Men Cannot Be Feminists

Posted on | May 13, 2015 | 127 Comments

The oxymoronic phenomenon of the “male feminist” is an endless source of amusement. If groveling self-abasement were an Olympic sport, “male feminists” would win the gold medal every four years.

Modern feminism is basically about three things:

Killing babies;
Hating men;
and
Lying.

A common feminist lie is to deny that they hate men. This is exactly the kind of shameless dishonesty we must expect from fanatics who assert that killing babies is women’s most basic “right.”

Hateful bloodthirsty liars are not the kind of women that normal men find attractive, yet there are always enough abnormal men in the world that some of them actually want to have sex with feminists. Inspired by twisted masochistic neuroses or other perverse impulses, these pathetic males declare themselves feminists and, while not all “male feminists” end up in the lunatic ward like Professor Hugo Schwyzer, they always meet a sorry end, groveling for the approval of sadistic women whose raison d’etre is their contempt for men.

Meghan Murphy is the proprietor of Feminist Current, “Canada’s leading feminist website.” She has a Masters degree in Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies, but still insists on describing herself as “a heterosexual woman who has been in a number of heterosexual relationships,” despite never having met a man she actually likes or respects enough to consider them her equal. Like every other feminist, Meghan Murphy only ever speaks of men as her moral and intellectual inferiors. No man could ever deserve her trust or admiration, and certainly she could never be expected to praise a “male feminist” like Noah Berlatsky:

Noah Berlatsky . . . perfectly exemplifies the trouble with male “allies.” He not only presumes to know more about what’s good for women than women themselves, but has taken it upon himself to dictate what the future of the feminist movement should look like, using Playboy as a platform, at that. . . .
Propping up a man whose “feminist cred” consists of attacking feminists and smearing the feminist movement is as ignorant as it is dangerous. . . .
Men like Berlatsky are big supporters of “feminism” so long as it benefits them. Playboy Feminism™ works to elevate male power and privilege and supports a notion of liberation that says: “Beautiful naked women, splayed across pages for the male gaze is what freedom for women is really about.” . . .
Playboy and the male gaze have absolutely nothing to do with female sexuality. To imply as much is to reinforce the notion that women exist only in relation to men and, therefore, that women’s sexuality depends on the male gaze.
Despite challenges such as a fundamental lack of understanding around what feminism is, Berlatsky has persisted in his quest to reinvent our century-old women’s movement, painting feminists as needing, simply, a little male leadership. . . .

FEMINISM IS NOT ABOUT MAKING MEN HAPPY.

How much more clearly can Meghan Murphy explain this to Noah Berlatsky? A basic goal of the feminist movement is to abolish male happiness. If you are a male and you are happy, you are the problem that feminism is intended to solve.

Does it make men happy to look at beautiful naked women? Then feminists must condemn beautiful women and also condemn the “male gaze”that enjoys seeing beautiful women naked. No man can ever be permitted to see a woman naked, because that has “absolutely nothing to do with female sexuality,” according to Meghan Murphy. Under no condition should “female sexuality”ever make men happy.

Meghan Murphy knows this, because she “has been in a number of heterosexual relationships” and no man has ever accused Meghan Murphy of making him happy. Nor is it likely any man would admit to having tried to make her happy. Even in Canada, most men have enough self-respect that they’d never admit something as shameful as that.

<br />

Category: Sex Trouble

Comments

127 Responses to “Men Cannot Be Feminists”

Ilion
May 13th, 2015 @ 4:22 pm

“FEMINISM IS NOT ABOUT MAKING MEN HAPPY.”
Nor women. So there is that.
M. Thompson
May 13th, 2015 @ 4:24 pm

At least they’re consistent in their spread of misery.
Ilion
May 13th, 2015 @ 4:25 pm

“… Under no condition should “female sexuality”ever make men happy.”
Unfortunately, relatively normal women *also* think like this. Why do you think they chop off their hair?
concern00
May 13th, 2015 @ 4:39 pm

Male feminists deserve the scorn and disrespect they get from men and women. No man of self worth would ever lower himself to such a role.
ECM
May 13th, 2015 @ 4:53 pm

I don’t blame the male feminists, so much as the culture they were raised in that taught them that the more supplicating you are, the more likely you are to get laid which, at the end of the day, is what “male feminism” (and so many other things) is all about.

