Sexist Ugly Is The New Normal: "Why Can't We Hate Men?" She Asks
In an op-ed published in the Washington Post, no less. By Suzanna Danuta Walters -- no surprise: "a professor of sociology and director of the Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University."
Why can't we hate men? Or rather, why shouldn't we?
Short answer: For the same reason we shouldn't hate women or Jews or gays or people from Ethiopia. Because people are individuals -- to be judged, as Martin Luther King dreamed, "for the content of their character."
That's the content of their individual character.
Thinking like that of Walters in this op-ed is just an excuse to get man-hating to "pass."
She of course trots out some stats that don't take into account things I've often emphasized here -- based on actual research: How women tend to favor work-life-balance over career; how women tend to take jobs that are less physically risky; how much of the "wage gap" is really a mothering gap.
Here's the ugly end of Walters' piece -- ugly to both men and women, who are assumed to be such worms that they need men to step down from their jobs so women can make it in the world:
So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don't run for office. Don't be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won't be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.
Yes, in Walters' way of seeing the world, women are powerless victims, less than men, needing men to go all Harrison Bergeron -- to handicap themselves so their lessers can get ahead (as in that Kurt Vonnegut short story).
As I said in my piece at Quillette about why I am not a feminist:
Count me the fuck out.
What I'm ultimately refusing is the victim status Walters sticks women with. More from my piece:
Feminism now regularly calls for women to be treated as eggshells instead of equals. And through this, it does something pernicious to the women it claims to advocate for: Feminism has become a movement for female disempowerment, or what I call "encouraged helplessness" (from psychologist Martin Seligman's "learned helplessness"--the feeling that there's nothing you can do to escape your fate).In fact, feminism, bizarrely, has morphed into paternalism--instructing women that they are fragile, passive, powerless victims who need authority figures to advocate for them.
That's a movement I want no part of. Or, as I like to put it--because I'm neither a feminist nor much of a lady: Count me the fuck out.
I hope you'll join me in that, ladies.
Bigots gotta bigot.
dee nile at June 10, 2018 3:41 AM
By Suzanna Danuta Walters -- no surprise: "a professor of sociology and director of the Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University."
One wonders if she ever spent any of her adult life outside of college. Based on the excerpts (I didn't read Dr. Walters' article), she doesn't sound like it.
But what is she saying here?
Translation: I'll be really mad if you don't let me win.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at June 10, 2018 5:33 AM
This reminds me of something Treebeard once said, I'm on nobody's side because nobody is on my side.
You know what this "hate men" thing does? it teaches men to hate women. And I guarantee you won't like living in a world were men have been deprogrammed from the notion of protect women and children.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 10, 2018 6:01 AM
"....director of the Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies"
Any college class containing the words "women, gender, sexuality" should be subtitled "How to whine and play the victim." They should also take the associated lab class that teaches them job skills such as being able to properly enunciate the following phrases: "Want lids on those cokes?" "Would you like fries with that?" and of course the inevitable "Can I super size that for you?"
Any course that has the word "Studies" in it should be subtitled "How to waste money on over priced, useless college credits."
Jay at June 10, 2018 6:32 AM
Another thing that crossed my mind: It seems like we've been tossing the word "hate" around pretty casually these days. Since when did it become okay to express hatred like that, even in hyperbole?
And don't tell me "it was ever thus." I don't think it was.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at June 10, 2018 6:38 AM
going all Godwin's law on her; but, just substitute the word "Jews" for "men" in her rant and she comes across as a Nazi.
And, yea, it is even low standards for the Washington Post.
charles at June 10, 2018 6:40 AM
@Jay: ... "Want lids on those cokes?" "Would you like fries with that?" and of course the inevitable "Can I super size that for you?"
Aw, c'mon man, fast food's no place for a college grad (if for no other reason than a lot of those places are going to automated kiosks)!
The phrases they should be learning are: "Do you want room for cream?" or "I'm sorry, we're out of soy milk. Hey, I said I was sorry! Please don't throw things at me!"
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at June 10, 2018 6:43 AM
Or at least resent the hell out of them. I suspect that is what some of this "anti-bias" training (based on science that doesn't hold up) does vis-a-vis racism.
Amy Alkon at June 10, 2018 6:45 AM
No.
Power is not a toy, a shiny reward for "correct" thinking. It is a tool, and the powerful man (or woman) takes it and uses it.
