HATING MEN IS MAINSTREAM

Here are more examples of the self-indulgence, delusion, hypocrisy, and narcissism of women, and the bias of the media. Many of these examples are also evidence of the normalization of misandry.

A quick update. In "Men Give, Women Take" I noted the hypocrisy of Sweden for making female circumcision illegal while permitting male circumcision. Denmark has just done the same. [1] It strictly forbids female genital mutilation but now says circumcision of boys is a human right under freedom of religion. The mutilation of boys is a human right? The screaming of infant boys tells of the horrific sexist hypocrisy.

Another quick update. Also in "Men Give, Women Take" I noted that of the 15 leading causes of death in the U.S. in 1997, 14 had higher age-adjusted rates for men. A 2013 update finds the same. [2] Even though there have been many changes in the list of top 15 causes of death in the intervening 16 years, men still lead in 14 categories. Again, only Alzheimer's Disease showed a higher rate for women. Sixteen more years of neglecting men's health while focusing on women's health has resulted in the continued early deaths of men. For example, constant focus on breast cancer has resulted in lower death rates [3] while deadly forms of prostate cancer have increased 72% over a recent decade. [4] Here are the age-adjusted rate ratios for men/women for the 15 leading causes of death for 2013. Anything over 1.0 means men die younger and/or at a higher rate than women.

1. Diseases of heart (heart disease) 1.6

2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer) 1.4

3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases 1.2

4. Accidents (unintentional injuries) 2.0

5. Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke) 1.0 (This is rounded. Men had a slightly higher rate of 36.7 versus women's 35.2 for a more precise ratio of 1.043)

6. Alzheimer’s disease 0.7

7. Diabetes mellitus (diabetes) 1.5

8. Influenza and pneumonia 1.3

9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease) 1.4

10. Intentional self-harm (suicide) 3.7

11. Septicemia 1.2

12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 2.0

13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension) 1.1

14. Parkinson’s disease 2.3

15. Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids 1.8

The report also noted that the ratio for all causes of death was 1.4 (863.6/623.5) and that women live 4.8 years longer than men, which has remained steady since 2010. I would think 5 extra years of life would lessen women's need to complain about anything else. I would think. MEN'S LIVES DON'T MATTER.

Another update. In "Truth Needs To Keep Its Pants On" I noted that feminists have unjustly appropriated the word "survivor" to imply that every woman is very near a horrible death every minute of the day. Obviously, the statistics above indicate that men are far closer to death than women are. And the fact that 3 times as many men as women are murdered in the U.S. makes even more puzzling this feminist appropriation of the word only for women. But I recently found this appropriation in writing. Harvard’s Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response gives this definition for the word: "Survivor refers to anyone who has been harmed as a result of gender-based violence and has survived the incident(s)." [5] Well, there you go. The Harvard OSAPR definition of "gender-based violence" pretty much limits "survivor" to only women and people of non-conforming genders who are oppressed by hegemonic masculinity and misogyny. Since women with breast cancer are also considered "survivors," I guess that means that breast cancer is caused by misogyny. But here again, men do not matter. Let's not consider that men drafted and killed in war may be victims of gender-based violence. Or let's not consider it gender-based violence that chivalrous men who would never think of harming women may have no trouble killing men. And let's not consider it gender-based violence when men work themselves into an early grave to provide for their families. Only women can be "survivors." We only care about women.

Another update. In "Feminism Is Authoritarian" I complained of women's vocal frying, where their speech turns into a growl. I had no idea where this came from, but I now think I know. I was watching one of those late night TV commercials for a phone sex hotline. And the pretty, young women in the ad were doing a lot of frying. Ahhhh! How stupid of me! Of course, vocal frying is sexual! This explains why frying is rare in men. Frying is just one more example of women being coy or subliminal about sex, so that they can deny that they are being sexual.

I have seen many articles and segments on vocal frying. None have talked about its sexual purpose. All of these articles and segments on frying have been put out by women and they usually celebrate its use. Theories promoted are that women fry to sound more authoritarian, more empowered, to note their tribe, and to innovate. Of course, these articles also blame people’s hatred of frying on sexism against women---they claim that men fry just as much as women but only women are criticized for it. I don't think any of this is true. I think it is just your standard female chauvinism, protecting women and blaming everything on men. I hate men’s frying just as much as I hate women’s. In my experience, I would guess that 90-95% of frying is done by women. I think much of the assumed frying from men may be due more to their low voices than any actual speech pattern. And I think the frying done by women is intended and purposeful, and that purpose is sexual.

Let me see if I can make a stronger argument that women's frying is sexual. Actresses with deep voices have long been seen as sexual. Marlene Dietrich’s low, gravelly voice was considered to be quite sexual. And current women known for frying are also considered to be quite sexual. Britney Spears, Ke$ha, and Kim Kardashian are all noted for frying a lot, and they may have started the current frying trend. These are very sexy and sexual women. For example, in Britney Spears’ video of her song, “Ooh Ooh Baby,” she frys a lot, and the video is very sexual in both visuals and lyrics. And I would postulate that many women are imitating Spears and Ke$ha and Kardashian in order to be as sexy and sexual as them. It appears that frying is a part of this. I have argued that most all of women’s behavior has a sexual base and purpose since sex is women's power base, and vocal frying seems to be one more example of this.

Another update. In "Super-sensitivity and Male Cows" I complained about Redd's Ale ads only hitting men in the head with apples. After three years of these ads, a recent ad [6] shows women getting hit in the head with apples---sort of. The ad does not actually show the women getting hit. The ad more implies it. The ad shows the apples coming off the women's heads, but does not actually show the contact. Redd's had no trouble showing the actual hit against men's heads and showing the men being knocked to the ground. So odd.

Another update. Also in "Super-sensitivity and Male Cows" I noted that colleges were now 57% female and 43% male. One factor contributing to this gap appears to be the absence of fathers. [7] Also, a recent study explains that a large part of this gap is related to the treatment boys get in pre-school. [8] Boys natural behavior is often seen as bad by pre-school teachers (who are usually female) and the boys are punished, suspended, and expelled as a result. The study found that even when the boys and girls exhibit the same behavior, the boys are punished more severely. I would imagine this sexist, harsher treatment of boys continues throughout their schooling, since most teachers are female. This contributes to lower high school and college completion rates for boys.

End of updates.

I remember a stand-up comedian from twenty-five years ago whose routine commented on the word "nymphomaniac." (I'm sorry, I do not recall his name.) He wondered why there was a term for a woman who wanted sex all of the time, but there was no such term for a man who wanted sex all of the time. He came to the conclusion that we do not have such a term for men since all men want sex all the time. It is implied in the word "man." He joked that we don't need a special term for a male nymphomaniac because it would be redundant. (Actually, there is such a term---satyr---but few know it.) This reminded me of a semantic analogy that I had heard concerning the word "misogyny." It was noted that "misogyny" was a term for hatred of women, usually by men, but that there was no such term for hatred of men, usually by women. It was concluded that we did not need such a word since all women hate men. It is implied in the word "woman." It would be redundant to have a special term for women who hate men. (Of course, I later learned that there is such a term---misandry---but few know it.) This notion that all women hate men to some degree has only gotten stronger for me over the last twenty-five years. In fact, women hating men is mainstream and prevalent and normal.