(The wort part is their mothers/sisters/aunts are probably the worst offenders, insofar as programming them with the rudiments of ‘nicery’ and lay the groundwork for these boys’ brains to be completely ruined by the time they graduate college.)
Evi L. Bloggerlady
May 13th, 2015 @ 4:59 pm

If men can become women (legally apparently–even though most of us recognize the science is settled in opposition to that) becoming a feminist is not much of a stretch.
Columbia Classical Trigger Warning Rule 5 | Batshit Crazy News
May 13th, 2015 @ 5:02 pm

[…] TOM: Men Cannot Be Feminists […]
Rolling Stone and Sabrina Rubin Erdely sued by UVA over false rape hoax… | Batshit Crazy News
May 13th, 2015 @ 5:03 pm

[…] TOM: Men Cannot Be Feminists […]
robertstacymccain
May 13th, 2015 @ 5:30 pm

Adulthood requires responsibility. Preparing young people for adult responsibility is what education is supposed to be about. Instead, for decades education has been about “self-esteem” and “diversity” and everything — anything — besides adult responsibility. The education system (as well as parents who go along with this “self-esteem” nonsense) actively encourages entitled narcissism, which is the antithesis of responsibility
Gerry T. Neal
May 13th, 2015 @ 6:18 pm

If only the title were the truth in the most literal sense possible.
Jason Lee
May 13th, 2015 @ 6:45 pm

Actually, for all the talk about bathing in male tears, they’re often willing to be completely miserable even if that only increases male misery by a negligible amount.
Kirby McCain
May 13th, 2015 @ 6:54 pm

In the Temple of Patriarchy aka Tattle Tales women make me very happy. And it has the bonus of empowering them, so there is that.
Kirby McCain
May 13th, 2015 @ 6:56 pm

Oh, kind of like Professor Dominguez’s nude final? Talk about education …
RS
May 13th, 2015 @ 9:25 pm

To imply as much is to reinforce the notion that . . . women’s sexuality depends on the male gaze.

If, as she maintains, Ms. Murphy is heterosexual, then yes, her sexuality does indeed depend upon the “male gaze.” Specifically, it depends upon a male seeing her and finding her attractive enough to warrant further attention. Absent places where marriages are arranged without the participants even meeting each other before the wedding, the male gaze–and to be fair, the female gaze, as well– are sort of necessary prerequisites to bumping uglies.
DeadMessenger
May 13th, 2015 @ 9:30 pm

Hmph. Because that crap is hot all summer when it’s hanging in your face and on your neck. And also sometimes you have to cut it off when it gets damaged because of chemical processing or sun.

But of course, I myself look frisky and pixie-ish when my hair is short, and exotic and mysterious when it’s long, but either way, I’m smokin’ hot, buddy.
DeadMessenger
May 13th, 2015 @ 9:49 pm

OK, stipulate that Meghan Murphy is a mean, ol’ beyotch. But her point about Playboy Feminism is well taken. The notion that pornography is in any way liberating (other than liberating oneself of morality) is a lie. Indeed, it inevitably backfires (take that any way you’d like) for both the “giver” and “receiver”.

The fact that a completely depraved society applauds pornography as “natural” and “normal” speaks to its satanic origin. For pity’s sake, little children are sexting each other!

A person’s naked body and sexual proclivities are for one’s opposite sex spouse, and no other.

I shouldn’t have to say this, but I will anyway. Matthew 5:28: “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

Hefner and his ideological spawn will fry in hell someday, more’s the pity for them. Miss Murphy will be there with them (unless she repents and believes), which would make for lively debate in Dante’s second circle…you know, with a screaming backdrop of “OW! OWW! My fookin’ genitals are on fire!”
RS
May 13th, 2015 @ 9:59 pm

No disagreement from me. I note only the internecine feminist conflict about pornography years ago. “Empowering” vs. “Exploitation.” The “Slutwalk” people suffer from the same cognitive dissonance.
DeadMessenger
May 13th, 2015 @ 10:06 pm

I remember when I was child, and people still at least pretended to be moral, and at least made an attempt to hide their depravity. Now, not so much. Indeed, most people celebrate their depravity, and their gross negligence and stupidity, and the examples you mention are just more of the same.
DeadMessenger
May 13th, 2015 @ 10:09 pm

Good Lord, McCain! O_O
Daniel Freeman
May 13th, 2015 @ 10:40 pm

Speaking of killing babies, the White House just doubled down on the line that “Personal health care decisions should be made between a woman and her doctor.” There’s an implied “without government getting involved,” given how Debbie Wasserman Schultz of the DNC put it last month, so apparently Twitter has erupted with hilarity over the obvious hypocrisy with the ACA, but I think they’re missing the bigger picture.

