The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

‘Male Feminist’? Don’t Waste Your Time

Posted on | May 12, 2016 | 35 Comments

 

Feminists are women who hate men, and men who support feminism do so because either (a) they don’t realize feminists hate them, (b) they hate themselves, or (c) they think they can be an exception to this hatred.

Feminism is a movement by women, for women, against men. Feminists regard the “male feminist” as a joke, or as an unwelcome intruder. However, a man can support feminism. It’s very easy:

  1. Give feminists your money;
  2. Shut up;
    and
  3. Go away.

To be an anti-feminist, a man simply skips Step One — just keep your money and avoid feminists. What kind of fool would waste time talking to women who hate him merely for being male? Alas, there is never a shortage of fools in the world, so we have “male feminists,” and feminists have to keep telling men they are not welcome in the movement:

Feminism Is Still Just For Women
Feminism is still just for women, okay? The last time I wrote about this, I recieved a lot of hate. . . . The consensus is growing that men are not needed here.
If men speaks out in defense of feminism, he risks nothing, but can gain everything. Now, I know some of you out there will claim I and other feminists hate men. That is not true, although it ultimately doesn’t matter if we all did hate men anyway. A lot of men turn man-hate into a self-fulfilling prophecy, so before you get into the whole “misandry” thing, you my want to know that are being self-defeating.
So yeah, feminism is a girls-only club!

The self-evident contradiction — “I don’t hate men, but don’t want them in the feminist movement, because men are not needed here” — of this Tumblr blogger’s argument is indicative of the fundamental problem of feminism since the modern movement’s inception in the late 1960s. Like the appeasers dealing with Hitler in the 1930s, some men responded to the Women’s Liberation movement by acceding to their demands. Guys didn’t want to be called “male chauvinist pigs,” so they tried to maintain peace through compromise. They gave feminists money:

Women’s Studies professor and feminist author Susan M. Hartmann credits the Ford Foundation with being a substantive force that created the feminist movement. . . . It is safe to say that without the Ford Foundation, feminism would not have been successful in gaining such a strong foothold in academia, and by extension, politics. . . .
In 1971, a group of feminists approached Ford president McGeorge Bundy with a request to involve itself in the feminist movement the way it had in the Civil Rights movement, essentially, creating it out of whole cloth. The result of those early discussions was a full-fledged women’s project to fund the small number of existing women’s advocacy organizations, and also to create a whole new field within academia known as “women’s studies.” In 1972, Ford announced the first $1 million national fellowship program for “faculty and doctoral dissertation research on the role of women in society and Women’s Studies broadly construed.” A 1996 article by Heather MacDonald reported that women’s studies programs had received $36 million between 1972-1992 from Ford and other foundations.

Fools! You failed to realize that Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It. Give the feminist everything she demands today, and tomorrow she’ll be back with a new list of demands.

The classic victim of this was Alfred Conrad. A Harvard-educated economist, he married the poet Adrienne Rich and they had three sons. In the 1960s, his wife joined the feminist movement, and Conrad at first supported her. As she became more and more militant in her hatred of men, however, Rich’s feminism drove Conrad to commit suicide in 1970 at age 46. His friend Hayden Carruth later told the Guardian: “I don’t know what went on between them, except that Alf came to me and complained bitterly that Adrienne had lost her mind.” She moved in with her lesbian lover and wrote dismissively of her dead husband in her subsequent books, saying she only married Conrad “because I knew no better way to disconnect from my first family.” Adrienne Rich made famous the phrase “compulsory heterosexuality” in a 1980 essay. Like other feminists, Rich condemned relationships with men as “oppressive” because of the way “male power manifests itself . . . as enforcing heterosexuality on women.”

Feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — denies that there is any such thing as “human nature.” Feminism rejects any claim that heterosexuality is normal, necessary or influenced by biological instinct. Men do not have any innate sexual needs or impulses, according to feminists, a point Rich emphasized by using ironic quotes around the word “drive” when she condemned “the socialization of women to feel that male sexual ‘drive’ amounts to a right.” Hostility toward male sexuality inspires feminists to describe heterosexual relationships (especially including marriage) as representing male “domination” and “control” of women. Feminists view sexual intercourse as “exploitation,” a means by which men humiliate and degrade women. Heterosexuality is imposed on women by “force” and “compulsion,” according to Rich, as well as through “control of consciousness” by the “idealization of heterosexual romance and marriage” in literature, art, movies and other forms of culture.

“Characterised by unequal power relations between men and women, patriarchy systematically oppresses those who are, through no fault of their own, born female. …
“Social constructions of gender, like power, stem from patriarchal ideologies …
“Environmentally speaking, gender is independent of sex … and signifies the social constructedness of what maleness and femaleness mean in a given culture. The hierarchy that implicitly positions men above women due to reproductive difference, is a harmful one.”
— Amy Marie Austin, 2014

Far from being limited to an extreme fringe within the feminist movement, this anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology is now promoted by feminist professors in Women’s Studies programs that enroll some 90,000 students annually on more than 700 U.S. college and university campuses. For example, in the department of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Portland State University, the junior-level course “Gender and Critical Inquiry” (WS301) in the fall 2007 semester included assigned readings by such radical lesbians as Charlotte Bunch, Monique Wittig and Audre Lorde, from the textbook Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives (edited by Carole R. McCann and Seung-Kyung Kim, 2002). Another assignment from the textbook was “Separating Lesbian Theory From Feminist Theory,” an essay by Cheshire Calhoun arguing that “from a feminist perspective, sexual interaction, romantic love, marriage, and the family are all danger zones,” being patriarchal institutions that “serve male interests.” Citing this essay, a student in the class wrote:

According to feminism the role of heterosexuality is what structures the male-female relationship. Heterosexuality is the structure that keeps sexist oppression in place in the private realm; where sexism in general operates to also oppress in the public sphere. In other words heterosexuality reinforces the hierarchy established by sexism to keep women dominated in “sexual interaction, romantic love, marriage, and the family.”

Taught by their professors that heterosexuality is synonymous with a “hierarchy” of “sexist oppression,” young feminists are apt to condemn any expression of male interest in women as “misogyny.” Unlike normal women, who enjoy being admired by men and are flattered by male attention, feminists condemn men’s admiration of female beauty. Complimenting a woman’s appearance is “harassment” to feminists, who denounce men for “objectification” merely for looking at women.

“Demonizing men’s admiration of women’s beauty (the ‘male gaze’) is one way in which heterosexual masculinity is ‘problematized’ in feminist rhetoric, which seeks not only to inspire women to view men contemptuously, but also to make men ashamed of their own desires.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, April 16

Anita Sarkeesian of Feminist Frequency asserted on Twitter that “because we live in a culture that routinely objectifies women . . . women’s perceived value as human beings is tied directly to their sexual desirability to men,” so that women suffer the “dehumanization of being reduced to sex objects.” Such an argument implies that men’s “perceived value as human beings” has nothing to do with men’s “sexual desirability” to women. Are there any men whom Ms. Sarkeesian considers sexually desirable? If so, on what basis? What is the “perceived value” of men, from a feminist perspective? None whatsoever, Ms. Sarkeesian would probably be compelled to answer, if she were honest, which she is not.

 

Dishonesty about their motives, methods and goals is as necessary to feminism as it is to any other totalitarian movement. Just as Lenin and Stalin built the Soviet empire by deliberate deceit, so also have feminists gained power through blatant lies and hypocrisy. Even while they constantly churn out anti-male propaganda — never speaking of men except as violent perpetrators of sexual oppression — feminist deny that they hate men. They are simply in favor of equality, feminists say, when confronted by critics. To accuse them of hating men, feminists will claim, is to prove (a) that you are too ignorant to actually understand feminism, or (b) that you are a misogynist oppressor who hates women, or perhaps (c) both. Attempting to argue with feminists is to encounter the textbook definition of circular logic. Simply disagreeing with a feminist is considered sufficient proof that you are wrong. Feminists believe they possess a monopoly on truth and moral virtue, and view men as their inferiors. Males know nothing and are always wrong. Whatever a man says is automatically ridiculed by feminists as “mansplaining.”

