The Feminist Problem, Part 1

     One of the most familiar aspects of feminism is the perpetual victimhood of women. For example, feminists keep blaming patriarchy and men for what women did, and strangely, such blaming seems to be endless. If a woman is beaten by a man, feminists would say that he is a violent thug. If a woman beat up a man (usually with weapons), feminists would say that he did something that cause her to do so. Either way, the woman is the perceived victim.

     Why is the feminist theory so interesting?

     The reason is simple: almost everything that happens are co-caused by both men and women. When a woman get beaten (this is relatively rare compared to a man being beaten), it is quite typical that she actually did something to provoke that man. For instance, it was reported that wife killing is particularly likely to happen during divorce, in which the woman is highly likely to be falsely accusing of her husband or emotionally abusing him in some ways. Thus, in this case, both the man and the woman should have responsibilities, because both of them did something that they could choose not to do and lead to the unhappy result. Similarly, when a husband was killed, it is likely that he may have done something that provoke the woman in some ways. Quite frankly, the vast majority of the problems we are facing are co-caused by both men and women. Let's see the following example:

1) Government spent a hell lot more money on women's health

-Certainly, men's disproportionately higher rate of premature deaths has something to do with their testosterone. However, if women didn't keep claiming victimhood and grabbed all the health funds away, this problem wouldn't have been so serious.

2) Women, in general, were not given direct power

-True, men loved power, but quite frankly, psychologists have found that women preferred to exert indirect power, that is, they prefer to manipulate powerful figures into helping them do their bidding. Plus, women, not all, but in general make a lot of irrational decisions. I simply don't think we should give irrational people too much direct power (or else it is disastor for us). So I am pretty sure that women's relative lack of direct power have something to do with themselves.

     As one can see, almost all problems are co-caused by both men and women. The feminist trick is to focus on how men contribute to the problems and hide how women co-cause it, creating the illusion that women are not guilty of anything. However, what is the point in perpetually blaming one of the genders for all the problems while we know both of them contribute to the problems?

Conclusion

     I have noticed why women appear to be perpetual victims under the feminist theory. The answer is rather simply: because both men and women contribute to the problems they are facing, therefore it is always possible to blame one of the genders for all the problems by focusing on how that gender contributes to them, and feminist chose to blame men.

The Lies Women told about Themselves

     I guess many of you have heard of women being liars. No, I am not going to talk about the lies women told as individuals, but those that they told about their own genders. For any women or feminists who read this article, I am certain that you will be likely to boil in rage, so feel free to give any irrational comments or personal attacks. For any anti-feminists who read this, I am glad to tell you that you would probably agree with most of the contents in this article. For any men who still think that women are the innocent angels they portray themselves to be, I am also glad to tell you that you would probably find this article enlightening. Let's see the things women tell us about their gender:

1. Women are/were oppressed.

     Let's talk about the current situation. Well, if you see some statistics, you will know that in almost men parts of the world, women have lower suicide rate (The typical gender ratio is 2:1 to 3:1), lower substance abuse rate, lower chance of committing crimes, lower chance of being assaulted or murdered, lower rate of premature death, when compared to men. Even depression rate has recently been doubted, with some researchers suggesting that women report but not experience more depression.
     All these are signs of privileges, rather than oppression. For example, whites have lower suicide rate, etc. than African American. Similarly, homosexuals have higher substance abuse rate, etc. compared to heterosexuals. When black people and gay people exhibit the above patterns, we say that they are minority groups, but how come nobody cares when men exhibit the above patterns? How exactly can an oppressed class appear to be living so much more happily than their oppressors?

     Based on these results, I seriously doubt if women are truly a minority group at all. True, they may be disadvantaged in some ways, but it seems to me that what women experience is pretty far from what you could call "oppression". It is also notable that men in almost all parts of the world have shorter life, although currently biologists still fail to find any intrinsic reasons why this should be true. Of course, these statistics are true even in India and Islamic countries.
     It seems that women lead a far more stress-free life than men do (and did). So, the only things they can complain about are education and political power. In the past, education resources were scarce. Thus, if a person would like to receive education, he or she will be obliqued to work afterwards. Which gender would be more likely to want to retire from work to have children? The female gender, I suppose. Therefore, I am pretty sure that women's lack of educational opportunity in the past have something to do with their own choices, rather than purely being men's decision, and the same goes for political power.

