Only Men Have STDs

This is another installment of the selfishness, self-indulgence, sexism, hypocrisy, delusion, and misandry of women and feminists. These are all examples of these aspects of women and feminism that I have seen recently, but by no means are these all of the examples that I have seen. I can't type that fast. My local newspapers are currently showing ads by Planned Parenthood. I imagine that these ads are part of a national campaign, so I would bet these same ads can be seen in your local papers as well. The ads show broadly smiling, pretty young women accompanied by copy exactly like "Forget your pill again? Not anymore. Learn about LARCs." "Live your dreams. Think about an IUD or implant." "Protect your health. Schedule your breast exam and cervical cancer screening." "My IUD means: Less to worry about. More to dream about!" These ads always seem to show and be positive about women. The name of the organization is Planned Parenthood, not Planned Motherhood, so, I kept waiting to see an ad showing and being positive about men. I waited a long time, but I finally saw an ad with a picture of a guy. He was not smiling broadly---it was more of a smirk. The copy on the ad showed why. "There are 7 common STDs. We can test for all of them." The ads for women show confident, accomplished, and pretty young women happily enjoying their lives of planned contraception. The one ad for men shows a sleazy, smirking guy who, needless to say, is responsible for all that is negative about sex. Tell me Planned Parenthood did not do this on purpose. In a very expensive advertising campaign this must have been intentional. I offer that this sexism is reason enough for Congress to cut their funding. Once again, women are presented as innocent, beautiful, wonderful people, while men are scum. Activists are often guilty of spinning things to a highly distorted level. Feminists are no exception. But since the media have pretty much blocked anti-feminists from expressing counter arguments, feminist lies, distortion, and spin go unanwered and are accepted as the truth. Here is an example of feminist spin that looks much different when given some context. Feminists claim that rape is rarely prosecuted. A statistic they use is that out of every 1000 rapes, only six rapists are put in jail. This sounds horrible, and it is. But it does not sound so bad when compared to other crimes. [1] For example, of 1000 robberies, only 20 people are imprisoned. And of 1000 incidents of assault and battery, only 33 people are imprisoned. Yes, few rapists make it to jail, but this is true of all criminals. Funny how feminists forget to mention this. Here is another common feminist fact. This one needs no context. It is clearly false. Feminists claim that false accusations of rape are very rare---only 2% of rapes, which is comparable to the false reports of other crimes. Edward Greer [2] tried to hunt down the scholarly research for this "feminist fact." He found that there was none. It appears that this "fact" first appeared in a 1974 speech by a judge who was quoting the Commander of New York City's all-women Rape Analysis Squad. This squad was made up of policewomen, not scholars expert in statistical analysis. This "fact" has been described as "an anecdote about an anecdote." [3] Susan Brownmiller used this statistic in her book, Against Our Will, and it spread like wildfire from there. It became common knowledge among feminists, and even feminist scholars used this "fact" without presenting a proper scholarly citation. So what is the correct percentage of false-rape accusations. I do not believe that we know for sure. There are several studies but none is convincing. The numbers vary wildly. A peer-reviewed 1994 study by Eugene Kanin of a small midwestern city found a figure of 41% of rapes were false. [4] A rape accusation was only counted as false if the woman recanted. During 2003-2007, police in Ottawa, Canada, determined that 31% of sexual assault claims were unfounded, meaning that they did not happen. [5] Psychologists who help police in New Delhi, India, claim that 18.3% of sexual assault cases are false. [6] However, the Rape Crisis Cell of the Delhi Commission for Women found a 53% rate of false accusations. They also found that the number of false-rape accusations almost doubled in a six month period in 2014. [7] Also, please consider all of the high-profile rape cases lately that have turned out to be false or very suspicious, e.g., the Duke lacrosse team; the Rolling Stone University of Virginia gang rape; the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case; the Brian Banks case; the Jian Ghomeshi case; the Rockville High School bathroom rape; the case of Jordan Johnson highlighted in Jon Krakauer's book, Missoula; three of the cases highlighted in the movie The Hunting Ground---Andrea Pino, Jameis Winston and Brandon Winston; Lena Dunham's accusation; the accusations against Dr. Grant Robicheaux and Cerissa Riley; and the case brought by mattress girl, Emma Sulkowicz. Could there be so many false high-profile cases if false accusations are extremely rare?

