it's funny that feeling such contempt for women and such fear that intimacy leads to being manipulated and dominated, they still want girlfriends! Maybe they could just go visit those sex workers who enjoy their jobs so much. That way everybody would be happy. Interestingly,there are several articles on the site that give men THE most basic social advice (don't smell bad, don't stare at her breasts, don't surf the Web or chew food when you call her for that first date). This seems like a site for men who are flops with women, for good reason.

This character apparently makes a career as a professional misogynist. He has a book about ... wait for it ... How Awful Women Are. Link below.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0966963903/askmencommagazin/104-8095917-6359130

He apparently does talk radio (shocker!) and talk television appearances, so saying outrageous and hateful things probably is part of his business model.

Protesting him will only get him more attention. But I know that Askmen.com advertises on sites that can't afford to piss off feminists and progressives -- like Nerve. I subscribe. I'll bet at least two of the five editors here are paying Nerve subscribers. So, I'm writing to Nerve to tell them to exile this hateful misogyny, or I will no longer be a paying subscriber. Then, we just need to find out where else Askmen.com advertises. If they start losing their advertising space, they might throw the hate-mongers overboard.

Anybody with me?

My letter to Nerve is below.

Dear Nerve:

I have been a premium subscriber for some time now, so it is with great regret that I bring to your attention a problem with an advertiser on your site that is so serious it may require that I cancel my Nerve subscription and stop reading your site.

Askmen.com runs columns by Matthew Fitzgerald. He makes his living doing appearances and writing about how awful, evil and manipulative women are. His latest column is devoted to comparing "training" a new girlfriend t training a dog. Fitzgerald writes, among other things, "[s]ince a girlfriend's brain is unable to distinguish emotion from logic ..."

This must be stopped. Askmen.com is apparently more than willing to have this misogynist as a regular feature. I need you to stop taking their advertising dollars.

If Askmen.com is still advertised on Nerve.com in thirty days, I will cancel my subscription.

I think that Matthew's book "Sex-Ploytation" is not meant to say that all women do this, but that some women do it, and "this is how they do it". I think that the article on AskMen.com is more humorous than anything.

RedBook publishes these kinds of articles too, only the other way around. Here is an example called, "The Secret to Getting Your Way Every Time":

http://magazines.ivillage.com/redbook/sex/inside/articles/0,,284444_640625,00.html

If you consider Matthew's article sexist, then you'd have to consider RedBook's article sexist also. The point is that women do it to men just as much as men do it to women.

Steve:

I'm no defender of the "men are pigs" articles that I sometimes see. I think reducing either men or women to caricatures is sexist and counterproductive.

About the use of humor, I read others of this guy's columns. The humor was awfully mean -- "[s]ince a girlfriend's brain is unable to distinguish emotion from logic ..." Further, his stance is not one of lampooning the attitude of that quote. He's (I think) exaggerating for dramatic effect, but he's actually adopting the view, as in "it's funny because it's true." This is sometimes called, "kidding on the square," like when Ann Coulter says liberals should be executed. She may not literally support it, but she really hates lefties.

This guy is playing for laughs, but he's not "just kidding." As far as I can tell, he really hates women.

Katha:

On your sex worker comment, I seriously would conjecture that guys with this attitude would not be comfortable with any woman who was either assertive or forthrightly sexual. A sex worker who insisted on frankly discussing the session with them in advance and setting limits would probably just scare them off. That, of course, leaves the much larger pool of sex workers who either have no options or no better options. Desperation and loathing might be exactly what this Fitzgerald character looks for in his interactions with women.

I think Thomas' suggestion is brilliant. Don't waste precious emotional energy on this sorry article, just send the letter to Nerve. Really, Nerve should be better than that!

[If you consider Matthew's article sexist, then you'd have to consider RedBook's article sexist also.]

Sure I do, but it doesn't come from a feminist; it comes from the author of "The Surrendered Wife" (a self-help book urging married women to "surrender" to their husbands). I don't see why feminists should be in the business of apologising for stupid things written by anti-feminist women.

The subservience is more important to many of these men than the sex, so the sex worker thing is out. After all, she goes home after sex, she doesn't fetch your beer. Though I bet many sex workers would prefer simpering and fetching things for an hour than the sex.

