I love the way that the main story isn't the amazing impact of women's votes--it's the way that Hillary "lost" (which assumes she had them to begin with) men's votes. Because even when women's votes are effective, men matter more.

I dunno, I know some sexist assholes who would not vote for a woman because they hear nagging whenever they hear a female voice. Like... Marc Rudov.
I just hope that the number of people NOT voting for Clinton because she's female is about equal to the number of people voting for Clinton because she's female. Then it will all even out (because you know there are some of each.)

"Take out the garbage" could be a pretty decent campaign slogan, really. "I'm going to clean up Washington!"

Also, wow, just when I thought I couldn't hate Fox News more.

When I went to read the transcript, the woman interviewing him kept telling him that there was only a 2% difference between married men who voted for Obama as opposed to Clinton. And for single men, there is a 12% difference. "Stats don't lie...This is ridiculous." I don't give the hard core Fox News watchers much credit, but I have to say that she at least dented if not derailed his argument. Hopefully.

But he doesn't argue well! He's not even remotely logical. Because in response to her comment the third or fourth time, he said that those single men were reminded instead of their girlfriends. Then later he says that women only become shrill when they become wives. And then he says there are some women that he likes to listen to (Meg Whitman, CEO of ebay), but that Hillary won't be elected because she was shrill. Regardless of the fact that he admitted that she has been hoarse lately. I think what he said at the end is what he really means: "Not gonna happen." He just doesn't want Hillary or any woman president. Whatever he can say to support that, wins.

Ugh. This man gives me the creeps though. I went to his website to look at his book. On the first page: Most men pay their girlfriends and wives like prostitutes—cash, dinners, vacations, jewelry, cars, homes, and clothing—in exchange for sex. Not only unnecessary and emasculating, such stupid male behavior induces “purchased and entitled� women to fake their orgasms. I don't understand the logic of this either. Is that his number one fear? That women will fake their orgasms with him? Wouldn't a better solution be to make you feel more connected and intimate and to explore ways to make the sex good? And what entitled woman would fake one anyway? Can you be entitled and purchased at the same time? And in what world is this the only way that men and women interact? And why should the solution be for men to stop wining and dining (I guess) and start driving women the car?

*sigh* Yep, Fox is bringing out the experts.

*sigh* Yep, Fox is bringing out the experts.

wow this guy seems like a real winner...

Homeboy looks like a disgruntled Geico caveman. No wonder he's so pissed.

It gets so much better on his blog. My favorite part if when he says that Roe v. Wade is anti-men because it allows women to "opt out of parenthood" but doesn't supply the same rights to men.
I started laughing at this right after my head splattered on the monitor.

Wow, what a load of shit! The volume of overt sexism surrounding Hillary's campaign is sickening.

BTW -- Has anyone seen Maureen Dowd's op-ed in the NY Times today? The title of the article is "Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?" The article contains a very underwhelming analysis of Hillary's new campaign tactics. However, what really got me was Dowd's closing statement: "At her victory party, Hillary was like the heroine of a Lifetime movie, a woman in peril who manages to triumph. Saying that her heart was full, she sounded the feminist anthem: “I found my own voice.�

The heroine of a Lifetime movie??? WTF?

I watched parts of Magnolia the other night and thought to myself, "wow, PT Anderson did such a great job of creating an asshole character!". I mean, Mackey is so over-the-top: there's no way people are really like that, right? And surely there wouldn't be a market for it. Then I see this asshat. I can't decide whether to cry or start drinking.

I volunteer for Big Brothers Big Sisters and while hanging out yesterday we were discussing the election etc and she asked me if women can vote?!?!?!?!?!?! Also, she said that in school they have NOT convered the election what so ever!

HELP ME! How can I start opening her eyes and molding her in to a powerful yooung women? She is 9 years old and in fourth grade.

