I have no regard for male feminists.
Male feminists are a unique brand of twisted, above and beyond your typical simpering male who will gladly throw over another man to get after female vagina. But I understand the simp and the simp, on some level, appreciates that his end goal of acquiring money and power is to get laid.
But the male feminist isn’t out to get laid. He conspires against men not for any dubious benefit like sex, but because he has accepted the Feminist article of faith that women are better than men, and that for the sake of his own desiccated Feminist morals, he must inconvenience and if need be, destroy, men for the sake of the superior sex.
But if women are the superior sex, why would they need the help of the inferior sex (men)?
With that in mind, take a look into the mind of a male feminist who has taken it as his mission to bring the gospel of Feminism to the dark, unenlightened corners of the world of Men’s Rights Activists.
How can men help?
Just looking at that question, your gut reaction might be that we must be past the point where this is a valid line of inquiry. Let them figure it out. Let them be allies. Or better yet, turncoats. Do what the people with common sense say already. In any case, if a man wants to be woke, he can do the legwork. The internet exists.
Already, from the first paragraph, Thomson displays the arrogance and ignorance inherent in third-wave (or whatever wave we’re currently on) Feminism: Not only will they not defend Feminism with anything resembling rhetoric, they believe they should not have to. We should just all “Do what people with common sense(ha!) say already,” or to put it more concisely, “SUBMIT.”
It tends to be agreed, though, that the best direction in which feminist men can direct their energies is within themselves, and at other men. They can locate and nix their own misogyny, advocate for change in their workplaces, call out sexism where they see it – do any of the myriad things that women have had to do by default.
“Oh, I do declare! Will not some dashing, “woke” feminist man come along and relieve these poor, distressed damsels of their cruel burdens of having to defend her Feminist religion against the brutish male unbelievers?”
Falls elegantly and gracefully onto a strategically placed fainting couch
It’s for a collection of these reasons, along with a dose of personal need, that I founded a website dedicated to discussing masculinities and changing the idea of what it means to be a man. I want the site, Homer, to act as a bridge between the gender-equal world I want to live in and the men who have yet to see the virtues of that world.
It’s interesting that a Feminist feels so confident as to dictate to men what it means to be a man (having no practical experience in the matter, and probably no arguments beyond “I think it’s good for females”), yet if a man started a website to tell women “here’s what the appropriate form of femininity is” he’d get sucked into the howling maelstrom of Feminist internet triggered fury.
Ever since I began making plans for Homer, though, I’ve been preparing for the idea that it would attract submissions from people who are confused about or opposed to its politics. It makes sense, then, that my initial reaction to a recent submission was like jumping into a pool that I expected to be cold, but not that cold.
The phrases “fighting to end women’s violence against men” and “genuine masculinity” jumped out at me. Huh, I thought, a men’s rights activist.
For a moment I was proud. Homer was designed to reach men like this. The submission had a calculated, hardened misogyny, though, so I politely rejected it.
And I loved the author’s response: “Your bigotry, hate speech and sexism is disgusting.”
I love that response too, but likely for a very different reason. MRAs, rightly or wrongly (I say wrongly) have adopted the very style of discourse that Feminists have been using for decades: When your enemies do something you don’t like, don’t counter with reasoned arguments as to why it is morally, ethically, or practically wrong, simply make ad hominem attacks against them and accuse them of moral turpitude.
I had a second’s regret. I was sorry that I hadn’t tried to engage him. If I’d just reached out, what might have come of it? It’s that feeling – that question – that explains the appeal, at least to anyone who still feels it’s worthwhile to make time for this stuff, of the idea at the heart of controversial new documentary The Red Pill, the Australian premiere of which was cancelled last week following a petition.
A sorry series of events in which Feminists once again demonstrate that they have no respect for free speech and would rather deprive you of your right to speak that exercise their right to not listen.
MRA beliefs proceed from the idea that society now perceives men solely as people who use, depend on and abuse women, and that this is feminists’ fault. MRAs miss that, among feminists, new schools of thought are picking apart masculinities and men’s lived experiences at a rate of knots.
So when men argue that Feminists are willfully and purposefully using the political and legal system to place men at a demonstrable disadvantage in the name of Orwellian pretzel-logic that “Feminism Means Equality,”Ashley’s answer to assert (without proof) that once again, Feminists are, and have the right to, deconstuct and dictate to men what their masculinity ought to entail?
That’s where a site like Homer comes in. It might be able to reach out to men in ways women often can’t (or shouldn’t have to). For this to work, though, it requires that those men wedded to “genuine” masculinities find a place in the conversation, meaning we need to avoid both alienating them and validating their regressive beliefs.
Now it’s just getting repetitive. Feminists shouldn’t have to defend Feminism because their dainty wrists aren’t up to the challenge and Feminists have the right to dictate “genuine” masculinity to men (that should be a good laugh as to what form “Feminist Masculinity” takes).
One approach here is epitomised by Men’s Sheds and the new ABC series Man Up, presented by a burly Aussie bloke who’s not afraid to shed a tear – but that seems to be trying to use the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house. Saying “it takes a real man to cry” is affecting, but “real man” stuff is got us into this mess. I just think masculinity is more complicated than that.
If the Master keeps dynamite in his tool shed, why shouldn’t I use it to dismantle his house?
And thus demonstrates the danger of using cliches in an argument.
The author of that submission, for example – his masculinity is as complicated as mine. As are the masculinities of the MRAs hosting The Red Pill at cinemas around the world. And if there exists an obligation to engage with this complexity, it rests with men – we’re the ones with the social capital to bring it out of the dark.
Even feminist men, though, should only reach so far. MRAs make claims that they respect women, that they just want a place for men and boys in gender discourses. They have a responsibility to prove this – to display solidarity when feminists advocate (as they very often do) for the improvement of boys’ and men’s well-being. Too often the discourse is little more than abuse.
Because Feminists have no responsibility to prove the merits of Feminism, but MRAs have a responsibility to “prove” their respect for women (waiting to hear about women’s responsibility to “prove” that they respect men, because, “Feminism Means Equality”).
Feminist advocacy for “improving” boys and men typically starts from the premise that they are just defective females, hence all of the “picking apart masculinities and men’s lived experiences at a rate of knots.”
Yet many of the gripes men have about their role in society are addressed through feminism. Men as a group may lose power as women gain equality, but we also gain freedom – and there is power in that, too. I’d like to see an increase in emotional labour by men, espousing the benefits for all of us of a gender-equal world.
Men as a group don’t possess power. Men with power possess power. The rest of us are just peons in the opinion of our well-heeled “betters.” It’s also interesting that Ashley calls it “power” when men possess it, but “equality” when women possess it? That’s some mighty agile doublethink. We gain freedom when women gain power, excuse me, EQUALITY, except not the freedom to screen films because the content contradicts Feminist articles of faith, nor to be “masculine” in any context outside of the approved Feminist canon.
These people have gone full-bore IngSoc. But this is the source of their power: By attempting to dismantle and deconstruct language, they seek to deprive anyone of the ability to disagree.
When it comes to opening up difficult conversation, however, someone always has to go first. I’m trying – and I’d like to invite men who identify as feminist – and MRAs too – to join in, respectfully.
Of course, Ashley will dictate the terms of a “respectful” conversation, which include:
Your concept of masculinity is inherently invalid.
Your position on Feminism is inherently invalid.
Sounds like a conversation I need to skip out of.