The Douchebag Bible (63 page)

children? What of the fact that male victims of

domestic or sexual abuse are not taken seriously by

society as a whole? Feminists actually do admit that

examples like this are sexism—sexism against

women.

They argue that male victims of domestic

abuse are only not taken seriously because women

are considered weak. They argue that women only

win more custody battles because women are viewed

as natural caregivers.

When a stereotype favors men over women, it's

sexism against women. When a stereotype favors

women against men . . . it's still sexism against

women? If you're confused, you obviously don't

know how feminism works. Allow me to explain: if

there is an issue where men have it better than

women, such as the fact that male athletes are paid

better and watched more, then that’s because males

run the world and we’re maliciously working to

suppress women at all times.

If there is an issue where women have it better

than men, such as the fact that we’re far more likely

to be ruled against in child custody suits, then that’s

because males run the world and we’re maliciously

working to suppress women at all times.

It makes a lot of sense if you don't think about

it.

I want to make something clear. I love women. I am

not threatened by femininity. I am not frightened of

female expression or female sexuality. I am not

trying to get women into the kitchen to be barefoot

and pregnant while making me a sandwich. I want

women to be every bit as free to explore their lives

and desires as men are. Which is why I am opposed

to feminism.

One of the worst things about feminism is that

a lot of it—not all—while claiming to empower

women, is really far more concerned with selling

women on the idea that they are powerless and

oppressed. For instance, feminism is eager to

constantly bemoan the lack of female engineers.

“Engineering is a male dominated field!” they shout.

But when you inquire with them further, their

line of reasoning is shaky. They think engineering is

male-dominated because there aren’t many female

engineers and they think there aren’t many female

engineers because engineering is male-dominated.

FEMINIST: Did you know that only 11% of

engineers are women!

ME: Oh? That sucks. Why don't more women

become engineers?

FEMINIST: Because it's a male-dominated

industry.

ME: Well, the more women become engineers, the

less male-dominated it will be.

FEMINIST: They can't become engineers until the

engineering field is less male-dominated!

ME: So . . . more women can't become engineers

until the engineering field is less male-dominated?

FEMINIST: Right.

ME: And the engineering field can't become less

male-dominated until more women become

engineers?

FEMINIST: Right.

ME: Well, good luck with that.

If, instead of whining about a lack of female

engineers, feminists merely empowered women by

letting them know, “YOU CAN BE AN ENGINEER

(or whatever else you want to be)” then these fields

would no longer be male-dominated. You can't say,

“It's male-dominated because there are no women

and there are no women because it's male-

dominated.” You've stalemated yourself.

Feminism too often teach women to be content

with complaining about problems instead of

working to solve them. My message, by contrast, is

that you solve problems by solving problems, not by

endlessly pointing out that the problems exist and

expecting others to address them for you.

The only time when that is justified is when

there are concrete legal barriers that need

surmounting. But as far as I know, there isn't a law

stating that females can’t be engineers. So, feminists

who are bitching about the lack of female engineers

should get engineering degrees instead of degrees in

Women’s Studies.

I'd like to share with you a true story of male

privilege that I wrote a while back:

I was walking down the street when I saw this

girl with gigantic tits walking the other way. I

began to drool. I began to fondle imaginary breasts

in the air. I began to hump the air in front of me.

The girl, disgusted, accosted me: “Hey!

Disgusting male pig! I grow sick of your male

privilege! I am not a sex object!”

“Oh?” I said. “I disagree. An object is defined

as ‘anything that is visible or tangible and is

relatively stable in form.’ You clearly meet the

definition of an object. And since, from a biological

standpoint, all human beings exist to propagate

their genetic code via sexual reproduction, you are,

in fact, a sex object.”

Stunned by the power of my logic, she got to

her knees and blew me.

True story.

One of my biggest problems with the privilege

line of rhetoric is that privilege is so completely

relative. When you say “white privilege,” for

example, it makes an assumption that whites have

more privileges than blacks (or other racial groups).

But, obviously, a white person living in rural