(Update: Please add the recent high-profile cases of NFL punter Matt Araiza, Dodger pitcher Trevor Bauer, and UFC star Conor McGregor.) DNA testing by the FBI has consistently excluded about 25% of sexual assault suspects. [8] Of course, some of these are undoubtedly due to unintentional misidentification of the suspects by the victims, which would mean that the 25% statistic is probably higher than the actual knowingly false-accusation statistic. But, on the other hand, DNA can eliminate a man as a suspect, but it cannot prove a rape occurred, which would mean that the 25% statistic is probably lower than the purposely false-rape-accusation percentage. In any event the actual false rape-accusation percentage is assuredly much higher than 2 percent. Greer also noted a catch-22 about false accusations. He pointed out the feminist assertion that nearly all women's claims of rape must be true because being raped carries such a severe stigma which would discourage any false accusations. Feminists also claim that rape victims experience a "second rape" in the judicial system that discourages false accusations. Greer also noted that feminists were simultaneously trying to remove this stigma and the "second rape" from rape victims, which they have accomplished to a large degree. But removing the stigma and judicial inconveniences has also weakened the justification for the feminist claim that women do not make false accusations about being raped. Greer's point seems to have validity. Not only is the rate of false accusations of rape high, but it seems to be increasing. As I have noted before, there seems to be a "false-accusation-of-rape culture." Falsely accusing a man of rape is almost becoming a popular fad. Women get together at "Take Back the Night" Marches to revel in their victimization, even if they have to fabricate their own rapes. Women on college campuses have spread lists of innocent men as "potential rapists." Catherine Comins, a dean at Vassar, implied that being falsely accused of rape could be good for a man. I have also noted many feminist activists who have falsely accused men of rape in order to increase their feminist credentials or to justify feminist ideology. (For example, please google Mariam Kashani, Desiree Nall, Michelle Gretzinger, Tanya Borachi, Mindy Brickman, Meg Lanker-Simons, and Michaela Morales. Others who may also belong in this category include Emma Sulkowicz, Lena Dunham, and star of The Hunting Ground, Andrea Pino.) Feminists demand that we automatically believe women's accusations, yet they do not encourage women to report to the police, where their accusations may be scrutinized. It seems that feminists aren't bona fide feminists unless they claim, even falsely, that they have been raped. I wonder how much of this has contributed to the outrageous statistic that 1 in 4 college women are raped. That is, college women falsely claim rape on these surveys to justify the need for Draconian measures against men. And, as I noted in the article, "Self-Indulgent and Delusional," women often lie about sex. Also, as I have mentioned before, women often do not believe that they have been raped until they have been indoctrinated by feminist activists. In other words, a woman's "yes" may turn to "no" retroactively hours or days or months later. This is not a new concept. Look at the first stanza of the poem "The Lady's Yes" by Elizabeth Barrett Browning: 'Yes,' I answered you last night; 'No,' this morning, sir, I say. Colours seen by candle-light Will not look the same by day. The poem seems to be about marriage, not rape. But, it appears, being fickle is, and long has been, a feature of women. But fickleness is not acceptable when we are talking about accusing someone of rape. Researchers have found several different reasons for false-rape accusations. Kanin found three main reasons in his study of a small midwestern town's false accusations of rape: alibi, revenge, and attention/sympathy. Fifty-six percent used false accusations to establish an alibi for "some suddenly foreseen, unfortunate consequence of a consensual encounter." Twenty-seven percent used false accusations to retaliate against a "rejecting male." And eighteen percent used false accusations to gain attention/sympathy. Kanin's follow-up study of two midwestern universities gave these results: alibi-53%, revenge-44%, attention/sympathy-3%. The "false-accusation-of-rape culture" could increase all three excuses. Since women are seen as angels by society, and men are seen as scum, women could be pressured to use alibis to blame all of their faults on men. Feminist hatred of men could easily result in false-accusation revenge against them. And feminists' need for attention/sympathy from other feminists could also help explain false accusations to increase a woman's feminist cred. No wonder false accusations of rape are so high. Studies also give some interesting data on why women do not report rapes to the police. One study [9] lists eight reasons. As well as reasons one would expect, e.g., "fear of reprisal" and "did not believe police would help," 18.3% (percentages are an average of three different time frames) said that they did not report because they thought it was a personal matter, 7.3% did not think it was important enough to report, and 5.3% did not want to get the rapist into trouble. This adds to 30.9%. And 31.0% did not respond or did not give one of the eight main reasons. This indicates that somewhere between 30.9% and 61.9% of respondents did not think that what happened to them was very serious. Of course some rapes and sexual assaults are traumatizing and very serious. And some aren't. But feminist activists seem to be trying to make all sexual assaults comparable to murder. This is hysteria. Recent research has been encouraging concerning a male hormone contraceptive. The study was a preliminary non-randomized phase II study. Three-hundred and twenty men were injected with progestogen and testosterone. Results of the study were promising with a 98% effective rate in preventing pregnancy. Twenty men dropped out of the study due to unwanted side effects---this is not unusual in a study of this type and size. Even though 75% of the men said that they were satisfied with the treatment and would continue using this contraceptive, the trial was stopped due to excessive side effects. Side effects included acne (46% of the men,) increased libido (38%,) muscle aches (16%,) inability to regain fertility after the trial (5%,) emotional disorders (17%) including a suicide, and one man developed an irregular heart beat. The researchers were content to stop the study, evaluate their data, and then examine whether modification of the procedure could provide a safer hormonal birth control for men. [10] Women saw this and joined with their comrades in the media and used the occasion to jump all over men. [11] (Sarcasm on.) Oh, those poor, weak, whiny men! They suffered mood disorders. Poor babies. And acne. Oh, let's stop the study because men are unhappy. Well, women have been dealing with side effects from hormone contraceptives for decades. Welcome to the club, guys. (Sarcasm off.) Many women also complained that they would not trust men to be responsible for contraception. [12] Women and the media portrayed the cancellation of the study as a result of the men being weak. Gosh, women like to complain. They complain that they must take most of the responsibility for contraception. (Of course, the only option for men for temporary contraception is the condom.) And when science tries to get more contraceptive options for men, women complain about that. The men in the study did not stop the study, an independent safety-review board did. Women just like to complain. One would think that the supposed compassionate gender would relate to the men in the study and sympathize with them. Instead women showed their self-indulgence and selfishness. They used the occasion to say that they were the bigger victims and that they deserved all of the attention. They even insulted men by claiming men were not responsible enough to be trusted with contraception. (As if women have never "forgotten" to take their pills.) This has to be discouraging for researchers, and men and women who want more contraceptive options. [13] Women turned this into another situation of "women good, men bad." Likewise, this story from England: women are freezing their eggs not because they have spent their fertile years working on their careers, but because they have not been able to find suitable mates. [14] Of course, the article and the women blame this development on the fact that there are no men good enough for the women. Women like to "marry up" and there aren't enough college-educated men around to be more "up" than the college-educated women. But the women can't even admit this. The women say that they wouldn't mind marrying uneducated men, but that the men are "intimidated" by the women's success. It is always men's fault. Of course, the women could not possibly admit that men won't marry them because the rules of marriage are now so biased against men, and that marriage is a very bad deal for men. "Empowering women and girls" seems to be a major theme of our society. But have we gone too far and created over-empowered women and girls? We have programmed them to think that they can do anything that they want. For example, a man posted on Facebook his objections to young women wearing long baggy T-shirts with very short shorts. [15] He said they looked like they were dressed to take out the trash. (There is some question whether he was joking.) Like we have seen so often lately, women were incensed that a man would try to tell women how to dress. They insisted that they could wear whatever they wanted and called themselves "trashwalkers." We have created little selfish monsters who refuse to take any criticism. Another aspect of this fad of empowerment of women is women entrepreneurs. It seems the media is always boasting about all of the fantastic female entrepreneurs. However, one thing I have noticed about female entrepreneurs from watching "Shark Tank" and it's Canadian predecessor, "Dragon's Den," is that women on these shows are often selling products for women, while male entrepreneurs generally promote products of interest to everyone. This is just one more example of how self-indulgent women are. Compare men and women. Bill Gates comes up with software now running the world. Jeff Bezos takes a huge risk and gives us Amazon. Elon Musk pushes electric cars and spaceships. And for female entrepreneurs, Sara Blakely is a billionaire because of spanx, clothing that pulls in women's adipose tissue. I checked a couple of articles giving examples of female entrepreneurs. In one article [16] ten of the 18 women were selling products mostly or only for women. Another article [17] listed 15 female entrepreneurs, 11 of whom were selling female products. These products included beauty products, jewelry, fashion, an online dating service where men must wait for women to make the first move, an employment service for women, and non-leaking women's underwear. So self-indulgent.

