The Book “Feminism Is For Everybody” Confirms That Feminism Is Not For Everybody

A friend of mine recently challenged me to read the book Feminism Is For Everybody by Bell Hooks. He told me that, as a gender studies major, he found the pop culture version of feminism to be very different from the academic feminism he was studying, and said that if I wanted to talk about feminism, I needed to read major feminist writing.

Since I actually enjoy listening to friends and authors I disagree with, I told him I’d read the book with an open mind. While Feminism Is For Everybody didn’t make me a feminist, it did show what’s wrong with feminism, and how to fix it.


What Does the Book Say?

In the introduction, Bell Hooks states this book is specifically intended to convince men, who “have no idea what it is feminists want” and are only familiar with feminism through “patriarchal mass media” that “they would find in feminist movement the hope of their own release from the bondage of patriarchy.” In other words, if you read ROK, you’re her target audience.

Hooks defines feminism as “A movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression” and considers patriarchy synonymous with domination. By defining patriarchy as a system of domination, rather than a division of social roles intended for mutual benefit, Hooks creates a straw man that equates patriarchy with oppression.

Her writing often delves into broad generalizations without any examples or definitions. For example:

Males as a group have and do benefit the most from patriarchy, from the assumption that they are superior to females and should rule over us. But those benefits have come with a price. In return for all the goodies men receive from patriarchy, they are required to dominate women, to exploit and oppress us, using violence if they must to keep patriarchy intact.

Hooks doesn’t define what “ruling over women” means, what “goodies men receive,” how men dominate women, or give any examples of actual violence committed to “keep patriarchy intact.” Her description is so vague, there’s no way to verify or falsify any of the claims she’s made. She gives no facts of any kind and only a handful of anecdotes, making the majority of the book simply opinions she asserts without evidence.


Where Bell Hooks becomes interesting is her critique of the feminist movement.

Are Feminists Anti-Male?

In her history of feminism, Hooks acknowledges “There was indeed a great deal of anti-male sentiment among early feminist activists,” since many came to the movement from physically abusive marriages. Despite this, Hooks argues that modern feminism is not anti-male, and the problem was that “conservative mass media constantly represented feminist women as man-haters.”

However, when talking about “anti-sexist men” joining the movement, she states:

Anti-male factions within the feminist movement resented the presence of anti-sexist men because their presence served to counter any insistence that all men are oppressors, or that all men hate women… They portrayed all men as the enemy in order to represent all women as victims.

Hooks’s writing is full of contradictions. She says in the opening that men benefit from patriarchy, and then later states “men who are not rich and powerful” don’t have much privilege and are discovering that patriarchy doesn’t benefit them. Which is it?

Her aspirations for feminism frequently contradict the things feminists actually say and do:

When feminist movement was “hot,” radical lesbian activists constantly demanded that straight women reconsider their bonds with men, raising the question of whether or not it was possible for women to ever have a liberated heterosexual experience within a patriarchal context…

Teaching one of my first women’s studies courses in San Francisco I was confronted by a group of radical lesbian students who wanted to know why I was still “into” men. After class one day in the parking lot there was a showdown.

If a group of straight men had a “showdown” in the parking lot with their gay professor, asking him why he was still into men, we would call them homophobic. While Hooks tries to fight the image of feminists as angry lesbians, her few personal anecdotes illustrate a significant portion of the feminist movement is deeply heterophobic.


Are Women The Primary Abusers?

“In a zealous effort to call attention to male violence against women reformist feminist thinkers still choose often to portray females as always and only victims. The fact that many violent attacks on children are perpetrated by women is not equally highlighted.”

One area I found myself agreeing with Hooks was her condemnation of child abuse perpetrated by women. Hooks’s willingness to confront female violence is incredibly brave, even if she frames it with the absurd statement that this abuse only comes from the fact many women are “more patriarchal” than men.

