>The Ladies Auxiliary of the Ladyhaters Club
>
 |
| Women in groups: Always trouble. |
One of the strangest places in the burly world of Men’s Rightsers and MGTOWers is The Spearhead’s Shieldmaidens forum. And no, I am not making that name up. It’s a forum, essentially, for women interested in being a sort of Women’s Auxiliary to a bunch of guys who are all about hating women.
Given that such a role – trying to help dudes who don’t much like you or your whole gender — is a bit of a tricky one, the forum moderator Hestia has written a long introductory post explaining just what new gals should and shouldn’t do to support their menfolk. It’s kind of a masterpiece of doublespeak. Let’s look at some of its highlights.
Hestia starts out by warning the ladies that these rough men sometimes talk in a rough manner:
As this is a male environment, us girls can expect styles of communication that we might not use ourselves or readily relate to. For the purpose of this post, I will call all of this “locker room talk”. … Topics and expressions women may find crude are likely to occur and generalizations about women (or white, western, whatever) used to adequately get a point across. These differences, while bothersome to some women, are not wrong in and of themselves and are not reason to shame men into expressing themselves differently. As women in the locker room, we are the ones who need to look the other [way] and make accommodations; not the men for whom this website is for.
In other words: the guys here may call you sluts and whores and worse, but really, that’s your fault for being here in the first place, so don’t complain.
Welcome aboard!
Hestia continues:
We must also respect this place as one of the few politically incorrect sanctuaries that men have in today’s misandrist world. … We should not be bullying men into saying, “yes, indeed not all women are like that!” to appease our own egos. … This is sacred male friendly ground and should be treated as such. … We are but guests on this website and must know our place and respect certain boundaries for the sake of the men here and for the work towards gender peace.
Hard to be more abject than this. So how have the menfolk responded?
It appears that not too many men actually read the Shieldmaidens forum, but among those who do, the reaction has been a little less than enthusiastic. Our friend GlobalMan, one of the more excitable Spearhead regulars, basically tells her (and all women) to fuck off entirely:
I have voiced my opinion many times women should be banned all together from here. They are contributing nothing and they are taking up a lot of time and energy of the stupid young men who do not realise that women are just attention whores who won’t actually do anything at the end of the day. ….You women pretty much fuck up everything you stick your nose into. And you never, ever tire of fucking things up for men under the delusion you have ‘something to contribute’. You don’t. Get over it. You pop out babies. That is your one and only ‘claim to fame’ and it used to be enough for a man to love a woman for her whole life and to provide for her and the kids. Now it is not. So you women need to ‘act like men’ and suck it up.Indeed. If women had any class at all you would leave of your own accord and let the men sort out what you refused to. The only posts from women here should be ‘Men, please tell us what to do’.
A fellow calling himself Diogenes offers his two cents:
That Hestia has to write this thread proves that indeed women who come to this board do exactly that which she complains against. They have such a cozy and male-coddled life that they are shocked when some men rightly express their scorn and foul language towards their attitudes and manipulative behaviour. Women BREED misogyny because all they do is constantly manipulate and get the attention and protection of men by trying to look sexy all the time. Every time a man turns his head towards a pretty lady, she knows she is being looked after and will be rescued by a man if ever her poor little ass does something stupid. They are CHILDREN at heart. One female college student mentioned to me how according to her “every girl” has gone on dates just to get free dinners. How much more proof do we need that women are NO GOOD WHORES?
I guess that’s some of the “locker room talk” Hestia was warning the ladies about.
Granted, it’s been awhile since I’ve seen the inside of a locker room, but I don’t remember much of the talk in the locker rooms I’ve been in revolving around the no-good whorishness of all women. I think that might be because most men are not in fact hateful assholes who think all women are NO GOOD WHORES.That’s just a theory though.
-
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
Posted on April 18, 2011, in antifeminism, antifeminst women, MRA, oppressed men. Bookmark the permalink. 266 Comments.
