The link can be found here.
“But many scholars have written books for women. And although women play into the role, men are the perpetrators.”
She starts off by broadbrushing all men as perpetrators — which is not uncommon in the feminist movement.
“I wanted to write a book for men, but I knew that if I wrote it the way most other books on the issue are written that no man would want to read it. Most men typically become defensive at best when the subject is brought up.”
It’s not just men. Most women, also, become defensive when they realize they are being falsely accused. And that is what she is doing to men.
“Men don’t want to hear that they are inherently being cruel to an entire sex.”
Men don’t want to hear that they are cruel monsters just for having been born. Imagine that.
“They don’t want to feel as if they have to give when women seem to already be taking too much.”
Men have already been relegated to the status of second-class citizens (at best.) No, I can see why they wouldn’t want to give any more. Does she somehow think that men should be willing slaves?
“They don’t want to lose their power, the power that is so second-hand to them that this entire culture wouldn’t know what to do if that power was suddenly gone.”
The typical man has no power. You can find some elites that have some power. But most men don’t have any. If the typical man had (and used) the kind of power that feminists so falsely claim, feminist books would not find their way to the general public. Feminism thrives precisely because its claimed “patriarchy” is not there to resist it.
I think this blog post is very enlightening on the subject. Oh, not with what the author posts as definitions. Someone actually acting in accordance with her stated definition is indeed acting inappropriately. No, the enlightenment comes from the example she uses.
Now, what we can ascertain from the description she provides is that a feminist made the accusation that when a particular insult is used against men it is somehow meant to dehumanize women. (Yeah, it doesn’t make sense to me either.) At any rate, she leaves the wording of the original accusation. I suspect that is because the response (which she twists to identify as “mansplaining”) uses the wording of the accusation in order to make the defense. Also note that she has to “decode” (read: put words into someone’s mouth) the “mansplaining” in order to create the impression of condescension.
I personally suspect (though can’t be sure because the original wording of the accusation is omitted) that, if the blogger had included both the text of the accusation and the response without editing, interpretation or “decoding” that only the most militant feminists would see anything wrong with the response. Feminists actually use the term “mansplaining” to mean a man explaining something in a way a feminist doesn’t like (often defending against a false accusation made by the feminist.) Feel free to post disagreemen, by the way. I don’t pre-screen my comments. Harassment and advertising can be removed after the fact. Pre-screening is generally done to filter out dissent. And I don’t need to do that.
“However, the term Egalitarian has one big big drawback compared to Feminist… And that is, by the nature of the term Egalitarian, it gives the impression that all peoples – not just men – have to give up something in order to achieve the goal.” Source
And that is actually the way of it. In order to achieve equality, rather than female supremacy, all peoples (not just men) have to give up something. But feminists want women to keep their advantages. They want only men to make sacrifices.
Someone else collected some samples of misandry. I thought I would pass the information along. Now, most feminists won’t openly advocate this (yet.) But they don’t speak against it.
While I like an open forum, and I want to keep this that way for everyone, I do not like spam. Desist with the spam comments. They will be deleted. This is not the place to try to sell anything.
During my searches, I have found that the general public started waking up to the fact that misandry is a very real problem about a year ago. They started. It is by no means complete. Feminists immediately took to damage control and thus the lie that “there is no such thing as misandry” was born. It won’t work. However long it takes, the end of feminism’s great PR is coming. People will come to know it for what it is. I am sure the thought frightens feminists. They were/are getting a government gravy-train ride with the ability to abuse men on top of it. Now they look forward to the prospect of having to pay their own way. They have every reason to want to stall that as long as possible. Well, feminists called the tune and had their little dance. Now the piper needs paying. I’m not paying on their behalf.
Feminists like to claim that there is no such thing as misandry. Of course that has all the truth of a similar claim that there is no such thing as misogyny. Feminists don’t like critical thought. If people look too closely at the movement, they will see that it is misandristic. But if feminists can convince people, in advance, to see nothing as misandristic, they avoid a correct judgement.
Misandry is quite real. How common it is is open to debate. But when society is trained to be blind to it, it becomes very prevalent, very fast. Feminists will say that “it is not a zero-sum game” and that seeking equal rights for women needn’t oppress men. Well, it doesn’t have to work to oppress men. But the methods of feminists are to oppress men. But then, if they weren’t out to oppress men, they would be equalists, not feminists.