It's Patriarchy, it's Misogyny but it's NOT MISANDRY.

By:  Violet Paradox

To those men who think misandry is on par with misogyny, I ask you -  How has misandry affected your opportunities in life?  The fact that some women find you or other men personally deplorable does nothing to take away from the privileges of being male in this world. Yes there are some women who hate men, it's a natural response to a society that consistently and continually reinforces the message that women are inferior and worthless, where women are raped, beaten and abused in numbers wildly disproportionate to men, told we are sluts for daring to own our own sexuality, wear the clothes we want, speak our mind, for just being a woman.  When everywhere we look we see women being objectified, sexualised, expected to live up to unrealistic beauty ideals.  Shamed if we're thin, shamed if we're fat, shamed if we choose to let our body hair grow naturally or fucking dare to have the audacity to grow older and then shamed again if we give in to the pressure this expectation of perfection creates and cut ourselves to pieces trying to obtain the unobtainable.

To those men who label it misandry when men are portrayed as bumbling and incompetent in domestic matters such as running a household and raising children, who complain about the social expectations of the dating scene, ie; who pays for dinner, the issues involving child custody, and the harmful stereotypes of masculinity which stifles men from fully expressing themselves and their emotions for fear of being labelled as weak,  these are  in actual fact, effects of patriarchy.  It's been said before, but I will say it again, patriarchy hurts men too.  The same hateful system, that although ultimately benefits men and oppresses women, does have negative side effects which are felt by men.  It's something that feminism does address when discussing the effects of patriarchy and women's oppression and it is real, but it is NOT MISANDRY.

Also, is it surprising that like men,  women internalise the messages of patriarchy?   Just as a woman may  internalise the expected behaviours and stereotypes for women that patriarchy teaches, she does likewise  with the messages patriarchy reinforces about men.  It is still misogyny when she expects you to pay for her dinner, open doors for her, judges you for not being the 'manly man' by daring to be vulnerable and show emotion. It is crappy, unpleasant behaviour but it is NOT MISANDRY.  

Unlike misandry, misogyny has very serious and damaging effects for women.  It's what fosters rape culture which excuses sexual violence and other abuses towards women by calling on harmful stereotypes and myths that are used to blame victims and hold them responsible for their own attacks and rapes.  The pervasiveness of rape culture promotes such a fear in women that it restricts their ability to move freely in the world.  Misogyny restricts women's careers and earning potential, especially in male dominated professions and work environments.  And professions that are typically female dominated are held in lesser regard by society and remunerated accordingly.  Then there is the Madonna/Whore complex which polices women's sexuality by basing a woman's value on her sexual status.  Slut shaming plays on this.  It is used to excuse all matters of crimes against women and also as a powerful silencing tool, as many women will go out of their way to avoid labels like, 'slut' and 'whore'.  Misogyny is restricting, oppressive and dangerous for women and sometimes men.  Misandry might hurt your feelings, but it's unlikely to turn your whole world upside down. 

 There are so many reasons to be angry as a woman and if sometimes that anger by individual women is directed at individual men or even all men, it does not have the institutionalised power behind it the way misogyny does, and is not comparable.

Image courtesy of [Salvatore Vuono] / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Choice, Motherhood, and Being a Woman.

By: Liberate Zealot

Sometimes it is difficult for me to reconcile my feminist identity with that of me as a part of my family. Other times it's it nearly impossible to reconcile my upbringing with that of a woman (in the United States).

No matter the aspect of myself, or my actions and beliefs, there seems to be an incongruence.  This touches every part of my life, but for most it is the idea that my identity as a person is not completely recognized, within society or even my family.

I imagine this is a recognition many people experience.  Those of us who are in some way outside, be it because we're queer, or people of color, or disabled, and non-Christian or women.  And rebelling against the established norms only exacerbates our lack or personhood and belonging.

So often society/politics/my family makes me feel incomplete. A not fully actualized version of a person.  And oddly enough it is my upbringing that makes me able to recognize this incongruence.

I was brought up to be opinionated; and confident in my voice and experience and opinions. I was brought up to see myself as a being of worth, as a full and independent entity. And yet, as I age, that full and independent worth and identity is stripped from me.