It is no one's "time" to reign. The US president does not reign, he (or she) serves. That's why we have elections every few years. That's why our military swears fealty not to president or the country, but to the Constitution.
It's not up to men to "step away," so women can have a shot at the title. It's up to each individual woman to prove to the electorate that she's up to the job. Golda Meir did it. Margaret Thatcher did it. Indira Gandhi did it. Mary Robinson did it. Benazir Bhutto did it - and she did it in one of the most misogynist cultures on earth, twice.
And women have done it in non-democratic societies as well. Victoria, Elizabeth, and Catherine were some of the longest-serving and most respected monarchs in their respective empires. The British still revere Boudica, who led a Welsh rebellion against the Roman Empire in 60AD.
It's not "women" who are failing to win elections. It's the women candidates who toe the modern feminist line - women who stand ready to sacrifice other women's sons to the beast of political correctness and feminist victimology.
"I have already given two cousins to the war and I stand ready to sacrifice my wife's brother." ~ Charles Farrar Browne
Conan the Grammarian at June 10, 2018 7:10 AM
When you make it possible to get free stuff or advantages for being weak and helpless, you get people motivated to (claim to) be weak and helpless. duh
Seriously, women cannot tolerate the most physically demanding jobs --nor can older men. So what? How about some gratitude for those roofers? Those plumbers? There is NO barrier to entry in many of those jobs (in contrast perhaps to union jobs), yet women do not sign up. Are we going to MAKE them be roofers? hahahaha no.
In every situation in which there has been danger in my life (flooding, aggressive homeless people, large animals, barking dogs, snakes, lightening hitting the house) it is expected that any women and children within reach will be protected by me, and I am fine with that. Women like this author either have led a sheltered life or expect the government to be there to protect them.
cc at June 10, 2018 7:57 AM
Whenever I read stat about how "underrepresented" women are at various occupations, boards, CEO's etc. I always wonder, "how many applicants did they get that were women, how many actually wanted the job?" I am guessing not very many. The new push to get women into some of these roles that are traditionally dominated by men, seem to fail to account for the fact that lots of women don't seem to want them. I also think that if women want more out of life, if they want to achieve higher levels in the corporate world, they need to stop having children. Far too often I see women who do not pursue higher education, do not focus on a career track, instead they have kids, take multiple mat leaves (in Canada you get a year with benefits) and do not want to focus on a career. They end up dependent on a man, and then resent it, when they actually set themselves up for it.
Stormy at June 10, 2018 8:04 AM
Short answer: For the same reason we shouldn't hate women or Jews or gays or people from Ethiopia. Because people are individuals -- to be judged, as Martin Luther King dreamed, "for the content of their character."
PBS has these various music shows, usually hosted by a guy named T.J. Lubinsky. One of them features musical acts that were on
the Ed Sullivan Show. I used to watch the Ed Sullivan Show when I was a kid, but never saw Sly & the Family Stone on it, so it was cool to see their appearance on Ed's show on one of these PBS shows. According to the Ed Sullivan Show website, it was December 29th, 1968 and it was their first time on the show.
They sang a couple lines from "Everyday People", and then launched into a kick-ass version of "Dance To The Music." But, before those lines from "Everyday People", Sly had this advice.
JD at June 10, 2018 11:22 AM
So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from,
Well, she's absolutely right that we men have produced "millennia of woe." Just think, for example, of the tremendous slaughter of other human beings -- typically, of course, other men, but also women & children -- done by men in wars and other conflicts throughout history. While we can't say with 100% certainty that the same level of slaughter wouldn't have happened if women had always been in charge of things, I highly doubt it would have been. In fact, I don't think it would have even been close.
On the other hand, men have also produced "millennia of non-woe", a lot of progress that makes our lives today very comfortable (at least for those in developed countries.) If women had always been in charge of things, would we have achieved the same level of progress? Perhaps, but I tend to think not. I think that a parallel world where women had always run things would be a lot less violent (or certainly war-like) but would also be less technologically/scientifically advanced.
Of course, many people -- both men and women -- might feel this would be a worthwhile tradeoff. If you asked a parent: "If you could have your son who was killed in Iraq back, because we never sent troops to Iraq, but that meant no more cell phones, no more internet, and no more ability to fly on a plane, would you choose to do it?", I doubt that many would say "Thanks, but no thanks. Sure it would be nice to have my son back, but I'd much rather have my cell phone and be able to write shit on Twitter."