More Fitzgerald:

"A woman will never give herself emotionally to a man unless he has something she can exploit. Sexual manipulation is essentially dishonest, by its very nature designed to mislead and control men.

Unfortunately, in our society, women are permitted to abuse their sexual power. They are allowed to flaunt their sexuality, yet still claim to be victims. They are allowed to exploit and profit from men's natural drives in the adult entertainment industry. They are allowed to dress seductively in cleavage-baring tops and hip-hugging jeans without any fear of sexual consequences.

They are allowed to seduce men into handing over their wallets without any worry of judgment or criminal censure. They are allowed to flirt and seduce in the workplace, and then cry "sexual harassment" when a man responds according to his biological imperatives.

They are allowed to use sex to their advantage -- and withdraw it -- when it is convenient for them and then hide behind a self-serving version of feminism when it comes time to pay the price."

This isn't even kidding on the square. This is not an attempt to be funny. This is what the guy thinks. He even gives a thinly-veiled endorsement of rape: "They are allowed to dress seductively in cleavage-baring tops and hip-hugging jeans without any fear of sexual consequences." I read that so say that in his mind, women should be punished for trying to attract men -- but punished how? Does any other answer suggest itself?

Is there anyone out there who debates that this man hates women, despises them with every fibre of his being?

Steve - I do believe there is a difference between an article with plenty of pearls like this one, "As many would believe, girlfriends aren't usually as bright as men" or "A girlfriend can make a best friend and ideal companion, but like any bitch (female dog, that is), she needs to be taught how to act around the house," and one with phrases like "And the more you accept his quirky tokens of affection, the more you may end up appreciating what would have once sent you running to the store for an exchange" or "But just because it's not your solution doesn't mean it's not a viable one."
Both articles are about modifying behavior, but where one (AskMen one) is being degrading in the most offensive way to women, the other (Redbook one) actually accepts that the woman might have inadvertly stifled the guy's desire to make her happy - vs. that the man is out to make the woman miserable.

Actually, I noticed quite a difference in AskMen.com content from when I used to read it about a year ago - the mood seems to be less "Hey, let's learn how to get along with these weird creatures called women" and more "WAR on the bitches!" It is pretty scary. Can anyone else confirm my impression, in case it's just my shock at this particular article.

Um, I hate to admit this, but after I took my dog to a positive-reinforcement obedience class, I started realizing how easily rewarding desired behavior and withdrawing attention from undesired behavior could be used in relationships.

But I don't think that's what this turd had in mind.

I Found the adress of the sexist matthewfitzgerald@askmen.com Give him hell Feminists!

Thomas, I think you are correct in your assessment.

Thanks for the Amazon link, Thomas.

Just bought a new book for the bookshelf.

Actually, one of the other articles on there is just as bad, just not as BLATENTLY misogynistic. It's all about how women should obey their men, basically because we reproduce. They even refer to pregnancy as "a nine month vacation". There are all sorts of little remarks like "fighting traffic because while we need women to drive (to go shopping, pick up the kids, etc.), we got lazy and forgot to build separate roads." And the author even goes so far as to quote Plato to support his beliefs.

Basically his premise is that there can be only one CEO of a company, only one capatain of a team, therefore only one head of the house. And that should be the man. Because men don't have babies.

Here's the link:
http://www.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith_60/98_dating_advice.html

As I can't believe the entire site is dedicated to tongue in cheek humor, I think this is an excellent example of sexism in motion. I would hope that most men are using it just to blow off steam, and I can understand that even if I don't really like it. I'm just worried that there are guys taking this crap seriously.

Yessir-- write unkind, hateful things about women and the outrage mounts to the sky. Write unkind, hateful things about men and it'll become part of the cirriculum in a college class entitled 'Women and Literature'.

Vox:

I'm not sure I understand your point. If I read you correctly, you agree that Fitzgerald's writing is misogynist invective. (If you were being sarcastic, and don't think he's a misogynist, I apologize for misreading your post, but then I really want to hear your defense of him.) But you suggest that there is similar work demeaning and spewing hate at men, in the curriculum of a "Women and Literature" course somewhere. Can you tell us which university's course you are referring to, or what works those are?

