Monday, 17 June 2013

Okay, I really wasn't interested in doing this, but...

I kind of have to address it, because it's getting ridiculous.

For anyone who doesn't know, The Wooly Bumblbee (Kristina Hansen) is an internet atheist who found the MRM during the atheist/sceptic schism over Atheism+. She is on a rampage of epic proportions, determined to avenge her honor after being wronged by the MRM.

When she found the MRM, she started making videos (fairly accurately) bashing feminism. Or perhaps she started making those videos, and then the MRM found her.

Paul Elam at A Voice for Men liked her "in your face, I don't give a fuck" style. He published a few of her articles, embedded a few of her videos, then eventually offered her an editor position.

He did this despite several glaring red flags in videos she'd uploaded to her previous YT channel (TruthandOblivion, which got flagged down), where she used terms like, "you're the man, you have to be the adult" to a male DV victim, etc. Demonstrating she's not really sensitive to the issue of sexist male-shaming language. At one point, her husband got into a disagreement with Integralmath (Justicar) a non-MRA but MRM-friendly gay atheist YouTuber, and ended up calling him a "disgusting fudgepacker" or something of the sort. A lot of things that should have filled most of us with misgivings.

Apparently Paul wasn't aware of the red flags (he doesn't even have time to watch all MY videos, pfft :P), or ignored any tingling of his spider senses (or perhaps intentionally ignored the flags because he is constantly juggling multiple priorities). He promoted her (way too early for ANYONE, really, who was so new to the MRM) to senior news director for Canada. His rationale as far as I understood it was that the MRM needs doers as well as thinkers, and she was the former rather than the latter.

Almost immediately after that, she started making videos on her personal YouTube channel demanding that certain people (racists, homophobes, libertarians and misogynists) "get the fuck out of OUR movement", and calling out MGTOWs for being bitter, paranoid misogynists who want to blame all their problems on women (something even the most extreme MGTOWs don't really do--they blame men's problems on both men and women).

She managed to alienate so many people, Paul finally had enough and removed her from the masthead of AVFM.

At that point, she went on the warpath and released a video containing snippets of a skype call with Paul (which both parties recorded without telling the other, ha!), snippets that were isolated from any context. In response to the quote-mining, Paul uploaded the entire conversation to YT.

I had held my tongue through all of this, even having been in the position to see it coming the moment he offered her an editor's position. AVFM is Paul's website, and I'm not interested in telling him how he should run it. Several MGTOWs had asked me to make a response video to WBB over her accusations, and I declined. I know what kind of person she is, and I didn't want to step into the warzone.

But once Paul had severed ties between her and AVFM, I did make some comments--on Paul's video and on reddit--regarding how I'd seen this coming right from the start, and expressing my opinion of WBB, which I will crystallize here: 

WBB seems to thrive on attention (both negative and positive), has very sloppy impulse control, is emotionally unstable, and shows a pattern when criticized for anything she said of blaming the listener for not hearing her properly and then repeating exactly what it was she said that they took issue with ("Learn how to listen, moron. I never said X. What I ACTUALLY said was X. Idiot."). She takes up causes she thinks will get her admiration (such as the A Voice for Boys site, which she started and quickly abandoned--the URL now redirects to her personal website), and it's probably at least as much about external validation as anything else. I have watched her repeatedly engage in several of the tactics of abusive women--DARVO (deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender), especially--when people take issue with her attitudes or behavior. Witness the quote-mining she engages in, while simultaneously castigating her opponents for their "intellectual dishonesty" and "lies".

So anyway, I made some comments expressing these opinions about her and the debacle on that video of Paul's, and a few on reddit.

Paul then uploaded a 12 minute video that described the situation as he saw it, explained why he'd let her go from the site, reiterated his position that being apolitical means tolerating libertarians as well as more mainstream political philosophies, and confirming AVFM's support for MGTOW. I may have commented on that video, as well, though I really can't recall.

She uploaded a video of her and her husband playing that video, then pausing and attacking him, libertarians, MGTOWs, me, and anyone else they could think of, in one of the most infantile and incoherent examples of an ad hominem rant I think I've ever come across. You really have to listen to it to understand what I'm talking about.

I commented there, and my comments were heavily upvoted. 

When the bombardment of criticism from annoyed MRAs peaked, she disabled comments for a brief period. A day or two later, I went to see if they were still disabled, and there was a note in the lowbar that she'd uploaded the first of a new 7-video series about all that is wrong with the MRM. I thought it was odd, since I was subscribed to her and that video hadn't shown up in my subscription new upload list. So I went to her channel and discovered I was blocked (which automatically un-subs you).

The first five of her 7 videos are up. After listening to 1 through 4, I can understand why she preemptively blocked me from commenting--every other criticism (perhaps more) seems focussed on me specifically. Which means she either thinks I'm the biggest fish to fry in the MRM, or she has some personal girl-grudge with me. The latter seems a little silly and obsessive, but my comments about her probably stung, and there's not much a woman like her will not do to tear another (more popular, yes, I said it) woman down. In fact, she is so much the embodiment of every toxic woman Dr. Tara talks about in her Shrink4Men blog and Erin Pizzey describes in her material, I don't know how she passed the MRM smell test beyond her first dozen videos.

The number of logical fallacies in this series (and in her and her husband's comments on them) are too many to name: ad hominem, tu quoque, personal incredulity, slippery slope, composition/division, appeal to consequences, appeal to authority... Which is kind of laughable when one considers how often she claims to care about LOGIC and FACTS and how much she claims to hate BULLSHIT so much she HAS to call it out, good fucking grief.

Even the points they make that they have actually researched are pathetic and moot. At one point, for instance, they post a screenshot of one comment of mine on reddit where I posited that the more caesarian sections we perform today, the more we'll need to in the next generation and the next, as children who would have died will survive to carry the trait of an inadequate pelvis. They claim that because having narrow hips isn't one of the leading causes of C sections (which is true), the logic is unsound. Whether they are unable to grasp that any heritable trait that used to get you killed as a baby but which modern medicine can now help you survive is going to become more common, I don't know. But it doesn't matter how common or rare that heritable trait is now, or what place it currently occupies on the list of things that modern medicine can treat--all you need to do is ask, "Is that trait heritable? Did it used to kill your children? Can modern medicine now make it so your children survive to pass on the heritable trait?" This is not that complicated, people. 

Their "understanding" of my politics (soft-core libertarian) seems to derive from my one-time use of the term "John Galt" to describe many of the long-term MRAs who, along with mostly libertarian and non-mainstream political thinkers, kept the MRM embers burning over the last 30 years, something confirmed by Rod van Mechelen of The Backlash.

Kristina and her husband seem to think I'm in cahoots with the Libertarian Party of New York, despite me being neither a New Yorker, nor an American, simply because I spoke at their convention about radical feminism and men's rights--they claim that I'm a member or affiliated with what she calls "big L" libertarians (without ever really defining what she means, other than that it's a "bullshit ideology"). 

If I spoke at the annual convention of the Alberta NDP (which I absolutely would, if they invited me) would she claim I'm in bed with them, too? I wonder what she thinks of the fact that for a year, I was a member of The National Organization for Women (I was involuntarily signed up when I registered to attend their national conference last year). When someone in one of the videos' comment threads mentioned that I was speaking about anti-feminism and the MRM to libertarians after being invited, and would likely speak about such things to any other audience as well (which is true), and wouldn't Kristina accept an invitation to speak about atheism to a Christian group? Well, she said she'd never speak to a group with different beliefs, because to do such a thing would be prostituting herself. And then later denied insinuating I'd be a prostitute for being willing to speak about men's issues to a group whose political philosophy I disagree with. 

This, after making a huge issue of the fact that I receive money from YouTube ads (which she also uses), and accepting donations from people who value my content (again, I don't see her turning away money, even when it's been forcibly extracted from other people).

The ratings bar on most of her recent videos is nearly entirely gray, she's hemorrhaging subscribers like mad, and has deleted more comments and blocked more people over this than a young earth creationist on a rampage against Richard Dawkins. One of her new supporters is a Manboobz-wannabe radical male feminist who likes to call himself "Hannibal the Victor" who she seems to like perfectly well despite her oft-stated loathing of feminism and ideological thinkers, and she has mirrored videos made by libertarians, who she claims to detest, simply because in those particular videos they are critical of MGTOW. 

But she doesn't seem able to control her impulse to get back at people she thinks wronged her, myself included, perhaps especially. Her husband is only reinforcing her in what seems little more than an escalating vendetta against "those motherfuckers who made my wife upset". The two of them together are like, "Ms. Dunning, meet Mr. Kruger", and despite being edumicated in university, not only can neither of them construct a coherent argument, as far as I know, her husband's "job" is to collect disability, and her "job" is to collect child support and pop out kids (4 already, and another on the way). I've never been more pleased with Canada's heavily subsidized post-secondary education system than when I learned my tax dollars went toward ten years of taxpayer-subsidized education so she could earn 4 degrees that apparently qualify her to sit on lawn chairs, complain, gestate babies and live on other people's dimes. 

And as far as her criticism that AVFM has done NOTHING to help men, I'll just leave these names here: Joel Kirk, Vladik Filler, Gordon Smith. And I'd remind her where the $5000 of seed money she received for the Earl Silverman Center (a man who'd be spinning in his grave over her recent bahavior and her usurping of his name, holy shit) came from. Her criticism that I'm doing nothing to help men? Ask Tom Matty--$5600 in 24 hours from the very generous folks who subscribe to my channel (thank you all so much).

Aaaaaaaaaaanyway, they just uploaded their 5th video in the series, so I figured I'd go see if there was anything they could talk about that wasn't me. HA! It's not even a minute long--nothing but a marked up screencap of a comment exchange I had on reddit, where someone asks what my education and credentials are, and WBB's added notation, "Funny how she never answers this."