This line, which logically implies no restriction, is now clearly the official Democrat stance, coming from the highest levels of the party. Since the majority of the country would find that ghoulish, depraved, sick and wrong, it is now journalistic malpractice to fail to ask every D whether they support any abortion restrictions at all.
robertstacymccain
May 13th, 2015 @ 11:26 pm

Oh, I’m as much against “Playboy Feminism” as I am against any other feminism. But notice what Murphy hates about it:

1. It’s about male sexual attraction to beautiful women.
and
2. Men get paid to write about it.

What mystifies me about Murphy’s insistence that she is “heterosexual” is that she so clearly despises normal men and normal sexuality. Murphy is typical of feminists in that men arouse in her a sadistic, punitive impulse. One can at least understand this extreme hostility toward males when it comes from lesbian feminists, but it is rather inexplicable from women who claim to be heterosexual. I think many women inside the feminist bubble simply don’t notice their own incoherence, and Murphy’s readers probably think, “Oh, she’s only criticizing those sexist men I don’t like,” without noticing the all-encompassing nature of Murphy’s contempt for males. Feminist theory (and Murphy’s got a master’s degree in it) indicts all men — I repeat, ALL MEN — as complicit in the oppression of women. There are no honest or admirable men, according to feminist theory, and thus there is no reason why a woman should love any man.
robertstacymccain
May 13th, 2015 @ 11:29 pm

People who think I’m bad have never met my brother.
DeadMessenger
May 13th, 2015 @ 11:30 pm

Most of them won’t say it publicly – yet – but post-birth abortion is fine, too, especially for whites, and expecially hoys. You know, zero restrictions on abortion, unless the kid is LGBTQ.

Who’s that Princeton freak? Peter Singer? Isn’t he saying up to two years old is fine? But animals should have human rights?
Fail Burton
May 13th, 2015 @ 11:35 pm

One thing I love about our crazy feminists is how they maintain misogyny is as common as air and misandry a thing to be laughed at as too crazy to be true. If men and women are that different, it easily explains the entirety of the last 7,000 years. I didn’t really need that though. I’m pretty sure Cortes didn’t fear the Aztecs would applaud instead of making jazz hands. Who in human history has ever feared applause? Not even the worst stereotype of a traumatized Vietnam vet is that crazy.

Berlatsky’s a funny one. He joins in with feminist conspiracy myths which basically maintain men’s clothing stores are bastions of female exclusion and hatred and then gets kicked in the shins for his trouble. In the end, no one likes him or trusts him.

Is she making up that quote about Berlatsky, cuz last I saw him he was defending the idea a comic cover that showed a women with big breasts was misogyny. What I love about them is they each compete to see who can make the biggest case that men hate women. Berlatsky kinda looks like an ugly woman and Murphy kinda looks like a handsome man, so they might make a good maintenance couple.

In my world “maintenance sex” is called “breaking up.” Does this daffy woman even know what she’s talking about? Is it just me or does it seem like every one of these people are mental cases? I can tell you this: across 4 continents I’ve never met anyone as nuts as these goofball misogyny feminists. Do they manufacture them in a stereotype factory?
Fail Burton
May 13th, 2015 @ 11:37 pm

I’m just sure she’s fun at parties.
DeadMessenger
May 13th, 2015 @ 11:37 pm

Kirby? That’s the one I meant! He makes you seem solemn and sedate – like the good kid in the family – which, you know, is saying something, LOL.
Fail Burton
May 13th, 2015 @ 11:39 pm

I don’t think that has anything to do with feminism. Men have always pretended to find women’s words interesting just long enough to get to the most interesting part.
DeadMessenger
May 13th, 2015 @ 11:52 pm

I only feel oppressed by men I don’t happen to like. Strangely, they all seem to be progressive politicians or talking heads. Or that guy Rachel Maddow really oppresses me, too.
Daniel Freeman
May 13th, 2015 @ 11:55 pm

I’ve met one guy who could give them a run for their money, but he appeared to be a high-functioning paranoid schizophrenic.
Daniel Freeman
May 14th, 2015 @ 12:15 am

Not familiar with him, but now there’s a DC Metro ad which implies that the appropriate response to someone telling you that they think they might be pregnant is to suggest an abortion provider. I think that these people live in such insulated bubbles, never having to interact with anyone who will contradict them, that they honestly have no idea how they come across to normal people as sociopaths, with a depraved indifference to the value of human life.
Daniel Freeman
May 14th, 2015 @ 12:16 am

Forgot to attach the ad, sorry, here it is.
DeadMessenger
May 14th, 2015 @ 12:32 am

Good Lord.

