As I’ve said previously, I visited a lecture organized by feminists on the 19th of September. The lecture was about the popular issue of women expressing their opinion publicly, and getting shouted down.
Here is part one of my analysis of the lecture, which covers Elin Ørjasæter’s part:
The second part of the lecture was conducted by Martine Aurdal .
Unlike Elin Ørjasæter, she didn’t agree that only young women receive sexual insults. All women do. While all men do not. And this, combined with phone terror, threats and female-specific feedback, leads to many smart women quitting the public sphere.
She also said that discrimination because of religion or disability feels worse if you are also female.
Also, “girly” is the worst insult to a man. Since men are unwilling to be girly and feminine, it means feminism still has a long way to go.
Last, but not least, she concluded by saying that oppression is different now than it was in the 70s. In the 70s, the oppression was very obvious and simple, and the solutions were simple. But today, when we have done away with all the obvious oppression, the oppression has turned more “hidden” and “structural”. As a result, poor women can’t eliminate it with simple, clear-cut mandates anymore.
The first point is addressed in Misogyny Behind the Keyboard, Part 1. Women and men do get different insults, because they have different sexualities and care about different things. Women might get more comments like “whore”, “slut”, “ugly” and crude sexual offers. Men might get more comments like “virgin”, “small dick”, “probably a rapist” or “you can’t get laid”. Sexual insults directed at men are different, but they still count as sexual insults, even if they don’t revolve around wanting to fuck him
The third point is half-right. Yes, men don’t like to be called feminine. In Norway, women entered the traditionally male professions more than men entered the traditionally female ones. Women can wear male clothes, but men can’t wear women’s. However, there is a simple explanation to why this is not misogynistic.
For one, one can look at this issue from the opposite side, and conclude it’s misandric just as easily. Why is it socially acceptable for a woman to wear anything a man can wear, but the opposite is not true? What is holding men back from entering all those traditionally feminine professions? Why is it still less easy and less acceptable for a man to stay at home and raise his own kids? 
But I don’t think it’s misandric, either. It is, as feminists refuse to admit, nature itself. Nature, by its nature, is sexist in both directions. One, men can’t have babies. Two, men have to work to get into women’s pants, while women can get laid pretty much at any time. And I think this leads to the fact that women are allowed to take on male roles and be masculine, while men can’t take on female roles and be feminine. A woman who takes on a male role can both fulfill her female role (have a baby) and a male role (build something). A man taking on a female role loses his masculine use and never gains the feminine one. He neither builds nor gives birth. A woman who dresses and acts like a man is still a woman and her sexual value is barely diminished in absolute terms. A man who acts like a woman has single-handedly broken his SMV, which largely depends on his actions anyway. In short, I think men’s unwillingness to be feminine has something to do with the fact that he could use all the value and power he could get , while women have “value to burn” .
I would say men do themselves a big favor by refusing to let go of what makes them different from women. And women should not be offended by that. Especially in a country like Norway, where everyone is already soft and female-friendly. If they treat you nicely, you should respect your differences, instead of demanding these people become exactly like you as well. If you respect this factor for the Muslims, why not men?
The last point is beyond funny and the explanation is obvious to anyone who knows anything about sexual dimorphism and feminism. Of course the “oppression” has gotten a lot more hidden and structural once all of the obvious ones were legislated away. There is only so much laws can do. Laws can call whatever you want rape, but it won’t make you feel better about that regretted one-night stand. Laws can punish companies and individuals for all sorts of “discrimination”, but they can’t eliminate the mental sexual dimorphism and all that it implies. You might as well try to pass a law that says falling in the downward direction is illegal.
My understanding of this is based mostly on American forums and comment threads and less on the Norwegian ones. However, I think the presence of two-way sexual shaming in any Western culture is telling us something.
 And please don’t respond with “If it hurts women, it’s misogyny; if it hurts men, it’s misogyny” . That makes misogyny unfalsifiable, and thus in the realm of religion.