>@Lady Victoria von Syrus…You say…"the idea that men concerned about male victims should start their own programs instead of complaining that women aren't doing it for them;"Well heres your answer, 1)Men helped women start those shelters you speak of, oh yes they did. 2)The State uses the taxes of men and women to pay for them, but you want MEN to pay for their own shelters with private funds. Just imagine if men were "given" the same agencies and the money spent by the State that is spent on women. You know like 10 federally funded womens health agencies, Affirmative Action, Title IX, X, ect, ect, ect. Why the tax rate would have to triple. So what you must want, becuase you certainly don't want to give all your money to the State, that would be kinda Marxist. You want men to pay with taxes for women but privately for themselves.Some one up there said men take those dangerous jobs by "choice." So lets look at the "qouta system". Lets look at say, a lineman. Well those jobs are dirty and dangerous, it's hard work at all hours. Say a particular company has ten thousand men working there and Big Daddy Guv say you must employ at least 25% women. Since they have all the linemen they need and the women won't do those icky, dirty jobs anyway. So they make up busy work jobs in human resources and other office jobs since Big Daddy will shut them down if they don't meet the "quota." You know, the jobs that are the "fast track" to higher pay. Since the company still needs to turn a profit they do two things, they garnish the wages of the men and transfer the rest the cost to the customer. Marxisim, working to make your life better.Hey, I saw a report the other day/night. Not really sure if it was day or night with my cushy privileged work lifestyle. Anyway, the report says the word "man" or anything pertaining to the word "man" in a good way will be stricken from the history books. In the "new" history books our "founding fathers" will be called "the founders." Manhood is a no-no, the word woman will be thrown about in all its glory. Much like the Mass media where if men die in a mine they're "miners" but if they do something "evil" then they're men. I wonder what our "founders" would say about this?
>KaveHello fellow Canuck. I dont think you realize that I am not an MRA nor am I a Feminist, for that matter. I am an equal rights kinda person. Because I disagree with some of the posters on here does not make me anti female or pro male. I know people like to make it that simple, it helps them sleep at night.
>"Why the tax rate would have to triple."And you worked 17 hours yesterday but still had time to post here. NWOslave you need some help with your basic math skills before you try tackling economics.
>Ion-no.Kave-I wonder why it was not being used, was there any kind of awareness campaign aimed at women and girls to learn that hitting males is just as wrong as a male hitting a female?
>Sigh
>I do. I fully understand why it wouldnt be a good idea. That still doesnt hide the FACT that it is sexist.See, that's why people here think you're an idiot, because that's an idiotic thing to say. Even *if* shelters for women are hopelessly sexist and discriminatory…. so fucking what??No, I'm really serious… so fucking what? Why is it so damn important for you to gain this one talking point? If they are sexist, they are sexist in the interest of SAVING LIVES.
>T4T sounds like an MRA caricature of a feminist, in that MRAs seem to think that feminists believe that men and women are EXACTLY THE SAME IN ALL RESPECTS and noting any actual differences between them cannot be anything but sexist. Look, T4T, the sexist thing here is that women are victims of domestic abuse more frequently than men are. Setting up shelters in response to that situation, setting up more women's shelters because more women need shelters? That's not sexist, anymore than having doctors who specialize in OB/GYN is sexist. This is why people think you are dumb. Personally I think you are just pretending to be dumb, because you think that repeatedly asking to have a relatively simple concept explained to you over and over again is going to prove some sort of obscure point. Which you of course prefer to dance coyly around rather than coming right out and stating what your point is. Frankly, that's much more offensive than mere stupidity. Although I could be wrong-you might actually be that dense.
>Ion's a fucking moron, part zillion: I thought she was supposed to leave the house because she was in danger. Besides, doesn't the man usually get kicked out of the house and ordered to stay away (even when it is, in fact, his house) in DV cases? Yeah, because women don't work these days, you dumb sack of shit. And how stupid do you have to be to get that a shelter is where one goes WHEN THE MAN IS IN POSSESSION OF THE GODDAMNED HOUSE. Christ, he's so stupid it's painful.