The appropriate response is “congratulations!” Don’t these people’s mamas teach them anything?
Steve Skubinna
May 14th, 2015 @ 12:43 am

Well, yeah, but he wasn’t talking about you.

It’s those other women. And uh, by “other women” I am not implying, er…

Okay, this is me, shutting up now.
Steve Skubinna
May 14th, 2015 @ 12:45 am

Nobody likes a cringing obsequious toady.
Steve Skubinna
May 14th, 2015 @ 12:46 am

It has always been my impression that sex requires, at a minimum, two willing participants. So obviously sexuality would be dependent upon the response or impressions of another.

Hell, it’s as idiotic as saying “good looks don’t depend upon subjective standards of beauty.”
DeadMessenger
May 14th, 2015 @ 12:47 am

Hahahahaha!
Steve Skubinna
May 14th, 2015 @ 12:47 am

Playboy Feminism can be summed up thusly:

“Sure honey, I respect you for your mind. And I am totally commited to paying for your abortion. Well, we’ll go halfsies on it, okay? Now let’s see some tits!”
Steve Skubinna
May 14th, 2015 @ 12:48 am

Yeah, I don’t accept that people who dress as giant vaginas for every public outrage event can claim offense at some guy’s Aloha shirt.
Steve Skubinna
May 14th, 2015 @ 12:49 am

Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.
Steve Skubinna
May 14th, 2015 @ 12:52 am

Uh oh. Are you wiling to pursue that connection, or at least investigate whether there is a connection?
DeadMessenger
May 14th, 2015 @ 12:53 am

So the drag queen pulls out his falsies and shows them to the dude.
RKae
May 14th, 2015 @ 1:41 am

I see a sick future where there’s a heroic statue of Kermit Gosnell in the city park.
RKae
May 14th, 2015 @ 1:42 am

Vile atheist scumbag Richard Dawkins has said the same thing: Children should be killed at about 2 years old if they’re insufficiently Richard-Dawkins-like.
Steve Skubinna
May 14th, 2015 @ 1:44 am

Uh… oh hey, so no need to pay for an abortion, then? Winning!
Daniel Freeman
May 14th, 2015 @ 1:50 am

So there I was, doing security for a county health clinic — underemployed, but I would always rather be working than not, and I’m not too proud — when this guy walks in and sits at the seat nearest to my desk.

I’m a friendly guy, so we started chatting, and he ran through this well-practiced patter about how we’re all incorporated at birth, and our name in all-caps is our corporate name, and the law only applies to our corporation, so if you refuse incorporation then the law doesn’t apply to you.

It was entertaining, so I was doing the smile-and-nod, but I couldn’t help laughing out loud when he tried to claim that the President was a traitor, because Russia invaded Georgia, and Georgia is a state in the U.S., and the President didn’t defend it.

I gently explained that words aren’t magic, and just because you call two things by the same name, doesn’t make them the same thing. He didn’t say anything after that.

An elaborate conspiracy theory extending back long before he was born, that he was uniquely able to see through and defy. Treating words like magic.

Patriarchy theory. Gender theory.

Now, I’m not a mental health professional so I can’t give a diagnosis, but he certainly seemed like a schizophrenic to me. And so do academic feminists.
DeadMessenger
May 14th, 2015 @ 2:26 am

Since Dawkins is a sphincter on legs, that means that all children should be killed. When he was a child (if ever), do you suppose his parents gave him a Herod action figure with the Judea playset?
DeadMessenger
May 14th, 2015 @ 2:27 am

Kermit Gosnell Elementary.
concern00
May 14th, 2015 @ 2:36 am

Apologies in advance…
DeadMessenger
May 14th, 2015 @ 2:38 am

I don’t think the guy was schizophrenic. The last time I got abducted…no, the time before, when they were putting the implant into my frontal lobe, the Greys were telling me telepathically about that incorporation thing, and they’d be in a position to know, since they’re working closely with the WH, the NSA, the CIA, and the Joint Chiefs. (Funny story they were telling me about the “Joint” Chiefs…I’ll tell you later). Anyway, what were we talking about? Oh yeah, schizophrenia. The Greys said you can treat it with urine therapy, but the pharmaceutical companies don’t tell you becau…OW!…OW, MY HEAD!
Evi L. Bloggerlady
May 14th, 2015 @ 3:02 am

Oh it is that time again? Maintenance Sex with Meghan Murphy.