Well, this conversation happened a month ago, so I didn't recall the specifics, but knowing the kind of person I am (someone who would have answered honestly) and knowing the kind of person WBB is (someone who likes to quote-mine to make her opponents look like douchebags), I scrolled ALL the way back in my comment history on reddit to a month ago, then scoured through them looking for the comment.

And wouldn't you know it? I didn't bother answering the commenter's question, because when I returned to the conversation, I noticed that they already knew the answer. And knew it, evidently, before they even asked the question: 

Imagine, someone as "intellectually honest" and who cares so much about FACTS and calling out BULLSHIT as the Wooly Bumblebee not showing you that! Honestly, this is getting retarded. 

Incidentally, one of the most interesting little coincidences in this entire thing is that after listening to a lengthy diatribe on how I have no post-secondary education and therefore am not S.M.R.T (as Homer Simpson likes to say), I happened to be listening to a CBC radio interview with someone representing Guild Software. This transgendered woman who is Stanford educated in neuroscience said that Google, after intensive internal research into the markers of excellent employees, concluded that the quality of the school an employee attended, or even whether they were credentialed at all, was no indication of how talented and effective they would be. In fact, what this woman described as "degree-seeking" was negatively correlated with the positive value of an employee because it indicates a need for external validation rather than an inner passion and drive, and an employer was better served looking primarily at "what code have you written?" when choosing new hires. 

I'm not raising this issue because of what reflection this may have on me, as someone who is not credentialed. The reason I raise it is that despite 10 years of state-subsidized education and four degrees, Kristina Hansen's accomplishments include 1) following her hind-brain into the weeds to her own self-destruction, 2) being a rabid joiner with little follow-through, as evidenced by A Voice for Boys, 3) whining about people who she claims "do nothing" a month after they handed her $5000, 4) alienating three quarters of the people she claimed she was serving, 5) squeezing out babies, 6) collecting child support and social welfare despite having milked the system for god knows how many degrees between her and her husband, and 7) throwing public temper tantrums because no one appreciates her. 

Money well spent, by all measures. Let's pay people to get educated so we can pay them to sit on their asses and generate more burdens on society. Again, I'm so glad to know I helped pay for those four degrees she's using to sit in a lawn chair and gestate a fifth fetus with. A fifth child who makes me weep for the future of humanity, because regardless of whether you're a biological determinist/reductionist or whether you think it's all environment, you have to admit those are five fucked up kids about to be unleashed on the world.

And now, in another coincidence arriving as if by divine intervention, a notable and award-winning documentary film production company has decided to make a film about the MRM and AVFM. Oh, if only, Kristina. If only you'd just kept your mouth shut long enough and kept a lid on your personality disorder batshit fucknuttery [EDIT: Kristina has taken issue with me using the term personality disorder, as this is a psychiatric diagnosis that has not been applied to her. In the interests of accuracy, I have amended this wording in such as way as to avoid implications of a clinical diagnosis, but which still conveys my intended meaning. Thank you], you could have been one of the people interviewed for that. A shame, since everything you've demonstrated so far about what you're all about has been about promoting yourself to acquire external validation, and lashing out at people who don't give you what you're after. 

Poor Wooly. You could have been famous, if only you'd just waited it out. 

Kristina, I just want to say, I avoided raising my concerns with Paul primarily because it might have been construed as me being catty--me being one of those women only concerned with monopolizing male attention and being top dogette. Given how quickly he promoted you, I figured he was smitten and would be even more prone to draw that conclusion if a shopworn old bird like me raised concerns. And I wasn't interested in turning anything into a cat-fight over market share over this movement's mostly male cheerleaders. 

And however much power you seem to think I have over AVFM (given your statements to that effect), and how much practical power I might actually have (given my reach), I choose not to involve myself in the inner workings of AVFM, and always have. Paul has actually made more decisions based on your counsel than on mine, because I would never think to tell someone how to run their own goddamn website. Even when they hire sociopathic, toxic, abusive people like you.

You've gone off the reservation, Kristina. You're operating on emotion. In fact, I don't know that there's any other way that you can operate. And whatever your actual motivations, I can tell you what it looks like to outsiders and disinterested parties: it looks like you're the misfit attacking the popular girl for getting more attention than you. It looks like you're grinding a man (AVFM) into the dirt because you were scorned by him. You're living up to every single goddamn negative stereotype of women out there, which is all the more ironic considering your constant NAFALTing to MGTOWs. 

You are the female nature that drives feminism, even if you're not a feminist, even if you hate the ideology or what it's done to something you care about (atheism). Because when it comes to what it's done for you? You're all there. Anything that will benefit you, even if it comes at the expense (or destruction) of others, you're in. Not just in, but all-in. Even as your subscribers abandon you, even as people who used to be sympathetic to your position abandon you. You'll scream you're right until your dying breath. 

You blocked me from your channel before uploading those videos either because you wanted the attention a video response from me would get you, or you wanted free rein to attack me without any rebuttal. You wanted me to seriously engage or be silent. And I didn't bother engaging, until video #5 was uploaded, obsessing entirely about me, with nothing resembling a concrete argument, nothing defensible and nothing remotely honest. 

I resent having to address this, the way I resent having to tolerate another person's screaming infant at the next table in a restaurant. I really did not want to get into this with you, but you've left me no choice. You've got one giant hard-on for me. Given my looks, how could blame you? :P

Bu there is no way you can win. And it's not even a you vs me thing. There is no possible way you can salvage yourself from the situation you've orchestrated by continuing to engage. Your credibility in both of the communities you called your own is virtually gone. I'm just the person burdened with the task of telling you.

My advice to you is to step back and let things rest for a while. You haven't demolished your credibility completely yet. There are still positive things you could do with that $5000 you got from AVFM's readers, which I'm sure they'll be eager to keep closer tabs on now. There is still a chance that you could redeem yourself for the memory of Earl Silverman. But if you keep this up--attacking people and then escalating when they criticize you--you're only going to dig your own grave. 

Your involvement with the MRM, and this petty, childish display, is even costing you your credibility among atheists. Fuck sake, let it rest.

If you have any coherent arguments against ideologies, then make them. Make them logical and back them up with evidence. It's not enough to say, "it's a bullshit ideology". It's not enough to shout, "Ayn Rand was a racist, and so are you because you follow her!" to people who don't even follow Ayn Rand. It's not enough to say, "I'll address that in another video," and then upload a video with quote-mines taken out of context. 

Good grief, get a grip on yourself. As I said in one of my comments before you blocked me, I'm embarrassed for you. Stop acting like a toddler and show some self-control.

And for any of my subscribers or followers, if there are any concerns raised in WBB's videos that you'd like me to address, please PM me and I'll deal with them. But at this point, I'm done. I'm not going to address WBB or her apparently brain-damaged husband's criticisms concerning, "Waitresses can know things!" any further.

Edited to add:

Annnnnd here she is insinuating that I have made some claim to being an academic. While I do describe myself as a gender theorist (considering that I analyse, and theorize about, gender, and considering the title is no more exclusive or protected by some accrediting or licensing body than, say, "feminist" or even "therapist"), I would challenge anyone to find any statement of mine where I have ever described myself as an academic.

Kristina Hansen, professional "bullshit caller", calling out all the lies that exist in her very own imagination. Good grief.

Sunday, 16 June 2013

Happy father's day

I have to leave for work in half an hour, to serve ribs and steak to all the fortunate fathers out there whose loved ones are treating them on their one day a year. This is an especially hopeful father's day for me, considering how well the fundraising efforts for Tom Matty's appeal on the grounds of institutional bias went (thanks so much again to everyone who donated).

My own father, who is trekking around NY right now with his cell phone turned off to avoid roaming charges, is one of the most amazing people in my life, I love him dearly, and wish I could wish him the best of the day in person. Here's hoping the text I sent to my luddite mother to relay to him didn't make her hair turn whiter than it already is (she's completely oblivious to how texting works, and the chime probably threw her for a loop).

Love you, dad. Happy father's day. And for all the other dad's out there, I wish you all the best.

Saturday, 27 April 2013

My address to the NY state libertarian party convention

Hi, everyone. Firstly, I want to thank Gary for inviting me to speak here, and thank all of you for being open to the different perspective I'm hoping to present to you.

Some of you--maybe all of you--might be asking yourselves, what on earth is an anti-feminist gender theorist doing speaking at a libertarian party convention. What the heck does gender, or feminism, have to do with libertarian politics and philosophies? The answer to that question is at once extremely complex, and very, very simple.

The simple answer is this: Gender influences everything. Including the size, scope and decisions of government.

And now, to complicate things a little.

On the microscale, gender affects the way men and women think, how they feel, how they process their interactions with the world, what motivates them, what influences them, what is important to them, what incentives are going to affect their behavior, and how. It affects how we perceive other people depending on whether they are male or female. It impacts on what we feel is appropriate, regarding both the behaviors, responsibilities and roles we expect of others, and the behaviors, responsibilities and roles we feel are appropriate for ourselves. It affects what roles and vocations, on average, a given person will find themselves suited to or interested in.

On the macroscale, gender affects the way society feels about people, depending on whether they're male or female, what expectations society has of them, what obligations society is prepared to place on them, how, and how much, society cares about them. It influences whose voices society is prepared to trust on what issues and in what situations. It affects society's willingness to punish or forgive, who society is interested in holding responsible and accountable for wrongs done, who society is prepared to devote resources to help or protect, and who society is prepared to cut loose.

So gender is kind of a shortcut societies and governments use when sorting priorities. Who is deserving of our help, support and protection--socially, legally and governmentally--and who is less deserving, or perhaps not deserving at all? How should that help be implemented, and how should it not, how much are we willing to spend, and how much institutional power and scope should government have to involve itself in the lives of citizens?

