Straight Talk on Feminism

You can't touch me but I can kill your baby!

My yes will retroactively mean no if I change my mind later!

If you want to know about women, ask a woman. If you want to know about men, ask a woman.


It's my own personal opinion that feminism has been a major force behind the destruction of our culture. Under the guise of equality for women, feminists have consistently behaved just like children demanding fairness - what they're actually wanting is the better deal. Their major goal, subliminal as it may be, seems to be the exultation of women and the subjugation of men.

Some of feminism's devastating impacts have been:

Please don't assume that I myself actually condone, or even support, any side of any cultural issue that I get into, here. The fact is that, in most cases, I don't. I'm just looking at our culture from within its own perspective.

My beliefs have been described by some as being medieval, but that's okay. I'm a person who's been very much (probably not yet enough) formed by the Bible. I believe that we've been designed by God, that He alone knows what's best for us, and that our ideas, insofar as they disagree with His principles for us, are ultimately harmful not only to ourselves but also to those around us. For the record, so that you can know where I myself stand when it comes to men, women, marriage, sex, etc, I believe that:

I've written about my position on these topics in much greater detail here.
Dave Mielke
Twitter: @Dave_Mielke

Double Standards

It's wrong for men to discuss women because they don't know much about them but it's okay for women to discuss men because they know all about them.

A man explaining something to a woman that she already knows is ridiculed as mansplaining but a woman explaining something to a man that he already knows is showing how smart she is.

Women need man-free spaces but men should welcome women into their woman-free spaces.

It's acceptable for a wife to publicly shame her husband but it's inconsiderate and disrespectful for a husband to publicly shame his wife.

It's okay for women to gawk at and/or discuss the properties of a man's bum but it's rude when men gawk at and/or discuss the properties of a woman's breasts.

If a man assaults a woman then he's truly evil but it's okay if a woman assaults a man because he must've done something to her that was bad enough to deserve it.

If a drunk man and a drunk woman have sex and she regrets it later, her drunkenness made it impossible for her to give informed consent but his drunkenness didn't prevent him from being fully responsible so he's obviously guilty of having raped her.

Female teachers who seduce male students into a sexual relationship get significantly lighter sentences than male teachers who seduce female students into a sexual relationship.

It's acceptable if a woman secretly doesn't use contraception in order to force a man to become a father but a man who secretly doesn't use contraception (e.g. remove or poke holes in a condom) in order to force a woman to become a mother is guilty of sexual assault.

A woman who wishes she hadn't become a mother can entirely shirk her responsibility by having her baby killed but a man who wishes he hadn't become a father has to pay child support for years.

When a woman engages in sex tourism it's seen as romantic but when a man engages in sex tourism it's seen as perverted.

If a man says that he didn't do it then he's probably lying but if a woman says that he did do it then she's a survivor who must be believed.

Sexual Consent

  1. Women used to tease men by playing "hard to get". She'd say no when she really meant yes, and would interpret his degree of persistence as a sign of how much he was actually interested in her. This was, of course, way back when men and women still respected one another. This mutual inter-gender respect began to evaporate as the (so-called) Sexual Revolution took root.
  2. To prevent a man from misinterpreting a woman's signals, it became no means no.
  3. Women began to say yes but then change their minds along the way, so it became no means no right up until the last possible moment (even though, by then, it's almost impossible for any man to stop).
  4. When men didn't, or, more likely, couldn't stop, it became yes means yes.
  5. When, especially at work, in Hollywood, etc a woman doesn't want sex but still says yes because she doesn't want to put her career at risk, men are still deemed guilty.

Can a man ever win or a woman ever lose? Apparently, the answer to both of these questions is a resounding no!

Isn't a woman who, albeit reluctantly, says yes in order to protect or advance her career effectively accepting (or perhaps even requesting) money for sex? Isn't being paid for sex exactly what a prostitute does?

There've been recent news reports about a man who was desperately pleading with various actresses for sex. He hadn't touched them and was allowing them to freely leave at any time. He was way out of line for sure - asking them to do things like give him a massage, watch him masturbate, etc - but he didn't force them to - just begged them to. They didn't want to put their careers at risk so they stayed and begged back for him to stop.

