Suzanne Moore, a member of the chattering class for the New Statesman and the Mail on Sunday, former Labour MP candidate, and mommy to three of Chad Thundercock’s babies, has decided to come forth with a revelation that will shake the world to its very core:
Feminists hate men.
Take a moment to compose yourself from the shock and we’ll work through this together.
Men. You can’t live with them. You can’t shoot them. Well, you can, but this is the New Statesman. And modern feminism spends most of its life not just bending over backwards, but in the doggy position, saying how much it likes men. “I’m a feminist but . . . I love men.” Obviously I’m being a bit binary here, and when I write “men”, I mean women, blokes, anyone fluid enough basically to be in charge.
This is going to be terrible.
I once adhered to this. I didn’t want to put anyone off. I used to call feminism “sexual politics”, because that sounded way more sexy. Hey, I’m no man-hater – on the contrary. Look at me. Men? Can’t get enough of them, the poor, damaged critters. It’s not their fault. They’re as screwed up by the patriarchy as ordinary women, probably even more so.
Don’t do me any favors, bitch.
All the special boys. What about the ones who were abused at public school and now run everything but can’t express their emotions properly? All the man victims, trapped by masculinity. Who could hate them? Their oppression is structural. You can’t hate them individually, can you?
Really? And what is the “proper” expression of one’s emotions? Sitting around with a bunch of other bitches, stuffing your faces with ice cream and crying about shit? Getting into a shouting match in which you run down a five-year list of slights real and imagined that you claimed were “forgiven” but you’ve kept a mental inventory of for just such an occasion?
Come in close and let me tell you a little secret: I treat my emotions like my currency. My FEE-FEES are not for your consumption. You are not entitled to enjoy, or dine on, or view, my emotions because the script that you’ve written in your head says “this is the scene where I piss him off, we shout and scream, then we hug and cry and eat ice cream.” Here’s a shocker: Not everyone emotes in the same way.
You know what? I can. Please don’t confuse that with bitterness. I am in touch with my emotions enough to know the difference between personal hurt and class hatred. As a class, I hate men. I’ve changed my mind. I am no longer reasonable.
That’s nice, but the fact that you espouse feminism causes me to doubt that you were ever reasonable. Suzanne is lending weight to the argument that Feminism is socialism in panties, right down to the unprovoked use of the explicitly socialist term, “class hatred.” In the early 20th century, Socialists occasionally indulged in sophistry about the term “Class hatred,” especially when used against them. Walter Thomas Mills encapsulates the Socialist response perfectly:
Class hatred arises from a clashing of class interests. Capitalists deplore class hatred and insist on perpetuating the economic system which creates, maintains and sets over against each other the economic classes. Socialists also deplore class hatred, but they propose to remove the cause by fighting out to an end the class war and by securing victory for economic justice and thus make an end of the economic war and of the economic classes, and so finally make an end of class hatred.
And every once in awhile, you had a Socialist who, in a moment of honesty and channelling his or her inner Marat, would stand up and forthrightly state “Yes, I hate our class enemies for being in the wrong tribe and wish great ill upon them”:
“Class hatred is class consciousness in its fighting clothes…Whatever they may be as fathers and husbands and after-dinner speakers, the capitalists as capitalists are wild beasts – and against wild beasts any weapon is justifiable.”
– Courtenay Lemon, Socialist activist, 1912
So while the socialist freely preaches class hatred, and fights on the basis of actively hating the “capitalist” class, it’s the fault of the “capitalists” because they are creating the economic system that reaches into the socialist’s brains and forces them to hate “capitalists.” But socialists, while preaching class hatred to the followers of that political theory, hate class hatred (???) and want to end their own raison d’être by tearing down the hated class, who made them do it.
And if only you would behave, I wouldn’t have to beat you.
Change the labels a bit and you have “Patriarchy theory.” Capitalists are now Men, “the economic system” is Patriarchy, and the Proletariat are now Women.
I want to see this class broken. There can’t be even basic equality for women without taking away the power of men – and by that I don’t mean feeling sorry for them because they have no friends or suggesting that they have small genitals. I mean the removal of their power.