     Let's look into history then. After all, it was men who were enslaved (the vast majority of black slaves are black men), who were sent to die in wars, who ended up doing all the most dangerous and deadly labor (e.g. mining), and we all know that most parts of the world have chivalry or its variants, through which men who aggress against women are in general, despised upon, but they usually don't give a fxxk when a woman hurted a man (actually, men being aggressed against by women were usually ridiculed).
      Plus, it was well-documented in psychology that BOTH male and female tend to treat male more harshly, regardless of their victims' misbehaviors. This finding is cross-cultural, so this suggests that it probably has a biological basis. Therefore, it is quite likely that this is still the case even in the past, with both men and women from upper classes exerting more oppression on men from lower classes. So, I didn't see how women could have been more oppressed than men throughout history.
     The illusion of women being the oppressed gender is due to the fact that women love to whine about victimhood, and women's suffering are frequently highlighted, and often exaggerated. In contrast, men who suffer (especially those who suffer in the hands of women) are hidden from view at a massive scale.

2. Women are not violent nor aggressive.

     This is totally ridiculous. Psychology have already told us that women are much more likely to use indirect aggression than men do. "Indirect aggression" means that they make use of lies, manipulations and rumors to cause others to aggress against their victims. For instance, a woman may lie to her boyfriend to cause him to beat up another man (e.g. "he touched my breast!"), and it seems that men's cognitive capacity are seriously impaired when faced with women's whining, maybe due to some biological problems. They may also use rumors to humiliate people, inducing anger and therefore aggression. Thus, women are DEFINITELY NOT as peace-loving as they portray themselves to be.
     The illusion of women being not aggressive is that they are, statistically speaking, more "hypocritical". Research have well-documented that women are better at "suppressing aggression". That's mean, although they still have desires to aggress, they are not likely to show it. In other words, when a person is being nice to you, this niceness would be more likely to be genuine if that person is a man. In other words, women are simply better at pretending to be nice and then stab you in the back, statistically speaking.

     Moreover, women love violent men. They implicitly tend to be turned on by men who exert violence and dominance on others (usually on weaker males). Therefore, they in general would reinforce these men to exert violence on gentle men or weaker men, and we all know sexual access to women is highly reinforcing to such men. So, do women contribute nothing to violence? I suspect not.

3. Women are the fairer sex

     Eh, is this supposed to be a joke? Women are also very competitive. True, men are more competitive if it is a chess game or something, but I am pretty sure that you woud obtain the opposite results if it is a beauty contest. Plus, intersex and intrasex equality are two different things.
     Women may be more fair when it is an issue among women, but do they like to treat men as their equals? I suspect not. Researchers found that home-schooled children show no gender difference in exam grades, and girls are doing better in the current education system. What does this tell us about our education system? Let me see, women tell us that they want a fair fight. Well, they certainly are fair, aren't they?

     If women are sooo fair, why don't they try what men experienced? For example, why don't they do something to make their suicide rate twice of that of men? Why don't they try being left behind and see the opposite gender getting on the lifeboats (just like what happened in Titanic and the Japanese Earthquake)? Why don't they try being forced to do the most odious labor on earth? Why don't they try being obliqued to sacrifice their lives to protect their spouses? And women tell us that they are the fairer sex?
     What a joke. A frequent observation is that women showed concern about what I said and then go back to continue to "empower" their own gender. It seems that women are simply better at pretending to play fair and then grab all the goodies away.

Conclusion

     If you are a woman, I think it is highly likely that you are already furious and perhaps would like to strangle me. Feel free to spit any venoms at me, because by doing so you will expose the truth of your gender. Women are and were usually privileged, they are indeed violent and they are the most unfair creatures on earth. All these good things women told about themselves are nothing but lies upon lies. They are simply trying to take all the goodies away with a facade of innocence.

     Women are simply naturally hypocritical. That's all.

Feminization of Poverty?

     Recently, I have heard of a fancy term called "feminization of poverty", which is defined as the so-called fact that women are disproportionately likely to become impoverished. For example, feminists claimed that women around the world are about twice as likely to be of low income than are men.

     Does this indicate some forms of "oppression"?

     I doubt it.