Women are often the primary culprits in everyday violence against children… Maternal sadism often leads coercion of children must be seen as just as horrendous as male abuse… A serious gap in feminist thinking and practice has been the refusal of the movement to confront head-on adult female violence against children.

Hooks states that the root of male violence is abuse, and shame received at the hands of the mother, because “abusive shaming lays the foundation for other forms of abuse.” As she illustrates in the best passage of the book:

Often I tell the story of being at a fancy dinner party where a woman is describing the way she disciplines her young son by pinching him hard, clamping down on his little flesh for as long as it takes to control him. And how everyone applauded her willingness to be a disciplinarian. I shared the awareness that her behavior was abusive, that she was potentially planting the seeds for this male child to grow up and be abusive to women. Significantly, I told the audience of listeners that if we had heard a man telling us how he just clamps down on a woman’s flesh, pinching her hard to control her behavior it would have been immediately acknowledged as abusive. Yet when a child is being hurt this form of negative domination is condoned. This is not an isolated incident – much more severe violence against children is enacted daily by mothers and fathers.

If women are the primary perpetrators of child abuse, and pass these patterns of abuse on to their children, the system of oppression Hooks opposes is actually matriarchal. It is a system perpetrated and passed down through bad mothers. Hooks calls her own mother “the strongest patriarchal voice in my life,” and frequently hints at an incredibly unhappy and abusive childhood.


Is Family the Solution?

Since the need to dominate others originates from feelings of powerlessness in childhood, then the solution would be to make sure children are loved and accepted. What has feminism done to make sure boys grow up in happy homes?

Hooks herself says, “No significant body of feminist literature has appeared that addresses boys.” Due to the influence of feminism, boys are frequently shamed simply for being masculine, drugged at young ages for wanting to play, and are falling behind women in school and work.

While Hooks advocates men playing an equal role in child rearing, most boys are now being raised in single-parent, or divorced homes, with most divorces initiated by women. Feminist policies have resulted in less involvement from fathers, and total matriarchal control of the household.

Hooks seems uncomfortable with the idea of motherhood, saying “Female sexual freedom requires dependable, safe birth control… It evokes fear within me just to imagine a world where every time a female is sexual she risks being impregnated.” She criticizes authors who suggest women can find happiness in making raising children their primary role. She projects oppression onto men, even defining her own mother’s abuse as masculine, so she can avoid truly confronting it, and continue to play out the pattern of powerlessness she learned as a child.

If women want a world without violence, they can raise one. Making sure children are loved and accepted would mean embracing the role of motherhood. It would mean taking the needs and feelings of boys seriously. It would mean choosing male partners interested in fatherhood, and giving them the support they need to remain in their children’s lives. It would mean making the family, and the needs of children the most important organizing principle of society. If that sounds like patriarchy, then maybe patriarchy is for everybody.

Read More: Why We Need To Fight For The Patriarchy

62 thoughts on “The Book “Feminism Is For Everybody” Confirms That Feminism Is Not For Everybody”

  1. I just have one question for you, runsonmagic, are you ok after putting your cerebrellum through that? Need a sparring partner to perhaps focus the mind a little?
    Thanks for taking the bullet for us.

  2. I could feel myself getting suckered into her reasoning, I had to shake my head after each excerpt. Kept getting fooled.

  3. You know your friend better than we do, obviously, but have you staged an intervention to dissuade him from majoring in Gender Studies?

    1. He has naturally outgrown feminism, and now says it only address women’s issues while ignoring men’s. But he’s still in academia. Fingers crossed he becomes an insurgent in the Cathedral’s Ivory Towers.

    2. US gender-studies does not attack all men equally, they just target men who date women. (hetero-males). This is gender-based discrimination!!

    1. They spout the patriarchy nonsense almost like a Nazi would spout their catchphrases. It’s bizarre how that sex is routinely “oppressed” throughout history and not men who worked the coal mines, fought in every war, die at an earlier age, allot power to women, and deal with politics, economics, and inventing.
      Really, if you choose not to associate thyself with those activities, does that make the patriarchy an oppressive regime? Most of the anti-feminist females are staunchly libertarian.