To demonstrate these effects of gender I'm talking about, I'm going to make a few statements, and I want you all to pay attention to how you feel when I say them. They're statements I've culled from published books, newspapers, or the speeches of politicians, though you'll notice I've flipped the genders for effect:

Men can do anything women can. And do it better. And do it with one hand tied behind their backs. --Barack Obama

When a woman strikes a man, she strikes all of society. --Hillary Clinton said exactly that about violence against women.

Women CAN stop false allegations of abuse and rape. --The "Men can stop rape" poster campaign is making an appearance on campuses across the US and Canada.

It cannot be assumed that women are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of mothers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion. --This gem, about how unnecessary fathers are, is from UK equalities minister Harriet Harman. She might be forgiven this sentiment if it wasn't grossly inaccurate.

mall roof caved in yesterday, killing 23 people and injuring more than 100. Tragically 4 men and one child were among the dead. --all right, that's from any newspaper story about any tragedy. We hear about women and children because that makes a tragedy more tragic.

I want to see a woman beaten to a bloody pulp with a workboot shoved into her mouth like an apple in the mouth of a pig. --Change woman to man and workboot to high heel, and you've got second wave feminist Andrea Dworkin's attitude.

Or even this: "It is an amazing thing to see in our city the husband of a laundress, or a fishwife, or a housemaid dressed in velvet with chains of gold at the throat, with silver buckles and boots of good value....and then in contrast to see his wife washing the clothes, chapped and bedraggled from the day's labor, poorly dressed.... but whosoever considers this carefully will find it reasonable, because it is necessary that the gentleman, even if low born and humble, be arrayed in such fine form for his natural excellence and dignity, and the woman be less adorned as if a slave, or a little ass, born to his service." --And this is perhaps the most interesting of all, since a gender-flipped version of it was written by Lucrezia Marinella, and published in her book "The nobility and excellence of woman and the defects and vices of men" in the year 1600.

Feels kind of weird, doesn't it? These are statements you would NEVER hear or read in mainstream culture as I changed them--not even in the year 1600--some of them because they'd be repulsive to us, and others because it would just never occur to us to think or feel in those ways. All because of the way we as humans perceive, and have always perceived, men and women.

And while feminism claims to have worked very hard to dismantle all of these individual and society-wide assumptions about men and women, if you scratch the surface of their ideologies and their efforts, what you find is all of those assumptions human societies have always held, dialled up to 11. Not only has feminist activism manipulated and exploited all of these age-old perceptions about gender, for political, legal, economic and social gain, it has only amplified them in the cultural zeitgeist.

It is very much a case of, "Say hello to the new boss, even more sexist than the old boss."

I've been asked before to describe what exactly I'm doing with my blogging and video lectures and it's a difficult question to answer. I'm an advocate for the issues of men and boys, certainly, but first and foremost, I'm an anti-feminist. My task, as I see it, is to try to uncover the nature of things, and then deprogram as many people as I can. To encourage people to think from a different angle, to entertain thoughts that are forbidden in our politically correct culture, to educate as many as I can about the hidden nature of society, gender and ideological feminism.

Among those of us who talk about these issues, it's called "taking the red pill".

As for why I'm here, hoping to convince libertarians to think from that different angle? Well, there's a strong libertarian streak that runs right through the center of the men's movement, and there's definitely a reason for that.

Canadian libertarian philosopher Stefan Molyneux once described feminism as "socialism in panties."

As I'm sure any of the men here will attest to, anything, no matter how destructive or unprincipled, is probably going to look more appealing and less sinister if it has a female face and you put it in a pair of panties.

I'm not going to bore you with a detailed history of the marriage of feminism and marxism. For that, I'll refer any who are interested to a lengthy but fascinating lecture by Soviet ex-patriot Valdas Anelauskas, who describes a courtship between two ideologies that began in the mid-1800s and has now become the foundation of feminist thought. I will simply note that Karl Marx, in his communist manifesto, emphasized how very important women would be to any communist revolution, and that the best way to secure the support of women would be to convince them of the plural nature of their oppression--as workers, they were oppressed by the elites, and as women, they were oppressed by their husbands, fathers and even sons. In essence, he posited that if a system that respected the concept of property rights oppressed the male worker, this same system that placed economic authority in the hands of men doubly oppressed the wives and daughters of those male workers.

Though radical feminism has never severed its ties with communism, as early as the 1920s, feminism had essentially co-opted and repurposed Marxist theory to describe the structure of society relating to the interaction of the sexes. The intellectual backlash against feminism that began within the marxist community around the turn of the 20th century, with E Belfort Bax and Robert Briffault, was quashed through intimidation, censorship and skilful use of emotionally charged propaganda.

By the 1960s, when the western world's love affair with communism had begun to fizzle, communism's red-headed stepdaughter, feminism, was only growing in popularity. The sexier, less threatening, more benign-seeming Trojan Mare upon which marxists had relied to sneak their ideology past the gates of the western world had outgrown its helpmeet role, and taken on a life of its own.

By this era, a discrete and quintessentially Marxist theoretical model of gender had become entrenched in the intellectual sphere, a model based on class conflict theory and postmodern discourse. While communist thought was confined to a small pocket of what the mainstream mostly thought of as misguided weirdos, feminist thought, slapped together from the exact same bricks and mortar, became not only fashionable, but had spawned its own branch of academia, sponsored and enabled by unwitting democratic governments across the west.

While historical views on the sexes had maintained that men and women were distinctly different but complementary partners--role mates, as Dr Warren Farrell has described it--this new feminist model cast all aspects of society as oppressive and exploitive systems wherein men embodied the Bourgeoisie, and women the Proletariat.

Most of this model--The Patriarchy--and its sub-theories are little more than post hoc rationalizations based on emotional reasoning, easily swallowed by the well-meaning public because of the evidence that stands out most starkly to us given our natural, evolved views of gender. Humans have always been more emotionally reactive to the harms, injuries, injustices, complaints and perils affecting women, and more likely to see women as nurturing, benign, kind, well-meaning and deserving of protection. We have always been more likely to see men as strong, sturdy, capable of self-sufficiency, potent and potentially threatening, and these perceptions inform our reactions when men suffer harms, injuries, injustices and dangers, and when they dare to complain about them.

Because of these innate perceptions, when feminists pointed up toward the top of society and showed us mostly men, we didn't bother to direct our attention down to the bottom of society so we could see the mostly men there, as well. We all saw a glass ceiling, but not a glass cellar, and allowed feminists to convince us that all aspects of society, the formalized and the informal, were male-dominated and male-controlled, and that women, as a class, were utterly powerless and subjugated under this system.

Marriage was redefined under this model, from a partnership where both parties contributed and benefitted, to a form of sexual slavery and unpaid drudgery for women where wives were subjugated and exploited for their husbands' express benefit. Under second wave feminism, family was reinterpreted as an institution based on exploitation--instead of all members working together for the benefit and shared success of all members, women were recast as powerless subordinates, providing unreciprocated labor toward the raising of HIS children, and the keeping of HIS house, labor that freed husbands to pursue economic and social power outside the home.

It didn't matter that most men had little more access to economic and social power than most women, or that what power men achieved they were expected to share equitably with their families. Feminists were too busy pointing upward at the congressmen, bank managers and CEOs and crying injustice, to show us the taxi drivers, garbage men, plumbers, loggers, fishermen, miners, construction workers, factory laborers, field workers, roughnecks and janitors. They envied the power of generals and statesmen, but spared no thought for the thousands of young footsoldiers dead in the trenches. They were jealous of the self-determination that made an industrialist rich beyond dreaming, but when that self-determination produced a different outcome for the mostly male population of tramps, beggars and hobos it was invisible to them.

They focus solely on the men above and don't even notice the men below.

The 23 cent average, apples to oranges, annual wage gap is STILL, in their minds, the height of sexist injustice, but the greater than 90% workplace death gap is...well, who cares?

Traditional ways of providing for and protecting women that were necessary in the pre-industrial past, were reinterpreted by feminism as male oppressors keeping women down all through history, for men's benefit. Domestic violence--a social problem that has ALWAYS been gender-symmetrical--became synonymous with violence against women. A husband's historical right to conjugal relations was redefined as marital rape, while a wife's *identical right*--one that for centuries if denied was legal grounds for divorce and could even get a man excommunicated from his church--that part of history was essentially erased from modern scholarship, even as it is upheld and reinforced by feminist activism. In fact, according to current feminist theories on domestic violence, a man withholding sex or affection from his female partner, whatever the reason, is a form of domestic abuse, and a man in France was recently required by a judge to pay his ex-wife over $10,000 in punitive damages because he didn't give her enough sex during the marriage.

The traditional obligation of a woman to defer to her husband's authority was defined as "oppression", but her husband's obligation to die in a trench to protect his country and family...that became "male privilege" and when enough people protested the hubris of that assertion, it became "Patriarchy hurts men too."

Under The Patriarchy, all men are privileged by their maleness, and all women oppressed by their femaleness. And if men are, as a class, the privileged Bourgeoisie, if men hold collective power over society, then all men are culpable for the oppression and exploitation of all members of the female Proletariat, and any discrimination a man might face in society is just his own privilege backfiring on him.

According to radical feminists, the drastic technological and economic changes that occurred during the last century--medical advances that virtually eliminated deaths in childbirth and drastically decreased infant and child mortality rates, changes that rendered the workplace as comfortable and safe as your living room, safe and reliable birth control, industrialization, automation, prosperity, plenty and an unprecedented level of individual security--none of this has anything to do with anything. Even prior to those changes, during a history in which a woman might spend half her adult life pregnant or nursing children, where most labor was gruelling, dangerous and simply beyond the physical capabilities of women, where life was often brutal and brief, and where men bore a legally enforceable obligation to provide for the material needs of all family members, the fact that men bore the economic authority as well as all the economic burdens of a family was a system specifically designed to disempower women.