     First of all, I am wondering how many men are maltreated so seriously that they don't show up in the statistics. For instance, they are probably killed or migrated (usually to act as slaves), and we all know that men have higher mortality rate in the workplace. Indeed, the following article reports that women's higher "incidence" of poverty concentrates in older age groups, to a certain extent supporting this hypothesis.

http://www.fao.org/sd/wpdirect/WPan0015.htm

     This article also indicates that there are very little direct scientific evidence supporting the so-called "feminization of poverty".

     A more interesting fact is that I have noticed two features of article talking about "feminization of poverty": emotional-ness and lack of objectivity. All of them (as far as I have read) use a lot of emotional words that tend to arouse sympathy to the "victims" and very few of them actually cite any objective statistics to support their points. If they are telling the truth, why are they so reluctant to give us statistics, which, would support their positions if what they say are true?
     Even more curiously, none of these articles have told me how did they obtain their "statistics". This along with the fact that feminists have a habit of distorting the truth have made me become very suspicious of the so-called "feminization of poverty".

Conclusion

     The summary is as usual: I am quite sceptical of feminists claiming that they are addressing inequalities. In fact, the converse may be true. Of course I am not saying that the feminization of poverty is definitely false, but with the current lack of "evidence" in hand, I am rather reluctant to support their positions, nor am I ready to join those campaigns.

Basic Assumptions of Feminist Theory

     I have written quite a number of articles about feminists before. However, my previous articles were mostly concentrated on specific parts of the feminist agenda, and were relatively informal, but still logical though. Today I would like to explore together with my readers about the basic premises of the feminist theory and of course, its absurdities. This is going to be a relatively formal article so one could expect a reference list.


Gender: Nature VS Nurture


     One of the most important premises of the feminist theory is that gender is purely a social construct. Specifically, they consider traditional feminity and masculinity to be solely due to socialization, rather than inherent characteristics of either gender. This is one of the reasons why they believe that some seemingly "unfair" treatment are problematic.
     Take women's underrepresentation in science and engineering as an example, they have cited extensive evidence (e.g. Spencer et al., 1999) that it is "purely" due to discrimination against women in these domains. Nonetheless, these studies are probably methodologically flawed. This is because most of them indicates that women's performance on some standardized test can be impaired by stereotyping. Lamentably, doing scientific researches and designing engineering products have very little to do with these tests.
     Indeed, the above-mentioned trend has been very consistently observed across cultures and it persists despite all those feminist agenda, along with many other gender differences in behaviors and cognition (e.g. Lee & Keith, 1994; Cohen-Bendahan et al., 2005). This suggests that such difference are quite resistent to cultural influence, implying that they have some biological roots. Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense to argue that gender itself doesn't have a biological basis. Then it logically follows that this very basic premise is false.


The Oppressed Gender


     Another commonly cited premise by the feminist theory is that women were "oppressed" more than men in the past, primary by the patriachial system. To begin with, we should define this terms before discussion, since a vague word implies unclear thinking. According to the Oxford Dictionary, the term "oppress" means to cause distress to someone through the inappropiate use of authority.
     However, there have been strong evidence people of both gender tend to treat males more harshly than females, at all ages (e.g. Daly & Tonry, 1997; Mustard, 2001), even in childhood (e.g. Lambert et al., 1971). These findings are quite consistently across cultures and therefore probably have a biological basis as well. This implies that no matter who is holding power, they tend to treat males in worse ways, even back in ancient times.
     The above means that there factors which suggest that men were actually the more oppressed gender back in those old days. However, if one would like to prove this point, they need to show that the total unhappiness caused by unequal treatment received by men is greater than that received by women. The only way to do this is to develop some ingenius ways to measure total happiness, and travel back to those old days using a time machine. This obviously cannot be done, at least not with the current technology. Then it follows that it makes no sense to argue that one of the genders was overall more oppressed than the other and thus, the feminist theory makes very little sense in this premise, too.
     Moreoever, can this oppression be blamed on patriachial system entirely? Probably not. Even back in those old days, we have many women who held considerable authority, mostly through maniplating men around them though, and they were fully capable of inflicting harm on their subordinates. This is especially problematic since men tend to suppress their aggression towards women, but may not other way round.
     Worse still, even in nowaday society, oppressions exist in non-patriachial system. This implies that the tendency to misuse authorities may be innate in humans rather than being inherent problem of the patriachial system. Therefore, can one says that it is the system that have caused the oppression? The answer would be a certain "no".