Update: Another example of women’s self-indulgence occurred in the CBS television reality program, Beyond the Edge, in the spring of 2022. Nine celebrities competed, and each played for a charity. All four of the women contestants contributed their winnings to charities exclusively for women. All five of the men contestants contributed their winnings to more general charities, which helped everyone. Not only does this reveal the often-denied selfishness and self-indulgence of women, it also highlights their super-chauvinism. Men are usually considered the chauvinists in the world---the ones with excessive partiality to their own sex. But it is obvious here that men are more concerned about all of humanity, while the women are only concerned about women. I’ve noted many other examples in these articles showing that women are the real chauvinists. These examples also show women’s considerable, not-so-hidden hatred of men. Apparently, women feel that men are not worthy of receiving charity. Contrast this empowerment of women with the disparagement of men found in a DVD I picked up at the library. The documentary, The Mask You Live In, showed the self-absorption and superiority of women and their hatred of men, as well as feminists' desire to dictate how men should behave. It supposedly examines how boys learn masculinity, or per the documentary, how boys learn to disconnect from their emotions, objectify women, and use violence. All of the main writers, directors, and producers on the movie are women. After examining their previous works, I can safely say that they are all feminists too. All of the "experts" interviewed in the movie are also feminists, e.g., Carol Gilligan, Ashly Burch, Caroline Heldman, Michael Kimmel, and Jackson Katz. In other words the movie details how women (and their friends) criticize how men are and dictate to men how they should be. Women would never let men define women. But superior women have no problem defining men and telling them how they should behave. I picked up another DVD at my local library. It was Shakespeare Uncovered, a documentary series examining some of Shakespeare's plays. Six famous actors each took a play or two, and with the help of other actors and scholars, took about an hour each to examine their play. The series was produced by PBS. The actors and their plays were Ethan Hawke--MacBeth, Derek Jacobi--Richard II, David Tennant--Hamlet, Trevor Nunn--The Tempest, Jeremy Irons--Henry IV and Henry V, and Joely Richardson--Twelfth Night and As You Like It. Since it was produced by PBS, you can probably guess what happened. The segments featuring the male actors barely mentioned gender at all in examining the plays. But the Joely Richardson hour was women, women, women. We must always focus on women and in a political way. The Richardson segment extolled the superiority of women and how Shakespeare loved and understood women. And the people helping Richardson were feminist Germaine Greer, director Thea Sharrock, and actor Helen Mirren. Here are a few quotes from the segment. Shakespeare "understands the psychology of women." Shakespeare was "not a nice bloke," since he left his family to go to London. "Shakespeare thought women were superior to men in their constancy, for one, in their common sense, for another...more world wise, and smarter than the boys." "They're all so smart, Shakespeare's women." "Rosalind is everything. She is funny. She's witty. She's clever. She's quick. She's got unbelievable strength. She's loyal. She's independent." Five segments with male actors and none of them got self-indulgent about men---men being superior or having excessively positive qualities. But one segment with a female actor, and it was all about superior women. Women, women, women! The segment on The Tempest also got into gender a bit, when they discussed how one version of the play put Helen Mirren in the main role of Prospero. As expected, the Mirren version was so much better than those versions with male Prosperos. The Mirren version was better "because there's no testosterone." While there's a lot of competition when Prospero is male, the Mirren version was more like a "tigress protecting her cub." And the Mirren version lost that "patriarchal controlling thing" found in the male versions. Why are women so self-absorbed, superior, and hateful of men? Another example of the self-absorption of women was the W20 Summit in April in Berlin. The W20 is the women's version of the G20. "The main goal of Women20 (W20) is to promote women’s economic empowerment as an integral part of the G20 process." [18] Integral part? If women want to be an integral part of the G20, why do they have a separate group? Why don't women try to become integrated into the G20? Why must they be separate, and not an integral part? This says to me that they don't really want integration. They will always want to be a self-indulgent special group, either superior to the G20, or victims of it, depending on the situation. In either case we must focus on women, women, women. I have often complained that female victims usually get more attention than male victims. For example, after a terrorist attack, the news media are usually full of sympathetic portrayals of the female victims, while attention on the male victims is often cursory. And this happens even though most of the victims are usually male. However, girls were the main victims in the terrorist attack at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England. Clearly, the terrorists were going after young girls. It appears these terrorists learned something from Boko Haram. As Karen Straughan pointed out in The Red Pill, Boko Haram murdered boys and men while letting girls and women go home. The result of this was little attention in the Western media. But then Boko Haram kidnapped some girls and the Western media exploded with concern over the plight of the girls. Boko Haram got lots of attention from terrorizing girls that it did not receive when it killed boys. It appears the terrorists in Manchester may have gone after young women in order to get more attention from the Western media. Of course, feminists are saying that this attack on young women is just one more example of misogyny of men. But ironically, it is probably a result of misandry, instead. Because of society's hatred of men and the media's apathy toward the deaths of men and boys, terrorists are killing women in order to get more attention. I recently investigated donating blood. One of the questions asked to determine if a man is an acceptable blood donor is "In the past 12 months have you had sexual contact with a prostitute or anyone else who takes money or drugs or other payment for sex?" I suppose prospective female blood donors are asked a comparable question. Apparently, the blood services do not want to accept blood from prostitutes or johns, probably out of