  4. I haven’t read the book. But from this review alone, other than her labeling every social and cultural problems as “patriarchy”, she seems much more sane compared to the radical feminists. At least she grew up as an underclass minority, unlike the privileged white feminists who scream rape whenever they are denied their princess treatment they are so used to getting.
    I liked how she brings up the issue of how women raise children (which, I must say is a bold move considering how any criticism of other women can mean death threats from the feminazis). Most men are too focused on themselves or don’t care enough to appreciate the damage women, especially single mothers, do to the future men of our society. Single mothers are responsible for girls who grow up thinking they’re princesses, and men who are either emasculated betas that some people here are so fond of making fun of, or in extreme cases, the likes of Marc Lepine and Newtown school shooter. Where are the fathers?

    1. The fathers aren’t there because there is no incentive to be there. In modern society you aren’t rewarded for going out of your way to be a good dad. You’re constantly put down and everyone tries to extract something from you. Even the manosphere makes fun of dads, even though we should be more enlightened than this. Someone who is an active father is contributing immensely to the health and well-being of society.
      I’m not a dad and don’t want to be one, I’m just pointing out the sad reality.

      1. Very true, fathers aren’t rewarded, even if a man want to raise a son well, 2 problems arise :
        1) Most women take advice from media and raise your son to be feminine.
        2) You can never be sure she won’t divorce and take the child with her (and without a dad, we know what happen…)
        It may be selfish but I won’t raise a son in those conditions. Maybe I’ll be a good redpill mentor later, but definatly not a father.

    2. Hey man, my mom raised me by herself and I turned out fine. Don’t blame single mothers, blame shitty parents – men and women. You think fathers can’t make abusers/rapists/’princesses’/whatever out of their kids? Of course they can! When you’re father (or mother) abandons you, your mother (or father) has to become both parents in one and damn did my mom do a fine job at it!
      I’m definitely on the side of father’s rights, don’t get me wrong! The way the legal system works, the father becomes a bank (sperm and monetary) and nothing more. It’s sick and dehumanizing (a favorite adjective among feminists I’ve encountered). But the real problem isn’t single motherhood, it’s unfit parenthood. Way too many people have kids because that’s what they think they’re supposed to do, or by accident, or for whatever really shitty reasons really shitty parents have kids. We need to make sure people know how to treat children (not only their own) so that they can grow up to be functioning societal members instead of setting up the straw man of “oh it’s single mothers’ fault!” It’s just as bad as patriarchy theory or whatever other bullshit radfems spew out of their proverbial dickholes. That outta rile ’em up a bit.

      1. If you look at the progenitors of 2nd wave radical feminism… you’ll find a lot of “Daddy didn’t let me… I hate Daddy… I hate men”.
        Track it back – we have Veruca Salt (the Dahl character)

  5. I quit reading the article at ( “patriarchal mass media” ). I would have to question a person’s sanity if they actually believed the mass media supported “patriarchy”. Sadly, this is the foundation of her argument. Everything else she says can’t be taken seriously because of this false assumption.

    1. This is an EXCELLENT article! This is the kind of calm, intelligent, and rational critique of feminism that RoK needs to post more of. Thanks!

  6. Sounds like she is saying that mommy issues in both women and men are as damaging as daddy issues in women.

  7. Her argument boils down to the same as radical feminists which is:
    ‘Because patriarchy’.

    1. Dear fucking God! Hahahaha! Thank you Oliver, if I have sons I will save this video and tell them, this is everything you DO NOT want to be as a man. Wow, just wow. What a complete pathetic beta mangina, No wonder why white women want to fuck black men, when this is all that is left. Smfh!