Thomas: do you want me to give you direct quotes or something? I can furnish them if you wish, but I don't think you're truthfully interested in quotes.

I have nothing to say in defense of Fitzgerald. The point is exactly what I wrote: If you write hateful things about women, it's misogyny and everyone freaks-out and proclaims it to be the worst crime since Hitler. If you write hateful things about men and present it in a women's lit class, then the yes-yessing students will nod in serene agreement. There is a rather massive double standard involved.

Vox:

No really, I am interested. I'm not sure if you're making a wide generalization about womens' lit cirricula, or if you have specific WS programs or specific works in mind. Are you talking about a few quotes, or are there whole works and bodies of theory that you think are the mirror image of Fitzgerald?

"write unkind, hateful things about women and the outrage mounts to the sky. Write unkind, hateful things about men and it'll become part of the cirriculum in a college class entitled 'Women and Literature'."

Really? Gee whiz, then how come it is that every time I turn on my TV, read a newspaper or magazine or listen to the radio, I'm bombarded with ton after ton of crap that tells me women's only value lies between their legs, while men are complex, complete human beings with a plethora of qualities that make them worthwhile?

I keep on hearing comments like Vox's parroted over and over again by MRA types, and I can't help but think that they all must live on some planet other than Earth, because down here I never go an entire day without seeing some godawful offensive tripe slung at women with not even a murmur of dissent in response.

Thomas: I suspect that your main desire is to find excuses to dismiss me, but if you want specific examples: the SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanas (who gained notoriety as the person who shot Andy Warhol) has been included in certain women's lit class curricula at the University of Minnesota, the University of Texas, and the University of Missouri in St Louis. Sweet Briar College proudly displays it on their "women's voices" web site. As hateful as Fitzgerald is, he doesn't advocate a Nazi-like 'final solution' like Solanas does.

"Really? Gee whiz, then how come it is that every time I turn on my TV, read a newspaper or magazine or listen to the radio, I'm bombarded with ton after ton of crap...?"

Crys: Because you are prone to seeing sexism everywhere you look. You're finely-tuned and on high-alert for the sexism that don't favor you, but you are quick to ignore or rationalize the sexism that you create yourself. And in any debate, you've discovered that if you act offended and accuse the other person of being sexist, they will probably shut up and act apologetic towards you. (It's an easy way to win arguments, yes?)

If you really manage to get offended every time you turn-on the tv, then that's not your political awareness talking: it's an emotional hang-up.

(So why don't you tell me how sexist I am and how offended you are now? Maybe I'll apologize and shut up?)

Vox:

Now we're getting somewhere -- I also believe Solanas is indefensible, and also nuts -- literally nuts. As someone once said (for the life of me I can't recall who), "calling Valerie Solanas a feminist is like calling Charles Manson a Beatles fan."

I'm really surprised that the SCUM manifesto is in the cirriculum anywhere -- but as you said, it is on Sweet Briar's website, presented not as satire (a defense I have heard and do not buy), and without critical explanation except that she shot Andy Warhol. I certainly never had it in a class when I got my W&GS minor, or heard it discussed with approval. She was a terrorist. I really wonder how it's presented at the other schools you mentioned. Have any of the other readers ever seem the SCUM Manifesto in a course? Was it presented at all seriously, or derided as insanity on a stick?

Okay, I agree that Solanas is anti-male hate speech. I'm not calling it literature. I'm calling it hate speech. So you named one I agree with you on.

Others?

By the way, if you don't want to engage on substance, that's your choice. But I don't think it gets you anywhere to speculate that I am just trying to dismiss you. I do seem to disagree with you most of the time, because I'm a feminist, and by your silence when I ask you if you are, I guess you're not. But I have eschewed ad hominem attacks in favor of civilized discourse. Instead, when you have made broad assertions, I have asked for clarification and pointed out where I think you're wrong. Respond or not as you see fit.

As if none of you have ever read an article about how to train your man. Would you ever care about that? I suspect you would support it.

With your double standards and non-issues you ladies are effectively helping to destroy feminism.

If you actualy cared about women you would be focusing on the third world, instead of being inspired to murder over retarded light articles.