I volunteer for Big Brothers Big Sisters and while hanging out yesterday with my little, we were discussing the election etc and she asked me if women can vote?!?!?!?!?!?! Also, she said that in school they have NOT covered the election what so ever!

HELP ME! molding her in to a powerful young women and showing her how pwerful women can be? She is 9 years old and in fourth grade.

Her school is failing her! My son is 12 yrs old and has learned all about our election process and studied Susan B. Anthony in 4th grade. And I'm in TX!

First off, it's great you're even discussing the election. Explain the suffrage movement and how important it is that Clinton is a viable candidate and the 1st woman to win a presidential primary (no matter who your preferred candidate is).

And props to you for your volunteer work, goodness knows our kids need it! :-)

Actually, Frank T J Mackey is based on the real-life Ross Jeffries, one of those Seduction Community assholes who hung with Mystery and Neil Strauss. FYI.

I watched the video for about a minute before I almost started to scream. I cannot BELIEVE that political debate in our country has come down to who has the least nagging voice. I have no idea who I'm going to support when the primary comes to my state, but one thing is for damn sure: my choice is not going to be made based on the "shrillness" of a candidate's voice. What an arrogant, sexist jerk.

*sigh* this is Fox, after all, and I shouldn't be surprised, they clearly have no standards whatsoever.

ashley100: kudos to you for volunteering with Big Brothers/Sisters and for discussing the election with your little sister. I agree with AmandaPanda in that her school is failing; the best you can do is explain how important is that a woman is running, and try to keep her updated on it. You never know, you might inspire another future presidential candidate!! :)

You know, one thing you might ask her is why she had thought that women might not be able to vote--not in an aggressive way, but just in an "I'm interested" way. It could open up a discussion about sexism.

I went to his website to look at his book. On the first page: Most men pay their girlfriends and wives like prostitutes—cash, dinners, vacations, jewelry, cars, homes, and clothing—in exchange for sex. Not only unnecessary and emasculating, such stupid male behavior induces “purchased and entitled� women to fake their orgasms. I don't understand the logic of this either.

I had no idea that when my husband and I discuss purchasing a home, it's only because he want s to get in my pants, not because, you know, he wants to a place to live that is our own. Silly me.

I went to his website to look at his book. On the first page: Most men pay their girlfriends and wives like prostitutes—cash, dinners, vacations, jewelry, cars, homes, and clothing—in exchange for sex. Not only unnecessary and emasculating, such stupid male behavior induces “purchased and entitled� women to fake their orgasms. I don't understand the logic of this either.

I had no idea that when my husband and I discuss purchasing a home, it's only because he want s to get in my pants, not because, you know, he wants to a place to live that is our own. Silly me.

I can't take anyone with eyebrows like that seriously. Especially when they're on Faux News.

Whoopsie! Sorry for the double post!

I really, really hate the concept that women are "nagging" and "shrill" when they tell men to do chores the men *should* remember to do without being reminded.

"Dude, every time your wife nags you to do something, it's because YOU WERE A DUMBASS WHO NEEDED A REMINDER. If you *remembered* to take out the goddamn trash all by yourself like a big boy instead of needing reminders like a five year old, you wouldn't have to listen to nagging."

Do they also think their bosses are nagging when they forgot to turn in their report on time and the bosses tell them they better get it in by 5 pm today?

If you abdicate all responsibility to *remember* what the household chores are to a woman, then a woman is going to have to constantly remind you what you're supposed to be doing. Here's a hint if you don't like it: STOP STORING YOUR CHORESLIST IN YOUR WIFE'S HEAD. Store it in your *own* and you will never hear a nag. I mean, do you have to nag your wife to make dinner or wash your laundry?

Seriously, it's bad enough that these child-men can't be bothered to take ownership of their own chores, but then to *blame* women for that is absurd.

And if men won't vote for a woman because her voice reminds them of nagging, why isn't it a serious issue that women won't vote for a man because their voice reminds them of getting raped or beaten? I mean, a *lot* of women get raped and beaten, almost exclusively by men, and that would be much, much more serious and destructive than being nagged. Yet you never hear about women refusing to vote for a male candidate because the male candidate reminds them of something awful a man did to them.

