy-associated injury deaths.”

        But it’s not the leading cause, according to the 2005 study.

        The study drew on information covering 1991 through 1999 in the nation’s Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, which was established in 1987 to collect data on all reported deaths that occurred during pregnancy or within a year of pregnancy.

        And of all the period’s 7,342 reported deaths of women (some of which occurred more than a year after the woman gave birth), 4,200 were due to medical complications during pregnancy or a year afterward. Nearly 880 of the deaths occurred due to motor vehicle accidents and 617 women were murdered, the study says, and unintentional injuries, suicides and other causes accounted for nearly 500 deaths.

        In this review, then, murder trailed vehicle accidents and medical complications as a cause of death.
        Additional perspective may be in order, the researchers indicated, in that the prevalence of homicides involving pregnant and postpartum women is “similar to national statistics on homicide among all women of reproductive age (regardless of whether they are pregnant or not).”

        In 1999, the study says, homicide was the third-leading cause of injury-related death for all U.S. women (pregnant or not pregnant) of reproductive age, 15 to 44 years of age, after deaths caused by motor vehicle accidents and suicide. For such women in 2008, the latest year of available data, homicide ranked behind motor vehicle accidents, poisonings, malignant tumours, suicides, poisonings and heart disease among causes of death, our check of a CDC database indicates.

        We’re ready to rule.

        The Palladino study, suggesting more pregnant and postpartum women die from murder than any single medical complication, gives Wright’s claim an element of truth. But murder trails medical complications combined as a cause of death and it’s also behind vehicle wrecks. Wright’s statement is Mostly False.

        —–

        As you can read the study isn’t really what it entailed back then nor now. And this is the problem, the context of the studies methodology, people working on it and much more. But people like you just want the tagline because it makes you able to use it as a weapon to prove paranoia.

  • StillLearning

    Lisa, if you don’t know what the men’s movement is about then you’re not paying attention. Try putting your shoe on the other foot, so to speak. There is a war on men and the men are just reacting to that and these men don’t hate women. They’re just tired of being blamed for everything that is wrong in life. I don’t think you have a clear view of what present day feminist are about. Originally it was a movement with a positive goal but over time has been high jacked by extremists. You “really” need to research your subject more. You seem to have a very superficial grasp of what’s happening.

  • Lisadivenuta

    Thanks cuddles

  • Stuart Ayres

    This is a disgustingly mealy mouthed article, intentionally bending the words to make incorrect implications. Fortunately it is so transparently biased that nobody in their right mind would take it seriously. I only managed to read approximately half of the article. It was only after reading this that I am able to understand what a “non fiction creative writer” is. Although I find it hard to believe that there is a masters degree course teaching people how to take non fiction and write about it “creatively” (which I assume means to twist it to your own agenda)

  • Andy Shapiera

    wow! what a load of superficial tripe! Lisa, first and foremost you condemn Straughan for dredging examples “up from court rulings that took place centuries ago” to support her arguments and then later you state “Men have been the dominant sex for centuries when it comes to having rights and power over women.” say what?

    Then you fail to point out that statistically less than 5 per cent of the male population is responsible for ALL the violent crimes against women. That’s a pretty gigantic brush you just smeared across all men when discussing the “biggest threat” against women.

    Finally you state “What do men need so desperately to defend?” The answer is the same as women and that is equal rights. Gender equality is not a Chinese menu – where feminists choose some from column A and some from column B and ignore the fact that there are cases where gender equality cuts the opposite way. Do some (real) research on the Family Court system and I dare you to say that there is not an inherent and systemic bias which has fathers/men swimming against a very strong current.

  • Bea Smith

    Oh she gets a lot worse than this. Now she is saying women really have more power in Islamic countries and the Quran is just giving men the permission to do what women already have the permission to do, beat their spouse. https://youtu.be/gJPdMBDUUIE

    • Rebecca Chance

      Wow. Thanks for the link.

  • Darknut

    The “Factual Feminist” is neither. She’s a right wing shill for the Koch funded Enterprise Institute cashing in on backlash. “As a feminist I think feminism is evil… Oh look another book contract!” Cha ching!

    Pathetic.

  • Boris Epstein

    “Because true feminism—like every other movement promoting equality—is not about denying men equal rights.”

    Sounds like a “no true Scottsman” fallacy.

    This may start becoming somewhat accurate once we see major feminist organizations denouncing people like Andrea Dworkin or Valerie Solanas.

    In addition – I think Karen very reasonably articulates her points, and most if not all of them make perfect sense.

  • Bush

    Yes, the eternal struggle…..logic and Karen on one side and emotion and feminists on the other…..who will win?…..the way things are going all will lose.

  • Mike Jones

    I wish I lived Lisa Divenuta’s fantasy world, where I could just proclaim BS as fact, and ignore sound logic and reason.

    Karen Straughan is consistently objective and profoundly thoughtful in her statements. To single Karen out as a target is prima facie evidence of Lisa’s absurdity. There are MRA/PUA/ABC/assorted-acronym groups/etc worthy of criticism, no doubt, but when you target Karen, it only serves to prove Karen speaks the truth, because POS BS-artists like Lisa perceive Karen as a threat.

    And that’s the only thing Lisa perceives correctly… the fact Karen reveals fundamental truths.

    It’s pitiful that feminism is so overzealous, it’s hurting women… and so greedy, it’s deatroying families and children. Truly pitiful.

    What constitutes a *win* for feminism? 100% single working mothers on state support? It breaks my heart.

  • Allan Hall

    I stopped reading after you said “true Feminism”. Your argument is moot.

  • Stephen Sharper

    “to walk down the street in peace” that’s what women want? Well the men in the MRA I imagine are concerned with being 7 times more likely to be assaulted by strangers. But go ahead and keep drinking the feminist kool aid. Men are the biggest threat to women? There are no big threats to women. Men experience the VAST majority of violent crime, workplace injury and death. But I guess that’s one thing you have in common with Straun, you don’t give a fuck, only you and feminists don’t give a fuck about numbers

  • ksuek

    Your comprehension skills need some work. What I said was more anti-feminist if anything.

  • Slayer

    shut up, you ignorant piece of crap

  • Slayer

    stfu, you disgusting, ignorant piece of crap.

  • Slayer

    stfu . . . you disgusting, ignorant piece of crap.

  • Slayer

    shut up, you disgusting, ignorant piece of crap.

  • LHathaway

    shut up, you disgusting ignorant feminist pig.

  • Slayer

    go suck Karen Straughan’s cock, she’s been hiding one between her legs just for you

  • LHathaway

    lol, an attempt at a genuine psychoanalytic analysis, on youtube? Probably not, you probably only know a few words and phrases. it’s necessary to know them in order to ‘discredit’ psychoanalysis, eh?

    I’m searching for it, believe me. Karen won’t let me find it. I suppose she has just too many prospects to be interested in me.

  • Slayer

    Awwwww Mr/Ms English Dictionary is talking, well at least you’ve finally found more words than the 7 you’ve been using like a broken record player. Good job, Karen sure is a magnet for imbeciles and rejects.

  • Slayer

    Don’t know where my comment went. What’s the problem, Mr/Ms English Dictionary, you reported it cause I offended you and your holy hideous cow? Get a grip, you’re the one that started your pseudo-offensive BS. Karen’s still a magnet for imbeciles with issues, oozing with her hatred and problems. Thanks for the proof, sweet pie.