"I was raised to hate men"

guest121 · 2013-08-01T23:35:48+00:00

This reads like a communist living through Soviet or Chinesse tyranny and coming to the conclusion we just need a gentler form of communism. She needs to be honest with herself and really think through feminism. But she admits she is not even willing to try to remember the past accurately and face it.

elebrin · 2013-08-01T23:54:41+00:00

I'd like to hear from her brother, see what he has to say.

Nomenimion · 2013-08-01T23:00:46+00:00

This is indicative of a pervasive anti-male bias in society, unfortunately.

M4Strings · 2013-08-02T00:40:03+00:00

I feel so sad for what this woman and her brother had to go through as children. I have a hard time believing that people could either be openly hostile or apathetic towards their own children, but there it is, in black and white on my screen. And you hear about stuff like this more and more, and you see it around you and it just doesn't seem real.

Xenoith · 2013-08-02T01:07:28+00:00

I like how she still wants to be a feminist after that.

cutcoguru · 2013-08-02T05:13:37+00:00

Just left the following comment - hopefully it stays there:

First off, coongrats for taking the red pill (well one of them anyway) and breaking free of that psychological matrix.

One thing you will start to realise when you look deep enough down the rabbit hole is that feminism does nothing but further entrench the misogynistic paternalisation of women and that "patriarchal theory" is a prima facie taken to ridiculous extremes that does nothing but entrench chauvinistic status quos. If you are truly interested in egalitarianism, then I would strongly encourage you to research gynocentrism, male disposability (which has turned men into slaves to women), male hyperagency, female infantalisation (which btw manifests itself in a specific form of oppression - paternalism) and female hyperagency.

Herein lies the truth to gender inequality and the key to women being treated like adults with full agency (as opposed to hyperagency) and men being treated like human beings whose lives have intrinsic value that is in no way determined by their utility.

Deport777 · 2013-08-02T06:22:52+00:00

My mom started encouraging me to “find a nice girl to fool around with.” She told me any woman who had sex with men wasn’t a feminist. She told me all heterosexual sex was rape “by definition.” When I asked her if she meant I was a product of rape, she told me I was “letting myself get raped” every time I had sex with my boyfriend.

I couldn't help but laugh and feel outrage at the same time towards such a pathetic post... The outrageous thing is, this isn't even the first time I've head this.

Kalfos · 2013-08-02T04:15:17+00:00

Interesting read. I find it sad how her mother told both of them that they where products of rape and that she wouldn't of had them if she had the chance. That is a disheartening thing to say to any child.

cutcoguru · 2013-08-02T07:20:51+00:00

For the sake of posterity, I figure it's worth mentioning another comment I left there in case it "mysteriously vanishes".

In response to the following:

That seems to be true of fringe groups. I mean, MRAs seem to pop up on a lot of xoJane articles, but I've never seen anyone espouse those views in "real life." It's probably similar with radical feminists.

I replied:

That's more a glaring indictment on society than anything else. Remember the Katherine Kieu Becker incident where her husband asked her for a divorce so she drugged him, tied him up, cut off his penis and then threw it in the garbage disposal? It wasn't just Sharon Osbourne who laughed but the whole of America.

Now let's just flip the genders around here, including with for the sake of accuracy, what was mutilated. Let's suppose it was Katherine Kieu Becker asking her husband for a divorce, only for her to be drugged, tied up, and for the sake of an accurate comparison, her clitoris, her vagina, her inner and outer labia and her urethra were cut out of her and thrown in the garbage disposal. Would anyone dare laugh, much less tolerate the handful of individuals who might?

Heck, the misandry even extends to child abuse. Society goes ape over the notion of an underage girl who has been raped being denied the option of an abortion. Yet on the flip side of things, in several US states, there have been countless cases of boys as young as 12 who have been court ordered to pay child support in situations where they have been raped by a female pedophile who has subsequently gotten pregnant and given birth to a child, as a reult of raping said underage boys.

Yet society couldn't care less and half the people out there view children being scarred for life in that manner as a "rite of passage".

That's ignoring the fact that experts have been telling the world for over 40 years that domestic violence is almost as often inflicted by a woman on a man as by a man on a woman - while the feminist-Duluth Model approach trets those of us who are male DV survivors of female abusers like a pack of urban myths, perpetulal liars and cheap, filthy worthless sluts!