Now, many years later (when they don't need him anymore), they're "coming forward" and charging him with sexual assault. The journalists are discussing this as if those women actually do have a case, but do they? While it may be rather unpleasant for a woman to be in the presence of a man who's begging her for a sexual favour, if he isn't forcing her and is allowing her to leave, what's he guilty of? Don't women do the very same thing to men? When has any of them ever been thought to be guilty of something?

Feminists argue that any form of sexual coercion of a woman is sexual assault, even if it doesn't involve any actual physical contact. They argue that a man merely asking a woman for sex is already guilty of assault if he's in a position of power (e.g. a boss, an interviewer, etc) because it could mean the loss of her career, and, therefore, income. They raise entirely sexist concerns that are never raised in defense of any man, such as:

While I'm not defending any man who acts in this kind of way, is it fair to accuse him of sexual assault based on her mere assumption that he won't take no for an answer? He might, just maybe, simply move on were she to refuse, but he's never given the opportunity to prove this. Her fear-based, panic-driven assumption seems to be enough to fatally tarnish him and his career for the rest of his life. That's not right!

Irreconcilable Contradiction

Feminists need to decide if women are helpless babies who are constantly in need of the oversight and protection of men or if they're responsible adults who always fully accept all of the consequences for each and every one of their own decisions. Perhaps without consciously realizing it, they present women as such contradictory beings. On one hand, women are incapable of standing up to a man's sexual advances, being willing to sacrifice their integrity in order to protect their income. On the other hand, women are tough and resilient, able to hold their own, and possessing all that it takes to be the leaders of huge corporations. Which is it?

I think it's reasonable to assume that any person who's willing to sacrifice her own integrity in order to protect her own income will just as (if not more) willingly sacrifice the integrity of a corporation in order to protect its wealth. After all, if a person can't handle the smaller things then how can she be expected to be able to handle the larger ones.

If I'm ever in the position of interviewing people for a job, I think I'm going to ask every woman who applies if I can have sex with her. If she stays then I'll immediately inform her that she won't get the job because she clearly has no personal integrity. If, on the other hand, she leaves (hopefully in total disgust) then I'll chase her down, congratulate her, and inform her that a candidate with her obvious personal integrity is just the kind of employee I want to be working for and representing me.

Foolish Choices

Feminists say they want women to have sexual equality with men. There are, of course, two ways to achieve this:

Isn't it fascinating how feminists are pursuing both of these approaches at the very same time. They insist that all men should learn to behave perfectly sexually so that no woman will be unsafe, while simultaneously encouraging women to go out and get as drunk as they want, have as much sex as they want, etc. In other words, what they're wanting is for women to become as sexually irresponsible as men have traditionally been and for men to become as sexually constrained as women have traditionally been. Is that equality or is it yet another feminist double standard?

Yes, wouldn't it be truly wonderful if all men behaved themselves in ways that wouldn't ever put any woman at risk, but do we really believe this ideal goal to be remotely achievable? Even if every single father and mother were perfect, which'll never happen, do we really expect every single one of their children to obediently put into perfect practice all of those perfect parents' wise counsel? Of course we don't - we know better than that! No child is ever anywhere near that obedient to his/her parents, and it isn't the parents' fault - it's the child's own pride and stubbornness.

Sexual feelings are extremely strong and feel extremely private. When a child first experiences them, he/she becomes convinced that his/her parents couldn't possibly understand what such private feelings are like and how to handle feelings that are so very strong. A factor that often further discourages children from seeking sexual advice from their parents is how they ignored most of their persistent little questions back when they were 4 (or so). After all, they ask themselves, if my parents can't handle most of my little questions then how can they possibly handle my huge ones?

This is compounded by the fact that most parents teach their children about sex in one of two stupid ways. They're either so embarrassed about sex that they only teach them the bare minimum about it or they teach them that they're sexual beings so they should feel free to go out and experiment with it to their heart's content. The result, in both cases, is a society full of younger adults who have no idea how to handle their sexual desires.

Our daughters, whether or not we consciously teach them, are absorbing the feminist message, especially from feminist books, that women have sexual feelings, too, which have supposedly been repressed for far too long, and it's their feminist right to get out there, seek them, and enjoy them as much as they possibly can. Is this wise?