Equal Opportunities in Everthing


     Based on the above premises, the feminist theorists suggested that women deserve equal opportunities in EVERY aspects of life as men, most specifically political influence. However, even without considering the falsehood of the last two premises, this statement is also problematic in itself.
     The very first condition for giving someone certain rights is that they are not going to cause troubles with those rights. We won't let serial killers freely roam around because we know that granting them such rights is going to be harmful to our society. In a similar manner, it is actually reasonable not to give women certain power. Take political influence as an example, there have been little doubt that women tend to base their judgement more on "empathy" (e.g. Toussaint & Webb, 2005). This is quite problematic since we all know that this is going to cause biases in perception, since some politicians are really good at manipulating emotions.
     Therefore, a more reasonable thing to do is not to allow all women to exert their power on everything, since their biased perception is going to lead them to cause destructions. Of course, if a woman does give some rational opinion, we should listen, but if we allow all women to act without letting men voice their opinion first, troubles would follow. Thus, according to our basic principle, women don't deserve equal opportunities in political participation. I am NOT saying that women shouldn't get such rights in every aspects, but they don't deserve it in at least SOME domains. Similarly, if one finds that letting men having certain opportunities would cause trouble, I would agree that men don't deserve equal rights in these aspects either.


Conclusion


     Obviously, it is not possible to cover all facets of the feminist theory in one single article, that's why I stressed the word "brief" in the title. However, the above three are the most basic premises of this theory. In reality, almost ALL feminist agendas are based on at least one of the above three statements. As we can see, all three of these feminist principles are far from the truth. This implies that a VERY significant number of feminist theories are based on serious falsehood and their arguments are definitely NOT going to be sound. This is going to do nothing but to cause misery to everyone.


Reference


     Cohen-Bendahan, C. C., Beek, C., & Berendaum, S. A. (2005). Prenatal sex hormone effects on child and adult sex-typed behavior: methods and findings. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Review, 29(2), 353-384.
     Daly, K, & Tonry, M. (1997). Gender, Race, and Sentencing. Crime & Justice, 22, 201-252.

     Lambert, W. E., Yackley, A., & Hein, R. N. (1971). Child training values of English Canadian and French Canadian parents. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 3(3), 217-236.

     Lee, K. A., & Keith, D. E. (1994). Attachment style, gender, and relationship stability: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 502-512.
     Mustard, D. (2001). Racial, Ethic, and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts. Journal of Law and Economics, 44(1), 285-314.
     Spencer, S. J., Steel, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype Threat and Women’s Math Performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4–28
     Toussaint, L., & Webb, J. R. (2005). Gender differences in the Relationship between Empathy and Forgiveness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(6), 673-685.

Feminism pollutes the Counseling Profession, Part 1

     Decades earlier, the counseling profession was more oriented towards men than towards women. For instance, counselors at those days were in general more concerned about technique on dealing with male clients than with female ones. Of course they didn't completely ignore women's need, but overall they spent more resources on male issues, that is.
     As you could imagine, feminists were VERY unhappy about it, and they threw their horrifying tandrums and forced counselors to spend more time on women's need, and everyone knows that the terrifying pressure feminists can exert, so the counseling profession can do nothing but to succumb to their tandrums. Did this make sense?

     Like many things put forward by feminists, this makes absolutely no sense at all.

The Rule

     One of the most important rules in helping is that we should pay more attention to those who are more in need, which I personally call the "needs rule". For example, impoverished children are more prone to academic failure despite not being inherently inferior in terms of intelligence plus they are quite helpless since it is the social structure that had handicapped them, so it make perfect sense to administer extra help to them. With this rule in mind, let us consider the following facts:

1. Men are less likely to have intimate relationships with whom they can share very personal problems.
2. Men are less likely to be able to seek help from their spouses for personal issues.
(Research have found that it is much more likely for a man to help a woman than vice versa)
3. Women are much more likely to seek emotional support from friends and family memebers.
(At worst, this means that they tend to complain for trivial things)

     The main point of counseling is to administer support for people with personal problems, and the above facts suggest that men are more likely to need counseling services than women, statistically speaking. Then according to the "needs rule", it actually makes quite a lot of sense for the counseling profession to be more oriented towards men. Moreoever, they didn't ignore women either. Instead, if you do some readings and you will find that they did pay quite adequate attention to female clients.