I see misandry constantly and everywhere. It is in TV programs, TV ads, movies, news reports, magazine articles, politics, jurisprudence, and in our schools. Yet, most everybody else seems to only see misogyny constantly and everywhere. Of course, I sometimes see misogyny too. In our very complex world I'm sure that both misandry and misogyny exist. But why is it that so many people see tons of misogyny but can't see any misandry? I see two possible explanations. First, men are raised to be strong and not complain. Women, not so much. So women are quite eager to complain about any discrimination and misogyny against them, while stoic men are silent about such things against them. This can easily lead one to mistakenly conclude that most all discrimination and hate falls against women. Second, feminists have preemptively staked claim to all victimization, while simultaneously blaming all men for being victimizers. Feminists have made up concepts like "hegemonic masculinity," "rape culture," "patriarchy," and even the petty "manspreading" to take control of all victimization and blaming which leaves little room for men to voice any of their complaints. And then the media censors men's concerns anyway (the "lace curtain.")

Here are some of the the examples of misandry that I see.

Here is an item from the land of women's entitlement and specialness. During a "Take Back the Night" event, journalists for the Brandeis University student newspaper recorded the speeches and printed anonymous quotes in the paper and on their website. [9] Complaints were lodged, lawsuits were threatened, and the journalists were charged with violating a school “Electronic Device and Privacy” policy. The school dropped the charges when it was pointed out that the journalists were completely within their rights since it was a public event. I suppose the journalists would have been within their rights to print the names of the speech-givers as well. So why would people be upset about quoting stories from a "Take Back the Night" event in the paper? I would think that anonymous quotes would help spread the word about rape on campus. But, I suspect the problem here may involve lying. There has been evidence of women exaggerating or making up stories of rape out of whole cloth at these marches so that the women can join in the comraderie of being victims and hating men together. But if these stories end up in the newspaper, their lies may be discovered. That would interfere with their fun and hate.

Whenever males do better than females at anything, the media ignore it. But whenever females do better than males at anything, it is all over the media. I believe this encourages organizations and shady scientists to produce studies that show females doing better than males, since this gives the organizations and scientists much media exposure. A recent National Assessment of Educational Progress study showed that 8th grade girls "scored better than their male peers in technology and engineering literacy tests." [10] I am suspicious whenever I see something like this. Feminists have a history of distorting and just plain lying. I could not find the raw data to see if there was manipulation of the results. But one fact does stick out to indicate bias---the fact that the study involved 8th graders, kids aged 14. Girls' brains mature sooner than boys'. Boys don't catch up to girls until around age 15, and finally end up 3 to 5 IQ points higher than girls. [11] So it does appear NAEP may have cooked the books in order to get some media attention. I wonder if NAEP did anything else to make sure the girls did better. And to prove the media's motivation for exploiting whenever females do better than males, in the study the difference between girls and boys was 2 points, the difference between whites and blacks was 32 points, the difference between whites and Hispanics was 22 points, the difference between private school students and public school students was 15 points, and the difference between students whose parents had college degrees and students whose parents did not finish high school was 26 points. [12] Yet the focus of the media reporting was on girls doing better than boys.

An even more outrageous example of this came from a study by people at the website, mic.com. [13] They found that movies during the last decade about men averaged a gross of $80.6 million, while movies about women did $126.1 million. This is laughable from the start. They supposedly used the top 25 grossing movies domestically for each year, and they did not include movies that highlighted men and women equally or were animated. Again, I could not find the raw data to see just how badly they manipulated the results, but I did go to Box Office Mojo and found the 500 highest-grossing movies of all time, worldwide. [14] Two-hundred and seventy of these movies were from the same decade that mic.com used in its study. The vast majority of these movies are action/adventure flicks about men. Eat, Pray, Love and Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants did not make the list. Granted, movies, even action movies, lately have been infused with feminist themes to attract women, e.g., Avatar, Star Wars The Force Awakens, and Mad Max Fury Road. I suppose mic.com counted these as movies about women. But I'm betting few people paid to see the latest Star Wars because of its feminist themes---it is still a men's movie even though the main character is female. Also, keep in mind, that women's movies are doing nothing to attract more men. To say that women's movies make 57% more than men's movies is just absurd.

The purpose of the mic.com study was to show that women's movies make just as much money, if not more, than men's movies. I guess this was to justify making more women's movies. But this is ridiculous. I examined this topic from a little different angle. I looked at IMDB's "Chick Flicks: 100 Movies All Girls Must Watch!!!!!!!!!!" [15] and found how many of these made the list of the 500 top-grossing movies of all time. The answer is only 14. And only 6 were in the last decade. Here they are with their rankings: Mamma Mia (110), Pretty Woman (181), Sex and the City (214), Twilight (232), What Women Want (252), Enchanted (309), The Devil Wears Prada (330), The Proposal (344), My Best Friend's Wedding (378), Bridget Jones's Diary (411), Something's Gotta Give (439), Charlie's Angels (444), Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (448), and Love Actually (484). None made the top 100 and only 2 made the top 200. And it is debateable whether all of these are really women's movies. Yet, I found at least 14 men's movies in the top 20 movies of all time: Avatar, a Star Wars, Jurassic World, 2 Avengers, Furious 7, Iron Man 3, Captain America, 2 Transformers, a James Bond, a Batman, and 2 Pirates of the Caribbean. I think movie-makers are justified in claiming that women's movies usually are not very profitable. And I think I am justified in claiming that the media will do almost anything to pander to women.

I suppose many people reading this are thinking that I must be very insecure to complain of women doing better than men. I suppose many feminists reading this are thinking that my male ego and manhood must be threatened. But these attitudes are part of a much larger problem---women using shame and guilt to control men. No one ever questions women's womanhood. Women are automatically bestowed womanhood, just for having ovaries. But men must earn their manhood. Men must constantly prove that they are men. Their manhood is always at risk. Women and feminists often use this male anxiety to control men. Women shame and guilt-trip men into doing and giving women what they want---women on a personal level, and feminists on a political level. I suppose shame can be effective in controlling children who are not mature enough to understand complex logic and reasoning. But shame should not be used on adults---one should use evidence and reasoned arguments instead. Women often try to control men by shaming men into doing what women want. Phrases like "man up," "be a man," and "have the balls" are sure giveaways. And feminists will try to use guilt---using words like "mansplaining," "manspreading," "manterruption," "bropropriating," "rape culture," "toxic masculinity," and "the patriarchy"---and use this guilt to institute ridiculously unfair policies and laws. I refuse to let women shame my manhood. I have never beaten, raped, or abused women. I have nothing to feel guilty for. Few men do. I will fight feminists who try to guilt me and all men into passing legislation that is unfair and sexist to men. Men are shamed as whiners and not real men if they dare complain about any injustice against men. Feminists have long taken advantage of this characteristic of men to be strong and not complain. For our sons and grandsons, men must learn to complain. Complaining about injustice is not unmanly. Real men don't let women control them with shame.