Oh Noes! Had no idea about Ross Jeffries and the whole Seduction Community suckfest.

However, thanks for the FYI- more people to avoid I guess.

what the flaming whose-a-ma-how-now? I'm ambivalent about which Democrat I'd back (among the three frontrunners), but the media coverage of Hillary is just incredibly horrible. Not that I expected much, but it completely blows my mind.

Yeah, I have to go home now and nag my spouse. Nag, nag, nag. It's the only way women communicate with their husbands, right? ARRGGH!

Oh, yeah, and this guy can't put together a logical argument to save his life. In my math classes we used to call that technique "proof by repeated assertion", and it really doesn't fly.

Furthermore, a random survey of taxi drivers does NOT constitute evidence. The plural of anecdote is not data. Kudos to the law prof for coming up with actual data.

I also really resent that she had to play along with him to get him to listen to her points, but I understand that she was put in kind of a nasty position: frown and hey, you're just another nagging bitch.

Rudov hardly smiled once during that entire clip. His harsh, fist-waving, master-of-the-house persona completely invalidates anything he might have to say to me. When women hear him speak, all they hear is, "Make me a sandwich." He needs to work harder at being "kind and gentle and civil."

*stands up and applauds Alara*

So true, my friend, so true.

*stands up and applauds Alara*

So true, my friend, so true.

His book page looks like a joke from something awful/the onion.

Yeah sexist alright.

I was looking over his website and the page though, and i first thought like wow, sexist as can be.

But then I thought, why are only sexists covering an issue like that?

I am talking specifically about his "crank hood" book.

The fact is that our young sons and brothers are being taught by the media and society to *buy* and purchase women and look at women as prostitutes and objects to purchase.

Why is that we're leaving this issue untouched, so assholes like this are the only ones covering it?

Sexual objectification (looking at women as sex objects) isn't the only kind of objectification. There is also financial objectification (looking at women as products to purchase).

I suggest you all read his blog, it is priceless. I enjoy how he likes to invent words, my favourites being "gnyocrat" and "vaginization". I read a few exerpts to my partner, who didn't know whether to laugh or cry. He now complains about how our house is such a gynocracy, which offends his delicate mensibilities. Seriously, if feminists didn't have a sense of humour we would all have committed suicide over stuff like this long ago.

I really think Rudov is hurting and angry, probably over his divorce. There is definitely a tone of anger in his writing that makes me feel like his grievances are very personal and maybe really only about one woman in particular. Maybe it's a commentary on how boys and men are not taught to deal constructively with their emotions. Who knows.

And I thought the comments at Glenn Sacks' were headache inducing enough- now I know where they get their "facts" from!

I read his blog and all I can say is, wow, someone is very angry. And that book? Oh baby! Comparing cars to women? Nothing gets me more revved up! (Sorry for the lame pun.)

The man maybe over the top but if you view his website he does make some valid points. Women were treated unfairly 30 years ago but today that is not the case, in fact if you look at the laws the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. I honestly believe it is harder to be a man in today's society than it is to be a women. I have outlined my reasons below and would like feedback. I honestly want to know why the feminist movement is as relevant now as it was 30 years ago.

1. There is no wage gap. Infact amoung younger individuals women make more. Therefore there is no economic advantage to being a man.

2. Even though there is no wage gap there is a sentencing gap. Men who commit the same crime as women under simular circumnstaces are given sentences twice as long.

3. Even though as a young male I earn less than my female counterparts, I am forced because of sexist social rules to pay for everything in social situations. As someone who likes to go out this takes a toal on my income. I find it very hypocritical that women claim to be femenists up until the bill arrives.

