Post: #1

- Presented a paper about the inaccuracies of the feminist movement to the American Philosophical Association and was "Excommunicated for a religion she didn't realise existed".

- Highlights the inflated statistics and 'hate speech' against men in various university texts. She summed up what she was reading as "Women are from venus men are from hell".

- Discusses SJW's and university indoctrination with specific reference to the college 'halloween costume' fiasco.

- At the 20 minute mark this is a good laugh regarding feminist 'safe spaces' at university where by woman can go to a private room with [And I quote]: "colouring books and videos of puppies" to help if they have been 'triggered'.

[I've only managed to watch up to the thirty minute mark but it's a good listen].

Post: #2

Listened yesterday. I like her work, and that of Camille Paglia.

Post: #3

That whole puppy dog, colouring book playroom thing.
Geez, those stupid kids have a rather harsh lesson coming their way about the real world.

To be that stupid while 'Rome' burns...
Better lube up girls. The barbarians are hungry for that white meat.

Post: #4

(11-21-2015 01:23 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  That whole puppy dog, colouring book playroom thing.
Geez, those stupid kids have a rather harsh lesson coming their way about the real world.

To be that stupid while 'Rome' burns...
Better lube up girls. The barbarians are hungry for that white meat.

I've seen those girls. The barbarians will be disappointed.

Post: #5

I've really reached the point where I don't want to hear anything any woman has to say about anything related to masculinity or men's issues.

Even if they may be sympathetic or favorable to us, I can't forget the fact that they don't live the experience. They're lace-curtain tourists, and pretenders.

I resent the idea that any of them can, or should, speak for us in any way. Attention-whoring is so deeply ingrained in their DNA that there's no way to separate them from their "messages."


They can applaud us from the sidelines. They can support us when they can. But they can never join us, and they can never speak for us.

Some may call this extreme. Maybe. But that's how I see it.

Post: #6

(11-21-2015 01:38 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I've really reached the point where I don't want to hear anything any woman has to say about anything related to masculinity or men's issues.

Even if they may be sympathetic or favorable to us, I can't forget the fact that they don't live the experience. They're lace-curtain tourists, and pretenders.

I resent the idea that any of them can, or should, speak for us in any way. Attention-whoring is so deeply ingrained in their DNA that there's no way to separate them from their "messages."


They can applaud us from the sidelines. They can support us when they can. But they can never join us, and they can never speak for us.

Some may call this extreme. Maybe. But that's how I see it.

I disagree. Rogan and all the rest of us talking logically about the injustices faced by men are dismissed as "mansplainers."

When a woman with the pedigree of Sommers speaks, people are more likely to be receptive to the message, and she says things the SJW's HATE.

Sommers is a great ally, in my opinion, BECAUSE she is a woman. Dismissing her efforts just because she isn't a man is the epitomy of the reckless "us vs. them" gender war mentality.

Post: #7

(11-21-2015 01:38 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I've really reached the point where I don't want to hear anything any woman has to say about anything related to masculinity or men's issues.
Even if they may be sympathetic or favorable to us, I can't forget the fact that they don't live the experience. They're lace-curtain tourists, and pretenders.
I resent the idea that any of them can, or should, speak for us in any way. Attention-whoring is so deeply ingrained in their DNA that there's no way to separate them from their "messages."
They can applaud us from the sidelines. They can support us when they can. But they can never join us, and they can never speak for us.
Some may call this extreme. Maybe. But that's how I see it.

Yeah, as nice & reasonable as C.Sommers appeared to be.
Her overall pursuit of some grand level of "equality" is a fools errand.

As Vox Day quite cleverly pointed out; if equality was possible. We wouldn't need elections.
You could pick any absolute random person to be president & it wouldn't matter one jot.
Cause we'd all be... "equal"...

Post: #8

Very good. Thanks for posting.

Post: #9

I like her Factual Feminist videos, and she seems like kind of a sweetie too, for the most part. The thing that chaps me about her is why is she still calling herself a feminist?

Why not an equalist or egalitarian or civil rights person? It is so blatantly obvious that modern day SJW insanity is a direct result of a movement called feminism, which started the whole idea of identity politics.

Political activism should base itself on principle. Should people be equal? Yes? Okay, then we fight for whoever is experiencing inequality. If that group gets too much power, then you fight for the next group that needs it.

To call a movement feminism means the victim never changes. And not only that, there is something entirely suspect about about being the part of the group you are fighting for, it is a situation ripe for exploitation. I just want more more more for me me me, but I would never take advantage of the situation.

A child could see the basic flaws in feminism.

The victim can never change, and the person doing all the screaming benefits directly from screaming. Wouldn't being a true activist involve screaming for someone besides yourself every now and then? It is almost like corruption is built into the very concept.

Even Paul Elam figured that out when he stopped calling himself a Men's Rights Activist, and started calling himself a Men's Human Rights Activist.

So if a kid could see it, why can't Sommers?

Post: #10

(11-21-2015 02:08 AM)JayR Wrote:  

(11-21-2015 01:38 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I've really reached the point where I don't want to hear anything any woman has to say about anything related to masculinity or men's issues.

Even if they may be sympathetic or favorable to us, I can't forget the fact that they don't live the experience. They're lace-curtain tourists, and pretenders.

I resent the idea that any of them can, or should, speak for us in any way. Attention-whoring is so deeply ingrained in their DNA that there's no way to separate them from their "messages."


They can applaud us from the sidelines. They can support us when they can. But they can never join us, and they can never speak for us.

Some may call this extreme. Maybe. But that's how I see it.

