Feminism’s Predictable Consequences: ‘Our Society at Large … Hates Women’

Posted on | January 18, 2015 | 75 Comments

What is the effect of feminism on males? How does a constant barrage of anti-male/anti-heterosexual discourse influence men?

Newton’s Third Law of Motion — for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction — can be applied to group psychology. Confronted with hostile criticism, some people will comply (the equal reaction), attempting to conform to the views of critics, so that we see some men trying to placate feminists by refraining from whatever male behaviors or attitudes feminists say they find offensive.

However, some men will not merely reject feminist criticism as incorrect or unfair, they will exhibit the opposite reaction, deliberately saying or doing things that offend feminists.

This kind of Newtonian opposite reaction to feminism takes many forms, both conscious and unconscious. I’ve always considered the “macho man” trend that emerged in the late 1970s and ’80s — e.g., the body-builder culture, action hero blockbusters like Rambo and Terminator — as a psychological reaction to feminism. Sure, those movies were mostly just escapist fun. Sure, tough-guy heroes have always been a staple product of Hollywood. But the ultra-muscled physiques of Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger were cartoonish in their exaggerated masculinity, and the stories were cartoonish, too.

We also see the Newtonian opposite reaction to feminism in the whole “dudebro” male-bonding culture, where chilling with your buddies in your “man cave” playing videogames or watching sports on TV is venerated as the ultimate in leisure. And I would argue that a lot of what feminists now label as misogyny (a word that means woman-hating) could best be understood as a secondary effect of feminism.

Quite often, you see young men doing or saying things they certainly must know will drive feminists into a furious rage. This is the politically incorrect thumb-in-the-eye response to feminist rhetoric that routinely insults heterosexual males. It is evident that feminists, despite their constant disclaimers of desiring nothing more than an innocuous “equality,” are in fact advancing a totalitarian worldview, a zero-sum game in which women’s “equality” requires expropriation.

According to this logic, everything any man possesses — education, employment, family, property, a good reputation — can only have been obtained through his oppression of females. If your son graduated summa cum laude, was hired by a Fortune 500 company, married a beautiful woman, and bought a nice house in the suburbs, this just proves that your son has benefitted from male privilege. His success is a result of cultural misogyny and anti-female discrimination.

Male success is social injustice, according to feminism’s totalitarian worldview. The feminist demand for “equality” is actually a demand that society punish successful men, a demand for new policies in schools and workplaces, a demand for a system that can guarantee more success for women by systematically depriving males of opportunities for success.

The enactment of such punitive anti-male policies is what feminists consider “progress” toward “equality.” We can view the entire campus “rape epidemic” discourse — false statistics and false journalism intended to force the imposition of policies aimed at depriving males of due-process rights — as emblematic of feminism’s totalitarian tendency.

Young men sense this intuitively. They perceive feminism as a hostile force. However, more than four decades into the feminist revolution, with feminism now deeply entrenched in our culture, exercising hegemonic influence within academia, today’s 20-year-old has no access to a rhetoric by which he can effectively challenge feminism. There are no anti-feminist professors on campus and no anti-feminist books in the library, and so young men generally lack the intellectual resources necessary to countering feminist arguments. Very few opponents of feminism bother to study the subject at a theoretical level, and opposition to feminism is therefore often badly argued — or not “argued” at all, instead taking the form of crude jokes and insults.

Viewing all this in terms of psychology, rather than politics, is really the only way to understand it. Here’s an example: Some dude posts a genuinely offensive joke about tricking women into believing he’s wearing a condom during sex. This joke is so wrong in so many ways that you have to suspect it was deliberately wrong, intended as some sort of ironic spoof of Bad Male Behavior. But the reaction? Oh. My. God.

If a guy does this, it’s rape. Call the cops. Ruin his life since he has no problem risking yours. Make him f–king learn. Rapists belong in jail. Rape by deception is rape, not a funny “meme.”

. . . and . . .

I’ve had a dude do that before. that sh–t is terrifying. . . . I didn’t know that he [wasn’t wearing a condom] until he pulled out.
I FLIPPED. Cried all the way home. Cried for days. Got tested. Bought the morning after pill. Seriously, f–k dudes that do this.

. . . and . . .

This is how men talk to each other about us.