That of course ignores the related issue that when you actually recognise that rape can just as readily involve envelopment as it can penetration and look at studies such as the 2010 NIPSVS (which kept track of men who were "forced to penetrate" as well as women who were "forced to envelop") and countless studies into the experiences of battered men, women are just as likely to rape men as men are to rape women (and yes, I was serially raped by my abusive ex- where even the child abuse I had endured was a weapon of coercion she'd employ). This of course is completely contrary to the feminist notions of "rape culture" which treats all women like blameless victims because they have a uteris between their legs and treats all men as perpetual predators because they have a penis between their legs.

Are you seriously going to tell me that society's (at best) indifference and (at worst) blatantly sexist and chauvinistic rape, DV and pedophile apologetics are even remotely close to egalitarianism?

2013-08-03T01:50:07+00:00

It's OK, I was raised to cherish women and I hate most of them anyway.

Steampunk_Moustache · 2013-08-03T18:23:27+00:00

Once, a boyfriend and I were hungry at my house and I had a panic attack over what it would mean if I fried an egg for him

Jesus christ.

I made my wife some chicken wraps yesterday after she got home from work. Have I been turned into a slave of the feminist matriarchy!?

Oh wait. No.

TheMightyCheng · 2013-08-02T06:25:26+00:00

That's some shitty parenting right there. I particularly feel sorry for the brother. Growing up in a house surrounded by women who despised him must have left him with a few...issues.

nigglereddit · 2013-08-02T08:54:46+00:00

She's crazy but then I would be in her shoes too.

She's also not ready to face what was done to her and what she consequently did to others face on.

Notice her comment about being contacted by one of her past victims. She's not even able to realise that what she did to him was unacceptable and is still transferring responsibility to her mother.

She'll get there in time.

avantvernacular · 2013-08-02T13:13:58+00:00

With 80% of suicides being men and boys, it's a miracle her brother made out out alive.

cutcoguru · 2013-08-02T15:42:46+00:00

Initially I thought she'd broken free from feminism in the article, however judging by her responses in the comments, she's simply exhibiting a milder version of the radical feminism that her mother has clearly embraced for many years.

OneWayTicketToHell · 2013-08-02T16:25:41+00:00

"All heterosexual sex is rape."

What? What is their reasoning behind this?

cutcoguru · 2013-08-03T01:16:35+00:00

EvilPundit, you asked me in the article to elaborate on something, so here's a post I made a while back on here which does just that:

"... there are glaring issues with feminism, not to mention the fact that it is founded on a fallacy - a fallacy which informs all feminist theory and attitudes. This core fallacy is what I will focus on, although I can draw on issues with feminist lies regarding domestic violence, its refusal to condemn and ostracise militant factions in the mainstream and its [often violent, bordering on terrorist] insistence on making domestic violence, rape and child abuse gendered issues despite countless studies and expert testimonies debunking that dogmatic position.

For most MRAs reading this, I'll merely be rehashing what most of us who are forward thinkers regard as a basic understanding of social underpinnings.

The fact is that that fallacy, "patriarchy", is at best a half truth and at worst, a blatant lie.

Certainly women faced a form of oppression throughout history. Specifically what women have faced is paternalism. The key feature of any form of paternalism is that the paternalised group is arbitrarily infantalised.

If you wish to dispute that, then here's some interesting proof for you. On one hand there was a time when women were not allowed bank accounts, yet at the same time, in a life and death situation, it was a case of "women and children to the lifeboats". I'll repeat that first phrase again - "women and children". The fact is that women have always been relegated to the same status as children.

The reason for this is pragmatic reproductive survivalism. Up until the birth of modern medicine, modern science and modern technology resulting from it, many professions were hazardous, life expectancies were low, maternal mortality and child mortality rates were high. In addition basic reproductive rate differences mean that men can reproduce upto 270 times more frequently than women and with significantly less investment in that reproductive process.

Because of all this, a woman's uterus at some point in our ancient history, was deemed to require protection both from external forces and from themselves. Women were relegated to the kitchen and were essentially reduced to the role of human incubators. At this point, most feminists would see no objection to my description to the status of women up until recently in history.

However where Patriarchal theory completely fails, is in its inability to truly comprehend the gender based construction of society.

The fact is that there was only one way that women were able to be paternalised - by those without wombs being dehumanised into a perpetual state of expendable utility. Under such a society men had (and still today for that matter, have) value solely in terms of their ability to provide, ability to protect, and their sexual prowess.

After all with high child mortality rate, the more that the better providers and protectors reproduced, the better outcomes that the next generation would be likely to have.

MRAs refer to this phenomenon, as gynocentrism.