According to radical feminists, your grandfathers and great grandfathers were rapists and slave-masters who exploited, subjugated and violated the women who were nearest and dearest to them--their own mothers, sisters, wives and daughters. According to radical feminists, every atrocity ever committed throughout all of history can be laid at the door of normative masculinity, but every male-generated advance--calculus, alternating current, the telegraph, the transistor, radio, penicillin, the number system, hydro-electricity, microwaves, fiberglass, the theory of relativity, the periodic table, trigonometry, insulin, canned foods, vaccines, fire retardant, teflon, wireless communications, the microchip, the birth control pill and even tampons--is a result of men intentionally holding women back, keeping women down, refusing to allow women to achieve, and hogging all the power and glory.

You see how this all works? All the evils of history, admittedly committed mostly by men are evidence of men's oppressive natures. And all the advances of civilization, because they were generated almost exclusively by men, are equally evidence of men's oppressive natures. Even the exceptional and wonderful things men achieved that have benefitted all of us, are not evidence that men embody anything good. In fact, they demonstrate the opposite. They are evidence that the "old boys' club" modern feminists complain about today dates all the way back to the pleistocene, when women would have eagerly hunted mastodon with babies strapped to their breasts, and carved back a jungle filled with leopards and bears, if only men had not enslaved them and thereby deprived them of the opportunity to do so.

This is what they believe. This is what ideological feminism IS. It describes women's experience through all of history as identical to the experience of blacks under slavery. You know, actual oppression, subordination and exploitation without any compensatory benefit.

To clarify, what were the "upsides" to being black in America during slavery? Can anyone here name a single white slave owner who ever died to save the lives of his black slaves? Who ever gave up a space in a lifeboat to his black slave and chose himself to go down with a ship? Who ever stood with a rifle between his black slaves and an enemy to defend their lives, rather than his right to own them?
Can anyone even imagine a white slave owner working 16 hours in a field while his black slave stayed inside most of the day and kept his house tidy, then coming home and sharing the fruits of his labors with his black slave?
Did a black woman who was the sexual partner of a white slave owner have any expectation of respect, lifelong provision or shelter, or of sharing the benefits of his quality of life and his social status? Or was she just an object of the moment, free to be used and cast aside at will? Did a black man who was obligated to obey his owner's wife have any legal right or recourse when she pointed a finger and claimed he raped her? Or was he swinging from a tree within hours?
Can anyone imagine a reality where a white slave owner would perform physically gruelling or dangerous work because his black slave was incapable of it? Or would he simply set more slaves to the task, or work his slave to his death, or discard his used-up slave and buy a better one? If women were truly oppressed by men, would they have been spared the most onerous and dangerous work because they were less physically capable of it, or would men have simply assigned more women to the task?
Can anyone here name a single black person, man or woman, who rose to a state-sanctioned position of serious political power during slavery? Off the top of my head, I can name a ton of women who have been heads of state, going as far back as Ancient Egypt. The greatest and most notable black leaders emerging from Jim Crow America and apartheid South Africa rose to influence by opposing the government, not rising within it, because they had no avenue to power within a system that oppressed them.

Slavery and oppression are defined as obligation and disadvantage without compensatory benefit. Does anyone here think women, who were a tiny minority, tenths of a percent, among the 10 million military personnel who died during WWI, derived no benefit from the traditional system? Heck, one of the few ways a man could duck conscription was to be married--a man could literally avoid mandatory military service if his wife would be inconvenienced by it. And yet this system existed to benefit men at the expense of women?A system of top-down oppression, according to feminists, that is no different from the experience of blacks under slavery?

If you perceive the history of gender relations as being remotely similar to the history of slavery in the US, it's no shock to hear feminist Robin Morgan, editor of Ms. Magazine, claim, "Man-hating is an honorable and viable political act. The oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."

Yet as childish, simplistic and absurd as this model was, it wasn't long before it had become firmly entrenched in academia, in the humanities and the arts--in sociology, anthropology, psychology, history, women's studies and gender studies, the very faculties and programs associated with education, social work, journalism, the law and political science. The very branches of society most able to influence public perception. And because of all those things I was talking about at the beginning of this presentation, public perception was vulnerable to the half-truths presented to it, disguised as the whole picture.

And the really awesome thing about this model is that as long as enough people believe it, even just a little, as long as enough people can be convinced to see men as the Bourgeoisie who have always unjustly benefitted from their exploitation of women, and women as the Proletariat who have always been forced to toil and slave without benefit under the boot-heel of those privileged men, you can justify anything.

If men are believed to have always collectively held power and economic privilege through the enslavement of women, if all of men's authority since the dawn of time was ill-gotten through the unreciprocated exploitation and violation of women, then women are entirely justified in stealing it back, and the state is justified in assisting them. It becomes acceptable, justified and appropriate for women to expropriate men's undeserved and unearned power by any means necessary, including state coercion.

And this attitude is not confined to family law, domestic violence law and sexual assault law--the primary areas where men's interests conflict with women's interests, and where the state has been quietly at work, eroding due process protections and equal treatment under the law, and building bloated and ravenous mechanisms that suck up dollars and power while curtailing civil liberties. It's everywhere. It informs economic and employment policy, health spending, criminal law, everything.

According to Dr Warren Farrell, the government has passed more laws to protect women in the workplace from dirty jokes than it has to protect men from injury and death due to faulty rafters on construction sites. And nearly everyone in society, especially women, seems to feel this is an appropriate allocation of resources.

One need only watch the Life of Julia, Obama's most naked and blatant appeal to the natures of women--especially young, single women. Julia has no father, and no husband--she needs neither of those things. The state will take care of her needs from birth to death, and will support her when she decides to have a child of her own--a child that, in Obama's narrative, is also fatherless. The man in Julia's life, the one who will perform the roles--provision, protection, support--historically performed by husbands, brothers and fathers, is more powerful than any man she'll ever meet, more able to provide for her, and one she need make no compromises with.

Julia will never have to pick up this man's dirty socks, or put up with him snoring or farting in bed, or consider his needs, or provide him with respect, love or affection. He is the ultimate provider and the ultimate protector, and he will ask nothing of her in return but her vote.

And he'll give her all those benefits through a system that coerces net taxpayers and net tax-generators, of whom a disproportionate number are men, to surrender their productivity while offering them neither mutual benefit nor voluntary association. This feels right and just to feminists, because the state is merely assisting Julia in stealing back what was wrongfully taken from women, as a class, by men, as a class. This feels like a great deal to Julia, since all she has done is replace a man with whom she would be required to bargain freely, with a state that provides her all the same benefits without the messy business of having to trade anything valuable for them.

If women today in the west can be said to be married to the state, in a very real sense, men are married to it as well, and the obligations expected of them are the same as they always have been. In this marriage, men pay at least 75% of the tax revenue into the system, and reap a disproportionately tiny percentage of its protections and benefits. In this marriage, the state enforces the obligations of husbandhood after divorce, and the obligations of fatherhood even when men did not consent to become fathers, and even when they are allowed no meaningful role in the lives of their children.

In this marriage, the resources men put in are diverted toward the additional protection of women through the erosion of men's legal protections and civil rights. In this marriage, men are expected to pay for a system that not only does not serve them, that not only offers nothing back to them, that has not only made a mockery of due process protections for them, but one that even handicaps their ability to perform these obligations by favoring women in the prioritization of education and employment, and by facilitating the removal of fathers from the lives of children who need them.

The state is, essentially, forcing men to finance a system that disenfranchises them. And the state is, essentially, paying women to disenfranchise men, and handicap their own children. Social responsibility is enforced on men through penalty of imprisonment, while for women, social irresponsibility means a check in the mail every month.

A lot of people have wondered aloud why there aren't more female libertarians. If there's a reason, it might lie in a lack of incentive. Big government costs the vast majority of men--their wealth, their civil liberties, their autonomy, sometimes their freedom--but for most women, big government represents an insurance policy and a perpetual subsidy of their personal choices, good or bad. Men pay, women benefit.

If women sprinted down the aisle to offer their hands in marriage to the state, for men, it was a shotgun wedding, coercive by its very nature. And the influence of radical ideological feminism on government and legal policy has ensured that this marriage is as abusive as they come.

When Gary told me about his experiences with family court and its affiliated agencies, I told him, "If you weren't a libertarian before all of this, I can certainly see why you're one now." What used to be a voluntarily accepted obligation on the part of men, is now extracted from them at the point of a gun, and often there is no way for them, no matter how well they comply, to avoid being shot.

One example of what men's tax dollars disproportionately support, which lies in direct opposition to the interests and rights of men, would be the institutionalization of the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence.

This model is the feminist conceptual framework of family violence, and it is one that has been discredited by hundreds of studies across cultures--from the most modern western democracies to countries like Jordan and Namibia. According to Duluth, family violence is overwhelmingly male-perpetrated, and is motivated by men's and women's relative positions in society--by male social and political dominance and the expectation of female subordination. A man who batters his wife is not just asserting his dominance over her, he is expressing normalized masculinity. Abuse and coercive control of women, according to this model, is a not a pathology, but a natural function of male identity within a Patriarchal culture. Simply put, it's just what men do.

Every piece of legislation, every government policy and every publicly funded treatment program in the US regarding family violence, and the vast majority of them worldwide, employs this conceptual model.

Too bad it's bunk. As hundreds of studies demonstrate, in at least half of cases, partner violence is reciprocal. It involves men and women hitting each other, and what motivates men and women is pretty much the same: anger, poor conflict resolution skills, jealousy, a desire to control or discipline a partner, drug and alcohol problems, and external stress such as poverty. Women are as likely as men to report abusing their partners for all these reasons, and are more likely to engage in coercive control of a partner. More than that, they are more likely to be the one to initiate physical violence, and in cases of severe unilateral abuse against a non-violent partner, women are the perpetrators up to 70% of the time.