Once upon a time I saw myself with children, even if I never had a partner.  But as I've left my upper middle class upbringing, and as political and social spheres has turned more pro-fetus and anti-woman, I've experienced a great change in that regard.  Now I know I'll never be willingly pregnant or a mother.  And when I expressed that to my (mainly feminist) parents the question wasn't centered around what had made me change my mind, but what my male partner thought of this. As if my decisions about my body and life were incomplete without a man's opinion.

And I have a brother who goes to pro-life marches and studies to become a priest in the Catholic Church.  And I have so many other family members who seeks to do right and help others but cannot conceive an existence of worth without it being one in line with their own views and beliefs.

And these views and beliefs are the ones that say I should be incomplete without offering up my body and life to motherhood.  That my male partner is the primary actor in our partnership.  That to be a true  women I must be a mother.  And that to be a mother I must sacrifice all for my children.  And that my body, mind, and desires are secondary to that.

And so many of them cannot understand my virulent objection of these ideas.

They cannot understand that my primary objective to motherhood is that of being unwilling to sacrifice my personhood. Instead they convince themselves that it is about a lack of love and understanding of children (despite my decade of work with children).

I cannot conceive of being pregnant in a country where so many people prize the life and humanity of a pregnant person as secondary to the fetus they willingly (or unwillingly) carry.  And that this is a devaluation of humanity that only effects pregnant people.  No one else is expected to sacrifice their organs or living conditions for another person.

And I cannot conceive of being a parent, a mother, in a world that devalues mothers.  Where father's are praised where mothers in the same situations are hated and mocked.  Where women are hated for being working mothers, or for needing more than motherhood to experience a complete life.

I am a person, a human, first and foremost.  And many aspects of my identity means that society seeks to take that personhood away from me.   And I cannot imagine willingly ceding more of my personhood.

Some people must give up parts of their personhood to live the lives they want, and I cannot blame them for such.  Certainly I have done the same in different areas.  Some do not see these identities or lives as a ceding of their personhood.  Some glory in the chance of rebellion.

All of these lives and choices have worth.  And I hope, with all my heart, that they are centered around a freely made choice.

I just wish society recognized the choices of women.  And saw us as full humans worthy and capable of making choices about our own lives.

Babe, Is this Sexist?

And once again we address Rosie the Riveter remakes and cleaning advertisements. But this time they're mixed together!

ARE YOUR FUCKING KIDDING ME!

Of course this is fucking sexist, as has been noted by other people.  But seriously, how anyone could have missed the sexism (or not cared) and approved this image is beyond me.

Rosie the Riveter was a rallying cry for women to support the Nation during war time.  It was about women entering the work force in new and necessary ways. It was about casting off old gender roles.  It was about more women shouldering new responsibilities with pride and success.

To take all of that and turn it into some cheap knock off about cleaning (traditional women's work) is so fucking sexist and reductive and just a ridiculous understanding of signs and signifiers and art/history that I really cannot fucking believe it!

Go to the Babe, is this Sexist? Masterpost to see all our installments

And please leave suggestions for topics for future posts in the Babe, is this Sexist? Series.  

You can do so by leaving messages here or in the masterpost.

By tweeting us @FemArmRegime #babeisthissexist?

By messaging us on Tumblr or Facebook. 

Do Not Mistake My Calmness

By: Liberate Zealot

Content Warning: Mentions of rape, street harassment, and rape threats.

Don't mistake my projection of calmness for a lack of emotion.
I'm a woman, brought up not to rage.

Please Sir, Tell Me More About How to Feminism

By: Liberate Zealot

Originally posted on Tumblr

Lady Feminists we all owe Charles Clymer of Equality for Women a big “Thank You”!

I especially like his telling women what words they can reclaim or not reclaim, almost as much as I like straight people telling me not to use the word queer.

Also he’s right, I should be exceedingly thankful for my period.  After all it’s only 5 days a month (~900 days so far) of sometimes crippling pain and the hundreds of dollars of added expense for pads, tampons, pain medication, and stained underwear.