Ever since the “safe sex” gospel took hold in reaction to the AIDS crisis of the 1980s, young women have been learning painful lessons about human nature that their sex-education teachers never taught them. Anybody who actually buys into the In Latex We Trust mentality promoted by the “pro sex” evangelists is a fool, but these fools refuse to accept responsibility for the harms they suffer as a result of their own folly. “Safe sex” is a myth. There is no such thing as risk-free promiscuity. If you don’t know a guy well enough to know whether he can be trusted, sweetheart, why are you having sex with him?

The most ironic reaction, however, was this:

I had a man do this once. When I first started sex work and had no idea what I was doing, I went to a man’s house. I made so many mistakes- I’m lucky I’m not dead.

Uh . . . “sex work”?

The person who posted that describes herself as an “overeducated whore,” and provides this information about herself:

I have about 3 years’ experience as a stripper.
I have been escorting a bit over two years.
I have been sugaring for almost one year.

In case you didn’t know, “sugaring” is about so-called “Sugar Daddy” arrangements, which is prostitution by any other name. For an “escort” to admit that she’s lucky she’s not dead is a recognition of the brutal realities of that sordid business, and johns not wearing condoms is scarcely the worst of it. But, hey, feminists will condemn us for “slut-shaming” if we disapprove of prostitution, so once again we see how feminism’s totalitarian tendency to silence dissent serves to suppress basic common sense.

Easy money for easy sex ain’t so easy, is it, honey?

Moving on in our Bad Ideas Have Bad Consequences tour — try to imagine if Richard Weaver had a blog — let’s ask ourselves what kind of guy actually buys into feminist ideology?

Assuming that you are an honest, decent, law-abiding person, you realize that you are not to blame for creeps who slip Rohypnol into girls’ drinks at frat parties. You don’t engage in abusive catcalling. You are not producing “revenge porn.” You are not “oppressing” women. You genuinely like women and so you recognize that feminists are engaged in dishonest anti-male propaganda if they accuse you of misogyny merely for disagreeing with their ideology.

A clean conscience is helpful in confronting totalitarians, which is why most males enjoy mocking the feminist rhetoric that portrays us as Patriarchal Oppressors. What about those other guys, the ones who jump on the feminist bandwagon and start pointing the accusatory finger at other males? We naturally suspect they have some ulterior motive, and our suspicions of these “white knight” types are frequently confirmed: Feminist hero Bill Clinton turned out to be a sexual predator, and then there was the case of “male feminist” Professor Hugo Schwyzer.

Nevertheless, not every “male feminist” can be presumed to be a hypocritical worm who has figured out that he can get laid by hanging around liberal women and talking “pro-choice” politics. Some of these guys sincerely believe feminist theory, and one of them posted a diatribe against MRAs (Male Rights Activists) in 2012:

Misandry Isn’t Real Dudez
I’m a guy, and I need feminism. Not “men’s rights.” Feminism. Here is why.
Everything that MRAs talk about that men can’t do or are socially punished for arise directly and immediately from misogyny and transmisogyny. Not “misandry.” Misogyny.
Whether a man is expressing his emotions, playing with children, baking, having sex wherein he is penetrated in any way, wearing the wrong color, talking the wrong way, moving the wrong way, being sexually harassed/assaulted, or paying too little attention to looking like he’s not paying attention to how he looks, when society punishes him or derides him or marginalizes him for these things, it is happening because they are things associated with women, and our society at large f–king hates women.
Has that sunk in yet?
Men, can you even think of a single goddamn way you have ever been mocked that wasn’t somehow related to something that a misogynist society sees as feminizing? Even when large men are mocked for their bodies, they are referred to as having “man-boobs,” for f–ks sake.
How do you expect to improve those things with “men’s rights?” What right are you fighting for? I can tell you what I think you’re fighting for. I think you’re fighting for the right to contain and control misogyny, and direct it back at women, where you think it belongs. You want to maintain your privilege but erase its consequences, and that’s why your movement is farcical; it’s a big f–king feedback loop. How do you expect men to be free from the peripheral effects of misogyny and transmisogyny when you refuse to even f–king believe it’s real?

That 2012 male feminist rant went viral and has been endlessly reposted on Tumblr, where it is typically praised thus:

A post that brilliantly explains why “Men’s Rights Activists” are misguided and why the oppression that men face in our culture is not a result of “misandry” but of misogyny.

Here, then, we have a brilliant male feminist. This guy is the progressive beau ideal of a supportive ally for gender equality. Yet when we check out the guy who authored this rant . . .