JD at June 10, 2018 11:51 AM
While we can't say with 100% certainty that the same level of slaughter wouldn't have happened if women had always been in charge of things, I highly doubt it would have been. In fact, I don't think it would have even been close.
Actually some one ran the numbers of the death per capita rate in war time under male and female leaders through out history to prove that point, only to find women caused more death and destruction
lujlp at June 10, 2018 12:15 PM
Less technological? Without a doubt. Grass huts, said Camille Paglia.
More peaceful? No way. History shows that female rulers have been MORE likely to send men to their death in wars than male rulers. Women don't want to reduce violence in men, they want to control violence in, and by, men.
Men have been in charge of the "outside" stuff because we're better at it, and because WOMEN generally want it that way. Women have been content to control the "inside stuff" of society. Indirect power is always preferable, all the influence and resulting benefits, but none of the responsibility if things go bad.
Women are blowing it when they let the rabid feminazis control the discussion, so that their hatred and envy of men, and unbridled lust for power show for all to see. Damn right that men will get jest a lil' testy! And women, not just feminists, will get caught in the inevitable blow-back.
Let's see. "Feminism". Didn't that used to mean "eqality"? Now it means "hatred"and debased submission.
Sunlight is a great sanitiser. Women should remember that "rights", especially without corresponding responsibilities, are fragile things, indeed. What the "patriarchy" has given, it can take away.
Feminists are out to destroy the patriarchy. All I can say is, history teaches that if you shoot at the king, you'd better kill him!
That feminists want to destroy what is otherwise known as "Western Civilization" is possibly problematic, one might think ....
Jay R at June 10, 2018 12:20 PM
Regarding the wage gap, it is true that according to the BLS.gov that when comparing the full time pay of all women to all men women only "earn" about 80%
HOWEVER when you compare the number of HOURS ACTUALLY WORKED we find full time women only work 66% of the time men do
and .8/.66= 1.21
So for the number of ours worked women in fact earn 20% MORE than men
Stop trying to argue the wage gap doesn't exist, use this math to co opt the argument and fore the other side to argue it doesn't exist
-----------------------------------------
Look at it this way, suppose there are only three full time jobs in the world, one woman earning $10, and two men earning $7.
The woman is earning 143% of what the men are, but according to the wage gap she is earning 71% of what the men are because 10/(7+7) = .71
lujlp at June 10, 2018 12:22 PM
You know what this "hate men" thing does? it teaches men to hate women.
Or if they are inclined to be even the least bit thoughtful about it, to hate women who wear the label “feminist”. As a movement, it offers men nothing but harangue, loathing, and a theology with an inescapable original sin — “patriarchy”.
Rob McMillin at June 10, 2018 12:30 PM
Actually some one ran the numbers of the death per capita rate in war time under male and female leaders through out history to prove that point, only to find women caused more death and destruction.
Even if that were true, lujlp -- and you can color me skeptical of some one person "running the numbers" -- it may also be true that men are much more prone to engage in wars in the first place.
If a woman were to slaughter 100 people with a Sig Sauer MCX rifle at a shopping mall in Kansas City tomorrow, that would be the highest mass murder by shooting in U.S. history, but that wouldn't mean that women are just as likely as men to murder people in mass shootings.
JD at June 10, 2018 12:48 PM
That's the content of their individual character.
The individual character of most people who drive trucks and people who drive any vehicle with tinted windows may be stellar. But, in my experience, whenever some is acting like an asshole on the road, it's very common for them to either be driving a truck or driving a vehicle with tinted windows.
So while I don't automatically see a truck or a vehicle with tinted windows and think, "That driver must be an asshole," I do think there is a greater likelihood that the driver is an asshole.
The question is: what comes first, the vehicle or the asshole? Are assholes more drawn to trucks and getting their windows tinted or do trucks and tinted windows give people the license to act like assholes on the road? I suspect the answer is a little of both.
Oh, and also, while with tinted windows, I can never tell the sex of the driver, whenever someone acts like an asshole and I can see who they are, it's almost always a guy. Again, this is my experience. The experience of others may differ.
JD at June 10, 2018 1:09 PM
So, no woman who has ever headed a country or tribe has been responsible for engaging it in a violent conflict?
Excepting, of course, Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, Catherine the Great, Boudica, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Benazir Bhutto, Margaret Thatcher, Theresa May, Angela Merkel, Corazon Aquino, Queen Isabella, Maria Theresa, Queen Mary.... In fact, JD, every woman who has ever run a country has involved it in some kind of violent conflict.