  8. so basically 50’s style of lifestyle where the man provides and the woman is the housewife is the best solution…
    we did a full circle jerk on this one…

    1. naw, dawg, it’s only the best solution for women. For horny young men, desperate 20-something sluts on the pill who think that it’s empowering to drunk fuck strangers is the best solution.

  9. One of the worst things that ever happened to women was the internet.
    Why? Because what they say can be put in front of men without “spin”. And when you read the garbage women come out with? You can not help but see the stupidity of their thinking.
    BOTH my grand mothers had a saying that they drummed into all their grand children time and time again.
    “If you had kept your mouth shut you might have been thought wise”.
    Would ANYONE call this dumb broad “wise”? I think not.
    Short story for ROK readers. This is what REAL women are like. This is how much my grand mothers believed in what they said.
    When I was 32 (18 years ago) my fathers mother was dying. I happened to be at a Landmark Forum and she happened to be at a hospice about 2kms from the centre. In one break we were given the assignment “go and tell someone important to you how much they mean to you”.
    I could think of no one better than my dying grand mother to go and talk to. So I ran out of the center and grabbed a cab like a madman in the middle of oxford street Sydney on a saturday afternoon. Australians will get it.
    I got to my Nanna Nolan and two of my aunts were sitting with her, her daughters….I decided to press on not caring how this might look to them……..Nanna was just sitting quietly in a chair. She was a very small woman. She was desperately ill from cancer and she knew she was not leaving this place. She was so tiny and frail. We all knew she was dying. So the most natural position for me was just to sit on my knees in front of her to be slightly below her level…otherwise I would have been above her being a large man.
    I just spilled my guts. I really did. This would be the last time I would speak to her and we both knew it. She meant the world to me. She had been one of the most important figures in my life. She was a lovely woman. She was hard as nails and a strict disciplinarian. I had gotten plenty of wacks from her when I was little…so much so one look from her could chill my heart. But on the other side there were the times I stayed with her and she cooked and fussed over me and made it clear that there was nothing in the world a woman loves more than her grandchildren. The christmas parties we had at her place as kids flooded back to me. Even as I say this I have tears in my eyes.
    So yeah….right there in front of her two daughters….my aunts…I spilled my guts and told her just how she was the most wonderful grandmother a boy could ever wish for and that she will never be forgotten so long as I live. My aunts were sobbing….they were very moved. And here I am telling her story to thousands more men.
    When I finished I was crying. I didn’t want my Nanna to die but there was nothing I could do other than to tell her how much I loved her and how much she meant to me. My dying Nanna looked down on me, a very slight tear in her eye, she smiled, patted me on the head, and said, simply,
    “Thank you”.
    Not one more word was needed.
    She then pulled her arm back from me…..closed her eyes….and rested with a smile of peace on her face.
    She died a week or two later. I did not see her alive again. I was asked to perform the grand childrens eulogy by my peers. She was so beloved that men who were 80+ years old told me at her funeral that they had never seen the like of it in their lives. More than 1,000 people turned out to her funeral. Virtually every football club in our area sent a delegation to honour her life.
    Our own football club, where she had served one the womens axillary, formed a guard of honour as she was taken from the church. We held the funeral in the largest church in my home town and more than 600 people were not able to make it into the church. We had loudspeakers for the crowd outside. The procession to the funeral was miles long. More than 500 of the people from the church came to the graveside to see her put to rest.
    One of the things I will never forget was this. In my eulogy I cried quite openly as I made my speech about my Nanna. After Nanna was buried and we were walking to the car my dad came to me and said “I am sorry, I thought you could handle the eulogy, I didn’t realise it would make you cry in public like that.”
    I stopped walking and he went a few more steps and finally stopped and turned and came back to me. I said to him “do you not yet realise that the eulogy was perfect”? He stopped to think about that for a bit….and then nodded that he understood….and we put our arms around each others shoulders as we walked back to the car…father and son who had buried someone tremendously important to us on that day together and understanding what we were going though.
    You know. In all my days I never heard my Nana Nolan every utter one word of complaint. Not even once. When I got married? I thought I was marrying a woman who would be like that 50 or 60 years later….what a shame for my ex jennifer she was not, eh?
    A woman like my Nanna Nolan? Everyone loved and respected. A woman like Jennifer my wife? No one can respect. Not even her own sons.