To see just how far this constant drum roll of women shaming and belittling men has gone, consider that even our First Lady does it. [16] In her recent "United State of Women Summit" at the White House, she was interviewed by Oprah Winfrey and was asked what men can do. Ms. Obama's answer: "Be better." To paraphrase her rant: Men need to be better at everything---be better fathers and love their daughters. Be better husbands, don't abuse. Do the dishes. Don't babysit their children. Be better employers. Invite women into all-male groups. This rant was accompanied by roars of laughter and approval from Oprah and the audience. Here is the First Lady, who is supposed to be the nation's ambassador of sweetness and kindness, just eviserating a group of Americans. She accused the vast majority of men of being abusers, incompetent, lazy, sexist, and bad fathers. She doesn't think much of men. Can you even imagine what would happen if a prominent male government official bashed women like this in front of a crowd of cheering men? He would soon be without a job. While Oprah and the crowd were shrieking and howling with delight, Obama even said that although she has never been abused herself, that not being abused is rare. This criticism of men is outrageous. No other group receives this kind of treatment. Blacks, Hispanics, women, Jews, Muslims---only men are abused like this. And it apparently is acceptable. And funny. And by the First Lady of the United States! Ironically, the First Lady was praised for her anti-hate stand relating to race in her Democratic Convention speech, but was also applauded for her hate speech concerning men just a few weeks earlier. It is hate. It is outrageous. I try not to bring invectives into these articles, but you can imagine what I am shouting at the First Lady right now. [17]

Another example of treating men like they are subhuman is the Maury Povich Show. First of all, a woman should certainly have a pretty good idea who the father of her child is. Fathers, on the other hand, have no idea that they are fathers without a DNA test. But the men on the Maury Povich Show get absolutely no consideration for this uncertainty. The show and the audience treat the men like absolute scum for questioning the women who claim the men are the fathers. The women always present their side first, prejudicing the audience in their favor. The audience is very sympathetic to the women from the start. When the men are introduced they are continually booed and treated badly. This bias continues when the DNA tests prove that the men ARE the fathers and the mothers on stage do victory dances in the men's faces and the audience cheers. But the sexist bias even continues when it is determined that the men ARE NOT the fathers, even after the women have guaranteed it. In these cases, the show and the audience are very sympathetic and concerned for the women and offer them help and assistance. Men are presented as scum and women as angels, even when the women lie about paternity.

As part of this guilting of men, the media and researchers like to show women's victimization. Online harassment of women has been in the news lately. This again shows the tendencies of researchers and the media. The evidence that women suffer more online harassment than men is conflicting. Some studies show that women are victimized more, [18] while others show the harassment is about equal between men and women. [19] Just as in women doing better than men, I suspect the victimization of women will also get researchers much more attention than if they revealed no victimization or that men are victimized more. As a result, many studies only examine misogyny and victimization of women, while ignoring the often equal or greater misandry and victimization of men. Even when studies show equal online harassment, the media often only present the victimization-of-women side. [20] Even though there is evidence that half of the online offenders are women, the media just assumes that all of the offenders are male. [21] For these reasons, I believe the studies showing equal online harassment by and against men and women are more credible.

A 2014 study by PEW is a credible one. [22] It found 44% of men and 37% of women had been harassed online. Men were more likely to be called names (32% to 22%), embarrassed (24% to 20%), physically threatened (10% to 6%), and harassed for a long period (8% to 7%), while women experienced more sexual harassment (7% to 4%) and stalking (9% to 6%.) It also found that women were over twice as likely as men to be upset by the harassment, which may explain why women feel they are victimized more. Women are super-sensitive to harassment, while men are more likely to just ignore it. Men are more likely to ignore it because they understand that it isn't serious. Men often talk rudely to each other. It is competition, it is playing the Dozens, it is exaggeration, it is fun. It is not serious. Women need to understand this. Maybe they do understand, but are faking being upset to increase the power they get from being victims.

Even though a Demos study only examined harassment against female Twitter users, it did show some credibility by finding that women were half of the abusers. [23] It appears young women can also talk to each other in an exaggerated, insulting, non-serious way. This would imply that women taking men's insults seriously, may indeed just be more of women playing the victim.

Even though I think gender online harassment is equal in terms of victims and abusers, I certainly think men have an excuse for being online abusers. Don't get me wrong, I think male trolls are rude, offensive, and counterproductive. They make men look bad. But I can certainly understand why men do it. Feminists, who are often quite misandrist, get all the media attention possible. But the media will not let men respond. Men, their perspectives, and their issues are ignored, laughed at, or purposely censored. Again this is called the "lace curtain." Feminist views are presented as THE TRUTH. This is ironic since the media often go to great extremes to present both sides of issues. But not for men. So it is no wonder that some men lash out in anger, and in the one medium where they have some voice.

Another example of women claiming harassment concerned returning an NBA team to Seattle. It is a story of women using the lashing out of men to hide their own spitefulness and hatred of men. The media put out this story: Seattle City Council rejected closing down a street that would have allowed developers to build a new basketball/hockey arena near the Seattle football and baseball stadia. The vote was 5-4, with all five female council members voting to block the arena. Male basketball fans responded with misogynistic insults and death threats against the female council members. Community leaders and council members stridently attacked the sexism and rudeness of these men.

That is how the media portrayed this situation. Of course, a deeper look reveals that the situation was not so simple. First of all, once again, the media assumed that all of the insults and threats came from men. There are plenty of female basketball fans who could have participated in insulting the female council members. Also, the main reason given for denying the arena was that the Port of Seattle objected to the plan, saying that the increased traffic would interfere with the functions of the Port. This is an odd excuse since the larger baseball and football venues apparently have not interfered substantially with operations of the Port. Even odder, it was learned that the Port was considering building its headquarters with a parking garage and 800 employees in the same area as the proposed arena. [24] Maybe the Port's objections had more to do with getting a cheaper price on the land for its headquarters than any concern about traffic congestion. Finally, it appears sexist spite may have been the largest factor in rejecting the arena. A council member with a long history of feminist activity was staunchly against the arena. She received much criticism from Sonics fans, which she apparently saw as sexist. (I do not think it was sexist at all. I'm betting that anyone against the arena would have received similar criticism.) It appears she spitefully used this claim of sexism to convince three of her female co-workers to switch their votes and block the arena. [25] Do Seattle voters want councilmembers who operate on spite instead of what's best for Seattle? So, in conclusion, a councilwoman used her misandry to punish mostly male sports fans, and then she blamed it all on misogyny. [26] And the media ran with it.

Of course, men can participate in this hate fest against men. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently instructed men (did he mansplain?) on how to become better feminists. He told them "don't interrupt women." [27] This is rich. Again, men have virtually no voice in any discussion of gender issues. Women, and more particularly, feminists, dominate all such discussions. (Can we call this femsplaining? Actually, "mansplaining" is defined as condescendingly explaining something, usually done by men to women. It seems to me, if the genders are reversed, this definition fits many feminists exactly.) Men generally are not allowed to have, and are certainly not allowed to express any of their perspectives, unless they are feminists. (The one exception to this is in the back corners of the internet where non-feminist men still have some level of expression.) Men are not allowed to participate in debates, news shows, or current event shows dealing with gender. Their views are censored. So, in the bigger picture of gender issues, just when are men capable of interrupting women? And of course, women are quite capable of interrupting. Has Mr. Trudeau ever seen The View? This show often has 5 women talking at once.