For every 8 women seriously injured by domestic violence, at least 5 men are also seriously injured. And perhaps most damningly, considering feminism's unwillingness to address women's perpetration of violence, the number one predictor of serious domestic violence injury in women is their own initiation of violence. It is when men are hitting them BACK that women are most likely to be hurt.

What all this means is that patriarchal terrorism--the Duluth model of intimate partner violence--is the most rare form of all--and yet the patriarchal terrorism paradigm informs all of our government funded mechanisms for intervention and treatment.

But it doesn't end there.

At least 35% of spousal murders are men murdered by their female partners. I say at least, because if a woman engages a hitman, boyfriend or relative to assist her in murdering her male partner, it is classified statistically not as spousal homicide, but as multiple-perpetrator homicide. Because of this, there is no way to know how many men are killed by their female partners each year.

More than this, women are the most likely demographic to perpetrate child abuse and neglect, even controlling for time spent with children, and the majority of young children murdered are murdered by their mothers. Biological fathers are, in contrast, the least likely demographic to abuse or kill young children, less likely than both biological mothers and stepfathers.

Statistically, the environment in which a woman is MOST safe from violence is in a stable marriage, and the environment in which children are the MOST safe from violence is one in which their parents are in a stable marriage.

Yet our entire system of family law, and our entire response to domestic violence, from the VAWA to local police department policies, is designed to encourage and facilitate divorce, to favor sole maternal custody arrangements, and to protect children from the very people least likely to abuse them.

Mandatory arrest policies coupled with predominant aggressor policies based on Duluth, ensure that 1) somebody gets arrested in any domestic violence incident, and 2) that regardless of who was assaulting whom, the person arrested will almost always be the larger, stronger, male partner.

A judge in Florida recently estimated that 80% of all temporary restraining orders granted in the context of divorce or child custody cases, requested almost entirely by women, are either fraudulent or unfounded. Divorce lawyers have called false allegations of domestic violence and sexual abuse of children, and the abuse of TROs merely part of the "gamesmanship" of divorce--a method by which a wife can secure automatic custody of both the children and the marital home, and leave an ex-partner scrambling to defend himself often without access to necessary documents or even a change of clothes. The average length of time it takes for a woman to obtain a TRO in an ex parte hearing is under 3 minutes. She need provide no evidence of prior abuse. All she has to tell the judge is that she feels afraid of her husband. The first any man might hear that such an order has been issued is when the police arrive to remove him from his home.

The advantages to a woman of abusing the system are many and myriad, and the disadvantages virtually nil. By the time a man has cleared his name, the children are often completely alienated from him. Family court judges will go so far as to admit that a mother has abused her own children through her abuse of process, but will hesitate to penalize her in any way. She will almost always retain custody because it would harm the children to place them in the care of a man they've been wrongly taught to hate and fear. Because she retains custody, if she's prosecuted, the children will suffer. If she's financially penalized in the divorce settlement, the children will suffer. If she's forced to pay him damages, the children will suffer. In some extreme cases, judges have completely, permanently stripped a man's rights and access to his children, explaining that the mother's persistent combativeness, false accusations and abuse of process had made it so that upholding that man's parental rights would only subject the children to more of their mother's abuse.

And while not every woman is going to take advantage of a system weaponized specifically for her use, the ex-wife of a friend of mine recently told him she was proud that she'd never availed herself of such measures during their divorce, despite three court-appointed officials encouraging her to make a false claim of domestic violence and thereby gain the upper hand in the process.

Feminist models of gender and domestic violence have institutionalized the assumption that all men are batterers or potential batterers, that dominating, controlling and abusing their female partners and their children is just part of what it means to be a man. They've institutionalized an assumption of non-culpability on the part of women even when they openly abuse their husbands, ex-husbands and children, and even when they use the court system to do it.

In 85% of divorce cases in the US, mothers receive primary physical custody. The remaining 15% represent sole paternal, and shared physical custody arrangements. The average cost to a man in a contested custody battle in the US is over $200, 000. It can take up to six years of expensive court battles for a man to secure even regular access or shared custody, let alone primary physical custody. He may be required to pay his ex-partner's legal bills in addition to his own, and pay for the court-ordered assessments and services required for his case. Through this battle, he will also be required to pay maintenance to his ex-partner in the form of alimony and/or child support, and in some cases, even pay the fees of the third party required for supervised visitation with his children.

Is it any wonder that in the year following a family break-up, men are 11 times more likely to commit suicide than women?

According to the Michigan chapter of NOW, fathers' rights groups are an "abuser's lobby", and the official stance of the chapter is to oppose reforms that would normalize equal or near-equal shared custody after divorce if neither parent is unfit. They oppose these measures in part because it would put women and children in danger from abusive and controlling former spouses, and in part because it would have an unintended negative impact on child support awards. This, despite the oft-stated feminist claim that cultural assumptions that women are automatically better caregivers are sexist against women, and despite the fact that the environment in which a child is at the highest risk of suffering abuse is in the care of a single mother.

This is the influence of politicized ideological feminism in the areas of domestic violence and family law. And while society has always placed a greater priority on protecting women than men from violence and abuse, feminists have managed to rewrite history and public perception of human interaction, in order to justify ever more intrusive government mechanisms that protect women from even their own criminal behavior, and curtail the rights and civil liberties of the men who find themselves at the mercy of the system after having done nothing wrong.

Over the last 40 years, a growing number of researchers have challenged feminism's theory of gender conflict and the conceptual framework of Duluth. These researchers have been subjected to blacklisting, career sabotage, intimidation, professional shunning and even death threats. Family violence researcher Suzanne Steinmetz had a bomb threat called into her daughter's wedding. Erin Pizzey, the woman who established the first battered women's refuge in the world, lived for years under police protection due to threats to herself, her children and grandchildren, and finally fled the UK after her family dog was killed. All for daring to say that women are as violent as men within relationships, and that partner abuse is not a natural function of masculine identity, but a gender neutral social problem primarily caused by experience of abuse during childhood.

To prove women are not violent, feminists have engaged in campaigns of violence and threats, and to prove society is male-dominated, feminists have engaged in a pattern of malfeasance that has silenced all other voices, allowing feminism to remain the dominant authority in all gendered issues. And they evidently see no irony in any of that.

The fiscal, social and human costs of these policies are staggering. We treat every domestic violence accusation, indeed even the hint that a woman is afraid of her partner, with a better safe than sorry strategy that engages multiple bureaucracies. Taxpayers and beleaguered men pay thousands upon thousands of dollars for investigations, assessments, psychiatric evaluations, lawyers, expensive legal proceedings, incarcerations and prosecutions, a growing number of which end with the discovery that a woman was lying for revenge or for personal gain. Children are mercilessly fragged by combative mothers, deprived, often permanently, of what may be their only stable parent. Fathers are ground into the dust.

Intervention programs, run by government funded agencies, apply a single, ideologically tainted treatment to a multifaceted problem, "curing" citizens of diseases they don't have, while allowing their actual problems to fester untreated. Cumbersome legal procedures, no-drop policies, predominant aggressor policies, institutional, legal and informal biases, all contribute to a bill that is increasingly impossible for taxpayers to afford, and that is handicapping the ability of children--those future taxpayers who will be stuck with the growing mass of red ink generated by this system--to shoulder the debt.

Fatherless children--an epidemic of whom we are creating with these policies--are more prone to a whole host of social maladies. They are at two to ten times the risk of being physically or sexually abused, becoming teenage parents, dropping out of school, being behaviorally disordered, becoming involved in gangs, being addicted to alcohol or drugs, being expelled from school, committing suicide, not going to college, committing crimes, being incarcerated, requiring welfare or food stamps, contracting sexually transmitted diseases, and being victims of violence. In fact, if you control for fatherlessness, the race disparity in the US prison system all but vanishes.

If we're expecting our children to bail us out of the fiscal and human mess we're creating, we're in for a nasty surprise.

This is a problem of snowballing costs that will only worsen with each generation, as government gets more bloated and top-heavy while simultaneously crippling the ability of future generations to support it. It is a system where we examine the reading scores of 8 year old boys not to determine how to help boys stop falling behind in education, but to determine how many new prisons we need to build. It is a system wherein a man who is laid off and temporarily unable to pay his child support is systematically stripped of his driver's license and professional licenses, thrown in debtors' prison and saddled with a criminal record, rendering him permanently unable to pay it. Where we will metaphorically chop a man's arms off, and then tell him he'd better still shovel for all he's worth or he'll be sorry.

And behind all of this, you will find radical feminist lobbyists pushing for further "reforms" for women to undo millennia of oppression of women that never existed as they believe it did, and regardless of the collateral damage to other members of society. They do this in the name of "liberating" women from the oppression of their historical dependence on men, by constructing enormous government bureaucracies, ever-growing in power and scope, funded disproportionately by men, and upon which women in general have become just as dependent a they ever were on any man. 

All for the purpose of "ending oppression", because, as we all know, no government anywhere has ever oppressed anyone.

Tuesday, 19 February 2013

Is Feminism Hate?

To Russ Lindquist:

Way back, you sent me a message with a link to a video you'd done on why feminism isn't hate. The video is over 2 hours long. I hesitate to think that's a rebuttal. That's more like attrition. More about that in a minute.

You've since made at least one video (perhaps more, since the one a friend just sent me was "round 6"). In it, you claim you've won the debate, reasoning that since I hadn't responded to any of your videos, it's obviously because I "can't" refute any of your points. Well, regarding your follow up videos, I really can't refute points I'm not made aware of, can I?

A handful of friends of mine did watch that first video--remember, the only video of yours on this topic that I was even aware of until just a few days ago. They mentioned a few of the points you make in it (all of which I've rebutted before, in blog posts or other videos, or in general discussions online), but the general consensus among them was that it was not worth the time required for me to watch it. Their characterization of it was that it was rambling, unorganized, meandering and largely irrelevant to the topic. Now, I'm a busy person. I have three kids, a job, two other businesses I run. Even though you claim in your video that I'm making a living from Men's Rights stuff, I'm really not. I have other things on the go, and other responsibilities. So I'm not going to devote any time watching to that first video, and I'm going to address specifically some of the things you said in this latest one. 