>I wanted to add here that there is an alternative system for placing abuse victims-which is a voucher system wherein the victim is given resources and placed in a hotel rather than in a communal shelter. Many areas that do not have shelters for men do have voucher programs primarily utilized by men and trans women. Sometimes they are used by cis lesbian and bi women with a female abuser, but fighting for vouchers for these women can be a damned hard battle. There are huge issues of queer erasure with the single sex shelter model (a female abuser of a girlfriend may be let in, but a trans woman victim may be excluded). A better model is to shelter the first person who leaves and not allow the other in the shelter-but instead provide vouchers to the second person. That solution prevents the abuser from following the victim but also nips in the bud issues of exclusion or mutual abuse cases. I am also curious as to what aspect of men's health is being underfunded by the government as compared to women's health. Let me remind you that Susan G. Komen for the Cure is not run by the NIH, folks. The NIH just gave a $2.2 million dollar grant to just one goup researching ways to improve detection of prostate cancers and removal of cancerous tissues without full prostate removal (http://www.riversideresearch.org/index.php?q=news/nih_awards_22_million_prostate_cancer_researc) The Foundation for Urological Research also reports research in regards to biopsy and other laboratory testing methods for prostate cancers funded by the NIH and NCI (http://www.foundationforurologicalresearch.com/grants.html). So, a quick google search will tell you that the US government is right now funding prostate cancer research, and that Komen is a private non-profit group. If you want to set up a comparable group to Komen and run similar campaigns for prostate cancer-go for it. I really fail to see how feminism is stopping you or the government discriminating against you in regards to that one.
>Nicko, I'm not saying that men's shelters should be privately funded while women's shelters are paid by taxpayers. I think that men's shelters should be funded *as needed* in the same way that women's shelters are. If a city builds a women's shelter because there is a need for it, then the city shouldn't automatically have to build a men's shelter just 'cause. They should build a men's shelter because there is a need for it. If a city has 8 shelters for women and 1 shelter for men, but everyone has a shelter to go to when they need it, then what's the problem? Should there be 7 empty and unused shelters for men? At this point, I'm not going to continue this discussion further unless you can demonstrate to me that groups have petitioned the government for funding for male shelters and been denied, when a need for that shelter was made demonstrably clear (clear in that 'abused men need somewhere to go or else they might die', not clear in that 'well, if women have one, men should have one, too!')
>@Kave:There’s actually another men's shelter in Edmonton, from what I remember- the group who runs it (some sort of Christian group, oddly enough) also runs women's shelters. Sometimes scary-conservative Alberta surprises me.
>To follow up with what DSC said:Outside of the ONE type of cancer for men/women (prostate/breast), where is the evidence that women's health is being funded way more then men's health? The evidence points in the opposite direction-males were generally the focus of all medical research with the exception of some reproductive research. The now obvious idea that men and women having different chemical and physical make ups was not considered which is why treatments that were tested on men failed on women.
>Lady vic and SallyI think you guys like me.
Im going to do a post on my site to try and explain myself better. If I invite you guys would you be willing to critique me over there?
>Not really, T4T. I hang out here because I like what David does and I like some of the people here. I don't really have time to critique someone who has proven to be as obtuse as you, and argues in bad faith as much as you do. Plus, I'm going camping with ~60 nerds this weekend. I think that's a much better use of my time.
>I don't really have time to critique someone who has proven to be as obtuse as you, and argues in bad faith as much as you do.(Lady vic)Interestingly enough that doesnt seem to stop you on here. Oh well.
>Yup. Because I like it here. I don't like you, and I don't feel inclined to do you any favors. Trying to explain shit to you is worse that trying to explain algebra to a six year old. You just refuse to let anything sink in and argue in endless circles over trivial points in larger discussions. I believe offering you a critique would be a giant waste of my time. And even if David made the most brilliant post EVAR over the weekend - I still wouldn't read it or comment, because I will be blissfully away from anything more modern than a flashlight and propane stove this weekend.
>Yeah, because women don't work these days, you dumb sack of shit.And how stupid do you have to be to get that a shelter is where one goes WHEN THE MAN IS IN POSSESSION OF THE GODDAMNED HOUSE.Christ, he's so stupid it's painful.Ah, this must be another of those famed cases of ginmar "being a perfectly normal person standing up for herself". Tell me something, do you also "stand up for yourself" like this in real life, or are you only this brave on the internet, hiding behind a keyboard? Don't answer, rhetorical question.
>I don't like you, and I don't feel inclined to do you any favors. Trying to explain shit to you is worse that trying to explain algebra to a six year old.(Lady Vic)Tell me how you really feel, Lmao. Sometimes its the trivial that makes the context in the larger. But what do I know, being that I am like a six year old.
>That's precisely what I mean. I didn't call you a six year old, I said that trying to explain something to you is worse than trying to explain algebra to a small child. The concepts just fly over their head, and they don't even realize that they're not getting it, or why it's so important in the first place. At least with the small child there's the hope that as they grow older, they'll be able to understand algebra. With you, I am not so sure.