A recent study on interruptions gave some interesting data. [28] The study was very small (40 people) so any conclusions need further examination. But the study found that men interrupted women a little more often than men interrupted men---mean of 2.1 vs 1.8. (Since these numbers are so close together and the fact that the sample size of the study is very small, a larger, more complete study may find that men interrupt men and women equally.) Oddly, the study found that women interrupted women a lot more often than women interrupted men---mean of 2.9 vs 1.0. So men were only a little bit sexist in their interruptions, while women were very sexist (against women) in their interruptions. Given this data, care to guess what the media highlighted about this study? You guessed it. The media focused on the "fact" that sexist men interrupted women more often than women interrupted men. [29]

Women's need to be victims of sexism can enter deep into the realms of paranoia. It was recently announced that Sweden for the first time since records have been taken has more men than women. [30] The reasons for this appear to be that Swedish men are reducing the longevity gap and most refugees arriving in Sweden are young men. But some feminists are having panic attacks. Oh Heavens! What horrors will all these men inflict on the egalitarian Swedish society and Swedish women? These feminists fear that Sweden will become a hyper-masculine patriarchy with more violence against women? Of course, this is absurd. But these women hold such hate for men that these are the kinds of ideas that automatically pop into their heads. But this brings up a couple of issues. First, notice that the feminists did not criticize the ethnicity of the incoming refugees. This would be politically incorrect and racist. But the feminists did criticize the gender of the incoming refugees. This hatred is okay. Second, most all countries have more women than men. Does this mean that these feminists believe that these countries are hyper-feminized matriarchies with more violence against men? Such hypocrisy.

Another version of this paranoia of sexism occurred in the current election circus. A self-indulgent woman who refused to wait her turn in a Q&A with Bernie Sanders asked him, “What do you say to women who say that you staying in the race is sexist because you’re standing in the way of what could be the first female president?” [31] Wow! Can women be any more hypocritical and eager to see sexism everywhere? I do not remember anyone accusing Hillary Clinton of being racist for staying in the race and standing in the way of the first black president in 2008. Women see their own victimization everywhere.

Speaking of the election, leaked email revealed that the female head of the Democratic National Committee (Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) purposely rigged the primary election against the male candidate (Bernie Sanders) and favored the female candidate (Hillary Clinton.) I do not want to hear any more complaints from women about the "good-ole-boys" network. I'm betting that Clinton at least knew about the rigging and did nothing to stop it. After all, Sanders gave evidence early on of bias against him. I suspect that Clinton not only knew, but participated in the sexist effort to stop any male competition in the primary.

Also, during the Democratic Convention, we learned that in his school days, Bill Clinton was caught staring at Hillary Rodham across the school law library. We also learned that he asked her three times to marry him, including the last time when he pressured her by buying a house that she liked. Bill related these details as normal romantic gestures. But by today's standards, all of these things could be considered sexual harassment. We've come a long way, baby.

A recent Geico TV ad showed an anthropomorphized alligator unable to pick up a restaurant check because of his short arms. It was odd that this was a male alligator since the vast majority of people who are unable to pick up restaurant bills are female. Even odder, several women at the table who made no attempt to pick up the check, glared at the male alligator for not being able to pick up the check. Even in a fantasy TV ad, women are still there to shame men. Finally, of course, a man picked up the check. Adding one final insult to men, the alligator scarfed down a duck, grossing out the entire restaurant. We are not allowed to denigrate or make fun of women.

Here is an example of men-just-can't-do-anything-right. Northwestern University fraternities announced Sex Assault Awareness Month with banners on their buildings. [32] Signs included compassionate phrases like “Stands With Survivors of Sexual Violence” and “Supports Survivors.” But some Northwestern women were upset, criticizing the move as possibly "triggering" some students. A critical feminist op-ed [33] found the banners to be only symbolic and an insincere attempt at concern. The shamed fraternities apologized and promised to do better. One woman even called the gesture "ultimately hypocritical." No, the ultimate hypocrisy is that feminists see women as perpetually victimized. These feminists blame men for women's victimization and demand that men change. But when men do change, it is just another victimization of women. So ridiculous.

Just how do feminists announce Sex Assault Awareness Month? Do they also "trigger" some women? A quick internet search revealed many activities associated with Sex Assault Awareness Month. There are marches, showings of The Hunting Ground and The Vagina Monologues, lectures, discussions, demonstrations, etc. sponsored by women's groups. I do not see any criticisms of these events or of "triggering." Obviously, the criticism of the fraternities' banners was an example of pure hatred of men---that these men must be so despicable that these banners must be trying to fool us into believing that the men are not evil incarnate. How do feminists get away with so much misandry?

I remember seeing an Oprah show many years ago about adultery. The first half featured male cheaters, while the second half focused on female cheaters. The hypocrisy between the two halves was stark. The mostly female audience and Oprah were quite critical of the male cheaters, who were seen as contemptible. But the tone during the second half of the show was more like "What did the men do that forced the women to cheat?" I am not kidding. Apparently, it is always men's fault. Well, add a couple of decades of feminist misandry and the situation today isn't any better. A New York Magazine article [34] practically brags that women are now cheating as much as men and even admits that the women are not suffering many consequences. The article justifies the women's adultery and even blames the men for not growing.

Once again, a man with an assault rifle killed many people, this time in Orlando. Even though most of these attacks seem to be sparked by mental illness, and the motivation for this attack appears to be terrorism, once again, feminists tried to blame the attack by Omar Mateen on misogyny, ignoring that he killed 6 men for every woman (42 men and 7 women were killed.) [35] Here are a few quotes. “He (Mateen) is the outcome of the United States’ political culture..." of "men controlling women...." "This dominance is exercised in part through violence including systematic rape and the threat of rape...." and "domestic violence can be seen as a psychological training ground for someone like Mr. Mateen to commit a mass attack." [36] "Homophobia, misogyny, toxic masculinity, and religious fundamentalism are all tied together in a noxious knot that feminists call 'patriarchy'....” [37] As J.T. has pointed out, blaming the attack on toxic masculinity---on all men---is like blaming the attack on all of Islam. [38] We have been admonished from doing that. But it appears to be okay to blame all men. This is the kind of hatefulness against men that is in the mainstream media now. It seems as if all problems in the world can be traced by feminists back to misogyny. I wonder if they can blame misogyny for the potato blight, blackheads, anal fissures, unpleasant aftertastes, offsides, bed bugs, seasickness, the 7-year itch, losing Pluto as a planet, bank failures, chiggers, and athlete's foot. I bet they'll try.