Just a quick word regarding Valerie Solanas. Some people like to insist that she was "not really a feminist", but that's about as "useful" (and pedantic) as saying that "Mussolini was not really a Nazi".....

...or that "Coke is not really Pepsi".

And more to this: Can anybody stand up and explain to me why ROBIN MORGAN is "not really a feminist".??

You know, Robin Morgan of the "Women's International Terrorist Committee from Hell...?" Robin Morgan who informs us that "'man-hating is a viable political act"..?? Robin Morgan who not only anthologized Solanas in "Sisterhood is Powerful", but campaigned to "free Valerie" after the latter's attempted murder of Andy Warhol.?

Explain to me, please, why Robin Morgan (a big fan of Valerie Solanas!) is not really a feminist.

And while you're at it, explain to me why the members of the Feminist Initiative (in Sweden) are not really feminists. (They're the ones who want to put a tax on men, and yes....they too like Valerie!)

Finally, I'm sure that many readers on this blog will have NO objection to the recent "boys are stupid - throw rocks at them" t-shirts. No double standards there, it's only a joke...right? And besides, it is "not really feminism"...is it??

And anyway, Valerie Solanas never talked about throwing rocks at boys; she talked about "cutting up men", which is completely different....isn't it?

Ah, where were you skanks when their was a TV program on in the UK about bringing your man to "heel", like a dog??

"Oh and by the way, there's a reward for this guy's home address."

You threatenin' me, biatch?? Can you EVEN IMAGINE if I had said the same thing about some woomin?? Your head would explode. Hypocrite.

ROFL! You western females are a hoot, I swear. Nothing like monumental ignorance mixed in with phony indignance. Long live the marriage strike! Your kind do more to awake western men then I ever could. PLEASE DONT STOP BEING YOURSELVES!

Maybe you pigs can call me a "loser" because I married a lovely blonde-haired blue-eyed Ukrainian lady now? Gotta stay consistent!

"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things."
SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men.) - Jilly Cooper

"Everytime a man dies by suicide, every woman becomes a little safer, happier and more fulfilled." - Elena Goldenberg, NARAL meeting, Washington, D.C. 1999

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."
Ice And Fire - Andrea Dworkin

I personally want to thank vanessa for pointing out the writing of mike fitzgerald.

He apparently has a new fan.

Another quick little dip in the "not really feminist" pond:

When the leaders of the National Organization for Women (NOW) were confronted with the "boys are stupid - throw rocks" phenomenon, they stonewalled like true politicians; they huffed, they acted snifty, they made high-falutin' statements to the effect that, "we don't have time to bother our heads about T-shirts!".

Anything but denounce it, of course! Anything but use their "bully pulpit" to heap burning coals upon those David & Goliath marketers, of course!

But of course, the NOW officialdom isn't really feminist...is it?

Of course not! ;-}

Feminists suck >:(

Well, it WAS brought up, but interrestingly enough none of you Equaloteee bigots would touch it.

The UK show Bring your Husband to Heel??? But that's different right? It;s in jest... it's funny! blah blah.... whelp, so is this. Take it like a man.

TMOTS

Vanessa, Vanessa...Vanessa! My oh my!
Tsk-tsk!

First you say that a man is on your "death wish list", and then you make THIS statement:

"Oh and by the way, there�s a reward for this guy�s home address."

That adds up to some mighty wicked shit, all right! Even if you didn't really mean it, it was just plain STOOPID to say such a thing. Not to mention that it was in very poor taste.

Especially in today's gender political climate -- which is mean and getting meaner, grrrrl!

Almost sounds like you are issuing a fatwah, a la Khomeini vs. Rushdie. (After all, we do know that SOME feminists are capable of making death threats -- not that you're one of them of course, BUT....if I was with the FBI I just might be opening a file on you right about now....)

You take care, grrrrl! And do watch your step, okay?

Vanessa, Vanessa...Vanessa! My oh my!
Tsk-tsk!

First you say that a man is on your "death wish list", and then you make THIS statement:

"Oh and by the way, there�s a reward for this guy�s home address."