    1. Your grandmother was what real women are made of. They rarely make them like that anymore…..rarely!

      1. Both my grand mothers were great women. I was asked to do the grand childrens eulogy at both their funerals…the two greatest honours of my life.
        I refused to attend my mothers funeral as criminals were invited.
        No…the women of today are not a patch on my grand mothers or my mother….not even close….me ex Jennifer even admitted this herself.

  10. I read this book a year ago since it was short and I wanted to see if feminists had any solid arguments. This book was disappointing and was what I expected simultaneously, in the sense that it made a bunch of claims without backing them up and would likely not change your mind about feminism. At least hooks recognized that feminism was a movement for wealthy white ladies with little concern for other women:
    “From the onset of the movement women from privileged classes were able to make their concerns “the” issues that should be focused on in part because they were the group of women who received public attention. They attracted mass media. The issues that were most relevant to working women or masses of women were never highlighted by mainstream media. Betty Friedan’s The Feminist [sic] Mystique identified “the problem that has no name” as the dissatisfaction that females felt about being confined and subordinated in the home as housewives. While this issue was presented as a crisis for women it really was only a crisis for a small group of well-educated white women. While they were complaining about the dangers of confinement in the home a huge majority of women in the nation were in the workforce. And many of these working women, who put in long hours for low wages while still doing all the work in the domestic household would have seen the right to stay home as “freedom”.” Pages 37-8. bell hooks. Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. South End Press, Cambridge, MA. 2000.

  11. To quote Mr McKay off South park : “there is a very thin line between being a feminist and being a hater”

  12. Dude, I have to call you on this. The points where you agreed with her were transparent and ridiculous: you basically allowed her objections to female behavior that was stereotypically male, which implicitly damns men; allowed her critique of oppressive (patriarchal) behavior on children, which is a statement that the problem is that ANYONE acts like a man; allowed her to have the moral high ground when it came to the foundation of her argument, which is a view of people as victims of a power-mad masculine elite that is fundamentally evil and different from peaceable folk who only engage in aggression because the world forces them to. Such a review makes her basic point of view seem valid and your disagreements seem politically motivated; you can’t take the overall philosophy and reject pieces that don’t work for the interest group you side with. This is a lot of the problem with MRA’s and those who morally accept the tenets of liberalism.
    The piece reads like you expect her to read this thing and wanted to be civil. Meanwhile, they want to basically wipe out the empowerment inherent in the male gender identity; what she basically ripped on that you liked was women who – THE HORROR! – acted like men, and you bought it. Bullshit. If you accept aggression and dominance as being invariably on the wrong side of a good-v-evil dichotomy, then you’ve fucked yourself before you even start. This analysis of power is, fundamentally, deeply, embarrassingly, irrationally, catastrophically wrong.
    Feminists aren’t going to help you. Your empathy was just manipulated, and passing this case along through the channels of the attention economy here empowers her side. Boneheaded move, dude. I’ve done it, too, but I strongly suggest you don’t waste space and the mental efforts of your readers by putting yourself and them through such a thing again.

    1. Women who hurt children are not acting like men.
      Also, Bell Hooks is dead, and will not read this.

      1. I said that’s what it was LIKE, not that it’s what you intentionally did.
        What about disciplining children? At what arbitrary point does discipline become violence? Being in a position of authority and using pain to produce orderly behavior when other effective options don’t exist is not morally wrong. To say that it is wrong builds her case for her. Call it nit-picking, but agreeing with the premises of leftism begs for a rhetorical ass-whooping.
        Just be careful, man. That’s all I ask.