concern for HIV/AIDS. I wonder how most anyone is allowed to donate blood since most sex involves some form of payment. Although not as blatant as prostitution, sex does not usually occur unless the man proffers some form of payment, e.g., dinner, a movie, house payment, or jewelry. Does everyone lie when answering these questions? Or more likely, do they lie to themselves concerning their meretricious (a 35-cent word meaning "of a prostitute") status? Reality Winner was caught releasing classified information to the media. I found her defense strategy interesting. She told her sister “I’m going to play that card being pretty, white and cute, braid my hair and cry and all.” [19] She also told her mother to tell the media that she feared for her life. And she transferred $30,000 to her mother's bank account so that the government would pay for her lawyer. [20] She hasn't yet been able to play the misunderstood damsel in distress, but her parents have been on all of the news shows telling us what a good person she is. And her mother has followed her instructions and told the media that Winner feared for her life. [21] I guess this is one of the reasons why men receive harsher sentences for the same crimes. And she is going to play it to the hilt. However, I am not too sure she will succeed---she doesn't seem very attractive to me. Something that feminists are promoting is becoming popular---determining your own pronouns. Under this new fad, a person can demand that other people refer to him/her as "he," "she," "they," "zhe," "xe," "per," "hen," "zim," "zirself," "nis," or something else this person has made up, regardless of what gender the person looks like. A person can also determine his/her own titles. Instead of Mr. or Ms., a person can demand Mx., Miss, Mrs. or whatever else meets his/her fancy. This is dumb. The purpose of language is communication. If people start making up their own words and definitions, communication is lost. (What purpose does it serve if I make up the word "jpneglbvw" meaning "after-dinner mint" if I'm the only one who knows the word and what it means?) Am I really supposed to ask every person I meet what pronouns and titles and meanings they prefer and remember them? It's fine if people want a few new pronouns to specify a few new gender distinctions (or how about just one new one for "non-binary") but give me a standardized list. Or better yet, let's eliminate gender terms altogether---instead of "he" or "she," just use "te" for everybody. Don't let everybody choose their own. That is dumb. Speaking of pronouns, women seem to be taking over the pronoun "we." Oprah's WE network is for women. And I noticed this book at the library: We, A Manifesto for Women Everywhere. It is written by X-Files actor, Gillian Anderson, and journalist, Jennifer Nadel. It promotes a kind of feminist transcendental meditation. It uses "psychological, political, and spiritual" tools to replace "our current patterns of competition, criticism, and comparison with collaboration, cooperation, and compassion" for "a more positive, peaceful, and rewarding way of living." (Quotes are from the book jacket.) Of course, it is just another book declaring "women good, men bad." Men are scum with their selfish competition, criticism, and comparison while women are angels with their collaboration, cooperation and compassion. It is just one more example showing a sexist hatred of men. I have noted before that feminism's emphasis on diversity (race), and LBGT issues, as well as gender have often resulted in the narrowing of feminists' hatred of men to specifically white, heterosexual men, or heterosexual men, or white men. This also expresses itself in the current college sexual assault hysteria. There is evidence that racial discrimination is rampant in college sexual-assault accusations, which has resulted in a disproportionate number of the accused men being black and Asian. This racial bias is being ignored by feminists so that they can continue to disparage white, heterosexual men. For example, Amy Ziering, producer of The Hunting Ground, has stated that her movie challenged "dominant white male power" even though in 3 of the 4 cases explored in her movie, the accused were black. But, of course, this last fact was hidden from viewers of the movie, so that everyone would assume that the accused were all white. [22] The current hysteria over sexual assault in colleges has led to a severe lessening of due process for the men accused and lots of new legislation to try and solve this largely exaggerated problem. The 1990 Clery Act [23] requires colleges to report all sexual assaults. The results for 2015 are in, and 89% of 11,000 colleges reported zero sexual assaults. Reports over the last few years are averaging about 5,000 reported incidents per year countrywide. [24] Assuming 12.7 million women in college and four years for a college career, this means 0.157% of coeds (1 in 637) can expect to be sexually assaulted while in college. This is less than one-hundredth of the 20% figure (1 in 5) of college women that feminists tell us are sexually assaulted. The Department of Justice estimates that 20% of college rapes and sexual assaults are reported. [25] But even factoring in this figure gives the result that only 0.785% of women are sexually assaulted during their college careers. This is not 1 in 5. This is 1 in 127. Of course, one rape is too many. But still, there is no excuse for wildly exaggerating sexual assault statistics. Even though the Clery Act requires colleges to report crimes such as murder, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, manslaughter, arson, and alcohol and drug offenses, the focus of media attention on the Clery Act has been only on sexual offenses. And recent amendments to the Clery Act now require that colleges also report instances of domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking violations. Does anyone see a gender bias in the application of this legislation? Do you think this legislation has been used specifically to focus on women? Title IX says colleges cannot discriminate or deprive anyone of equal access to an education due to his or her gender. Title IX is the justification for the Clery Act. Feminists claim that sexual assault (and now domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking) deprive(s) women of equal access to an education. I'm sure there are many factors that interfere with men's equal access to an education. A few include murder---about 80% of victims are male, suicide---80% male, general violence where most victims are men, injuries due to accidents, and false accusations of sexual assault which can ruin a man's education. Why doesn't Title IX address these things denying men equal access to an education? Why doesn't the media focus on these aspects of the Clery Act where men are the primary victims? Why are the Clery