The fact that the quotes in the above paragraph came from the New York Times and salon.com show just how mainstream the hatefulness of radical feminism has become. [39] However, even though there is a vast amount of evidence of misandry in the feminist movement, still, men's groups are accused of being the haters. An example of this concerns the website mensactivism.org, which merely collects news articles that show the rampant sexism against men in our society. Yet the Southern Poverty Law Center, the group noted for calling out hate groups, considers mensactivism.org a hate group against women, just for linking to articles. [40] Just because mensactism.org links to articles showing hate against men, the SPLC considers it a hate group against women. It is amazing. This is all an example of the Big Lie---spout all of feminist boloney at every opportunity and block counter arguments until everyone believes feminist nonsense.

And like other mass shootings, the media focused on the female victims of the Orlando shooting for sympathy and personal stories, probably giving the 7 female victims more media time and sympathy than the 42 men. Even when the media talked about the male victims, it usually concerned the pain of female relatives.

The New York Times (here we go again) printed an above-the-fold front page article on the behavior of Donald Trump toward women. [41] Even though the article admitted his behavior is "complex, at times contradictory" and "defies simple categorization" the authors still seemed eager to disparage Trump as sexist. For example, the authors called his behavior toward Rowanne Brewer Lane "debasing" even though in later interviews, Lane said that she was flattered, not debased. The authors used words like "degrading," "unwelcome," "unsettling," and "humiliating," to describe his behavior toward women, but the article itself gives evidence that situations may have been less sinister than these words would imply. For example, one woman felt his comment on her weight was "stinging," yet another woman who received a similar comment from Trump thought it was "friendly encouragement, not a cruel insult." The authors also stated that Trump regretted giving his wife, Ivana, business responsibilities, implying that Trump did not respect women's capabilities. But then we found out that the reason Trump regretted giving Ivana responsibilities was because she always wanted to talk shop at home. Another time we learned that a woman accused him of groping her at a business dinner. But then we learned that the woman who made this accusation was suing Trump in an unrelated case. She may have been motivated to make a false accusation of groping. She settled out of court. The authors seemed intent on making Trump look bad.

I bet any man examined like this would probably come out looking pretty bad. Life is full of misunderstandings. Men are not mind readers. Every woman is different. A woman may even vary on different days of the week. Yet men are responsible for approaching women. An approach that may have succeeded ten times in a row, could easily be disastrous with woman number eleven. But it is always the guy's fault. At one point in the article, the authors stated that "Mr. Trump had the power, and the women did not." This is so wrong. These young, beautiful women had a great deal of power over him, otherwise he would not have had to approach them. Even though he was rich and could offer "a heady blur of helicopter rides and high-end hotel rooms and flashing cameras," he was still subordinate to them and had to risk rejection and embarrassment by approaching them. The authors were also critical of Trump's apparent obsession with beautiful women. But this is every man's obsession. And every woman's obsession is rich men. It is a complementary situation, but it seems only men are criticized for their half.

And finally, I say once again, Trump is not sexist. He treats men and women equally badly. But the NY Times is completely sexist for only examining Trump's treatment of women.

Let me be clear. I think Trump is a narcissistic, insecure, reckless, demagogic blow-hard who has no business being anywhere near the Presidency. He has so many faults it is hard to choose which one to attack. But sexism is not one of them. The fact that Hillary Clinton and the New York Times choose to condemn his supposed sexism is a clear sign of just how much we must pander to women and how misandrist the world has become.

But it is even worse than this. Trump has been criticized for not denouncing and not condemning his racist supporters. He played ignorant when confronted with support from David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan. Yet, Clinton has received no criticism for actually praising a hate website. Clinton was a fan of the now defunct humor website, The Toast, which has been described as the center of "cheerful misandry." [42] Even though Clinton is known for avoiding the press, she volunteered to write a glowing farewell address for the website. [43] It is no surprise to me that Clinton enjoyed a website spouting misandry. She has certainly hinted at her misandry with her constant focus on women throughout her political career. Do we want a President who blatantly hates half of the population? She even hired two former writers from the website for her campaign. And her closing command in her screed was "keep giving them hell." Misandry is mainstream and running for President. With Trump and Clinton, it is time to look at a third party candidate for President.

Feminists claim that false accusations of sexual assault are rare---just as rare as false reports of other crimes. But some studies indicate that the percentage of sexual assaults that are false is quite high. Exonerations lead credence to the latter view. The National Registry of Exonerations [44] found these numbers of exonerations for 2015: robbery--4, attempted murder--2, assault--3, arson-1, kidnapping--3, theft--1, burglary--3, and sexual assault--15. It appears the number of false accusations of sexual assault are much higher than false accusations in other crimes. (There were 47 exonerations in drug cases but 42 of them occurred in Harris County, Texas. Subtracting this apparent anomaly, leaves only 5 cases in the rest of the country.)

Here is yet another example of injustice brought to us by the 2011 Dear Colleague letter from the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Education. [45] A player on the Colorado State-Pueblo football team, Grant Neal, became friends with a female trainer (I will call her Jane.) They were forbidden to become romantically involved because of their working relationship. But, the couple could not resist. The two became sexually involved. Another female trainer inquired about a hickey on Jane's neck. In an attempt to protect her status as a trainer, I guess Jane's reply was a little vague. The female trainer assumed Jane was raped and filed charges against Neal. Jane insisted that she wasn't raped, but the wheels of the OCR were in motion, and in a Kafkaesque procedure, Neal was found guilty and suspended from the school. He is now suing the OCR. This is just one more example of how ridiculous the whole campus sexual assault hysteria has become. (Georgia State Representative Earl Ehrhart and his wife are also suing the OCR. And a John Doe from the University of Virginia is also suing the OCR. [46])

Christina Hoff Sommers in a recent article [47] compared the campus sexual assault hysteria of today to another hysteria stoked by feminists 20 years ago---the paranoia of Satanic Cults abusing pre-school children. The McMartin pre-school case is probably the best known example. Well-known feminists such as Gloria Steinem and Catherine MacKinnon contributed to this now-debunked hysteria which saw many innocent people sent to prison. And just like the critics of the Satanic-ritual child abuse, today's critics of campus sexual assault hysteria are demeaned and discounted by feminists who call them "rape apologists" and "backlashers."

College disciplinary panels were originally set up to deal with things like cheating and plagiarism by students, which are problems localized to the university. The police or courts have no jurisdiction over plagarism or cheating. But the police and courts do have jurisdiction over sexual assault and sexual harassment. Why are college disciplinary panels dealing with sexual assault and sexual harassment at all? As well as being sexist, one has to consider that these panels are racist and classist since these panels address problems of mostly white, higher-class women going to college, while lower-class minorities receive no benefit even though they have higher rates of sexual assault.

Joseph Cohn from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education wrote an excellent article detailing many of the problems of the current OCR policy concerning sexual harassment and sexual assault on campus. [48] He points out that the "preponderance of the evidence" standard is completely inappropriate for these college proceedings. The safeguards present in civil trials using the preponderance standard are absent from campus proceedings. Civil trials are presided over by experienced, impartial judges. Facts may be determined by a jury. Parties may have lawyers. The discovery process allows both sides to have all relevant information, but hearsay and irrelevant information are excluded. Testimony is given under oath with possible penalties for lying. These safeguards usually are not present in university hearings. Presiding administrators have incentives to favor OCR and the university in their rulings. Lawyers usually are not allowed. Information is often hidden from the accused. Irrelevant information is often considered. There are no penalties for lying.