I disagree. Rogan and all the rest of us talking logically about the injustices faced by men are dismissed as "mansplainers."

When a woman with the pedigree of Sommers speaks, people are more likely to be receptive to the message, and she says things the SJW's HATE.

Sommers is a great ally, in my opinion, BECAUSE she is a woman. Dismissing her efforts just because she isn't a man is the epitomy of the reckless "us vs. them" gender war mentality.

And by buying into the idea that something isn't valid until some female endorses it or espouses it, you're playing into the establishment's narrative. You're buying into their worldview. I reject that. That's the type of boilerplate thinking that led us to where we are now.

Sommers can do whatever she wants, and I have no problem with that. But when women start coming into male spaces to tell us things we already know, or when they try to join men's organizations, then all credibility is lost.

There are more than enough educated, articulate men who can get these same points across.

If men think they need some sort of female "mouthpiece" as a symbol of credibility, then it shows that they have little or no confidence in their own powers.

.

Post: #11

(11-21-2015 09:09 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  And by buying into the idea that something isn't valid until some female endorses it or espouses it, you're playing into the establishment's narrative. You're buying into their worldview. I reject that. That's the type of boilerplate thinking that led us to where we are now.

I agree. My only caveat is that we live in a world dominated by popular opinion. Feminism was never created by women - It was enabled by weak minded men and politicians looking to utilise easy manipulation of minds for short term political gains.

As you've said: Irrespective of her opinion, her thoughts on masculinity are irrelevant. In initiating some degree of change however: They are likely necessary.

Personally: I can't see men initiating change on their own. A significant proportion of men will echo whatever opinion wins favour with women. So when fighting feminism and left wing cultural movements you are opposing not just women, but a majority of men and virtually every mainstream organisation from corporations to television networks.

When you consider that women control 2/3 of consumer spending you can link all the dots as to why the powers that be pedal this 'left wing' feminist ideology.

It will require significant female validation to implement any degree of change UNLESS…

…There is a global collapse [Or war]. At that point, the powers that be, the men driving feminism, will be forced to revert back to the primary drivers of industry.

In other words: It's a case of accepting female validation for the minor change it may implement or saying "fuck it" any small change they implement isn't worth a female providing her irrelevant insight into masculinity.

Post: #12

Brilliant. I didn't realize she was from DC. Maybe I can get her out for a drink and pick her brain.

Post: #13

(11-21-2015 01:38 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I've really reached the point where I don't want to hear anything any woman has to say about anything related to masculinity or men's issues.

Even if they may be sympathetic or favorable to us, I can't forget the fact that they don't live the experience. They're lace-curtain tourists, and pretenders.

I resent the idea that any of them can, or should, speak for us in any way. Attention-whoring is so deeply ingrained in their DNA that there's no way to separate them from their "messages."

They can applaud us from the sidelines. They can support us when they can. But they can never join us, and they can never speak for us.

Some may call this extreme. Maybe. But that's how I see it.

All of which is true. But Christina Hoff Sommers is an exception to this -- perhaps the exception. I've pointed this out before, but I'll repeat my ideas for those who missed them.

Sommers' books "Who Stole Feminism?" (1994) and "The War Against Boys" (2001) were published before there was a manosphere or a strong anti-feminist push.

So it's not like she's bandwagon-jumping or doing this to steal anyone's thunder. She was among the first to define what we discuss here and what what the manosphere became all about. If there is a "Mother of the Manosphere," it's her.

I'm old enough to remember what was happening in '94 and '01. Outside of Rush Limbaugh, few people of note were speaking out against feminism. And fewer still even thought to look into how boys were faring in school. This was an era that was shaped by the book "Reviving Ophelia" (1994), a hugely influential feminist tome which claimed adolescent girls were getting the short shrift in schools. That book still affects educational policy today. She was pretty much the lone dissenting voice to it.

While I'll agree it's a bad idea to let women define men's issues or take the spotlight, the fact is that Sommers was singing this tune while a lot of us were in school or oblivious to these issues. It's also instructive to note that her anti-feminism book came out at the height of Riot Grrrl Clinton-era feminism. She had to deal with the mainstream media without the backup of a forum like this or the many alternative news sites we now rely on to expose mainstream media bias.

And besides all that, I find this woman really hot for her age. She was born in 1950 and has kept the body (and especially the legs) of a twentysomething. If we're gonna criticize older women who let themselves go, we have to give credit here.

Post: #14

(11-22-2015 11:41 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Sommers' books "Who Stole Feminism?" (1994) and "The War Against Boys" (2001) were published before there was a manosphere or a strong anti-feminist push.

So it's not like she's bandwagon-jumping or doing this to steal anyone's thunder. She was among the first to define what we discuss here and what what the manosphere became all about. If there is a "Mother of the Manosphere," it's her.

I'm old enough to remember what was happening in '94 and '01. Outside of Rush Limbaugh, few people of note were speaking out against feminism. And fewer still even thought to look into how boys were faring in school. This was an era that was shaped by the book "Reviving Ophelia" (1994), a hugely influential feminist tome which claimed adolescent girls were getting the short shrift in schools. That book still affects educational policy today. She was pretty much the lone dissenting voice to it.

I read it around 2002-2003, while I was in a university English program that was about 30-40% feminism/neo Marxism/post structuralist BS-touting profs. It was a breath of fresh air at the time--an academic who saw through the BS, and a woman no less. I tried discussing it with my then-GF, a feminist in the same program, and she stonewalled me, shut me down, withheld sex until I dropped it.

Yeah, I agree she was/is a visionary.

Post: #15

WB Mrs. Summers.