        1. I like the article , and your constructive criticism of the article . RoK is like that , race baiting articles with trolled out comments and insightful articles with intelligent constructive comments. This is why I read every day. This is a good comment.

  13. FEMINISM…such foolish nonsense. Raising a nonviolent society….will never happen and never should. It goes against the male instinct to dominate and grasp for power. The weak ask, beg and demand for equality. The strong take what they want through strength. Feminism is weak. Men are strong. The weak can never be equal to the strong. They depend on the strong to survive……there is no equality there.

  14. Fuck you with a knife for even entertaining this ridiculous anti-human notion called feminism. Furthermore, I’m not even sure whose team you’re actually on by convorting with the enemy. You should be kicked off this site for even trying to propagate such ridiculous notions as trying to convince feminists with reason and logic. Instead of trying to crack heads and reclaim your country, you’d rather reason with our enemies. Fuck you!

  15. Hooks is an epic fraudster, at the sharp end of professional feminism’s latest attempt to convince men that feminists are on their side. Yup, feminism frees men, because men are also oppressed by the patriarchy. The solution, of course, is to discover new masculinities. Hooks and her fellow travelers stand ready to help us deconstruct and cast off the chains of the old system. For Hooks, this coming together of women and New Men is founded in love… the true love feminists have for men who cut through cultural misconceptions to reclaim their true strength as de-gendered human beings.
    One other thing… Big Sis doesn’t like it when you disagree.

  16. Had a disagreement about this very topic with a feminist on Facebook today. Conversation can be paraphrased thusly:
    Original poster (female clothing designer/part time actress): I can’t stand feminism.
    Feminist friend: You can’t discredit a concept that saved you from nightly gang-rape and forced childbirth etc, etc, etc for about 1000 words
    Me: Feminism is not conducive to a productive society, equality, peace, or really much of anything but confusion.
    Me: Well, that escalated quickly. “Agree with everything I say, or much harm should come to your genitals. Wonder what would happen if I spoke to you that way?”
    FF: (and I’m going to keep this as a farewell when I meet male feminists, to help them feel more comfortable around me in the future) “May your penis be forever dried and sunburnt as if it were wandering the desert aimlessly.” (seriously, I think they like that. Dry dicking, we’ll call it.)
    This is basically what we’re faced with. We don’t need to take them head on. We don’t even need to acknowledge them on a face to face level. We need only be loud, firm, and bloody clear when things get into legal, political, or employment territories: that nobody will “require” us to be of a certain neutered mindset, and that “feelings” and “perception” are not reality. FACTS are.

    1. “We don’t need to take them head on.”
      If only that were true. Over the past four decades, these hateful nutjobs have had great success in sponsoring legislation that directly threatens our freedoms. Continued passivity will only make things worse.

  17. After writing
    “Males as a group have and do benefit the most from patriarchy, from the
    assumption that they are superior to females and should rule over us.
    But those benefits have come with a price. In return for all the goodies
    men receive from patriarchy, they are required to dominate women, to
    exploit and oppress us, using violence if they must to keep patriarchy
    Whatever she writes about some fractions of feminism that hate men is irrelevant, useless and dishonest.
    If there are benefits for men, the price is not the requirement to dominate women, but to be dominated by society, to die for society, in work, in wars, to work one third of a lifetime, be taxed to the hilt… To face rejection, shaming…
    And to be punished for dominating women… We really must be in a patriarchy.

  18. You misspelled bell hooks’ name~!!!!!
    Back in undergrad, I had the dubious honor of taking a womyn’s study course, read this garbage, and in my paper spelled her name “Bell Hooks.” I got docked for not spelling her name as she wished and as she was published: all lower case.
    I dropped that class so fucking fast and never touched anything gender studies related again.

    1. I LOVE taking “Gender Studies” classes, as I get to be the most HATED woman in the room, I have traditional values, use facts, logic and reason to defend my point, and have been tossed out of class for those traditional values at least once…….