And it’s true, reminding male feminists/allies that they have male privilege is totes disrespectful.

And promoting classism and dismissiveness to women are surely the ways to do feminism right.

And If I was being sarcastic in this and actually have nothing but contempt for men like Charles Clymer, well I’m just one of those 1% feminists who has nothing better to do then foam at the mouth.

Plus I’m totally a misandrist. 

Top Ten Tips For Being a 'Good Wife'.

By Violet Paradox

Today I came across this blog post written by  a woman named Suzanne Venker.  It lists her top ten do's and don'ts for being a good wife.  If  alarm bells are ringing, they should be.  This list, taken from her book - How to Choose a Husband - is truly terrible.  Venker justifies her awful advice to women by claiming that she knows her tips are not politically correct but that 'they work'.   I suppose that depends upon whose happiness is being  prioritised.  (Hint:  Its not the woman's - surprised?)  You can find the full post here.   


 I've added my own little response to each of her husband friendly tips, but I'm sure there is much more to be said, and I would love to hear other opinions.  I make the note, that I too am a wife and a stay at home mother (of five).  If I had to follow these tips to be a good wife, then I'm afraid,  I wouldn't be a wife at all.  Luckily, I know my husband wouldn't want his happiness to be at the expense of my own.  


1.    When it isn’t absolutely necessary to speak up, don’t. Silence can be golden.

Golden to whom?  To your husband who is probably blissfully unaware that there is something that he has said or done to upset or anger you?  Or even worse, knows he is being a jackass but you, being the good wifey that you are, won't challenge him on his asshattery?  Because a healthy and happy marriage is built on the happiness and peace of mind of only the husband?  Silence is only golden at the end of the day when the kiddies are asleep and you have your feet up relaxing with the beverage of your choice.  Other than that, No, silence is not golden, it's counter-productive and detrimental to your well being.

2.    Have regular sex, even if it’s just a quickie and you’re not in the mood.

This is extremely rapey advice.   Having sex when you are not in the mood is never an advisable thing to do.  A partner or husband who would disregard your feelings in this matter and  have sex when you were not into it, is not taking the time to ensure that you are actually consenting to sex.  But how would he know anyway, when Venker is advising you to stay silent and not speak up?

3.    It’s okay to cook for your husband and even—gasp—serve him a plate of food. Cooking is      love.

Patronising much?  Negotiate your own cooking arrangements.  To do this, you would have to disregard tip number one, you bad wife you.  And -gasp- It's okay for hubby to wash the dishes even after he's cooked.  Washing up is just that.  Washing up. 

4.    Encourage your husband to go out with the guys just as you like to go out with your girlfriends. (Note: This does not include an eight-hour game of golf on Saturday after you’ve just given birth.)

If you are getting enough time away from the house with your friends and hubby needs some encouraging to do the same, I see nothing wrong with that.  My guess is that hubby isn't staying at home and away from his friends unless that is exactly what he wants to do. If he thinks it's appropriate to go and play golf just after you've given birth, maybe extra encouragement to go out with the guys isn't what's needed here.

5.    If you’re home with young children and your husband is the breadwinner, give him time to decompress after work. Don’t shove a baby in his arms when he gets home and take off for  the night.

Breadwinner, pfft!  How much 'bread' will he be bringing home if you are unwell and he needs to take time off work to look after you and the children/household?  Exhaustion, stress, and a relentless routine can suppress the immune system making one susceptible to germs and bugs or other more serious illnesses.   Especially when you cannot even rely on the person who is supposed to love you the most to notice that you may need to 'decompress' too, if not more urgently.  And seriously, 'take off for the night'??  Who is this hypothetical wife that Venker is basing this article on?   Offloading a noisy, unsettled baby onto the father as he walks in the door sounds reasonable to me.  Anyone who  has dealt with an unhappy baby for a few hours, let alone all day by themselves, will know that it can be an extremely stressful thing to deal with.  It's highly unlikely that mum is going to do a dash out the door at the same time and not return for the night.  I'm not saying that doesn't happen, but really, how often would that scenario occur?  And even if she did, she probably needs it and totally deserves to get away.