4. The lives of women are given more value than the lives of men. The saying women and children first still applies. I have nothing against the children part, but if I am in a situation where my life is endangered and I need to be rescued, I should not be treated like a second class citizen because of my sex. When the ship is going down, I should be just as entitled to board the life raft as a woman.

5. Society imposes added burdens on men, that it does not impose on women. If there is an emergency, I may be forced to fight in a war against my will, which is the most horific dehumanizing experience imaginable. Women don't have to worry about this. While Hillary Clinton was getting an education and building her career, John Kerry was being shot at by Viet Kong, and John Mcain was being tortured in a POW camp.

6. There are many laws that are one-sided against men. While rape is a horrible crime and individuals who commit it should be seriously punished. Being falsly accused of rape is just as humiliating, tramatic, and dehumanizing for a man as being raped is for a women. Further a man who is falsly accused will be placed in prison for the rest of his life where he will be repeatly raped. It is only far that a women who falsly accuses a man of rape be punished the same way as a man who has committed rape. However, if we look at high profile cases like Kobe Bryant and the Duke Lacross Players, false accusers are not only not prosecuted but are shielded by anonimity.

tartentart

Welcome. The issues and quite frankly, non issues you bring up have been discussed at length and repeatedly on this site. I am also male, and there are some points on which I agree with men's rights activists (referred to as MRAs), but there is no denying my status as a male in today's society, which is why feminism remains as relevant as ever. No, women in the US today are thankfully not dying or being arrested for the right to vote, but there are other matters of importance.

I am sorry you say women treat you the way they do. I have been considerably more fortunate recently associating with confident, educated, successful young women (nurses like myself who are trained to be concerned about women's issues). May I suggest associating with women who are "real" feminists, as opposed to those who have traditional gender role expectations. You will find it necessary to keep things to yourself, or change your way of thinking if you care to do so, however.

I have been pleasantly surprised by my own reception on this site when I am willing to be open minded and respectful. Your post is neither. You may find yourself happier at some MRA website or forum such as Glenn Sacks.com or antimisandry.com. I personally find the Glenn Sacks site (though not the visitors) to be fairly reasonable, and the topics of discussion would be right up your alley.

And one thing you do not do with women is make claims about what is "as bad as rape." Another silly topic is the draft in 2008, or the heroism of a few select men in Vietnam. While the then Hillary Rodham was building her career, where was Bill?

A Male, thank you for replying to my post. I do not believe I said anything sexist in my previous post. If I am mistaken, I would appreciate if someone point out what I said and why it is sexist. As for my comparison regarding rape. If I said something like rape was comparable to accidently hitting your thumb with a hammer that would be offensive and I would deserve to be ostrasized. However, I do not see anything wrong with comparing rape to other things that are very dehumanizing and degrating. I don't see how comparing rape to being imprisoned for life when you are innocent or being sent to a concentration camp because you are jewish is offensive.

I believe, I am an empathetic, fair person capable of recognizing the suffering of others. Even though I am not African American, I recognize African Americans are oppressed and face substantial disadvantages which I can't comprehend. I also acknowledge that society has to take steps to deal with these issues, even if these steps are difficult and costly. I would say the exact same thing regarding Native Americans, and many other minority groups, which I am not a member of.

However, if you look at statistics that determine oppresion, such as income rates, education rates, life expectancy/other health statistics, and incarceration rates. They all indicate that white women are not oppressed, infact in many of these areas, white women fair better than white men.

Therefore when white women (especially young white women) complain about how bad they have it, and intelligent, educated women like Gloria Steinem make statements like "gender is the most restricitng force in america" ( I am too lazy to look up the NY Times Op-ed piece, so pardon me if the quote is not exact), I role my eyes, and conclude they are unreasonable and out of touch with reality. Like the previous poster I am an open minded individual. I would like to know why in light of my above comments, it is unreasonable for a fair empathetic, and compasinoate person to conclude that feminists who complain about how bad white women have it, are unreasonable and out of touch with reality. Thank you for replying to my post.