>And Ion wonders why we called Tit an idiot.I don't wonder, I know. It's because insults and abuse are the only tools you have. And they're not even particularly refined.
>Lady VicI know you didnt call me a six year old, you inferred that.
>Really, you can make that leap that I dont have concern for a human because I point out an obvious double standard? The double standard you speak of springs from another double standard — the idea that a marital home is the MAN's territory, even if he is the abuser, and the woman is merely a tenant. Until you acknowledge that — the double standard that creates a much greater need for women's shelter space than for men's — I will treat your claims about there not being any shelters for men with about the same seriousness if you complained that there aren't any foodstamp programs for millionaires. Your claims do demonstrate that you aren't, in fact, concerned about a male abuse victim being stalked by his abuser at a co-ed shelter — and I suppose that's because in reality, you see no reason to be concerned about something like that. After all, the aim of the overwhelming majority of anti-feminists screaming about supposed gender bias in favor of the most impoverished and defenseless members of society isn't to fund men's shelters — but to defund women's.
>Wait a sec… wasn't there just a huge scandal about Scott Adams saying that dealing with women is like dealing with children? For which he was vilified and called all kinds of nasty names? But no, I guess that's totally different than referring to someone as a six-year old. Yep. Because a woman said it.
>Tell me something, do you also "stand up for yourself" like this in real life, or are you only this brave on the internet, hiding behind a keyboard? Don't answer, rhetorical question.(Ion)One thing I do find interesting about some of the posters on here is that they call me disingenuous or dishonest but none of them have a link to who they really are. I dont hide who I am or where I am(which makes me potentially vulnerable) but dishonest/disingenuous, hardly.
>Actually, Ion, I am saying that trying to explain things to Tit for Tat, an individual person, is like trying to explain things to a six year old. This is because he has demonstrably behaved like a six year old in terms of obtuseness - perhaps worse, because a six year old just doesn't know any better. Scott Adams said that all men everywhere should treat all women everywhere like children. The difference is between one individual person and characterizing a whole gender. Individual people, who have a gender, can be obtuse and childish. But I am not saying that just because Tit for Tat argues like a small child, all men deserve to be treated that way. Do you understand the difference, or do you need me to explain it again?
>AmusedI made no claims about there not being enough male shelters. Go back and read what I have been saying instead of putting words in my mouth.
>But I am not saying that just because Tit for Tat argues like a small child, all men deserve to be treated that way.(Lady Vic)This pretty much explains why I think shelters for either sex(which deny access to the opposite sex) are sexist. To protect the victims of abuse you have to deny access of the opposite sex which insinuates that they are ALL potential abusers rather than bonafide victims. Do you get that?
>One thing I do find interesting about some of the posters on here is that they call me disingenuous or dishonest but none of them have a link to who they really are. I dont hide who I am or where I am(which makes me potentially vulnerable) but dishonest/disingenuous, hardly.I'm willing to bet that if you looked into the personal histories of commenters here, you'd find a lot of social outcasts and people with emotional/psychological problems. In certain cases, I'd bet money on it.Vic: Come on, you were being patronizing and rude, and you know it. You could have ended the discussion but you kept going, getting more abusive as time went on. I mean that's fine, but at least be honest about it. The only difference between you and T4T is that you've got your forum buddies watching your back and you never get called on your BS.
>Seriously, Tit for Tat, eff you. I already covered that in my many wordy comments on this thread, and you are again choosing to either ignore what I said, or just couldn't be bothered to read it. I know, reading is hard, but it's kind of critical to having a discussion like this. I am not saying that men should be banned from women's shelters because they might abuse the women there. I am saying that having men around might disrupt the recovery process for women. I am saying that women might be less likely to go to a shelter if they know that they'll have to share space with strange men, and that could be a deadly choice for the woman. I am saying that abusive men could infiltrate a mixed gender shelter and either expose it or continue to abuse. So, seriously, I'm done trying to talk to you, until you can demonstrate that you have actually READ and UNDERSTOOD what I have written in this thread. You don't have to agree with it, just stop hashing the same fucking point to death when it's already been countered.
>I am certain, Ion, that you and Tit for Tat and Nicko would be thrilled to call me on my BS should you find the opportunity to do so.
>I am not saying that men should be banned from women's shelters because they might abuse the women there.(Lady Vic)I am saying that abusive men could infiltrate a mixed gender shelter and either expose it or continue to abuse(Lady Vic)Really, really? I may not 'get' everything you say but I do get the fact that you miss the subtle sexist/discriminatory nature that you own.