There are other examples of violations of due process inherent in these university proceedings. Conor Friedersdorf points out that the preponderance of the evidence standard likely pushes adjudicators to rule against the accused so that the accusers don't look like liars. [49] In violation of the Sixth Amendment, those accused have no right to face their accusers. Accusers may appeal decisions, thereby leading to double jeopardy for the accused, which violates the Fifth Amendment.

In a monumental example of feminist illogic and hypocrisy, feminists do not think men accused of sexual violations should be given the basic right of "innocent until proven guilty." Try to follow this. Feminists have long demanded that sexual assault victims (i.e., women) should receive special treatment from the legal system and society. This special treatment includes such things as accusers being called "survivors," not releasing accusers' names while identifying the accused, providing special counselors to walk accusers through the legal system, providing mental health and medical care to accusers, and imposing severe restrictions on the accused before final adjudications. Legal scholars have complained that special treatment like this concerning sexual assault and sexual harassment strongly implies that the accused are guilty and that they therefore must prove their innocence. In other words, due process for the accused is reversed to "guilty until proven innocent." Feminists (specifically, Harvard's OSAPR mentioned above) have tried to nullify this argument that men are unfairly presumed "guilty until proven innocent" with the strange declaration that pointing it out will discourage victims from coming forward. [50] Uhhhh!?!? What woman, who has just been raped, thinks to herself that she wants to go to the police, but decides that she can't, because the man will be considered "guilty until proven innocent?" No one would think like that. It is absurd. But it shows just how far feminists will go in their hatred of men to try to sabotage jurisprudence and deny due process to men.

Cohn also points out that "civil suits can be settled for money and kept confidential." This cannot happen in campus hearings. He asks why not. He suspects that the answer is that campus sexual violations are seen as more like crimes than civil offenses. If that is the case, then why is the preponderance of the evidence standard used instead of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal cases? Also, the facts that OCR does not allow mediation in resolving these cases and that students are prohibited from serving on these disciplinary panels further implies that these cases are more like criminal than civil cases. It is clear to me that the purpose for these university kangaroo courts is strictly to make it easier to unjustly punish men. It is misandry.

Recent court cases concerning sexual harassment on college campuses bring up another injustice to men. If a man is accused of sexual harassment, the school does not have to prove that sexual discrimination was the motive for his actions. This is assumed. However, if a man is unjustly found guilty of a sexual violation and is expelled from school, it is assumed that the school intented to prevent sexual violations. The man must prove that this assumption is wrong. He must prove that the school was discriminatory against men, and that the school's intention was to punish men. [51] This is more ridiculousness showing how unfair the law is for men.

The ridiculousness continued with a letter to the University of New Mexico from the Department of Justice. [52] In the letter, the DOJ defined sexual harassment as "unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature and can include unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature...." Basically, sexual harassment is any unwelcome sexuality. The letter then goes on to say that sexual harassment does not become actionable under Title IX until it becomes so severe as to "interfere with or limit a student's ability to participate in or benefit from the school's program, i.e. creates a hostile environment...." This is the interpretation of the law from the Supreme Court under Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999). But the DOJ letter then confuses the issue by saying that schools should not wait for a hostile environment: "A school should not wait to take steps to protect its students until students have already been deprived of educational opportunities." Also: "Whether a school had notice or not, a school is nonetheless responsible for remedying any effects of the sexual harassment on the student, as well as for ending the sexual harassment and preventing its recurrence...." In other words, schools must work to prevent any unwelcome sexuality, no matter how trivial. This is completely unreasonable and unworkable. It also is a violation of First Amendment freedom of speech rights. [53]

After centuries of trying to develop a just and fair judicial system, we have found that objectivity is a critical element. It was found that subjectivity does not lend well to justice. Black's Law Dictionary defines the two terms. [54] "Objective--neutral: An unbiased attitude or opinion that is based on factual evidence." "Subjective--Related to or based on beliefs, attitudes and opinions instead of verifiable evidence. In contrast to objective." Obviously the two terms are opposites, and mutually exclusive. But the OCR insists that subjectivity as well as objectivity enter into sexual harassment determinations: "OCR considers the conduct from both a subjective and objective perspective." [55] This goes against a long history of making laws objective. Determining cases from a subjective perspective, using attitudes and beliefs (most certainly women's attitudes and beliefs, which I have noted are often misandrist) is just another way to make it easier to deny due process to men and to punish them. This is one more way to inject misandry into the judicial system.

As I noted above, the DOJ wants colleges to stop all "unwanted" sexuality. How is someone supposed to know ahead of time whether the sexuality is wanted or not? Sexuality can be very complicated and the law is of little help. Sexual harassment law itself is subjective. Before 2013, the law relied on the "reasonable person" standard, whatever the hell that is. And since 2013, the law has relied on whether the sexuality is wanted or not. I suppose whether a woman wants the sexuality is an objective "fact." But since every woman is different and women are reluctant to convey these "facts," the law is essentially subjective. Even asking if a proposed sexual activity might be wanted could lead to punishment.

Let me go into more detail concerning rape. The key element differentiating wanted sex from rape is desire. Does she want to have sex or not? The answer to this question is objective---it is a fact. Unfortunately, the human mating ritual does not lend itself to clearly revealing this fact. There are often hints, which again are objective---she kissed back, she unbuckled his pants, she undressed, she got into bed, she put a condom on him, she didn't use her safe word. But hints often require interpretation, which may lead to misinterpretation. Sex can get complicated. Women are often coy, unable to take responsibility for their own sexuality. Women rarely announce that they want sex---this may make them look slutty. Women are often mysterious, giving mixed messages. Women often want romance---they want men to take charge. Men are not mind readers. Add alcohol and a thousand other subtleties and sex becomes very complicated. And what if she is confused herself about whether she wants to have sex? All of these complications of sex are objective facts. But with all of these complexities, the law gives little guidance on exactly what is associated with wanted sex and what belongs to rape. It merely asks the woman after-the-fact whether the sex was wanted or not. Even with all of these complexities, usually if men have shown some sense and sensitivity, all is well. But, one thing seems sure---if anything goes wrong, men will get the blame.

The easiest and best solution for this problem is for women to make their desire known, explicitly and without ambiguity. As I've noted above, this does not happen very often. However, one example of the woman making her desire known is "no means no." If she is not interested, she just needs to say "no." Simple. No confusion. But feminists do not like this solution. They think it puts too much responsibility on women. What?!! Making her desires known is putting too much responsibility on a woman? Is she a child? Instead, feminists want the solution called "yes means yes," also known as affirmative consent. This puts all responsibility on men. The initiator, almost always men, must get permission from the woman for every sexual move. This is cumbersome and stupid---all because women are too weak to make their desires known. But a man puts himself at great risk if he ever forgets to ask for permission for the numerous sexual moves in every sexual encounter. And it is the law in several states.