6.    Do everything in your power not to measure the amount of work your husband does at home with the amount of work you do at home. If you’re your children’s primary caregiver, you will always do more household chores because you’re around the house more. Unless your husband spends most of his time in front of the TV outside of work, he’s probably pitching in more than you think.

This sort of attitude really gets my goat.  Hubby knocks off work, gets to come home and 'decompress' while you silently go about managing the children, (My guess is that you are supposed to ensure they are silent and well behaved too) while cooking him a nice dinner, (extra sprinkling of love, or hot chili - whatever).  When is knock off time for you?  He's been working all day, you've been working all day (Yes it is work, unpaid, mostly undervalued, but hard work, no matter how much one loves or enjoys it most of the time).  How about you both decompress over a cuppa, then  finish off the day together, helping each other with what needs to be done?  Oh and even with men that 'pitch in'  what seems to be equal amounts of housework when they are home, chances are they are doing a lot less  than their fair share.

7.    Make your husband’s family your family, particularly since you expect him to do likewise.

 If extended families are the kind that generally are decent people, who are tolerable to be around, then fair enough.  This isn't always the case and no one should have to be around those who are threatening, triggering or downright dangerous.  Family situations and obligations are complex and there needs to be an open communication between partners to negotiate this (oh dear, flouting tip number one again!) If your husband's family are constantly undermining you, your husband needs to stand by you and insist that their behaviour change, and support you if you decide that you cannot be around people who do not respect you. Even if they are his family.  This should work both ways.

8.    Let your husband date you. This includes letting him choose where you’ll be going, letting  him drive, and allowing him to hold the door open for you. It also means letting him pay the bill. (Even if the money’s in one pot, the gesture is important.)

If your husband gets to the door before you, sure let him open it, but will it kill his self esteem so much if you open it first and let him through?  Partners take turns to pay the bills all the time.  I can't understand why making a point of letting him do it is such a big deal, unless his masculinity depends upon such gestures, then I would say it is a problem and that would be cause for concern.  And as far as driving.  How about who ever feels like driving  at the time, do the driving?

9.    When you and your husband have a conflict, look in the mirror. You may or may not be to blame, but recognizing that what you’re doing isn’t working can help steer you in a different direction. You can’t change other people—only yourself.

Well, since you are supposed to stay silent in all matters apart from ones of the utmost importance...'Um excuse me dear, you appear to be on fire...'  I guess looking in the mirror and trying to find ways to blame yourself for the conflicts that you are having with your husband is pretty much all that is left for you to do.

10.   Last, but definitely not least: Don’t be a bitch. Be sweet. 

I've  been about as sweet as I can be reading through this garbage.  So all I have left to say in response to this one is, 'FUCK OOOOOOFFFFFFF!!!!!1111!!!!'

 I know what won't be on my Christmas wish list this year.

When Male Feminists/Allies Aren't

By: Liberate Zealot

I'm so sick of these "feminist" men who in attempting to recruit more men to feminism start telling women feminists how to feminism, or what language we should use, or the proper tones and measures to take to end patriarchy/kyriarchy.

Male feminists/allies should be attempting to turn their places feminist.  They should discuss feminism and bring feminism to men.

But in doing so they don't get to declare the death of "women's issues".
Or say the male hierarchy should/will be the main factor in ending patriarchy.
Or claim it's necessary to make feminism more appealing and comfortable for men.
Or co-opt and rebrand feminist/women's terms to appeal to men.

They don't get to take feminist theory (built and centered around women) or issues that primarily target women and other uterus havers and re-name and re-center it around (cis)men. Those actions are not the actions of a feminist/ally, but a perpetuation of the patriarchy.

I have absolutely no patience for these types of men.  Especially when they speak as "accredited" feminists/allies and representatives of feminist/women's orgs.  I'm not going to waste my time "educating" them and providing a detailed break-down of why that they're saying/writing is patriarchal.   They obviously have the resources to learn why such behavior is inappropriate.  If they cared enough about dismantling their male privilege they would attempt to do so, instead of glorifying in their high brow version of WATM.