>Ion is ableist, too?Who else here is NOT surprised?
>Should men be banned from mixed gender shelters because they are abusive by nature? No. Are there certain individuals who are angry, misogynistic men who would infiltrate a shelter with the end goal of exposing the address or abusing the women there? Yes. This is based on fact, not ideology. You might as well say that building jails for men implies that men are criminals, when jails are built because certain men are indeed criminal. What is in the best interests of the clients of the shelter? Protecting them. Is risking exposure protecting these women? No. So should a shelter do everything they can to reduce their risk of exposure? Yes.
>We would, but you'd just counter with "OMG YOU DISAGREE WITH ME THEREFORE YOU ARE MISOGYNIST SWINE" and your buddies ginmar and sally would be like "Douchebag! Shit! fuck fuckity flounce flounce shit *BZZT FEMINIST INSULT #32 NOT FOUND*" and smoke would come out of their ears. And that wouldn't get us anywhere, would it.
>Amnesia: Ableist? You're that person who demanded Snow White's title be changed to "The Non-Race Specific White Person and the Vertically Challenged Seven", aren't you?
>Should men be banned from mixed gender shelters because they are abusive by nature? No. Are there certain individuals who are angry, misogynistic men who would infiltrate a shelter with the end goal of exposing the address or abusing the women there? YesThen that should be based on the actions of the individual not the gender, right?
>This pretty much explains why I think shelters for either sex(which deny access to the opposite sex) are sexist. To protect the victims of abuse you have to deny access of the opposite sex which insinuates that they are ALL potential abusers rather than bonafide victims. Do you get that? These points have been effectively countered several times now. Rather than respond to the responses, you just post the same thing again and again, as if nothing has been said. You have done this before. It appears to be your modus operandi. This is why you appear to be dense, not because of the content of your posts, but because you are either incapable of or unwilling to absorb true information that would force you to either modify your viewpoints, or provide an explanation as to why you think the response to what you said is not enough to get you to change your viewpoint.
>So, T4T, you think that it's sexist to have women-only shelters because why again?1. One gender is denied entry. That's discriminatory. Actually no, that's not discriminatory, as long as there is another shelter to go to. No denial of services = no discrimination. Unless you want to argue that having separate locker rooms and bathrooms constitutes discrimination too. 2. It implies that all men are abusers. Actually, no it doesn't. You THINK it does, but you thinking it doesn't make it true. It does imply that SOME men are abusers, and sometimes it's hard to tell them apart. Do you dispute that SOME men are abusers, and that it's not always obvious which is which? See, this is why you seem dense. Your points have been countered, over and over again, pretty effectively too. Right now, you should be responding to the responses, and explaining one of two things: a.) why the response caused you to modify your viewpoint or b.) why the response was not enough to make you change your viewpoint, and (most importantly) WHY. You don't do this, though, instead you just repeat the same thing over and over and over and over and over and fucking over again. I mean, I know that quote from Goebbels about a lie repeated often enough becoming the truth, but I had never seen it put into action on an individual basis before, only on general terms-talking points and such. It would be impressive if you were able to better explain and support your opinions with data, as the rest of us have been doing. But you haven't, so instead you look dumb.
>SallyBut nobody is addressing what Im saying. I get lots of emotional stuff about how and why we need to protect the women, but nobody wants to address the inherent sexism of a single gender institution. If we want equality then shouldnt are actions be based on what we do not who we are. In other words if I am abused and I have no shelter to go to shouldnt I be able to go to a womens shelter, you know, considering were talking about helping victims?
>Then that should be based on the actions of the individual not the gender, right?Sure, but it's hard to tell who'll be disruptive or is an infiltrator until they actually do it, and then the damage is done. By your logic, no one should ever be protected from *likely* risks, only clear and present dangers. if I am abused and I have no shelter to go to shouldnt I be able to go to a womens shelter, you know, considering were talking about helping victims?What about the rights of the women who are already there, to safety and peace of mind and the space to recover?What about your right to a shelter that can meet your needs, which a women's shelter may not be able to do adequately?
> but nobody wants to address the inherent sexism of a single gender institutionShow me where you're advocating that the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church or conservative Judaism should extend ordination rights to women who want them, then I'll take you more seriously.