Act and Title IX, which are there to protect against gender discrimination, discriminating against men? What makes this even more incomprehensible is that there is evidence that men sexually assaulting women is not the only way that sexual assault occurs. [42] For example, The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) gives us this information: "Remarkably, the surveys have found that men and women had a similar 12-month prevalence of nonconsensual sex (i.e., 1.6 million women and 1.7 million men were raped or made to penetrate in 2011 data.)" The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) reports that "among those reporting rape/sexual assault by a female perpetrator, 57.6% of male victims and 41.4% of female victims reported that the incident involved an attack, meaning the offender hit, knocked down, or otherwise attacked the victim." A 2012 study found of people who self-reported forcing someone to have sex, 43.6% were female. Two studies found that over half of lesbians reported being sexually assaulted by their partners. These studies seem to destroy the justification for using Title IX to attack college sexual assault. They also destroy the feminist assertion that the "patriarchy" is the catalyst for all sexual assault. Speaking of colleges and discrimination against men, colleges are not being shy about their hatred of men. Many colleges are now sponsoring courses, lectures, and groups (indoctrination or re-education camps?) attacking "toxic masculinity." Can you imagine any college attacking "toxic Judaism" or "toxic African-Americanism" or "toxic femaleness" or toxic anything else? But men are seen as poisonous by our feminist and politically correct universities. And these men must have the poison removed. Princeton recently advertised for the position of “Interpersonal Violence Clinician and Men’s Engagement Manager” whose duties will include helping female victims of sexual violence and expanding the school's Men’s Allied Voices for a Respectful and Inclusive Community Program which fights against toxic masculinity. The job posting implies that all victims are women and all perpetrators are men. Duke, as part of its "Men's Project," which is run by the Women's Center, is sponsoring a discussion series concerned with toxic masculinity and the need for men to unlearn violence. The group is "dedicated to interrogating male privilege and patriarchy," to "analyze their own masculinity and toxic masculinities," covering "male privilege, masculinity and the language of dominance, sexuality and gender diversity as well as intersectional feminism," and "how you can be accountable to feminism, to the women in your life and to the larger community," and to "undergo a process of 'deconstruction and reconstruction.'" Funded by student fees, Oregon State put together a Healthy Masculinities Conference which "recognizes masculinity’s impact on men’s health and wellbeing, and advances a healthier, more inclusive paradigm for men/boys" and examines the problems and "legacies of Eurocentric masculinities." It also has a Men's Coalition to End Violence group which works to "disrupt the cycle of hypermasculinity and gender inequality." The Men's Project at the University of Wisconsin at Madison "tries to address the negative way in which typical understandings of masculinity can affect male students." Brown University sponsors an initiative called "Unlearning Toxic Masculinity" so men can "unpack all of the things they have learned about masculinity and what it means to be a man." Men can “interrogate and deconstruct traditional forms of masculinity” in the Men and Masculinities Center at UMass, Amherst. Ohio University sponsors a Healthy Masculinities Workshop. Ithaca College sponsors the Masculinity and Violence Workshop, where men can "examine hegemonic masculinity and its role as the wheel that rotates a cycle of violence" and "disrupt the toxicity of manhood in order to end violence." Western Washington University has a Men's Violence Prevention & Mental Health Promotion Specialist. So, not only are men violent and toxic, but they are also crazy. More explicitly, Claremont College's group THRIVE, which is made up mostly of women, sponsored a workshop focused on the mental health problems caused by masculinity. One participant summed up the event this way: “a common consensus that masculinity is harmful both to those who express it and those affected by it.” Can anyone deny that misandry is the fundamental foundation of these toxic-masculinity groups? Or in the words of Michele Blood, "linking tendencies toward violent, oppressive behavior to a gender, race, sexual expression, or political party is itself an expression of bias." Hatred of men is blatant and unhidden. [26] Why are there no workshops or conferences on problems with femininity? It seems to me that masculinity and femininity are complementary. They are inter-dependent. They work together to make a whole. They are yin and yang. Actions in each affect actions in the other. Demanding changes in only men without comparable changes in women will result in men being told to change their behavior while the old behaviors of women will demand that men not change. For example, women will demand that men not be violent while women will still reward strong, alpha males who protect them. This will cause conflict, confusion, and will be counterproductive. Since these college programs are largely run by women and feminists, they also cause anger in men because women and feminists are defining men and telling men how they should be. Men should define themselves. I have already noted that women can be selfish. Women are likely to define men in ways that benefit women and at men's expense. Again, women would never let men define women. But, in the end men will be condemned no matter what they do. The CDC gives "hyper-masculinity" as a possible risk factor which may lead to sexual violence. [27] But the CDC gives a whole list of things which may lead to sexual violence, including alcohol and drug abuse, delinquency, empathic deficits, acceptance of violence, early sexual initiation, coercive sexual fantasies, sexual-risk taking, sexually explicit media, suicidal behavior, prior sexual victimization, violent family background, childhood abuse, poor father relationships, delinquent friends, poverty, unemployment, and high crime. So why are colleges focused only on hyper-masculinity and mostly ignoring everything else? For example, men commit suicide four times as often as women. Why aren't colleges helping prevent this in their male as well as their female students? And coercive sexual fantasies (rape fantasies) are something many women enjoy. Why aren't colleges sponsoring conferences, classes, and groups for women to deal with this problem? The reasons are pure hatred of men, and the belief in the complete superiority of women. The extent