If you can't handle something being woman centered, where the primary actors of change are women, then you'e not a feminist/ally. And if you think the only way to appeal to a certain group of men is centering feminism around them, then you're failing, because you're not creating allies, you're creating in-group oppressors.

Why Charles Ramsey Is Not My Hero

By: Malanka Sveta

Content Warnings: Discussions of rape, kidnapping, abuse, and murder

Don't get me wrong, I'm certain that Charles Ramsay is a good man.  I am grateful that he was present when someone needed help.  I'm grateful that he, at some slight risk to himself, helped a woman and a child get through a door.  I am grateful that he called 911.  I will always be grateful that Charles Ramsay is a functioning person who will meet the minimum requirement for being a good person.  I am grateful for every functioning person I know, and those that I only hear about.  But he is not the hero in this story.  He risked very little, and he was in a position of having freedom.

Babe, is this Sexist?

There's been no voting this time around, mainly because there's one particular mass market/pop-culture object that we really want to address.  Namely, Disney's Marvel Heroes Shirts for Teen Girls.

Yes, it says "I NEED A HERO"

Sexist in it's own right, and sexist when compared to the Teen Boys shirt (which says "Be A Hero").

Really, this shirt is sexist in so many ways.

- There's the erasure of the female Avengers (Black Widow, the Wasp) and other female Super Heroes (like half of the X-Men, which is why they were my favorite superhero teams as a child). 

- Then there's the absolute horrible messaging.  Boys can be heroes, but girls can't.  We just have to sit around waiting to be saved.  Which just plays into all the standard patriarchy gender roles especially as they apply to stories/literature; girls are trophies for active males, they aren't active in their own right.

And women and girls are just supposed to pay money for these messages? 

Now we're hardly the first to call out this t-shirt, and Disney has already pulled it (which how it got created in the first place still boggles my mind).  

Of course they still have this other sexist shirt...

Too bad it's not a picture of Black Widow.  

Go to the Babe, is this Sexist? Masterpost to see all our installments

And please leave suggestions for topics for future posts in the Babe, is this Sexist? Series.  

You can do so by leaving messages here or in the masterpost.

By tweeting us @FemArmRegime #babeisthissexist?

By messaging us on Tumblr or Facebook. 

Resource in dismantling the claims and "proof" of MRAs/"Humanists"

By: Liberate Zealot

One thing trolls/MRAs/"humanists" love doing when they come into feminist spaces is share videos from girlwriteswhat and all her awesome proof that its much harder being a man, patriarchy doesn't exist, and feminists are stupid and man haters.  I'm guessing their propensity to share her videos verses other attempts to discredit feminism is partially because she's a woman and partially because if you're not educated on the topics she discusses then her points can seem persuasive.

Now I'm going to respond to some of her claims, but the focus is responding to people who use girlwriteswhat as proof that feminism is unnecessary.  This post is not directed at girlwriteswhat herself.

General response when people post her videos:
The points made by girlwriteswhat can seem persuasive, however a majority of them are based on inaccurate or misrepresented history/law/practice/science.  A lot of them rely on popular tropes that upon further investigation from reliable/academic sources proves untrue.  In the rare cases what all of girlwriteswhat information is correct she's still faulty in her focus on feminism.  The causes of the issues she correctly names is the Patriarchy/Kyriarchy, which feminism fights against.

The two most popular videos that people share (in my experience) are the ones on "Feminism and the Disposable Male"and the almost two parter about rights of the child, paternal rights, men's responsibility in preventing pregnancy and financial abortions.

The myths within the "Disposable Male"
"Women and Children First" as a successful policy of life saving pretty much began and ended with the Titanic.   Other British ships did claim this policy, but when it came to maritime disasters it was almost never followed. Generally men are much more likely to survive a disaster, this is even more true for the captain and crew ("going down with the ship" was basically another Titanic exception).

Also unlike her claims, current standards of saving people on ships/from fires makes no distinction between men and women. People might need and receive special assistance because they're children/have disabilities/carrying multiple children. Basically you take care of people who need the most care/assistance first which is generally not an able bodied adult of either gender. 