Edit: please note that since writing this post, which is by far my most popular, I have come out as a transgender woman. That doesn’t, however, change any of the points I make.

Sure it doesn’t. Whatever you say.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Category: Feminism

Comments

75 Responses to “Feminism’s Predictable Consequences: ‘Our Society at Large … Hates Women’”

Southern Air Pirate
January 19th, 2015 @ 12:00 pm

RSM,

You want the ultimate in hypocritical stances with respect towards feminist-males and special comments. Check out this blog, http://wehuntedthemammoth.com I was turned on to this blog when following the Google links of Melody Hensley (the skeptic who tried to inject Fem 3.0 into a rational and free thought conference and then went full RSM rule 3 on her detractors, then claimed PTSD and worst treatment compared to a solider on the ground in combat).

What is really awesome about this website is its fully of its own mysigonist speech and thought masked as Feminist thoughts and defense of feminists ideals. The targets they go after those women who leave the feminists thought or reject from the get-go. They also go after all the MRAs they find and I don’t know if they have targeted you; but it’s just funny that the author sees the way to fight for feminists is by being mysigonist. Oh and the site also doesn’t allow for contrary thoughts or discussion on the people whom the author defends because they are Feminist and the attackers aren’t; it doesn’t matter that some of these wilting vapors affecting the women decided to walk into a den of hive and villainy and challenge the thoughts or that the women being attacked used kindergarten level logic, nope since it was a woman and a feminist who said it ipso facto it’s right and everyone else is an evil mysigonist.
ChandlersGhost
January 19th, 2015 @ 12:41 pm

1. From my experience, the English department nowadays is the Women’s Studies department. Even when the course material isn’t labeled as such, anyone who has pursued a particular field of study has taken a Women’s Studies class.

2. Belle Knox. Degrading oneself on camera for money is empowerment, as long as you nasty men aren’t using that degradation in the manner that it is meant to be used.
Jim R
January 19th, 2015 @ 1:16 pm

Typical lefties / SJW types: they who demand tolerance are utterly INtolerant of anybody who disagrees with them.
Jim R
January 19th, 2015 @ 1:36 pm

An outcome more-or-less predictable to anybody but a feminist.

This is not to say that women can NEVER take charge, survive, &c. Obviously, they can. However, I suggest that it takes a rather marked change in their general outlook and especially upbringing: they either have to be taught to stop squabbling and sunbathing and start working, or else they have to learn from the school of hard knocks that, if they want to survive, they have to stop yapping and just do what needs doing. I’m thinking that the twenty-somethings in the program never had to deal with any adversity harder than “My phone died. HOW DO I CHECK MY FACEBOOK????”
arcadius
January 19th, 2015 @ 2:07 pm

Who mentioned cooking and cleaning? Do I need a secret patriarchy decoder ring?
Quartermaster
January 19th, 2015 @ 2:15 pm

I liked the Moody Blues turned up loud. But, I was never depressed when I listened.
Dana
January 19th, 2015 @ 2:16 pm

Well, the ladies were selected for how good they looked in bikinis; that’s a “survival skill” for modern society, but I doubt it has much to do with gathering food or building shelters.
Quartermaster
January 19th, 2015 @ 2:17 pm

If you don’t have yours yet, there may be a problem getting one. There is a very short window of time in which they may be procured. It takes most of your adult life to learn to operate them properly so when you do become a patriarch, you have the ability down cold.
Quartermaster
January 19th, 2015 @ 2:19 pm

It is applicable to survival in that you get the oppressive patriarchy to supply things to you in exchange for displaying that scenery.
RS
January 19th, 2015 @ 3:11 pm

I took the Mizzou equivalent of said “Junk Sociology” course. In ours, the professor had returned from a year in Sweden and the entire semester was “Sweden, Yay! USA, Booooooo!”
RS
January 19th, 2015 @ 3:12 pm

My daughter recently finished a degree in English. She’s was required to take two courses, which I called “Grievance Literature.” Fortunately, her mother (English Ph.D.) and I forced her to read the canon during the summers.
RS
January 19th, 2015 @ 3:18 pm

That’s because they never had fathers who took them hiking and camping. My daughter knows how to build a fire from scratch and survive a cold night in the wild. She can navigate cross country with only a map and compass. One of her fondest memories is me doing a cicada stir fry to prove that food is all around us.
Daniel Freeman
January 19th, 2015 @ 3:49 pm

From the article:

However, some men will not merely reject feminist criticism as incorrect or unfair, they will exhibit the opposite reaction, deliberately saying or doing things that offend feminists.
ChandlersGhost
January 19th, 2015 @ 5:10 pm

The other problem is that outside of a handful of tenured dinosaurs, the canon is taught within the context of grievance-mongering. Sure, the great works exist, but they’re only considered “great” because a bunch of sexist, heterofascist white males created the canon in the first place.
Jim R
January 19th, 2015 @ 6:20 pm

Well, I know who I want on MY team!