of hatred of men and masculinity can be seen in an article by Shelley Garland posted on Huffington Post which demanded that the vote be taken away from white men. [28] (Again, the hatred is narrowed to white men.) Garland recounted all of the harm brought to humanity by white men and said it was time to disenfranchise them. But it all turned out to be a hoax. Shelley Garland does not exist. The real author of the article, Marius Roodt, said that he purposely filled the article with "false claims, factual errors and logical fallacies," as well as violated Huffington Post's content guidelines, yet Huffington Post printed the article anyway, because "it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions." [29] The HuffPost deleted the article and apologized for it, not because it was offensive, but because Shelley Garland does not exist. One HuffPost editor even posted a defense of the printing of Garland's article because the ideas in the article were standard feminist theory. (This defense was also later deleted.) These are the times we live in. This hatred of men has also been expressed by people who shout down or use violence to silence speakers who do not tow the feminist line. The antifa movement is an example of this where people use violence to infringe on other people's right of free speech. But it goes further. A recent survey [30] found that many college students do not understand what free speech is all about. Forty percent thought that hate speech is not protected speech. (49% women versus 38% men.) Hate speech is protected speech. Sixty percent thought that the First Amendment required that an offensive speaker must be balanced with an opposing speaker. Fifty percent thought that it is acceptable for controversial speakers to be shouted down or prevented from speaking. And nineteen percent thought that it is okay to use violence to prevent controversial speech. These mistaken attitudes toward speech are often used to censor anti-feminist speakers. (I wonder if there isn't a chicken or egg effect here. Did the censoring of anti-feminist speakers occur because of these wrong attitudes, or did these wrong attitudes develop because of all of the censoring of anti-feminist speakers? Or maybe a little of both? Whatever, we need to stop both the wrong attitudes AND the censoring.) On the topic of extreme sexual sensitivity in colleges, I would like to examine two articles. First, an article in a not-widely-known campus news website offered a first-hand account of what a man, Ben, went through after he jokingly said he was handsome in his Chinese class. [31] A student in the class anonymously reported him to the University’s Gender-Based Misconduct Office. Ben attacked his ridiculous Kafkaesque situation with humor and satire. His dean asked him to stop any such sexual behavior in the future. But, the author absolutely refused to change any of his behavior. And he even showed sympathy for the instructor and administrators putting him through this. He knew they risked their livelihoods and the school's federal funding unless they followed the absolutely absurd rules forced upon them. Compare this with an article in the massively-distributed Washington Post written by a law professor whose class mistakingly received a link from the professor to a porn site instead of a link to a site concerning legal briefs. [32] What do you suppose happened to this professor? Sanctioned? Disciplined? Fired? No, nothing like that happened to this professor. Oh, did I mention the professor is female? She, Lisa, was found faultless by her school, but she did receive a lot of embarrassing press. And that was what her article was about---how cruel the media was to her. She complained about how her dignity had been damaged even though no one had questioned the dignity of those who had forwarded the porn link or had opened it, or the journalists who had written salacious and demeaning stories about the mistake. She even used her young children in the article to gain sympathy. She also refused to explain how the porn link got to her students, even though she admitted the link was obviously porn-related. Even though nothing really serious happened to either of these two authors, their responses are telling. Ben realized the silliness of the whole affair and kept his sense of humor. He refused to give in to the absurd rules being used against him. Even though a male professor would probably have received severe punishment, Lisa received none. Yet she still wallowed in self-pity, and selfishly blamed everyone but herself for her problems. It is also ironic that her complaint of how badly the media treated her was printed in the nationally-influential Washington Post. Meanwhile, Ben could only get coverage in a rather restricted media outlet. Some good news, maybe. Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, has rescinded the two illegal Dear Colleague letters responsible for so much controversy regarding sexual assault policies in our colleges. She will now follow proper procedures to come up with a sexual assault policy that does not take away due process for those accused of sexual assault in our universities. However, I suspect many colleges will continue the controversial policies promoted by the two letters. We shall see. Contrary to what is expressed in the media, Donald Trump is not a misogynist. To help explain this shocking statement, first, I would like to point out two behaviors verified by research. First, there is research showing that men who treat women as equals are seen as just as misogynistic by women as those men who show a high hostile sexism and hatred towards women. [33] That is, men who do not put women up on a pedestal but instead treat women the same as they treat men are seen as misogynistic by women. It seems that the only men who are not seen as misogynistic by women are the men who do put women up on a pedestal, i.e., men who are sexist towards women, but in a beneficial way to women. Oddly this misperception only applies to men. Women who refuse to be put on a pedestal are seen by other women as feminist, and women who demand to be put on a pedestal are seen by other women as being sexist. The second behavior I would like to note is ingroup bias, i.e., people tend to show favoritism to members of their own group, and this favoritism tends to be even stronger in higher-status groups. This bias can exhibit itself in social groups, fans of sports teams, nationalism, racial groups, and gender groups. Women tend to have a strong ingroup bias toward women. Women show a large bias toward women and against men. And, even though men are considered to be the higher-status gender, men surprisingly do not show an ingroup bias toward men. They generally show no bias toward either gender. [34] In this sense, men are quite egalitarian. (And just maybe, men are not the higher-status gender.)