Violent conflicts are inevitable in international politics, even among women rulers - unless you think religious conflicts can be tamed with kind words or a starving people will wait patiently and not swarm over a border to the more prosperous lands beyond.
The only real exceptions to the earlier list may be Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese, both of whom served as president of Ireland, not a country known for its influence or involvement in contentious world affairs.
Kipling warned us that the female of the species is more deadly than the male, and he was right.
Conan the Grammarian at June 10, 2018 2:03 PM
This is what pseudo-intellectual academics do. Having nothing to offer to the free market, they compete instead for attention within their nasty little nut-cult, where they are rewarded for bigoted idiocy like this.
Want this shit to end? Cut off tax money to universities.
John C. Randolph at June 10, 2018 2:43 PM
I take this to mean that the Feminists have given up.
Now they're just hoping that men will take pity on them.
what the? at June 10, 2018 5:15 PM
"Even if that were true, lujlp -- and you can color me skeptical of some one person "running the numbers""
Actually look into it JD instead of making unfounded assumptions. The reality you will find is you are wrong.
Ben at June 10, 2018 6:15 PM
"I'll be really mad if you don't let me win."
And I often wonder: given those terms, why do they think I would be interested? As a thought experiment, let's say that I actually do all of the things that a radical feminist says I should do. What do I get out of the deal? Do I get to fuck her? No. Will she make me a sammich? No. More to the point: Will she think better of me? No. Will she view me as an individual rather than a cipher in a group? No. Is there any possibility that the relationship between her and me will be in any way better? No. Will I learn anything from interacting with her? Nothing other than not to waste time time interacting with narcissists, which I already know.
So I ask: what's my motivation? Fear of shaming? I am way past the point where woman in general can make me feel shame just because they are a woman and I'm a man. Strangely enough, feminism (a previous version) taught me that, and not in an ironic sense. If I feel a sense of guilt or shame, it is likely because I violated my own sense of ethics. Which does not include sucking up to radical feminists.
Cousin Dave at June 10, 2018 8:07 PM
This is a great example of the P&L genre.
Point and laugh.
Richard Aubrey at June 10, 2018 9:03 PM
Me: While we can't say with 100% certainty that the same level of slaughter wouldn't have happened if women had always been in charge of things, I highly doubt it would have been. In fact, I don't think it would have even been close.
Conan: So, no woman who has ever headed a country or tribe has been responsible for engaging it in a violent conflict?
I said that I highly doubt the same level of slaughter would've happened if women had always been in charge of things, not that I highly doubt any killing would've happened.
Saying that Jeff Green (of the Cleveland Cavaliers) doesn't play at the same level that LeBron James does is not the same as saying that Jeff Green has no talent.
That's a very obvious distinction. You're an intelligent guy, Conan. I'm surprised at you for not understanding that.
JD at June 10, 2018 9:48 PM
Excepting, of course, Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, Catherine the Great, Boudica, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Benazir Bhutto, Margaret Thatcher, Theresa May, Angela Merkel, Corazon Aquino, Queen Isabella, Maria Theresa, Queen Mary.... In fact, JD, every woman who has ever run a country has involved it in some kind of violent conflict.
OK, Conan.
First, elaborate with the nature of the violent conflict each of those women were involved in. Specifically, were they initiating a violent conflict, or were they reacting to violence initiated by a male head of state (like, for example, an invasion and occupation by the male-led Roman Empire?)
Second, how many of those women came from societies which were matriarchies? When I said "if women had always been in charge of things" -- say, in a hypothetical parallel world -- I didn't mean that women were merely heads of state, states which were still dominated by men. I meant women being in charge of things the way men have been in charge of things in countries through history.
JD at June 10, 2018 10:15 PM
Cousin Dave, it's rare that I agree with you or applaud you on something but I will here: to your credit, you used the term "radical feminists", an implicit acknowledgement that there are other kinds of feminists. Most, if not all, other men here seem to view all women who call themselves feminists as marching in radical man-hating lockstep with one another.
As a thought experiment, let's say that I actually do all of the things that a radical feminist says I should do. What do I get out of the deal? Do I get to fuck her? No.
You probably don't want to have a relationship with her but you might have missed out on a great fuck with your hypothetical woman. The absolute best sex I ever had was with a woman who would cheerfully embrace the term "radical feminist" (and "socialist" to boot.) And she was actually kind of a man-hater (due in large part, in my opinion, to having been molested by an older brother when she was young.) But, Good Lord was she ever sexy (and kinky.) And she loved sex. Unfortunately, being in a relationship with her was like trying to ride an enraged bucking bull, so it ended after only a couple months.