I hope to do at least half as much for my daughter.
RS
January 19th, 2015 @ 6:59 pm

Quite. Fortunately, our daughter had good “home schooling” for that part of her college education. [Insert Smiley Face Thing here]
sanjoaquinsam
January 19th, 2015 @ 8:48 pm

I’ve been in a somber mood all day. I went and saw American Sniper this afternoon; then I clicked on the bottom-most link.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.

I needed that.
Bob Belvedere
January 19th, 2015 @ 9:05 pm

A broken crock, like Freud, is right sometimes.
Bob Belvedere
January 19th, 2015 @ 9:08 pm

Now this makes you a real hero in my eyes!

#ColonialismWasGood
Bob Belvedere
January 19th, 2015 @ 9:10 pm

As far as I’m concerned, you win, hands-down, this thread.
Bob Belvedere
January 19th, 2015 @ 9:15 pm

The movie was more conservative, despite being directed by a Bolshe, and that was no surprise since the book was written by a Maine Republican.
Bob Belvedere
January 19th, 2015 @ 9:20 pm

Damn well done, Stacy.

If I may be so bold: The first third or so of this post would serve well as part of your introduction to the forthcoming opus of yours.
robertstacymccain
January 19th, 2015 @ 11:21 pm

And now you know … the REST of the story!
robertstacymccain
January 19th, 2015 @ 11:42 pm

I noticed that you’ve been posting more articles about rapists and men who commit sex crimes, which I believe is a good thing.

Well, I’ve always liked “true crime” stories. When you study crime in any in-depth way, you realize that the vast majority of serious crime is committed by a relatively small subset of the population. Yes, it is true, sometimes the wealthy executive decides to murder his wife, but most murderers are not wealthy executives. They’re usually common criminals — people with a substantial record of relatively minor crimes like drug possession, burglary, assault — and one night they get in a “beef” with somebody and kill them. Drug-related gang violence is a common thing in communities with high rates of homocide, and this is meaningful in terms of crime prevention strategies. This is why the Comstat system in New York was so effective in reducing the murder rate in that city: Figure out where crime is happening, provide that information to the beat cops, and let them targets these areas, looking for bad guys. Comstat is more complicated than that, but the basic idea is simple — and it works!

Same thing with rape. If schools would develop a “profile” of the typical victim and a “profile” of the typical perpetrator, and figure out the situations in which these crimes most often take place, reducing the number of incidents could be done in a systematic fashion. Just looking at the anecdotes I’ve seen, I gather that the most vulnerable girls are freshmen or sophomores, 18 or 19, and most of these sexual incidents occur in situations where alcohol is consumed. Because the drinking age is 21, you could substantially reduce the number of these incidents by the simple expedient of getting serious about enforcing laws against providing alcohol to minors.

That kind of crime-prevention strategy wouldn’t do anything to advance the feminist narrative, but would limit the number of girls who get so sloppy drunk they are in no condition either to give meaningful consent or to resist the drunk horny dude whose dorm room they passed out in.
robertstacymccain
January 20th, 2015 @ 12:01 am

Read the first part of the story: “When I was 19, I got so drunk at a party that I passed out. I woke up in the middle of being raped.”

She was at this party “with my friends” who (a) didn’t stop her from getting so drunk, and (b) didn’t protect her after she passed out. Now, the rapist is obviously the criminal in this story, but the victim is also obviously stupid, and her “friends” were part of her problem.

This is what we keep seeing over and over: The “rape culture” discourse turns out to be an argument for consequence-free stupidity. Keep in mind, as I have said, the legal drinking age is 21, and illegal underage drinking is routinely part of these stories. But you’re not allowed to point out all the contributing factors in these incidents because the feminists keep screaming ‘rape apologist” at anyone who so much as mentions the LACK OF ORDINARY COMMON SENSE that leads to this awfulness.