I see this as one more example of feminists' hatred of men, and feminists' continual effort to make men and male sexuality illegal. According to the OCR, examples of sexual conduct include: "making sexual propositions or pressuring students for sexual favors; touching of a sexual nature; writing graffiti of a sexual nature; displaying or distributing sexually explicit drawings, pictures, or written materials; performing sexual gestures or touching oneself sexually in front of others; telling sexual or dirty jokes; spreading sexual rumors or rating other students as to sexual activity or performance; or circulating or showing e-mails or Web sites of a sexual nature." [56] Obviously, these are sexual behaviors that men are more likely to exhibit. Traditional female sexual behaviors are oddly missing from this list. This is so sexist. Under this policy, women can punish men for sexual jokes, sexual drawings, or just about anything men are likely to do of a sexual nature. Discussions of sexuality in literature or psychology classes could also be risky. This is so ridiculous. The ridiculousness of the situation is multiplied by orders of magnitude when affirmative consent is added into the mix. Under affirmative consent policies men now must ask permission for every sexual move. If a request should happen to be "unwelcome" to the woman, he could be in big trouble just for asking. So feminists require that men request permission for every sexual move, and at the same time, feminists have made that request potentially illegal. Men are damned no matter what.

All of these policies to protect women have resulted in imposing outrageous risks on men. I understand that we generally try to keep sexuality away from small children who cannot handle it. But this should not extend to college women, who are supposedly adults. Supposedly. Are women so weak and vulnerable that we must protect them from all male sexuality? Meanwhile, women are free to express all of the female sexuality that they want---skin exposure, tight clothing, cosmetics, perfumes, flirting, vocal frying, etc. The hypocrisy is deafening.

To understand how this situation has come about, please see R. Melnicks excellent article, "Sexual Harassment and the Evolving Civil Rights State." [57] He describes how the OCR has ignored the courts and basically instituted all of these new procedures and rules without benefit of legislation or required process. The OCR has done this by using shame (who would dare defend campus rapists?) and intimidation (threatening to terminate federal funding.) And the current sexual assault hysteria has helped. Even though sexual harassment is now generally considered to be a form of sexual discrimination, there does not appear to be any legal justification for this. OCR has also shifted the basics of its mission on sexual assault, again, without legal justification. That is, previously, sexual assault was seen as a problem of a few bad men who needed to be discovered and removed from campus. But now, OCR sees it's mission as changing the whole campus culture. OCR believes campuses are dominated by a misogynistic, masculinized "rape culture" that encourages sexual assault and sexual harassment of women. So, as well as eliminating any bad apples, OCR is requiring vast changes in campus culture. It is doing this by requiring that schools form ponderous bureaucracies which are sympathetic and responsive to the OCR. Schools must hire an independent Title IX Coordinator, who cannot be fired or criticized by the schools. These Coordinators will receive training from OCR. Schools must investigate all complaints, no matter how minor or how little credibility they have. Schools must protect complainants from retaliation or criticism and offer counseling, medical, mental health, victim, and academic services. (The accused get no such protections.) Schools must form committees of students, faculty, and administrators to evaluate and recommend strategies for sexual conduct policies. Schools must provide training for students, faculty, administrators, employees, and police, and special training for athletes and coaches. (Training or brainwashing?) Schools must perform climate surveys to verify that the campus culture is changing. Schools may not make changes without OCR approval. Schools must use the "single investigator model," which many have criticized as inherently unfair.

I believe these outrageous policies will continue, and probably get worse. Women seem all to willing to take advantage of the situation. Not until women are punished under these policies will they end. But that leads to a possible fix. Women, especially college women, can be quite sexual in their appearance. Men need to call them on this. If men are not allowed to be sexual, then why are women allowed? So, men, complain about those women wearing "unwelcome" yoga pants in your math class, or the cleavage showing in biology, or the high beams poking through in sociology. Document with your smart phones. If men make such complaints, the OCR requires that the schools must investigate. You will probably be laughed at by both men and women, so you will need to be brave. But it has to be done. Or another approach might be "affirmative consent." If a woman wanted to show cleavage in biology class, she would need to ask permission of each man in the class and get a clear "yes" from each man. Silence would not be good enough, because the man may be too intimidated to answer. Each man would need to give a clear "yes." But it is even more complicated than this. Would a lesbian need to get permission from all of the women in the class to wear something sexual? And what about trans people, bisexual people, non-binary people, pangender people, etc? I suppose it would be necessary for women to get permission from everyone in the class. And what about on the way to class? Should she cover up till she gets to class or will she need to get permission from everyone who might see her walking across campus? Of course, this is all outrageously cumbersome and stupid, but so are the current policies brought to us by the OCR and certain state legislatures. But because the current policies have only punished men, they are apparently acceptable. Such misandry. Of course, if the current policies were dropped when women began to be punished by them, this would be proof that the policies were sexist to start with, and those men who were punished by them in the past could sue their schools and OCR and Catherine Lhamon, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at OCR, for sexual discrimination under Title IX.

To see just how ridiculously one-sided this whole debate has become, consider Jessica Valenti, author of the book, Sex Object. In an interview [58] she stated that sexual objectification of women leads to men seeing women as objects and not full people. Women are dehumanized. And this leads to sexual violence against women since it is easier to be violent against an object than a person. When asked by the interviewer to explain the difference between sexual objectification and sexual attraction or appreciation, Valenti said that the difference is men seeing women as full human beings and "not a collection of body parts." Again, Valenti puts all of the blame on men. There is no discussion of women portraying themselves as collections of sexual body parts in order to gain power over men---women wearing push-up bras, women wearing breast enhancements, women exposing their breasts, women wearing clothing that is so tight that outlines of nipples, butt cleavage, or genitalia are clearly visible, women wearing see-thru clothing, women exposing excessive skin, women wearing make-up which imitates sexual arousal. Once again, the feminist perspective is that women can do whatever they want, but men can't. The discussion is always a one-sided, hypocritical, sexist blaming of men for everything. Also, there is no discussion of women dehumanizing men as financial and romance objects. Also, if sexual objectification leads to violence against women, then how does Valenti explain that men are victims of violence far more often than women are?

Here is another situation requiring men's activism. Harvard University recently proposed action against students who are members of single-sex organizations, including male and female final clubs and fraternities and sororities. [59] Women have long complained about the male final clubs. But now, women are upset that Harvard has included female-only groups in the proposed action. They only wanted Harvard to take action against the male clubs. These hypocritical and sexist women want Harvard to reconsider and allow female-only club membership. They feel the male clubs are bad (holding misogynistic attitudes, promoting sexual assault of women, and encouraging a culture of privilege) while female clubs are good (they provide support, safe spaces, female empowerment, and alumnae networks.) Could the misandry and hypocrisy be any more blatant?