JD at June 10, 2018 11:40 PM
JD, you're starting to sound like one of those Dan Brown mother-goddess fabulists proselytizing that if only the world had been run by women, we'd have peace.
Violence is an instrument of statecraft (hat tip to Clausewitz). And, in general, women heads of state will use it just as quickly and as ruthlessly as male heads of state will.
As the need for the monarch to fight at the head of military formations waned, a martial king was no longer necessary and women were able to assume and hold the throne. Like their male counterparts, they sent others to fight, keeping themselves far removed from the battle. It's easy to go to war when someone else does the fighting and dying - whatever your sex.
"if women ran the world, we'd have peace," is a shibboleth. Its only purpose is to assert the superiority of women with little-to-no foundation in fact and without even a whiff of solid evidence.
Ever work for a woman boss, JD. I have, for several. And they're just as susceptible to insecurity, jealousy, ego, and incompetence as male bosses. I've had some great female bosses and some lousy ones; same with male bosses. Gender alone does not determine attitude or competence.
Well, let's see. Protestant Elizabeth I was making war on Catholic Spain, sending pirates and privateers to prey on Spanish ships. Victoria was securing and expanding a global empire. Boudica was, as you point out, responding to an invasion by the Roman Empire - we have very little information on her and cannot state unequivocally that the rebellion was her only war-like activity. Indira Gandhi was a ruthless politician and pushed India toward war with Muslim Pakistan to secure the independence of Hindu East Pakistan (Bangladesh today). Golda Meir ordered the Mossad to hunt down and assassinate suspected operatives of Black September and PFLP who assassinated Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.
I could go on, but separating when the female leaders initiated violence and when they responded to provocations serves no purpose. Women heads of state, throughout history, were actually more likely than their male counterparts to initiate violence (read the linked article in my earlier post). There is no reason to believe that in a matriarchal world, they'd have been less prone to violence.
Conan the Grammarian at June 11, 2018 6:55 AM
"Most, if not all, other men here seem to view all women who call themselves feminists as marching in radical man-hating lockstep with one another."
Well, yeah. There are, and have been, certainly other kinds of feminists. What I think has happened is that the current crop of post-modern radicals, who pretty much are in charge these days, have ruined the brand, so to speak. That's why polls consistently show that most women don't identify as "feminist" any more.
Cousin Dave at June 11, 2018 5:55 PM
When will Feminists apologise to men for enjoying longer life-spans than men? Will they agree to take a suicide pill when they reach an average man's age?
Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray at June 11, 2018 6:28 PM
JD, maybe they would in context of cell phones, but I think if you said "You could get your son who died in Iraq back, but there would have been a fifty percent chance that he wouldn't have made it to his fifth birthday, and your second child wouldn't have been born because you and your husband are RH incompatible", I think the choice might be harder.
I get it - the counterfactual is attractive. But civilization is an incredibly lucky fortunate accident, and so is the medical progress that's been made since the 20s.
Janie4 at June 12, 2018 7:51 AM
I am a woman. I am not a feminist, not a female who wishes she was a male, not even a female that would ever want to be a male though I have always worked as hard as a male. Construction. not holding up a little flag that says Stop or Go on it either.
I am sorry but I just cannot understand how any woman can actually spout all that feminist drivel and actually say she believes it. It is all utter nonsense. It goes against all feminine instincts.
God took a bone from Adam's rib (his side) to create Eve. He did not take a bone from Adams head or his foot. Woman was made to stand beside man, not above him nor under his foot.
choo at June 13, 2018 10:56 PM
I am a woman. I am not a feminist, not a female who wishes she was a male, not even a female that would ever want to be a male though I have always worked as hard as a male. Construction. not holding up a little flag that says Stop or Go on it either.
I am sorry but I just cannot understand how any woman can actually spout all that feminist drivel and actually say she believes it. It is all utter nonsense. It goes against all feminine instincts.
God took a bone from Adam's rib (his side) to create Eve. He did not take a bone from Adams head or his foot. Woman was made to stand beside man, not above him nor under his foot.
choo at June 13, 2018 10:56 PM
Choo, in Hebrew, a similar word for a rib is side. The original Adam might have been androgynous, with Eve then becoming the externalised feminine side of humanity.
Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray at June 14, 2018 6:45 PM
Leave a comment