>Tit-No.Again, you are being purposely obtuse and trying to argue that an women's abuse shelter should allow men in simply because to do otherwise is sexist no matter how many times she (and others) explains it to you why banning men from such a place is a good idea.These places do not have the time, nor the resources to verify whether or not the man at the gate asking for admittance is an abuser or not. They also cannot determine he is not a wannabe James O'Keefe or Lila Rose bent on exposing the shelter to the world and ruining the hidden nature of the shelter. So the simplest and easiest way of dealing with it is to ban all men.Now you have all the reasons why you should stop demanding we open up shelters to men except of course for the obvious fact that you are a jackass trolling (albeit in a less obvious manner then NWOslave.)
>@IonUh, no… Was there actually someone that tried to do that?"I'm willing to bet that if you looked into the personal histories of commenters here, you'd find a lot of social outcasts and people with emotional/psychological problems."You seem to be implying that a person being a social outcast or having emotional/psychological issues is enough reason to disregard what they're saying.As a matter of fact, I do have social and psychological issues. My current therapist has been swell, however, and I'm starting to come to terms with the ghosts in my past. With luck, I may become a responsible adult one day.IMHO, there's more shame in not being willing to admit you have a problem than there is in having problems to begin with.
>LadyYep, you are right, I agree. But it still doesnt allow us to escape the fact that certain ways of thinking in regards to shelters are sexist and discriminatory. I am just wondering how we can ever get to the point where this is not necessary. Obviously the reality is that equality doesnt work in these situations(presently).
>A bunch of long comments got caught in the spam filter and are up now. Sally, not sure why the spam filter decided to start eating your comments, but I made it spit them out. T4T, you know that public bathrooms are segregated by sex, right, for some of the same reasons that shelters are? (Safety, privacy, etc.) Do you consider this sexist? Or do you recognize, as everyone else in the world seems to, that in a few very specific instances gender segregation makes more sense than a unisex approach?
>Maybe you could start by LISTENING AND ABSORBING what women are telling you as to why it is the way it is and stop showing us how little regard you have for any of our opinions. Then you could spend your subsequent free time advocating for solutions that address abuse.
>DavidTell me why in a world of equality would it matter if we pee and have a bowel movement in the same facility? Equality is the final outcome, right?
>Golly, now I am thinking of Larry Craig and I have NO idea why.
>Shorter Tit for Tat:"I own a horse."
>If bathrooms actually did become unisex, I wouldn't be surprised to hear a lot of men whining that the tampon/pad quarter machines threatened their masculinity.
>"I own a horse." Win.
>T4T is evincing a concern for eliminating sexism that he has not demonstrated before. Why the sudden concern, T4T?Do you also regard the existence of OB/GYN clinics as sexist? Are you outraged about the Army's insistence on barring women from "combat roles" (not that there's a big difference between combat and non-combat roles nowadays)? If not, why not? Boy, it takes a lot of work to get you to respond to a few simple statements and questions. Why is that?
>I also wonder if, in his heroic pursuit of all equality, all the time, he goes onto Catholic or Mormon forums and agitates for women to be ordained. Or perhaps if he tries to convince Hasidic Jews that their practice of dividing the sexes during services is sexist. Or if he writes letters to the Department of Corrections explaining how sexism is bad and therefore prisons should also be mixed gender, for the good of everyone.
>LVvS:While it's true that T4T does seem absolutely unable to absorb your point no matter how many times it gets explained and rephrased and that he continually replies by just repeating the same thing, you shouldn't have compared him to a six-year-old. Insulting someone is never a good strategy, even if it's an understandable comparison.
>Gee, Cboye, thanks for the nifty tone argument. WAnt to lecture us on the proper way for us laydeez to keep our legs crossed, too? Fuck a duck. That's what you get annoyed about.
“We must also respect this place as one of the few politically incorrect sanctuaries that men have in today’s misandrist world”
I loathe how often these people use the word “misandrist,” especially when applied to the entire globe. I guess they forgot about how girls and women are treated in places where they have male child privilege (which has led to female fetuses being terminated and female babies being abandoned), thus creating a gender ratio imbalance in countries that practice this. Then there’s the whole thing about women needing their male family member’s permission to travel or get a job (in this case, even a woman’s son has the authority to tell her if she can or cannot do something).
Yep, the world sure is “misandrist.” Not.