Almost no society in history or our modern era provides resources or care for men last. Now the resources and care people get are very class dependent, but if families/communities don't have enough wealth to care for all their children male children receive the food/healthcare/education first (infanticide and sex based abortions really don't happen to boys). The primary exception to this is when the woman is pregnant/breast feeding (a son). And that's because so many women had miscarriages (1 in 3 or 4) or died in child birth (1 in 3 again) that the extra resources were necessary for them to have a chance of a healthy pregnancy/delivery. 

As for the continuing of the species, child creation is easier for a man.  Men *can* father children on a variety of women.  The costs of pregnancy (time and the 1 in 3 death rates) are much harsher on women.  But when it comes down to it genetic distribution necessitates almost as many reproductively viable men as women.  

Inaccurate representation of causes

Work place death - Men are more likely to die at work, because they're more likely to take dangerous jobs like mining/oil rigging. The reason is women are still often excluded from these jobs. When it comes to dangerous factory jobs and the fire in them women are as likely, if not more likely to die (because they've been locked into the factories). Work place safety is a definite issue, but it's caused by classism/Patriarchy/Kyriarchy, not feminism. And plenty of feminists do work to fight classism and engage in labor movements. 

As for war, women have been soldiers (at lesser numbers then men) for millennia. Also the main attitude of women at battlefields was not about them being locked up and protected, but rather tortured/murdered/raped. Many feminists fight to gain women more fair access as soldiers. Many feminists are also anti-war activists. Some of us even do both. 

Paternal, Maternal and Child's Rights

Preventing pregnancy - Everyone engaging in sex is equally responsible for preventing pregnancies.  Now there isn't a male pill, thought it is scientifically difficult yet possible, but there are two good ways for men to prevent pregnancy. Condoms, which have the extra bonus of protecting from STIs and STDs, and vasectomies which are relatively simple and safe (especially compared to tubal ligation).  If you happen to be in India there's also an even better way for men to control their own birth control.  In India there is a gel injection which can block semen.  It's cheap, lasts for 10 or so years, is easily reversible, and has very few documented side effects compared to hormonal birth control. MRAs also seem to have a great fear of reproductive coercion where women sneakily get pregnant (through the sabotage of birth control) against the wishes of her male partner. And this can and occasionally does happen, but birth control sabotage most commonly is done by men as a form of domestic abuse.   

Abortion is not just an answer to not wanting to be a parent, but is also about body autonomy and not wanting to be pregnant.  Which is why the idea of "fiscal abortion" is rather offensive.  Sure, you don't want to have the legal and financial responsibility of being a parent, but that's what adoption is about.  

Adoption and parental rights also comes up in the case of men wanting to keep a child but the women giving them up for adoption.  Which in the US doesn't happen.  Adoptions can't go through without the father's consent.  Men have the right to raise their children and can challenge adoptions and the other legal methods people can give up children.  The exact rights vary based on location, but birth father's have rights and it's a complete falsehood to state that birth mothers can give their child up for adoption no matter what the birth father says. 

When it comes to divorce and custody parental responsibility and "rights of the child" are the main concerns.  This means that if equally shared custody is not possible than the primary or sole custody is determined on the best interests of the child and who is the primary caretaker.  The is determined by which parent is more active in the day to day life of the child, who picks them up from school/when they're sick, who helps with homework, who prepared their meals.  Patriarchal gender roles mean woman are more likely to do this so mother's are more likely to get primary or sole custody.  (This isn't the case if the parents are unmarried and/or have never lived together while raising the child).  In my experience working in child care and dealing with lots of divorced/never married families (and sometimes being involved in the divorce/custody proceedings) the mothers are more likely to be awarded custody, however if the father is an active parent and wants custody of his kids then the custody will be shared equally or he'll get primary custody. 

Other generic claims - 
Benevolent Sexism really is a thing, and while it's more prevalent in places with high hostile sexism something being less worse than the alternative doesn't make it acceptable.

Actually feminists aren't man haters, hating the patriarchy isn't the name thing as hating individual men. Feminists are less likely than non-feminists to believe the male-hating ideas of "men are dogs" or "rapist is a natural state for men".