This in turn had a flow on effect, with the most desireable women going to the most desireable men, who to the benefit of those women, or specifically their uteruses, had considerably more power and influence.

This had a flow on effect to the extent that the lest successful providers and protectors were relegated on the scrapheap, or in times of war or during heavy infrastructure building, were nothing more than worthless and expendable fodder while women stayed safely in their dwellings. While the first is obvious to most people but Hillary Clinton who claimed that men aren't the largest casualty of wars, but their wives, sisters, mothers and daughters, the later also has highly telling figures - for example, the 28,000 men who died building the Panama Canal.

This is what MRAs refer to when they use the term hypergamy.

However the nature of this system also meant that a man's power was also the power of the woman who had partnered with him- as the system has always been designed for his power and wealth being accumulated to facilitate her. As such, it meant that not only did men above the station of other men have power over them, but also the women partnered with them.

Which leads me to the phenomenon of proxy violence. The system has always been geared so that if a woman so desires, she merely needs to state convincingly to the man she's with or other men, that a threat is present in the form of another men- be it legitimate or fraudulent and those other men will react violently to the accused man. After all fairy tales teach boys from an early age that "real men" rescue the "damsel in distress".

Yet these aspects of gendered social construction are disregarded by "patriarchal theory". Patriarchal theory ignores subordinate masculinities, at which point you would most likely cite "kyriarchal theory". However kyriarchal theory ignores hegemonic femininities.

At this point you would no doubt respond with "patriarchy hurts men too", yet this stance ignores female proxy violence against men.

There is much more I could go into here - the way male sexuality is used to objectify men as objects of utility and relegates men and boys to a status of "uncovered meat" in sexual matters - which feminists then blame men for, even though it exists to facilitate them (to the point where female-on-male pedophilia is seen as a rite-of-passage by society to the point where if it results in a child, then the child rape victim is court ordered to pay child support). There is the feminist claim of women being reduced to "damn whores and God's police" which ignores the fact that men are the ones being [sexually] policed by those women.

There is the way that feminism doubles down on chauvinistic female infantalisation by blaming the man in any instance of abuse involving a female abuser on the grounds that he has a penis between his legs.

The fact is however that feminism, due to the core fallacy of "patriarchy" and a refusal to acknowledge the full scope of gynocentrism and the indirect power it gives women which is every bit as potentially abusive as the direct power of men, has far more in common with chauvinism than it does with egalitarianism.

To give an analogy, chauvinists and tradcons are akin to an overprotective and controlling parent who insists on treating their 19 year old daughter like a little child, whilst feminists, in their insistence on entrenching female infantalisation, are akin to that 19 year old wanting to be a childish brat who can do whatever she chooses with complete impunity. However unlike egalitarians, neither insists on treating that 19 year old as she really is- a grown woman who should be fully accountable for her own actions.

Before you claim NAFALT, there are three categories of feminist - the first are the militants. They openly seek to carry out the agenda of the likes of Valerie Solanas and Mary Daly- believing that men and boys are Satan incarnate and social problems will only be solved when every single man and boy is either dead or in chains.

Then there is the second category. These feminists are willfully culpable in enabling the militants. While they do not openly espouse the beliefs of militant feminists, they happily condone their actions because those actions allow them to advance their agenda. Such feminists are utterly indifferent to any injustices that are perpetuated in the process.

Then there is the third category of feminists. These are misguided egalitarians who make the mistake of believing that feminism is about equality for women and founded on an egalitarian worldview. Though well intentioned, these feminists give the radicals an ideological shield to operate and the second category of feminists, fraudulent proof to point to with NAFALT claims.

The reality is that every single feminist out there- either willfully or unwittingly, is culpable in the agenda and flow-on effects of militant feminism, as all feminism is founded on the same fallacious social understandings."

cutcoguru · 2013-08-05T13:57:08+00:00

And with almost complete predictability, the comments section has been censored. I had suspected it might happen, so I saved an offline copy of the page, complete with comments, but I last updated it at the 343 comment point so I'm missing 12 comments.

Anyone know how I can host it somewhere as an archived copy as evidence of feminist hypocrisy and insincerity?

aaaaarrrrgggghhhh · 2013-08-02T12:51:24+00:00

I don't get why they spelled "women" as "womyn" can somone explain.

Title	"I was raised to hate men"
Author	EvilPundit
Upvotes	55
Comments	34
Date	August 1, 2013 9:09 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1jiro3/i_was_raised_to_hate_men/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/i-was-raised-to-hate-men.1167409 https://theredarchive.com/post/1167409

Comments