Now, you're welcome to think whatever you want of me for not watching your first video, and you're welcome to feel as dismissed and insulted as you like about it. All I can say is that I get regular complaints about the length of my videos, but one thing I do to alleviate that problem is that I almost always script them. Which is, oddly enough, the part you left out of your criticism--you went so far as to cut a clip of me off mid-sentence to do it--to make my decision to not watch or address your video seem arbitrary or cowardly rather than informed, and my criticism of your video's length seem unfair rather than justifiable.

As an aside, this video is indeed scripted.

Also, what you characterized as me "getting a pass because I'm a woman", in other words, that I have yet to prove the resolution, but am seen to be winning (or a shoo-in) by viewers, is premature at best. Your characterization of me as somehow feeling like I've proved the resolution, and that's both misinformed and uncharitable. I wouldn't call it an ad hominem--I'd call it jumping the gun, going off half-cocked, doing a victory dance when the ball's still at the five yard line.

The truth is, scripting, shooting and editing these videos takes a lot of my time. The research takes time, and I do more edits and rewrites on these things than I ever did in my published fiction. I've been working on this particular script since Wednesday, and it's now the following Monday. "Two hours I spend!" you say, "and all I've gotten is ten seconds back from her!" I've spent over 8 hours on this response alone, probably closer to twelve, and I haven't even shot it yet. I spent at least 6 hours on each of my responses to Danielle (which is why I wasn't sure I was going to address any of her other specific points before concluding). I'm sorry you all had to wait, as I've built my case, but it's just the way it is.

And I found it really bizarre that you repeatedly state that my that my video responses to Danielle were irrelevant to the question. The purpose of me addressing the points I addressed in Danielle's video--building a case. Because feminism describes the system--you know The Patriarchy--both historically and presently, as being based on the subjugation and oppression of women as a class, and as inherently misogynistic. If that's not how the system operated or why it operated the way it did, if women's issues were commonly addressed and women's problems alleviated by that system once women could agree on them and what solutions they wanted, and once that became possible, then it's never been a system based on the oppression and subjugation of women, has it?

And then you go on to characterize my entire body of work as that of a "false mommy idol", and mock the people who follow me. You opine on this at some length. That's awesome.

And given that, I find it curious that you took such a huge issue with the tone I used in my video responses to Danielle Paradis. As in, I sounded condescending and dismissive, which I'm sure I did, because I was. You then appeal to consequences, warning me that Danielle is a moderate, but being so poorly treated by someone like me might compel her to become radicalized.

This seems absurd on its face. If she's a moderate, she's one who belongs to feminist groups that have organized efforts to deface and tear down other groups' posters to keep opposing viewpoints from being seen or heard, and is also the kind of moderate feminist who subscribes to the Femitheist's channel. From that (among other things), I'm almost positive her mind is closed to the ideas I presented in my responses to her as the mind of a creationist is to any argument in favor of evolution.

Given that, my strategy was not to convince Danielle Paradis of anything, especially not to rethink her belief system, but to demonstrate to as many people as possible how simplistic, childish and unsupportable her belief system is.

And what I really find curious is that you took issue with me calling her typical. Because she is typical. She even called herself typical, in so many words, in the sense that she--like pretty much every other feminist she's aware of--believes that women have historically had the short end of the stick.

More than that, explain why it should matter to me or to anyone if my tone sends her stomping off to get herself radicalized? In my view, radical and mainstream feminists differ only in their degree of commitment to acting on their shared belief system, and their ability to be identified by the public as people not to be trusted. It's the belief system and its theoretical model I'm interested in dismantling, I'm not that interested in redeeming individual feminists.

That said, you really don't seem to have a lot of respect for Danielle, if you think she's incapable of prioritizing arguments and reason over delivery. You seem to think that she can't separate herself from her belief system in such a way as to differentiate an attack on feminist theory, or on her beliefs, or her arguments, from an attack on her as a person. She's not a defenceless child, Russ. And you're not a hero for treating her that way, or for suggesting that she's so emotionally frail she's likely suffering from stockholm syndrome from a barrage of nasty, trolling comments that she could have easily ignored.

I mean, you even said that what made you want to join her team was that I was mean to her. Not that she was right. Not that what she said was valid. But that she was "respectful" and I was "mean".

Frankly, if you respected her, and you were of the view that she and other feminists were misinformed, misguided or the innocent victims of other people's lies, as you've suggested, repeatedly, you'd have corrected her, rather than defended her. Allowing someone to labor under a misconception because you want to spare their feelings is a dishonor you commit upon them. All you seem to be interested in doing, however, is indulging her ignorance.

You do seem to have a little more respect for me. You're not interested in protecting me from perceived insults--you're actually one of the people flinging them. Thank you for that, sincerely, because at least I know you're not humoring me, or indulging me, or acting out of some assumption that as a woman, I can't handle a little meanness.

The tone argument holds no water with me, nor does any reference by you or anyone to what people say in my comment section. What is below the line is NOT my responsibility. What the individuals who make up my subscribers and viewers do with their own fingers and their own keyboards elsewhere is also NOT my responsibility. I have a pretty strong non-censorship policy at my channel and blog, one that radical feminists like NocturnusLibertus (another buddy of Danielle's) seem happy to take full advantage of. I get regular messages from my subscribers to ban people like them, and I refuse to do it, even when they're being abusive.

Now, are you going to imply that it's Danielle responsible, what her friends, viewers and subscribers say on my channel and elsewhere? More than that, are any of the people crapping on each other in the comments interfering with anyone else's ability to view the videos in question, the way a disruptive audience at a live debate would? Why are viewer comments even a thing to be addressed in this context?

On this same topic, was Danielle actually "respectful" in her response? 

Her tone was, and she didn't use any slurs or bad language. Her points, however, were glib, hackneyed and lacked any real analysis or investigation--just statements to be taken at face value. And then there's the matter of her clear statement that her video should not be viewed as "opening arguments", but as the entirety of her rebuttal, and all she had to say on the matter. A drive-by, as it were. A way of dismissing off-hand Eric's proposition while absolving herself of any duty to empirically or logically back up her own.

That's not "respectful", Russ. That's actually much more dismissive than I've been toward her, and it shows a lack of regard for the debate question, her opponents and the audience. In light of that, her pleasant tone was quite the manipulation. And you fell for it, didn't you? You're here, fighting her battle for her, and taking any downvotes and criticism of her, on her behalf. For a guy who could write the song, "Let her die", you sure seem willing to jump in front of a bullet for a cute girl with a soft, pleasant voice and hurt feelings.

Moving along: you criticize me for making two longish videos that addressed "nothing to do with the resolution that feminism is hate". But here's the thing. Danielle made several points in her video as, I'm guessing, evidence that feminism is NOT hate (which they really weren't evidence of anything). My FIRST job as a debater was to take those points and demonstrate their lack of validity. Demonstrate that they can't be used to prove or refute anything because they're either missing half the picture, or essentially bunk. As an example: say, a creationist claims that the fact that DNA is made out of cotton candy is obvious proof that God created the universe and all life within it. A debate opponent can't just let the "fact" that DNA is made of cotton candy stand--he got to spend some time disproving the assertion upon which the creationist's argument rests. And the more deeply entrenched that creationist's argument is in the public zeitgeist, the harder the opponent has to work to dismantle it.

See how that works? She says, or implies, that Feminism is not hate because of A, B and C. And then I come in and say, but feminism's analysis of A, B, and C are biased at best, completely invalid at worst, therefore you can't use A, B and C as proof of anything. Do you expect someone in a debate to allow invalid arguments made by an opponent to stand as fact? Really? My refutations of points SHE made are "red herrings"? If that's the case, her entire video was one big red herring.

You seem to be really agitated about it, actually going so far as to intersperse clips of my refutations of specific arguments she made, with the text "therefore feminism is hate"? as if that's ANYTHING like what I was saying. David Futrelle, the king of quote-mining and putting words in people's mouths, would be awfully proud.

And then you go on to do the exact same thing you accused me of doing, but with less excuse, since you're not even rebutting an argument I made. Because the question was not the one you saw fit to repeatedly address in your latest video, and which a friend of mine mentioned was a recurring theme in your first: "Are feminists necessarily hateful?"

You and I and everybody else on the planet is going to know, the answer to that is "no", or at least, "no more hateful than anyone else". But by raising the issue that many feminists are likely misguided or misinformed, and therefore not acting out of hate but out of ignorance, you are simultaneously dodging the REAL question, and essentially necessitating I address the sticky business of exactly what feminism is.

Is feminism a belief system, or is it simply a label? Is it a set of theories, or is it a group of individuals? Is it a pursuit of women's rights, or is it a worldview?

One commenter on this last video of yours suggested that the best way to refute my argument would be to convince people that feminism is a movement, rather than an ideology. He said that if one could define feminism as "the movement for the rights of women" rather than as the ideology associated with it, that would be proof that feminism isn't hate. I suppose because not all feminists hate men.

Unfortunately again, the question was not, "are feminists hateful?" nor was it, "Is the feminist movement hate?" nor was it, "Is advocating for women's rights hate?" nor was it, "Has feminism done anything not hateful?" nor was it even "Are hateful feminists misguided in their hate?"

The question was, "Is feminISM hate?"

According to, an ism is a distinctive practice, system or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement. Synonyms include "doctrine" and "theory". The Merriam Webster dictionary defines ism in two ways: 1) a distinctive doctrine, cause or theory; and 2) an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief.

OMGoodness! Feminism fits all of those!

Unfortunately for me, "cause" and "practice" are not ideologies, theories or belief systems.