(Update: Similarly, new research has found that there is a strong and consistent positive implicit bias in favor of women and a strong and consistent negative implicit bias against men. The researchers performed 4 different tests on subjects and found these same gender implicit biases in all 4 tests. They also used these 4 tests to discover any racial implicit biases but results were inconsistent. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/pro-female-and-anti-male-biases-are-more-influential-than-race-and-other-factors-in-implicit-association-tests/ar-AA196bqx?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=e873a5253991411f98e12515db918be2&ei=38&PC=EMMX01 ) Please keep these two behaviors in mind while reading the following. On June 29th, President Trump harshly criticized Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski in a tweet. Trump said Scarborough was "psycho" and Brzezinski had a low IQ and had recently appeared bloody at his Florida resort after a face-lift. As has been the case in the past, the media and women went absolutely bonkers accusing Trump of misogyny. But Trump is just as mean and obnoxious to men as he is to women, so constantly accusing Trump of misogyny is unfair. Trump treats men and women equally. He does not put women up on a pedestal. But women see this as misogyny----extreme misogyny. And men, who are chivalrous and have no ingroup bias, also criticized Trump for being a misogynist. Apparently, men are not allowed to criticize women. And apparently, everyone is allowed to criticize men. The reaction to the June 29th tweet, by itself, showed this severe bias. A man was called "psycho." I consider this a much stronger insult than saying someone has a "low IQ" or was bloody after plastic surgery. Yet, this insult of a man was completely ignored. Instead, the media and commentators lost their minds over a man criticizing a woman for having plastic surgery. This is a prime example of the two concepts mentioned above. Women's tendency to see equality as misogyny, and women's strong ingroup bias towards women caused them to totally ignore the stronger insult aimed at a man and focus only on a minor insult of a woman. Similar hypocrisy and sexism occurred when Trump re-tweeted a manufactured video showing him hitting a golf ball that hit Hillary Clinton in the back. Again women went nuts and complained about Trump's sexism, misogyny, and violence against women. [35] It is odd that I heard no such complaints earlier when Trump re-tweeted a manufactured video showing him knocking a man (representing CNN) to the floor and beating him up. Women seem to wear feminist blinders and just cannot see worse sexism, misandry, and violence against men. Many of the female commentators who went crazy over Trump's tweet claimed that Trump has shown a pattern of going after women's looks. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. Women spend a great deal of time and effort to make themselves look good. (This includes Brzezinski's face-lift.) Being attractive gives women power. Sexual attractiveness is women's power base and goal. So, if one really wants to hurt and insult a woman, one should go after her looks. This is what Trump does. But Trump also attacks men's power. Men do not focus so much on their looks. Men focus on success, intelligence, strength, manhood, money, and status. To really insult a man, one must go after these goals. So when Trump has gone after men, he has insulted them with words and phrases like "crazy," "weak," "big loser," "not very bright," "lazy," "dumb mouthpiece," "a major sleaze and buffoon," "third rate talent," "sweats and shakes," "inept," "mental basketcase," "big failure," "underachieving," "little Marco," "low-class slob," and "psycho." [36] (And people, e.g. Marco Rubio and Brzezinski, have gone after Trump's manhood with comments about the size of his hands.) But because women are so biased against men, and men have a neutral ingroup bias, no one cares about these insults of men. But watch women bring out the knives whenever Trump insults a woman's looks. The double standard is phenomenal. In an experiment in Australia all gender indications were removed from some job applications for public service jobs. The assumption was that blind recruitment would result in more women advancing to the interview stage due to a decision based on merit rather than having gender influencing the decision. The assumption was that men were favored in hiring when gender was obvious. However, the experiment backfired. More men were advancing to the interview stage with the blind recruitment than if gender indications were left in applications. In fact, men were 3.2% less likely and women were 2.9% more likely to receive interviews if their genders were known by perspective employers. Of course, the immediate conclusion from this is to conclude that men are being discriminated against in hiring if gender is known. But this is not a politically correct conclusion, so the authors of the experiment instead postulated some flaw in the design of the experiment, and employers were told to suspend the blind recruitment trials for now. [37] It is obvious from this that the goal of these trials was not to find a bias-free form of job recruitment, but instead, to hire more women. Your bias is showing. But it gets worse. In the bizarro world brought to us by feminists, the following quote appeared in a press release titled "Increasing Judicial Diversity Is Vital To a Fairer Justice System." "The report recognizes the natural tendency in senior selections to replicate the characteristics of the existing judiciary. Without positive action, 'merit' can all too easily become a vehicle for unconscious bias." [38] Wha'? Huh!? Ridiculous! BIAS is the vehicle for unconscious bias. Merit has nothing to do with it. But we have to find some excuse to hire women, even if the women are unqualified. This article actually demanded that hiring not be based on merit? That merit is biased? It demanded that diversity should be a more important criterion for hiring than merit. Bizarre. But that is the bizarro world of feminism. Diversity may also be involved in the recent Equifax hack. It appears the top security officer for Equifax had no schooling in security. Susan Mauldin had degrees in music composition instead, and she may have been totally unqualified for her security position. She almost immediately retired when the scandal became known. As of yet, I have seen no information on exactly how she obtained this job, so forgive me if I employ some extreme guessing. Is it possible that the feminist push for diversity---to put women in good tech jobs---was responsible for this catastrophe? Was the politically correct pressure to have a female high up in the tech part of the business responsible for the stealing of personal information of millions of Americans? And why was information about her scrubbed from the internet when the hack became known? Was it to conceal how unqualified she was? Was it to conceal a woman's failure? Just asking. [39] Please consider these two events. First, the International Affairs School of George Washington University is enforcing a quota of women in any multi-speaker event. [40] Speaker panels must include at least one woman. A female moderator is acceptable if no female speakers are included . If events do not have at least one woman, the event may be