One feminist responding to this controversy exposed the hypocrisy. [60] Reina A.E. Gattusoa disagrees with the reasoning for allowing the female-only groups. She has no problem with allowing female-only groups, but insists that they must include non-binary people and must not be heterosexist. She says many such groups already exist at Harvard: "International Women’s Rights Collective, the Association of Black Harvard Women, Radcliffe Union of Students, the Athena Program, the Women’s Center, and Latinas Unidas" are recognized by Harvard and "do not depend on heteronormative correspondences with male clubs." (Maybe the goal for her is establishing lesbian groups instead of female groups.) She also says that even though such groups are open to all, there is little chance of men joining since men hate female groups. In other words, women can be members of, for all practical purposes, female-only organizations that technically do not break any rules about excluding men. This is particularly ironic since feminists have demanded that most all men-only groups end. Few men-only groups exist today, while there are countless numbers of these virtually female-only groups. Perhaps all of these organized female groups in colleges are why schools seem so toxic for men. These groups pressure colleges and the government to bow to the tyranny of their selfish whims. It is time for men to respond. Men must join these female groups and prevent them from dictating anti-male policies. Perhaps the men of each dorm could take it upon themselves to join one of these female organizations and monitor the organization and keep it honest. We must stop this hypocrisy and misandry.

Misandry is everywhere. But few can see it and fewer want to do anything about it.

[1] http://nordic.businessinsider.com/the-danish-government-defends-circumcision-as-a-human-right---even-though-75-are-against-it-2016-6/

[2] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf, National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol 64, No. 2, Deaths: Final Data for 2013, Table B

[3] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/statistics/trends.htm

[4] http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2016/07/metastatic-prostate-cancer-cases-skyrocket.html

[5] http://osapr.harvard.edu/pages/vocabulary

[6] https://www.ispot.tv/ad/A5YM/redds-apple-ale-domino-effect

[7] http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/education/college/byu/byu-research-finds-link-between-father-absences-and-declining-male/article_7cafa756-967a-5399-a9a1-596db17bbd83.html

[8] http://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/same-behavior-problems-hinder-boys-more-than-girls/

http://www.ncgs.org/Pdfs/Resources/SOE_July_2016_Jayanti_Owens_Study.pdf

[9] https://www.thefire.org/cases/brandeis-university-student-journalists-cleared-of-charges-for-reporting-on-sexual-assault-awareness-event/

[10] http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/girls-beat-boys-eighth-grade-tech-engineering-literacy-tests-survey-n575506?cid=eml_onsite

[11] http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/psicologia/pei/download/Lynn2004.pdf

[12] http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/tel_2014/files/2014_TEL_Appendix_Tables.pdf

[13] https://mic.com/articles/127095/here-s-exactly-how-much-movies-about-women-make-at-the-box-office-versus-movies-about-men#.gOWqNDAmu

[14] http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world

[15] http://www.imdb.com/list/ls000754199/?start=1&view=compact&sort=listorian:asc&defaults=1

[16] http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/15/video-sorry-men-michelle-obama-just-doesnt-think-youre-good-enough/

[17] To see more details on current male-bashing, see Cathy Young's excellent article at https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/30/feminists-treat-men-badly-its-bad-for-feminism/

[18] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments

[19] http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/

[20] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/05/26/every-10-seconds-someone-on-twitter-calls-a-woman-a-slut-or-whore/ This article did not reveal that half of offenders in a Demos study were women, but instead wondered why the technique used in the study could not be used by Twitter to find offenders against women.

[21] http://onpoint.wbur.org/2016/04/29/morethanmean-bringing-online-harassment-to-life

[22] http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/

[23] http://www.demos.co.uk/files/MISOGYNY_ON_TWITTER.pdf

[24] http://q13fox.com/2016/05/16/uncovered-emails-raise-questions-on-whether-port-of-seattle-considered-sodo-arena-site-for-its-headquarters/

[25] http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/nba/seattle-city-council-kills-sale-of-street-for-sodo-arena/

[26] http://bagshaw.seattle.gov/2016/05/12/seattle-sexism-its-real-and-it-has-to-stop/

[27] http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/04/30/justin-trudeau-feminist-advice-snapchat_n_9815126.html

[28] https://advance.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Journal-of-Language-and-Social-Psychology-2014-Hancock-0261927X14533197.pdf

[29] http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/03/19/google-chief-blasted-for-repeatedly-interrupting-female-government-official/

[30] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3616235/Its-raining-men-Sweden-sees-historic-gender-balance-shift.html

[31] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/06/in-a-tense-exchange-bernie-sanders-says-his-refusal-to-quit-is-not-sexist/

[32] http://heatst.com/culture-wars/feminists-force-frats-to-apologize-for-speaking-out-against-sexual-violence/

[33] http://dailynorthwestern.com/2016/05/01/opinion/schwalb-eliminating-campus-sexual-assault-requires-more-than-just-banners/

[34] http://nymag.com/betamale/2016/05/women-are-now-cheating-as-much-as-men-but-with-fewer-consequences.html

[35] In keeping with the media exploiting female victimization, whenever more women are victimized in a situation like this, the media constantly tell us that more women were victimized. For example, most every news report on the Charleston church murders noted that 6 of the 9 victims were women. But when more men are victimized, the media suddenly cannot count. I could not find one article or news item giving the numbers of men and women killed in Orlando. I had to find a list of those killed and count them myself.

[36] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/world/americas/control-and-fear-what-mass-killings-and-domestic-violence-have-in-common.html?_r=0

[37] http://www.salon.com/2016/06/12/orlando_mass_shooting_bigotry_is_bigotry_no_matter_what_religion_you_use_to_justify_it/

[38] http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/facing-west-from-californias-shores/

[39] Also consider this troll-like post from the mainstream Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kimberley-a-johnson/a-woman-president-will-expose-the-ugly-underbelly-of-blatant-sexism-in-a-whole-new-way_b_10618594.html

[40] http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/misogyny-the-sites

[41] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html?_r=0

[42] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/01/taking-a-page-out-of-obamas-book-hillary-clinton-says-farewell-to-the-toast/

[43] http://the-toast.net/2016/07/01/a-note-on-the-toast/

[44] http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Exonerations_in_2015.pdf

[45] http://www.facecampusequality.org/

[46] https://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/16141411/doe-v-lhamon-complaint.pdf

[47] http://time.com/100091/campus-sexual-assault-christina-hoff-sommers/

[48] http://chronicle.com/article/Campus-Is-a-Poor-Court-for/134770

[49] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/campuses-sexual-misconduct/487505/

[50] http://freebeacon.com/issues/presumption-of-innocence-silences-rape-survivors/

[51] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/10/campus-judiciaries-on-trial-an-update-from-the-courts

[52] http://blog.simplejustice.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/FiledComplaint.pdf

[53] For more details, see https://www.thefire.org/doj-demands-clarity-from-unm-while-mandating-confusing-sexual-harassment-policy/ and http://www.saveservices.org/2016/04/justice-department-demands-censorship-at-the-university-of-new-mexico/

[54] http://thelawdictionary.org/objective/

http://thelawdictionary.org/subjective/

[55] http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/shguide.html

[56] http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ocrshpam.pdf

[57] http://caps.gov.harvard.edu/files/caps/files/sexual_harassment_and_evolving_civil_right_state.pdf?m=1459967116

[58] http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2016/06/08/sexual-assault-stanford-jessica-valenti At about minute 25

[59] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/09/harvard-wants-secretive-male-clubs-to-go-co-ed-but-all-female-groups-are-being-punished-in-their-wake/

[60] http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/5/13/harvard-heard-women/