Fortunately for me, however, neither of those definitions is relevant in the case of defining feminism, or differentiating it from non-feminism.

Because feminism is NOT the only platform from which to practice advocacy in the cause of the rights of women--there are several other groups and individuals who lobby on behalf of women's rights.

Phyllis Schlafly and her allies, for instance, were instrumental in blocking the ERA, arguing that the ERA would give women no rights they didn't already have, but would take away rights, exemptions and privileges they enjoyed as women. It would have, in fact, removed rights women had, and conservative women's success in blocking the ERA preserved those rights.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm almost positive that Phyllis Schlafly and her buddies would never be described as feminist, even though they did as much to protect women's rights as any feminist ever has.

Conversely, it's altogether possible to describe feminists' fairly consistent (at least when people are looking) support for the ERA as advocating an erosion of the rights of women--that is, they are supporting an amendment that would remove rights women currently have, that would make VAWA, and women-only scholarships and affirmative action unconstitutional. So clearly, they're not simply the movement "for the rights" of women.

Moreover, MRAs also fight for women's rights--most commonly women's right to be fully accountable and responsible for their actions and decisions, women's right to be treated as capable of self-sufficiency, their right to be subject to the same legal status as men, and their right to be not be subject to discrimination under the law.

And again, I'm almost positive the MRM is not the same thing as feminism.

Hell, we can't even define feminism as the movement for equal rights for women, since they have a consistent record, in practice if not in rhetoric, of protecting the rights women enjoy that men don't, and interfering with efforts toward equalizing the treatment of men and women under the law.

So what does that leave us with, if not the ideology?

It leaves us with the absurd necessity of considering feminism a label attributable to Phyllis Schlafly since she advocates for women's rights, and anti-feminism a label attributable to the membership of NOW who (claim at least outwardly that they) advocate the removal of rights women currently have. It leaves us with the bizarre necessity of saying Paul Elam is a "better feminist" than the feminists who wrote VAWA, because he advocates equal treatment of men and women under the law.

And it leaves us with the strange conundrum that MRAs are the only "true feminists", as they advocate for full equality of rights between men and women, while feminists themselves focus most of their real-world activism on protecting the rights women have that men don't, and in maintaining a system that treats men and women unequally socially, politically and legally.

Feminism is not a practice. It's not a cause. It's not an idea. It's not a group of individuals who share an idea in common. It's not a handful of ideas or concerns or causes.

It's an ideology, a system of beliefs, a set of theories that includes a model of what society looks like, how it operates, why it operates the way it does, and how men and women coexist within that model. This set of theories is feminism.

By keeping the focus not on feminISM but on individual feminISTS, you're not just deflecting, you're rendering the concept of feminism so murky, it can't even be defined. Even if feminism itself can be defined based on a shared ideology, by framing it in the context of individuals rather than the collective,  or the core beliefs, if even one feminist disagrees with one of the primary and widely accepted tenets of feminist ideology, feminism becomes purely ephemeral and unassailable--attacking it becomes, as someone on reddit once observed, like swordfighting a fart.

I'm not interested in swordfighting your fart, Russ. I'm going to assert that feminism is an ideology, based on a set of theories: its foundation being the unifying (false) paradigm of The Patriarchy, and whose theoretical offshoots include Male Privilege, Female Oppression, Patriarchal Domestic Terrorism  (otherwise known as the Duluth Model) and Rape Culture.

It really doesn't matter what any individual calls themselves--I can call myself a Christian and believe in Odin, and I can call myself a Buddhist and take every word of the Bible as gospel. This does not mean that Christianity is a set of beliefs built around the Norse gods, any more than Buddhism is based on the the New Testament. And while different sects of Christianity might differ on certain aspects of faith, a Catholic is just as much a Christian as a Baptist or a Lutheran, because they subscribe to the core tenets of the ideology.

Feminists will also subscribe to the core tenets of their ideology, which I named above. If they don't, then they're not the people we're discussing in this debate.

Feminism is an ISM. And its core tenets are available for pretty much anyone to learn.

All that aside--you know, the question of defining feminism, clarifying and solidifying the debate question, your objections to my tone, the issue of your fallacious appeal to consequences, you have, in your comment section, placed me in something of a bind.

Any debate with YOU on this topic is going to be muddied by your assertion that, what the Nazis did to the Jews and what they believed about the Jews, could not be necessarily used to prove that nazism is hate.

I assume you would consider that line of reasoning to be valid when applied to feminism, and I'm absolutely prepared to grant you that point.

However, I would argue that regardless of how justified a person might believe something like genocide to be, hate is a necessary ingredient to convince psychologically functional human beings to exterminate an entire population of other human beings. One must not only see the target group as subhuman, one must see them as subhuman and a threat deserving of death. Hate, justified or misguided, is kind of a requisite.

A Nazi or a Hutu or an Islamic Jihadist doesn't kill Jews or Tutsis or westerners because of policy. They do it because they are driven by psychological conditioning to hate the target group. They have to hate, or be convinced to hate, if they're not going to be overburdened with guilt and trauma by their actions. This is why so much of the rhetoric preceding genocides is designed to dehumanize and vilify the target group--they're scum, they're vermin, they're monsters, they're beasts, they're demons, they're dogs, they're rats, they're a disease. Never does or lambs or kittens, mind you--always something both subhuman, and a threat to humans.

Whether that hate is "righteous" in their minds, based on information they've been exposed to information that's been concealed from them, or whether it's purely rational, a psychologically functional human being does not kill masses and masses of other human beings because it seems like a good idea, or because someone tells them to, or because it will benefit them a little bit, or even because they see the other as inferior. They do it because they've been conditioned to hate the target group, and that hate is based on a combination of the perceived threat posed by the target group, and the learned view that the target group are subhuman.

And here, finally, I'm going to address the debate question: Is feminism hate?

And to do that, I'm going to ask that age-old question: WWHD: "What Would Hitler Do?" Because there IS a way to define Nazism as hate--if you can prove that the set of beliefs and ideas, and the antipathy and acts it engenders, persist in the face of solid contrary evidence.

Hell, one could even argue that it is not UNTIL solid contrary evidence is presented, considered and discarded in favor of the now-debunked belief system, that it even becomes primarily an ideology based on hate.

Let's consider this hypothetical scenario: It is a common belief that black women often murder, cook and eat children. Black men assist or enable their women in this practice. It's an abomination. It's inhuman. And a danger to everyone around them. Research tells us this is not a practice engaged in by ANY other group of humans. It feels right to hate black people for engaging in such barbary, and to consider them less than human because of it. It's only justifiable to discriminate against them, legally and socially, to preemptively attack them for their historical and future atrocities, and to protect ourselves at any expense, and our children, from this monstrous practice that is unique to black people.

And then we're presented with evidence. Irrefutable evidence. Empirically sound evidence. And that evidence shows either that A) all people of all ethnicities engage in this practice to a similar degree, or that B) black people do not commonly engage in this practice at all, and that the data behind the misconception was biased, falsified or methodologically unsound. Either way, blackness and baby-eating are not connected in any way.

What Would Hitler Do? I don't know.

What I do know is that when feminists, influential or otherwise, are presented with solid evidence demonstrating that domestic violence is NOT, in fact, a sexually directional behavior, that it is NOT consistent with their unifying theory of The Patriarchy, that women are actually MORE likely to be violent toward their partners than men, that men and women abuse their partners for the exact same reasons, that women are MORE likely, in fact, to engage in coercive control of a partner, that women are NOT much more likely to be injured or killed by a partner, that mothers are MORE likely than fathers to abuse children, that unilateral violence is 50% MORE likely to be female-perpetrated than male...

Well, what those with any power--those most invested in the ideology--did, in response to that solid, contrary evidence was to engage in boycotts, censorship, intimidation, terrorism, death threats, blacklisting, information suppression, denial, dismissal, shaming, false accusations, and cover-ups. And the ones who didn't, who said, "hey, wait a minute. We need to look into this," they were excommunicated.

Case 1) In California, feminist-inspired domestic violence mandatory arrest policies enacted in the 1980s led to a 37% increase in arrests of men and a 446% increase in arrests of women. That's some pretty solid evidence right there, especially when taken in conjunction with the then-multiple studies on DV that showed gender symmetry. Within a few years, however, feminist legal experts had written and successfully implemented predominant aggressor policies which prioritized relative height, weight, strength, AND patriarchal/feminist models of domestic violence (Duluth again), over inconvenient matters such as "who is the abusive party?" They essentially adjusted policy to make outcomes conform to their theory, rather than adjusting their theory to conform to reality. And conform the outcomes did--arrest rates returned to normal: at least 85% male, at least 1/3 of which would have been victims.

Case 2) In Ontario, a recently penned feminist report on domestic violence, cited data from Statistics Canada. In her report, the author transformed the data from the StatsCan report to reflect feminist ideology. She reported that about 1.2 million Canadian women had been abused by their partners in the past 5 years, even though the StatsCan report clearly indicates that that 1.2 million refers to "Canadians" including 601k women and 585k men. Not only are this feminist grad student and her feminist supervising professor essentially doubling the number of female victims, they're erasing male ones--portraying domestic violence as sexually directional when it's anything but.

Ignorance is no excuse in either of these examples. These feminists weren't ignorant of the facts--they wanted to keep the public ignorant of them. It's no excuse for the treatment of Erin Pizzey by the feminist establishment in the UK, who were so angered and threatened by her assertion that women are as violent as men in their relationships that they subjected her to a campaign of bomb threats, death threats to her, her children and her grandchildren, and finally killed her family dog when they couldn't get to her. It's no excuse for taking data from tables and not just ignoring the actual numbers, but lying about them, so you can inflate the number of female victims and cast all the perpetrators as male.