That adds up to some mighty wicked shit, all right! Even if you didn't really mean it, it was just plain STOOPID to say such a thing. Not to mention that it was in very poor taste.

Especially in today's gender political climate -- which is mean and getting meaner, grrrrl!

Almost sounds like you are issuing a fatwah, a la Khomeini vs. Rushdie. (After all, we do know that SOME feminists are capable of making death threats -- not that you're one of them of course, BUT....if I was with the FBI I just might be opening a file on you right about now....)

You take care, grrrrl! And do watch your step, okay?

I apologize for the unintentional double-post.

Here's a thought: How about if we agree that men issuing "training tactics" for women is retarded and hateful and women issuing "training tactics" for men is retarded and hateful. I am a lifelong feminist - was raised by one - and have always thought that books written for women who want to "train" their men were bullshit and idiotic. In a partnership of equals, there should be no "training," period.

Unless I've missed it (and I don't think I have), I haven't read a post here that said: "Training men is GREAT!" I think we can all agree that a tortured, dead man does not a happy woman make.

I mean, seriously - didn't we learn in high school that if someone isn't right for you, they're just not right...FOR YOU?

I read the AskMen article, and while it was grating and demeaning, I found myself actually feeling SORRY for poor, weedling Fitzgerald - the guy obviously has a bad relationship with reality. I suspect he goes to bars and picks one woman apart after another, then wonders why, at the end of the night, the "lucky winner" isn't squealing with joy.

Sylke the point is the article is ridiculous considering this stuff is done casualy to males in the media ALL THE TIME. And feminist orgs dismiss it. When anyone with eyes can see men or white men are routinely portrayed as idiot incompatant slobs in need of there wife to fix everything for them.

Then to make assumptions about the author’s personal life? Like he is one of those losers you see so often on tv?

Reminds me of the guys in the 70's who were always saying the problem with feminists is they are just to ugly to get a man.

Here's a thought: How about if we agree that men issuing "training tactics" for women is retarded and hateful and women issuing "training tactics" for men is retarded and hateful. I am a lifelong feminist - was raised by one - and have always thought that books written for women who want to "train" their men were bullshit and idiotic. In a partnership of equals, there should be no "training," period.

Thank you. I also noticed a tendency to label women who wrote certain train men articles as "feminists" without even looking into it.

Unless I've missed it (and I don't think I have), I haven't read a post here that said: "Training men is GREAT!" I think we can all agree that a tortured, dead man does not a happy woman make.

Unfortunately, that wouldn't allow the newcomers to bring up what whatever women have writen before thereby undermining any criticism of this guy. Even though, yes, nobody here every said anything about "training" men. But, hey, anything for a straw-feminist.

Sylke the point is the article is ridiculous considering this stuff is done casualy to males in the media ALL THE TIME.

Actually, that shouldn't be the point. I mean, it makes a legitimate concern, but routinely coming in here and derailing a thread regarding feminism on a site called Feministing, making a claim and applying it to individuals who never made it or putting up a red-herring where if nobody responds to it then it amounts to them being guilty of it is not a way to be taken seriously. Its more like saying, "well, it happens to men, too, and thats what is important. So what the hell are you doing minding women, feminists?".

And feminist orgs dismiss it.

"Dismiss" it? I don't know. I mean, it is a feminist organization; it is based on the experiences of women. I can certainly understand feminists and feminist organizations not buying that they should put the needs and social ills facing women aside for men. I don't see MRAs and masculists doing so for women; I often see a tendency for them to only consider issues important to the degree they effect men ... and then label feminists as bigots for not bending over backwards for men while they sit on the sidelines and complain.

Feminists have been criticizing negative portrayals of women in the media for years, and advocating more positive ones. What MRAs tend to do is expect feminists to fix it for them, or scale down on helping women.

When anyone with eyes can see men or white men are routinely portrayed as idiot incompatant slobs in need of there wife to fix everything for them.

Funny, it is that very mentality many feminists have been fighting for years; men are perfectly capable and don't need their wife to do everything for them from caring for their kids all the time to cleaning a house. Men do know better, that is what feminists have been saying to the "good ol boy" types.

For every negative portrayal of men, there are many more positive portrayals of them. The hero, the worker, the savior. Its iconic. In the media, women barely exist outside of stereotypes.