Why won't we think these things through and be honest about them? This kind of message only serves to further heighten their awakening sexual desires, which, in turn, ends up driving them right out into the worst possible situations. And, of course, when they get hurt we wonder why it happened? It happened because of our own parental foolishness, but let's never blame ourselves - let's take the easy way out and just blame those nasty, evil, horny men out there.

So we know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that, as much as we may want it, our society will always be plagued with sexually irresponsible men. Dare I say that we'll also be just as continually plagued with a society full of sexually irresponsible women, too? Of course I'd dare - I just did! So waiting for everyone else to ensure that our daughters are safe is a total waste of effort as that time will never come. If we really do care about our daughters then wouldn't it be way better to defy the foolish feminist rhetoric that women should seek their own pleasure at any cost, and, rather, to teach them how to make wise choices regarding where they go, how they dress, what they drink, etc?

Is this being sexist? Maybe it is, but so what? Isn't the safety of our women far more important than pushing them out to the front lines of a philosophical battle that we know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, invariably ends up with them becoming seriously wounded?

We don't naively wait for some mythical time when there won't be any more thieves - we lock our doors in order to protect our physical property. It seems that feminists care much more about their physical property than they care about their far more precious daughters. It seems that their daughters are far more useful to them as cannon fodder on the front lines of their fight.

The truth is that teaching our daughters how to make wise choices regarding their conduct isn't sexist at all because what we should also be doing is teaching our sons the very same things. Then we'd achieve what the feminists claim they want - true gender equality!

Domestic Abuse

Let's have a more honest look at the sad state of domestic abuse within our culture. It's typically only ever seen as a problem with men, but, although the feminists don't want to face it, women are just as much to blame.

The natural thing to do, whenever we want to win a fight, is to use whichever techniques we know will work for us. With men, that'd usually be plain old brute force since we're typically a lot stronger than our wives are. And, of course, after we give them a "good" beating, they have the physical scars to prove our cruelty. Please understand that I'm in no way defending this kind of behaviour in men. If we ever do such a thing then we've been very wrong and have no excuse.

But what about women? Don't they get just as frustrated, and don't they attack their husbands just as much, too? Of course they do! Violence is an equal opportunity employer! A woman, however, knows that she can't win with physical abuse, although there are those who've thrown frying pans and the like. What she's way better at than men are things like nagging, emotional abuse, psychological abuse, and withholding sex. These are their secret forms of domestic abuse which no husband typically wants to reveal, and which don't result in any externally visible marks that he can use as proof.

Now I'm going to get even more daring. A scenario that's too common for feminists to want to face is when a wife uses various tricks of her abusive trade for an extended period of time, and, during that whole time, her husband is quietly putting up with her antics. Then, one day, in a moment of weakness, he finally cracks and gives her a solid beating. What happens next? She runs to all of her friends and/or to the police and shows them all of her fresh bruises. Of course, her husband gets all of the blame, and no one ever finds out how she herself was far more than merely a contributing factor.

Could domestic abuse possibly be worse than a husband beating up his wife or a wife tormenting her husband? There's incest, of course - a father or mother sexually abusing a child. In my opinion, though, the worst form of domestic abuse is the truly evil feminist practice known as abortion - a mother having her very own, helpless, innocent, little baby deliberately murdered just because she doesn't want and/or refuses to love him/her. The fact that the usual weapons used to destroy her baby include poison, a vacuum, and pliers doesn't even bother a feminist. All she seems to care about is that she can have all the sex she wants without any consequences so that she can do selfish things like continue her education, retain her career, pursue her hobbies, conceal her promiscuity/infidelity, etc.

Personal Confession

By today's misandrous, matriarchal, feminist standards, I'm a very bad man! Maybe even a pedophile!

When I went to a local park, some years ago, I noticed an approximately four-year-old girl, unsupervised, playing all by herself. What did I do? Risk getting arrested, of course! I picked her up and carried her over to a swing. I sat on that swing, placed her securely on my lap, and swung that swing. As we swung, sometimes quite high, she began to cheer up and excitedly laugh.

So, let's ask the question: Who treated that little girl better? Was it her uncaring, feminist, single mother, or was it that evil, presumably lecherous man who picked her up and sat her on his lap on that swing?

And one more question: If you were a bystander in that park, observing what was going on, how would your assumptions differ were it a woman, rather than a man, who picked up that little girl and sat her on her lap on that swing?