Why would feminists do this? And keep in mind, it's not like they chose to merely persist in their belief system even when evidence proved it wasn't consistent with reality, they didn't just ignore the evidence and go on their merry way. They actively suppressed the evidence, misrepresented the evidence, attempted to keep that evidence from public and government scrutiny, threatened and blacklisted researchers to prevent them from finding more evidence, and the moment that evidence began being reflected in arrest rates, they actually changed legal procedures so that arrest rates would conform to their theory.

And while I would agree that lots of people cling to indefensible but dearly-held theories despite mountains of contrary evidence, I think it behooves us to examine what specific elements of their theory it was that they went to such arguably criminal lengths to protect from scrutiny or challenge:

Here's what they theorize: Domestic violence is a microcosmic reflection of a system which is based on female subordination and male dominance. Violence, oppression, coercion, domination and abuse are integral aspects of masculinity, and behaviors not just normalized and reinforced by The Patriarchy, but intrinsic to it.

The negative qualities that make people beat up their partners are not human qualities, they are masculine qualities, and they are an integral part of how masculinity and femininity interact under The Patriarchy, a system where men have always held power.

So as you can see, the element of feminist theory feminists were driven to death threats, blacklisting and violence to preserve, was the very element that makes hating men morally justifiable.

Robin Morgan said it herself: Man-hating is an honorable and viable political act--the oppressed have a right to class hatred against the class that is oppressing them. 

And if men aren't that way--you know, aren't violent, oppressive, coercive, dominating and abusive toward women, at least no more so than women are toward men--then all of a sudden it's no longer justifiable to hate men, is it? Feminists have spent almost 40 years concealing evidence that contradicts the specific misconceptions that give women the right, as a class, to hate men, as a class. They've perpetuated stereotypes that violence, aggression, and abuse--especially of women--are "normal" male behaviors, encouraged and abetted by a culture that is shaped by male-dominance, in the face of evidence that men are no more shitty in their behavior toward women than women are in their behavior toward men.

Why would they do that, if they didn't want people to hate men? Or if their hatred of men didn't inform their attachment to the aspects of their theories that expressly justify it? Why is it that the facets of their theory that directly connect the most harmful behaviors of humans to maleness and maleness alone, why is it those are the very ones they're prepared to engage in terrorism to preserve?

Asking which came first, the theory or the hate, is kind of irrelevant. It was the misandry-engendering parts of the theory feminists were willing to maintain, by threatening and blacklisting researchers, and then rewriting law and policy such that actual victims of domestic violence would be sent to prison if they're male, innocent men would be stripped of their homes and children, and violent female perpetrators would walk--with full custody of their kids, no less. Those facets of the theory are the most adamantly defended by those in control of the narrative.

How about another hypothetical scenario:

Hispanics are known to commonly commit serious assault, especially sexual assault. In fact, 99% of the rapes of all women and 99% of the sexual assaults on all men, are known to be committed by hispanics. Though efforts have been made to integrate hispanics into the culture, to socialize them away from this violent behavior and instil in them the values important to whites, blacks and asians--most notably an ethic of empathy--the problem isn't lessening. In fact, more people than ever are victims of hispanic sexual violence--in the 1970s, 1 in 8 people were victims of hispanic sexual violence, but now the number is 1 in 3. This must be a problem endemic to hispanic culture or genetics. It's either inherent or culturally intractable. They're monsters, when you think of it--violent, cruel and sociopathic, begetting more violent, cruel sociopathy with each generation. It's therefore entirely justifiable to mete out harsher penalties when they commit sexual violence, to arrest them anytime a non-hispanic has ever felt threatened by them, to reverse the burden of proof in sexual assault cases involving hispanics, and even to propose to confine them to certain areas after 9 at night.

And then we're presented with contrary evidence. Empirically sound contrary evidence. That evidence demonstrates that non-hispanics are equally likely to engage in sexual aggression--it's just that the victims of non-hispanics don't report it as often. Hispanics themselves are least likely to report being victimized. We're actually shown that it is non-hispanics who are most likely to self-report having used physical force, threats, intoxication or coercion to get sex from an unwilling partner. The evidence shows that victimization and perpetration rates are virtually identical among ethnic groups--it's only how we view those assaults that differs, depending on who is the perpetrator and who is the victim.

What would Hitler do? I don't know.

What do feminists do? They continue to perpetuate the lie that sexual aggression is a masculine behavior--even though women are more likely to report engaging in it. They claim that the number of male victims is tiny, and they cite research that describes forced sex perpetrated on a woman as rape and forced sex perpetrated on a man as not rape, to "prove" it. They ignore the findings that a large percentage of women have reported having forced a man into sex, while a smaller percentage of men report they've repeatedly forced a woman into sex--which actually demonstrates that rape is more common a behavior in women, not men.

They continue to frame rape culture as a social attitude that normalizes sexual violence by men against women, even though the justice system has bent over backwards to make it easier for women to report rape and easier to convict male rapists, even though black men hung like the song said, "strange fruit" from trees in the deep south based on nothing more than a woman's pointed finger, and even though the first response of society to a man's complaint that he's been forced into sex by a woman is, "was she hot?" They blame the rape of women on Patriarchal norms, masculinity and male dominance, even though it was a male-dominated system that enacted marital rape laws to protect only women from sexually aggressive husbands, while the exact same system will force a man to pay punitive damages to his ex-wife for not putting out enough for her liking, and will consider him withholding sex from her a form of domestic violence.

And they say batshit insane things like this, which I'm quoting from a recent article on Feministing:

Rape is absolutely a gendered crime, but the act of rape itself doesn’t necessarily follow those rules.
We need to be able to hold an understanding of rape as a genderless act at the same time that we recognize it as embedded in a gendered culture of violence. No one said feminism was easy.

What exactly is she saying here? Well, she's saying that even though rape is not gendered, it's intrinsic to masculinity. It is, as Brownmiller once said, the means by which all men control all women. It's not a pathology--it's a Patriarchal tool in all men's hands, a tool men have used since the beginning of humanity to terrorize women into remaining subjugated.

So again, what are the exact aspects of feminist theory that feminists are so desperate to protect by attempting to emulsify the oil of narrative and the water of empirical reality? To hold two completely contradictory ideas in their heads at once, and then bemoan that "no one said feminism was easy"? What motivates them to continue to tie a sexual behavior more common among WOMEN, and more likely to be normalized and endorsed by the culture when women are the aggressors, with masculinity?

Surprise! It's the part that, when attributed to masculinity, makes men hate-worthy. It's the part that makes people see maleness as bad, as evil, as deserving of hate and prejudice.

And you know, as much as feminists lie through their teeth about things like the pay gap and old boys' clubs and sexism in employment and education, I haven't EVER heard of anyone sending death threats to a researcher, or screaming, "YOU ARE FUCKING SCUM!!!!" into the face of someone interested in hearing another point of view, over the pay gap or subtle employment sexism.

The ONLY aspects of feminist theory--you know, the theory that IS feminISM--that feminists have engaged in violence, death and bomb threats, intimidation and false accusations to preserve are the aspects of feminist theory that cast men as uniquely subhuman monsters, and therefore worthy of hate.

Was feminism borne of the hatred of men, or was the hatred of men merely a natural consequence of the theories central to feminism? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The question is immaterial. Whether the theories were based in some women's hate of men, or whether they were based on ignorance and only taught women to perpetuate hateful beliefs about men, the relevant question is: What parts of feminist theory do feminist theorists most vehemently, violently shield from any challenge, doubt or scrutiny? What parts do feminists cling to even when they're proved wrong by sound evidence?

The parts that cast masculinity as a pathological victimization of women. The parts that give us all moral permission to hate men and see them as a threat. The parts that, in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, cast women as a monolithic victim class and men as a monolithic perpetrator class, that cast women as universally humane and men as universally subhuman.

If the tenets of feminist theory that feminists defend most adamantly--with sociopathic or criminal behavior, no less--are the very tenets that collectively portray men as inhuman monsters and women, collectively, as their victims, the parts that naturally lead society to hate men for the horrible things they, and only they, are prone to do... then yes, I'd say feminism is hate. Because it's the aspects of the theory that lead people to hate men that feminists seem most interested in protecting.

And you might think those aspects are "radical", and I suppose you're right. "Radical" means "pertaining to the root". It does not describe fringe beliefs, it describes core, fundamental ones. Basic ones. Ones that are foundational to an ideology. The equivalent of, "was Christ the son of god, and did he die for our sins?" It's the radical feminists who are "doing it right". The moderates and coffee shop feminists are nothing more than poseurs and pick-and-choosers--Christmas Christians who engage in premarital sex and swipe office supplies from work, but rationalize it away because they like the idea of a Jesus that loves them no matter what.

And it doesn't matter whether some feminists are acting or believing out of ignorance. The ideology, and those who concocted, perpetuate and control it are not.

Individual feminists might not be primarily motivated by a hatred of men, but feminism is, absolutely, hate. It encourages hate, gives people moral permission to hate, condones and endorses that hate, and incites individuals and governments to act on that hate--and it is the specific elements of feminist theory with the least validity and empirical support, and which serve these very purposes, which are the ones most closely nurtured and guarded by feminists invested in them, and most zealously shielded from scrutiny, refutation or challenge. The ideology, and those in control of the narrative, are at their most vehement when it comes to maintaining feminism's most hateful premises.

It might not be hate if it was supported by valid, empirical evidence, or if it adjusted its tenets in the face of contrary evidence. It would just be reality. 

The way to prove that an ideology IS based on hate is to demonstrate that 1) it is false, 2) its falsities engender and promote unjustifiable hate, and 3) those falsities are the most adamantly defended and preserved by its followers.

All the elements of feminist ideology that are most likely to justify and encourage the hate of men rest on lies, half-truths, and censorship of opposing viewpoints and evidence, through a history of boycotts, intimidation and even terrorism. So yes, I'm prepared to say that the ideology of feminism is one of hate. As you quoted in your video, "By their fruits, you shall know the tree."

Your mileage may vary, of course.

Have a nice day.