The truth is, they grow off each other. When you see the umpteen beer commercials, where scantily clad women fight over some air-headed issue while smug, leering guys sit by, drink, and compliment each other on how they so cleverly got these ill-informed women into that situation, I think it makes men look pretty bad on so many levels. I thought that for years. Apparently, it isn't an issue for them though.

Negative portrayals of anybody needs fixing; but you can't expect feminists to put aside the needs of women because men facing detriment is seen as more important. You don't see many MRAs or masculists minding or criticising and then trying to do something about negative portrayals of women. Hell, when it comes to actually doing something about it, you don't even see them trying to do something about it regarding men; just trying to punish feminists for helping women, or undermining their efforts. As if that will sudden;y make negative portrayals of men go away.

Its a societal problem, and people have to make change within their groups. But that includes men and masculinity, like women who do with femininity (to the dismay of many concervative/traditionalists) and not expect it to be done for them.

Reminds me of the guys in the 70's who were always saying the problem with feminists is they are just to ugly to get a man.

Given the nature of the article writer's, well, writing, I think Sykle's point was that he is precisely that type of guy. That - like the women who write "train the men" type bullshit - maybe they are the reason things don't work out. If he maybe changed the way he was, things may work out better.

"Hell, when it comes to actually doing something about it, you don't even see them [masculists] trying to do something about it regarding men; just trying to punish feminists for helping women, or undermining their efforts. As if that will sudden;y make negative portrayals of men go away."

Hey maybe we can play together with our little straw people sometime.

Actually it was the call to murder the author that got my attention, and ill judgment of the site, that alone is a glaring double standard that exposes a superior minded anti-male attitude. Statements like that do little but erode feminism.

And get the attention of people like me. :)

http://www.standyourground.com/boyc.php

Hey maybe we can play together with our little straw people sometime.

No, for example, I saw on Mensactivism site them writing letters to the Dove Campaign site that promotes a positive body image for women. They didn't like one of them talking about how the body issues effect women in one article, as it didn't include men. Their solution? Not to ask for donations to make their own campaign, not to understand what their aim is. On, no, but to fire off letters to the woman for not including men because they have negative body issues too. I mean, how *dare* she!

Then you have yourself, who came on here, talking about how we read stories on how to train men (???) and agreed with it (!!!) and apply double-standards because of it, and therefore criticism of this guy doesn't count. When, first, no, nobody ever did. Second, criticizing this guy is just criticizing this guy and nobody is stopping you from criticizing women who want to train men.

Actually it was the call to murder the author that got my attention, and ill judgment of the site, that alone is a glaring double standard that exposes a superior minded anti-male attitude. Statements like that do little but erode feminism.

Right. Funnily enough, you said nothing of the sort regarding as much although you took the time enough - and cared enough - to post two messages. The so-called "double-standard" you accuse this site of having was in regards to something nobody here even said! In between all the messages of OMG! double-standard!, Pepsi is like Coke so Solonas is a feminist, "but women do it, too!" nobody ever said women should train men. Nobody, no matter how many times people repeat that they did. In fact, two have said they actually disagree with it.

I think promoting awareness that men suffer body image and self-esteem issues is a good thing, they are not forcing anyone, just trying to influence gender perception of authors and authorities in areas where men are left without support or awareness, like in the area of body image, it is just frustrating as a guy to see so many articles and ads about it for women and way less for men. It should be viewed as a human issue; the guys on men’s activism.org can be extreme for sure.

However if any of them were inspired to incite murder over an article and did such irresponsible things as try to use site members to acquire the female authors home address, I do wonder if you would be so quick to defend them.

I wouldn't.

If inciting the murder of a man is less offensive an idea then writing an article about training your GF, then you're right no double standards going on here at all.

I think promoting awareness that men suffer body image and self-esteem issues is a good thing, they are not forcing anyone, just trying to influence gender perception of authors and authorities in areas where men are left without support or awareness, like in the area of body image, it is just frustrating as a guy to see so many articles and ads about it for women and way less for men.

I agree. Positive body image for men is a good thing. Hell, as far as I’m concerned, the existing rigid masculinity does as we