And how do you propose “breaking” men as a class, against their will? I’ll go ahead and answer it for you. The same way feminists have gained power since the beginning: By enlisting male quislings and enforcers to do their bidding against other males. Feminists aren’t going to take up arms. They aren’t going to bar men from voting, or try to seize men’s property, or smash their computers (the modern printing press). They will cry and complain to males with the capacity to do violence to do violence on behalf of women and it won’t be because of any rational argument offered up by feminists (Suzanne told us earlier that she was not rational). They will cry and wail and moan “What if it was your mother/sister/daughter/niece?”
When I used to give men the benefit of the doubt, that doubt was suffused with my desire for sex, babies, the whole shebang. It wasn’t difficult to get any of this, although the way in which women are encouraged to do so is stultifying.
Her “desire for sex”? Close. It correlated to her ability to draw male attention. The more male attention she could get, the less she needed Feminism(despite looking how she looks, even in merry ol’ England where the women seem to not have a happy median in terms of physical attractiveness). Once she got ugly(-ier) and even the English men didn’t want it, RAWR! GRRL POWER!
Marriage, monogamy – a prison where you build your own walls. Familiarity breeds contempt, but this is the aftermath of romance. If you want to fetishise proximity, domesticity, and storage solutions from Ikea, why not go all the way and be a lesbian? If you want to service someone, have a baby. And if you want to rescue someone, get a dog.
Because…lesbians tend to kick each other’s asses more than men kick women’s asses? This is funny, how female’s minds work. “I hate men, therefore I will have sex with women.” There is no amount of mad I can be at women (women make it very easy to be pissed at them) that will turn taking a dick into an attractive proposition.
But I agree that marriage is a prison…for men. You see, in prison, there’s this thing called parole in which the state agrees to release you back into civil society with certain terms and conditions, the violation of which allows the state to return you to prison. In marriage, there’s this thing called alimony. It’s like parole in which you are free of the bitch, but must meet the terms and conditions of paying her every month. If you don’t, the state takes you jail for between 30-60 days.
Sure, there can be equitable relationships between men and women, in which one turns into the other’s carer. This is the optimal compromise, the prospectus that no one really gets until it’s too late.
And that means a lot to me, because you wrote it.
<blockquoteHaving tried to live with various mishaps, I realise that this is not for me and it never will be. But then, nor will the kind of reasonable feminism in which we make allowances for men. Because they are men. I have had it all my life: pro-choice marches in which men insist that they walk at the front. A left-wing party that cannot deal with a female leader. The continuing pushing back of women’s rights.
“Mishaps” being that she spent the majority of her life chasing Chad dick instead of stable men because, Chad is exciting and tickles that little nerve that runs straight from her lizard brain down to her vagina.
If you are interested in the liberation of women, you’ll find that the biggest barrier to this is men: men as a class. I used to think, “I don’t hate all men.” I had therapy and everything. Now, I think that any intelligent woman hates men. There are very few problems in the world that don’t have, at the root of them, male violence and woman-hating.
Thank Aqua Buddha that I am not interested in the liberation of women (from what?). But swap “women” for “Aryan” and “men” for “Jew” and see if this crap would still find safe harbor in so-called respectable publications.
The more I hate men (#YesAllMen), the more I don’t mind individual ones, actually, as it is clear that some can be entertaining for a while. Before you even bother whingeing that my hatred of the taskmasters of patriarchy is somehow equivalent to systematic misogyny, to the ongoing killing, rape and torture and erasure of women, know this: I once made exceptions. I was wrong.
And we come to the end (thankfully). All men are the “taskmasters of patriarchy” (sounds like a good band name or an online PvP Guild; Taskmasters Of Patriarchy, T.O.P. I kind of like it.)
What is objectionable here is the typical use of feminist framing. When a random man, who might say “I hate women,” and does nothing else, why, he has to be shut down because what he says is “systematic misogyny” (whatever the fuck that is) and equivalent to “killing, rape, and torture” (at the last Patriarchy meeting, we didn’t hold a vote on endorsing murder, rape, or torture, much less set annual goals). When a woman writes “I hate men” that’s fine because…reasons? This is despite contemporary and recent feminists having had meetings discussing their hatred of men, writing books and articles (like Suzanne’s) expounding on not only their hatred of men but endorsing the hatred of men, and openly petitioning the state to enact policy detrimental to men as individuals and as a group.