Conclusion

     As usual, feminists are nothing but a group of obnoxious people who keep throwing tandrums in order to acquire privileges that they don't deserve. Only cults use political pressure to bring privileges to their members, and feminists are doing this all the time.

     Does this make it clear that what feminism actually is?

Why should we help Men?

     One of the most common argument about giving more resources to women is that "women are weaker and more needy, and thus it is reasonable to give them more assistance". These people will then dismiss any argument which suggest that men may need some attention as well. After closer examination, I have noted that this argument has a hidden premise:

     People that are more needy deserves more help, and degree of "neediness" depends on their abilities to cope with their difficulties.

-I can figure out some problems with this premise. In the first place, men are of course physically stronger, but does this neccessarily means that they can cope with SOME situations as good as women do? For the reason of convenience, I will refer to this principle as the "needs rule" in the following section of this article.

-First let's talk about domestic violence. There is no doubt that men ARE actually less capable of coping with being abused by spouse than women. Many studies on domestic violence have found that women are no less capable than men of inflicting serious injury on their spouses, mainly because women can use weapons including knives, baseball bat and so on. Moreover, it is TYPICALLY the women who made the first move, yet they are provided with various services.
-Yes, men are overall more aggressive, but this DOESN'T mean that they are more aggressive in spousal relationship.
-Following the "needs rule", men deserve more help than women in issues related to domestic violence.

-Second let's talk about health a bit. Currently, 8 times more money are being spent on women's health than that of men. However, I am DAMN sure that men are no more capable of dealing with health problems on their own than women. Well, even if men have higher stamina and strength, they still cannot access medicines and chemotherapies without help. So, I seriously doubt if the "needs rule" would support the current un-balance in health fund.

-Finally, let's talk about education. Studies have found that there is no gender difference in exam grades among home-taught kids. This is a good reason to suggest that there are probably gender biases in the education system, of course it may not be apparent. Do you think individual boys (and even men) can deal with such systematic biases on their own, when the whole society are biased against them? I think not. The "needs rule" will then imply that we should provide more help to boys than to girls.

See http://www.angryharry.com/esWellDonetheGirls.htm?note

Conclusion

     The feminist argument based on the needs rule is nothing but absurd. This is because this rule will suggest that men are the one who deserve more help, not women. The illusion of women being needy is presumably due to the fact that they are MUCH better at pretending to be victims, compared to men (and statistically speaking of course), while men tend to hide all their suffering.

Why women hate Logics

     I guess many men know that it is usually a waste of time to try to reason objectively with women, since most of the time women would just emote in an irrational manner and made all the basic logical mistakes you can think of. Still, it is interesting to ask why, women, STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, are so incapable of reasoning from a logical and objective point of view. Recently, I have thought of an evolutionary explanation for it.

     First, we need to know what kinds of things women depend on, since an organism develop an aversion towards a certain thing usually because the target threatens its survival and seeing what women rely on will tell us what method they used to survive. To know this, we need to look at what women are good at (statistically speaking, of course). 48 hours after birth, baby girls begin to pay more attention to human faces than baby boys. Girls and women talk much more about relationships and feelings than boys and men, and they are better at verbal and non-verbal communication. All in all, the female gender is more "social" than the other. In other words, females survive on manipulating other people, relative to males and statistically speaking. To manipulate others, you need to induce appropiate emotions in them, so that they will be motivated to do what you want them to do. Say, to get a man to help her beat up another man she dislikes, a woman need to induce anger in her man (e.g. "He touched my breasts!"). In other words, women thrive by creating affective states in people, particularly men (but bear in mind that these aren't neccessarily intelligent behaviors).
     The point is that, logic would prevent this from happening. Back to the previous example, if the man question the woman, say, by asking her if she could provide any evidence that the target has indeed, groped her, her agenda is over. Similarly, if men begin to aks questions about the things Angry Harry mentioned (http://www.angryharry.com/), women can no longer acquire the disproportionate advantages they are currently having. That's why women are evolutionarily designed to reject logical and objective reasoning, because if they let men question them in an objective manner, they are doomed. The mechanism that promotes their survival is their horrifying tandrums when men attempt to use logics and reasons to make decisions.
     Of course a scientific theory needs testing. My theory would predict that women should be particularly likely to emote in irrational manner when it comes to issues that affect them personally, say, feminist issues. Please bear in mind that I am talking about women in ancient times, not nowaday women. And I have to remind you that to break an argument, you need to either show that it is not valid, you may also choose to show that its premises are not correct, but personal attack won't break an argument, okay?
     Lastly, what I am saying about women is STATISTICAL. This means that I won't say anything about individual women, and of course I admit that SOME women are indeed capable of rational thinking, but it is just that such thinking pattern is much more prevalent in males than in females.
     By the way, anyone has thought of some other ways to test this theory?