  19. Women are the culture conveyor between the old and the new generation, so it is surprising how dissmised is their role in “The Patriarchy”.
    We can start saying “that woman has mummy issues”

  20. This is one of the best articles I’ve ever read on this website. Brilliant analysis. I would love to see the author and Bell Hooks debate in front of a whole stadium of college students. Every college student in the US needs to read this article.

  21. Great Article.
    I’d love more articles on ths theme: reading entry level feminism indoctrination texts. This way your 19 year old new college readers see this when they look to google for ideas on how to interpret the text.

    1. Brilliant idea. The better the fisking, the bigger the resulting feminist meltdown, resulting in a higher page rank, yielding even more readers. It’s a virtuous cycle.

  22. The lie of feminism is that it will “free” men along with women from gender roles by destroying the evil patriarchy. But the very term feminism means matriarchy and seeks equality, and privileges, where it suits women. Even as feminists portrayed women as household slaves for the patriarchy, at least that economic model worked. But the problem with feminism, and mainstream feminism as most women practice it, is that it doesn’t work: They want men to pay the taxes and child-support and all the bills as wage slaves while women should be paid “equal” and then spend the money at the shopping mall or for mad money so she can walk out of the relationship at any time.
    In a limited way, that economic model works: There are men who live like monks working 60 weeks and paying the bills while her income is mad money. I know a lot of guys like that. But the problem is that the welfare state infrastructure encourages women who can’t find a sucker man like that to become an unwed mother and then breed violent criminals. Any goodies women got from feminism were offset by paying for the welfare state. Most women I know seethe with anger at unwed mothers and the welfare state but it’s a direct consequence of a shortage of patriarchal men unwilling, or unable, to be wage slaves for such worthless women and their worthless offspring. So in the end, most women now wind up working and paying the bills too.

  23. THIS is the best piece ROK has put up yet.
    Excellent work! You exposed, very efficiently, why feminism is such a harmful and horrible joke for an ideology. These people willfully exclude any and all facts that contradict their world view. And I am not just talking about a small set of facts, but the vast majority of reality, and focus on only a slither of human interaction. They then literally make up statistics to support their case. Even then, they end up contradicting themselves.
    Truly, most of these women are deeply psychologically harmed. I would venture a bet that 50% or more of “professors” of women’s studies have Borderline Personality Disorder. How they make there way so deeply into contemporary culture says less about them that it does about women generally in Western society.
    When feminism runs politics (e.g., see Barack Obama), the crazies are in charge. They then do crazy stuff. And look at what we have now: Lunacy.

  24. Trying to end sexism is like trying to end general kindness. You will always have one or the other.

  25. Great article, well at least one feminist acknowledges that child abuse is more common among women, I’m still waiting for the Jezebel hit piece on Bell Hooks for going against the dogma, like they do with Camille Pagilia and other dissident feminists.

  26. Modern US gender-feminism does not attack all men equally, they just attack any men who date women…they specifically target hetero-males. This is discrimination based on gender!!

  27. When even the most deluded of feminists can’t help but to have moments of clarity, the writing is on the wall that a movement is done for.

  28. In other words, she is playing the definition game: defining “patriarchial’ to mean the same as ‘hierarchical’. Once the listener accepts this redefinition of the word, they switch back to the old definition. She’ll say that women who abuse kids are ‘patriarchial’, and once you
    accept that line of discussion, she’ll say “and therefore men should stop oppressing
    “Tomatos are bad! They cause radiation sickness, they flatten cities! Only two tomatos have ever been used in war: they have been rightly banned by civilised nations.” Once you understand that ‘tomato’ means ‘atom bomb’, and you read her work with this new definition in mind, she switches back: “therefore, it is bad to grow tomatoes in your backyard and you should stop it”.
    It’s called equivocation.

Comments are closed.