Reddit reviews Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man

Few things:

• Garst inserts a comment about "mother goddesses" at one point. I suspect she subscribes to the theory that we used to live in peaceful quasi-matriarchal societies that were conquered by brutal patriarchs. This feminist myth was popularized by figures like Riane Eisler ("The Chalice and the Blade") and is dissected by pro-MRA Canadian academics Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young in their book Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Men. It is no longer taken seriously by any credible academics; here's a good debunking.
  
  
• Garst claims that NOW is only opposed to "forced" shared parenting. This is a trick of language. NOW opposes default shared parenting, ie the idea that a woman should be "forced" to share parenting with her ex instead of getting primary custody (and the corollary: the man is forced to lose access to his children). They do not merely oppose shared parenting in cases where eg the husband is legitimately abusive. Thankfully someone in the audience mentioned NOW's opposition to a shared parenting bill in Florida during the Q and A.
  
  
• Garst mentions that a woman dressed up like a man, fought in the revolutionary war and later received a pension for her service. She therefore portrays war as an exercise in glory rather than brutal sacrifice and forced servitude. In reality the vast majority of wars have been fought by men who had to be coerced into the role of soldier. Eg men in Europe who abandoned their posts during WWI were shot.
  
  
• Garst's opinions on marriage are disturbing. She says people shouldn't get married until their 30's. Putting aside the fact that men probably shouldn't get married at all until the laws change, this is horrible advice. Honey Badger Brian Martinez was in the audience and mentioned in the Q and A the minor fact that after age 26 women suffer an increased risk (which grows exponentially with age) of pregnancy complications. They also suffer an increased risk of getting cancer if they don't have any children at all. NOW actually opposed an awareness campaign that sought to teach women about age and fertility; this is a remarkable example of feminists placing ideology above even female health. I found the general tone of the discussion about abortion by both parties troubling; while I support the right of women to get an abortion, I think it's a tragedy when it happens.
  
  Armchair quarterback time. Straughan did a brilliant job as always but perhaps a little constructive criticism couldn't hurt:
  
  
• She rightly points out that if women were subject to conscription they would not be placed in front line combat but fulfill supplementary roles. This was a missed opportunity to talk about male disposability and the sacrifices men make in exchange for their rights.
  
  
• the feminist's primary concern seemed to be abortion rights. Yet Straughan never mentioned the fact that men don't have the right of legal parental surrender. Whereas women can have an abortion or drop the baby off at a safe haven (sometimes they can even kill their newborns and receive no punishment, as happened last week in Canada), men are on the hook for 18 years whether they wanted the baby or not. IMO just quoting dissident second wave feminist Karen DeCrow on the subject would blow the minds of quite a few third wave feminists.
  
  
• Straughan began by stressing the importance of equal responsibilities for women and equal compassion for men, yet didn't really follow through with examples of female institutional privilege beyond the custody issue. In debates of this nature it would be highly useful to stress: institutional discrimination against boys in school; the massive difference in the way men and women are treated by the criminal justice system; the health care spending gap; the suicide gap; the workplace death gap and so forth. These stats could be listed in about 20 seconds and would make a powerful impact.
  
  Overall though a pretty good discussion, and though the feminist is obviously wrong about a number of issues she did show a willingness to acknowledge female privilege and change her views.
  
  Thanks "bad" Karen or /u/girlwriteswhat ;)

Not what I mean at all. Where the hell do you live? As I told you, I live in SoCal. Give me examples that are somewhat remotely relavent to me. Do you think that Egalitarians/MRAs support ANY of those things? Are you new to this subreddit? If you are trying to justify the evils of feminism by comparing them to the Taliban, you're setting the bar pretty damn low.


For over half a century, feminism has been Spreading Misandry, Legalizing Misandry and Sanctifying Misandry.


Waging a war on men and sadly, even a war against boys.

That is why I, like most members of this subreddit, are vehemently antifeminist.

The misandry series.

• Spreading Misandry
  
• Legalizing Misandry
  
• Sanctifying Misandry
  
  edit: added links