"Pornography degrades Women" and Dumbness

     Feminists (and many women) freak out every time when they heard the word "pornography". When I ask them why they hate porns so much, they ALWAYS say that this is because porn degrades women, and the following two are the most common arguments they give (for the rest of the things they said, I am not sure would those words even qualify as arguments). Let's explore them a bit, shall we?

Common Argument 1

     Porns are treating women as inanimate objects.

-Heterosexual men watch porns and they want to have sex with those porn actresses. This suggests that porns are NOT treating women as inanimate objects. If men are seeing these women as objects rather than humans, why would they want to have sex with these women? I guess the majority of heterosexual men are not paraphilics.

Common Argument 2

     Porns are incomprehensive depiction of women.

-If this argument stands, it would be a VERY disastrous result, you know? Almost all movies, novels and so on are incomprehensive depiction of certain classes of people (To reach "comprehensive depiction" of a certain group, you will need a really BIG cast), and thus are degrading certain classes of people. For instance, the movie "MONSTERS" (2010) shown the leading actor being a photographer, according to feminist logic, the film is degrading men because it is not showing all types of behaviors men can engage in. Sound ridiculous, isn't it? Similarly, do depicting women having sexual values NECESSARILY mean that they are of no other values? I think not.

Conclusion

     I don't think porngraphy has anything to do with the degradation of women, and I am really getting tired of women and the illogical arguments they give. I also wish to figure out some ways to help women get rid of their habit of replacing logics with feelings and emotions. Of course there are other arguments against porn proposed by women and feminists, but these two are the ones I saw most frequently (in real life), I will probably address the rest of them in the future.

The Not-so-beautiful Side of Women and Feminists

     Feminists (and many women) always keep saying that men are oppressing women and that they need liberation. Ah really? Let's see how the Oxford Dictionary define the word "oppress":

mass noun

• prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority:a region shattered by oppression and killing
• the state of being subject to oppressive treatment:a response to collective poverty and oppression
• mental pressure or distress:Beatrice's mood had initially been alarm and a sense of oppression

Let's see some facts, shall we?

I have read some articles from Angry Harry:
 http://www.angryharry.com/notefeminismforstudents.htm#mis
He has given some good points to consider indeed.

-Around 8 times more money are being spent on women's health than on men's health, in all parts of the worlds.

-Women who verbally, emotionally or even physically abuse their husbands are treated as mental patients, while men who do the same are imprisoned and condemned.

-Girls are now doing better at school, when they performed worse several decades ago, they claimed that this is because of "male oppression". Now, they don't say anything about helping the boys.
-Research has consistently found that males are treated more harshly for the same crimes than females, but no one cares.

-Televisions and video games cause more detrimental effects on the academic performance of boys than on girls, but no one cares.
-Examinations actually favor females. Despite the fact that overall females are not more intelligent, they are MUCH better at answering moderately difficult questions within a short time.

-The vast majority of victims of most crimes are men, but it is always the female victims that get most of the attention, and more importantly the resources.
-Mothers are more likely than fathers to get custody, despite the fact that mothers overall are more likely to abuse their children.
(Fathers are more prone to sexually abuse their children, but mothers completely outnumber fathers when it comes to other types of abuse)

These things are REALLY fair, aren't they?

And feminists say that they are seeking equality?
Are women the innocent angels they portray themselves to be?

They ARE lying.

Conclusion

     Back to our definition of "oppression", after reading Angry Harry, I begin to think that men, not women, are the one being oppressed, indeed. Yet, feminists would keep shouting that women are being oppressed by men and the majority of women pretend that nothing is wrong. Then women claim that they are the fairer sex.
     Hm, someone asked me why I dislike feminists even on a personal level. This is why.