cancelled. Second, a woman in Sweden is organizing a "man-free" concert for next summer. [41] She is trying to have only women playing and working the concert. Cisgender men will not be allowed in the audience. ("Cisgender" generally implies heterosexual, so once again, the hatred is narrowed onto heterosexual men.) As usual, we see that men-only events are horrible and should not happen, but female-only events are wonderful. Just to let you know what we are dealing with, the organizer of the concert made this strange, illogical statement: "The goal with the festival is that there shouldn't need to be separatist events." Huh? The goal of the separatist festival is that there should be no separatist festivals? Strange. (Please keep in mind that "logic" is a tool of the patriarchal, toxic-hypermasculine hegemony, you violent, male-privileged sexist pig, you.) This has been one more edition regarding the self-indulgent, selfish, hateful, hypocritical, delusional, and seemingly never-ending misandrist culture that is our society today. I'm sure there will be more. (The next article, coming soon, will deal with the criminalization of male sexuality.) References [1] Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2010-2014 (2015) Also https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system [2] http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2216&context=llr [3] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-09-19/how-many-rape-reports-are-false [4] Kanin, Eugene J., Ph.D. "False Rape Allegations." Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1994), pp 81-92. https://archive.org/details/FalseRapeAllegations [5] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/barrhaven-sexual-assault-never-happened-police-1.1125196 [6] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/18-rape-cases-false-Study/articleshow/3910217.cms? [7] http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/delhi-commission-for-women-concerned-with-rise-of-false-rape-charges/1/394316.html [8] https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/dnaevid.txt [9] Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010 (2013) [10] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2016-10-28-male-contraceptive-jab-effective-but-side-effects-are-common/ [11] http://www.salon.com/2016/10/31/men-cant-handle-side-effects-from-hormonal-birth-control-that-women-deal-with-every-day/ http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/male-contraceptive-injection-successful-trial-halted-a7384601.html http://www.cosmopolitan.com/health-fitness/a8038748/male-birth-control-study-stopped/ [12] http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2016/11/04/male-birth-control-hormones [13] http://www.snopes.com/male-birth-control-study/ http://www.popsci.com/did-that-male-contraception-study-prove-men-are-wimps-not-exactly http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/11/the-real-reason-the-male-birth-control-study-was-halted.html [14] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/04/shortage-eligible-men-has-left-women-taking-desperate-steps/ [15] https://www.yahoo.com/style/mans-viral-rant-girls-baggy-t-shirts-brings-trashwalkers-200623338.html [16] https://smallbiztrends.com/2017/05/successful-women-entrepreneurs.html The article gives us the stories of 20 female entrepreneurs but I eliminated two who were co-founders of tech companies, where men did a lot of the heavy-lifting. [17] https://www.inc.com/drew-hendricks/15-female-entrepreneurs-to-follow-in-2017.html [18] http://www.w20-germany.org/ [19] http://www.mediaite.com/online/nsa-leaker-thinks-being-white-and-cute-will-keep-her-out-of-prison/ [20] http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/prosecutors-alleged-nsa-leaker-wanted-to-burn-the-white-house-down/531327849 [21] http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/politics/reality-winner-parents-interview/index.html [22] Many of the ideas and the quote in this paragraph come from "The Question of Race in Campus Sexual-Assault Cases" by Emily Yoffe at https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-question-of-race-in-campus-sexual-assault-cases/539361/ [23] 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f) [24] https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/06/05/clery-act-data-demolishes-campus-sexual-assault-narrative/ [25] Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Rape and Sexual Victimization Among College-Aged Females, 1995-2013 (2014) [26] Quotes and information in this paragraph come from these links https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8645 https://www.ohio.edu/involvement/healthpromotion/workshops.cfm http://claremontindependent.com/claremont-safe-space-masculinity-is-a-mental-health-issue/ http://dce.oregonstate.edu/sites/dce.oregonstate.edu/files/hmc_full_brochure.pdf https://paw.princeton.edu/article/mens-engagement-post-creates-media-stir http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2016/09/deconstructing-masculinity-duke-mens-project-aims-to-facilitate-discussions-of-male-privilege-and-patriarchy https://www.brown.edu/campus-life/health/services/promotion/general-health-emotional-health-mens-health-sexual-assault-dating-violence-get-involved-prevention http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/education/university/uw-madison-s-men-s-project-program-on-masculine-identity/article_4b0530fa-c55c-5a58-87fd-79c708b60927.html http://www.lifezette.com/momzette/duke-university-goes-after-men-toxic-masculinity/ [27] https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/riskprotectivefactors.html [28] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/shelley-garland/could-it-be-time-to-deny-white-men-the-franchise_a_22036640/ [29] https://heatst.com/culture-wars/gullible-huffington-post-falls-for-hoax-article-calling-for-white-men-to-be-stripped-of-voting-rights/ [30] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-chilling-study-shows-how-hostile-college-students-are-toward-free-speech/2017/09/18/cbb1a234-9ca8-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html?utm_term=.03a4579c6cc7 [31] https://thetab.com/us/columbia/2016/10/01/i-was-reported-for-gender-misconduct-for-calling-myself-handsome-in-class-2611 [32] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/after-my-public-shaming-reclaiming-my-dignity/2015/04/24/a5507274-e9da-11e4-9a6a-c1ab95a0600b_story.html?utm_term=.2f1fe6e95689 [33] http://channelawesome.com/forums/threads/studies-show-people-think-feminist-men-are-sexist-and-sexist-men-are-feminist.54069/ https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/6958/Yeung_Amy.pdf [34] http://www.malepsychology.org.uk/2017/03/06/male-identity-an-island-no-man-wants-to-visit/ [35] For example, on the 09/18/17 edition of A.C. 360 with Anderson Cooper [36] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html [37] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888 [38] https://2bquk8cdew6192tsu41lay8t-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/JUSTICE-judicial-diversity-press-release.pdf [39] http://www.marketwatch.com/story/equifax-ceo-hired-a-music-major-as-the-companys-chief-security-officer-2017-09-15 [40] https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/36755/ [41] https://www.thelocal.se/20170914/swedens-man-free-festival-now-has-a-name [42] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308844135