Feminist Men? No Thanks!
This question pops up right here on tumblr every now and then. Feminists men is almost a contradiction. No wait, it is a contradiction. It’s this weird idea that men can stand up against the oppression of women. . . . Even some feminists who think male feminists can exist will do so with apprehension and no small amount of wariness.
Men who identify as feminist don’t respect women. They can still rape. It’s very problematic. . . . And you gay men out there, don’t think you are out of the woods. There are still a lot of feminists who feel gay men are allies, but they can be just as problematic as any cisgendered heteronormative man even though we once supported each other in the past at a time when the whole world was against us. . . .
For any men out there, don’t fret; you can be allies but you need to know what’s expected of you. This amazing video by Melissa A. Fabello from a few years ago illustrates the many failings of male allies. They ultimately don’t know what it’s like to be women, which means they can never be true feminists.

Got it, guys? If you “identify as feminist,” this means you “don’t respect women,” because you “don’t know what it’s like to be women.” Men “can never be true feminists.” Feminism is the All-Girl Man-Haters Club.

Arguing with feminists is impossible, because arguments require facts and logic, which feminists reject to embrace the Patriarchal Thesis. The absurd spectacle of a young woman like Cora Segal, the daughter of a Harvard professor, claiming to be oppressed while attending elite Hampshire College (annual tuition $48,065) shows how feminist rhetoric routinely requires the rejection of reality. It is an odd idea of “social justice” that requires us to weep with pity for a rich girl Ms. Segal because she is victimized by “living in a white supremacist cisheteropatriarchal society,” as her mentally ill friend Jennie Chenkin claimed.

As crazy as feminists are, at least feminism provides mentally ill women who hate men (and capitalism, etc.) the Patriarchal Thesis to cling to, like a scared toddler hugging his favorite stuffed animal. What possible comfort does a “male feminist” gain from supporting such lunacy? Let any young man ask any old married guy, “Are you dominating and controlling your wife?” The old man’s laughter will be deafening.

In any long and happy marriage, the husband is domesticated. As a bachelor, I was proudly independent and, although I suffered the usual slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, I was much more often the heartbreaker than the heartbroken. Certainly, I seldom had cause to complain of a shortage of female companionship. Through it all, however, I knew I was searching for exactly one woman, and when I found her . . .

 

Well, if you marry a good woman (and ask anybody, I married the best) you must do what it takes to keep her. Before he knows it, a man finds himself more dependent on his wife than he ever could have dreamed. That’s how a good wife is — resourceful and diligent and, to quote Proverbs 31, “her price is far above rubies.” When I was 16, my mother died, and I never imagined my father could cry so hard. To see a strong man cry that way made a profound impression on me and, for all my insuperable arrogance, I’m sure I would be nothing without my wife.

Knowing what I know, as a matter of direct experience, I have never understood feminism’s attacks on marriage as “slavery,” and their claim that women are “dominated” and “controlled” by their husbands. My wife is much better at being a wife than I am at being a husband, so maybe I’m just not very competent at this whole “cisheteropatriarchy” business. On the other hand, after 27 years of marriage, we have six children and two grandchildren, and obviously I must have done something right.

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women’s Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.”
— Sheila Cronan, 1970

“The first condition for escaping from forced motherhood and sexual slavery is escape from the patriarchal institution of marriage.”
— Alison M. Jaggar, 1988

“The term motherhood refers to the patriarchal institution . . . that is male-defined and controlled and is deeply oppressive to women.”
— Andrea O’Reilly, 2008

“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
— Amanda Marcotte, March 2014

If I knew nothing else about feminists, their insane hostility to marriage and motherhood would be enough to make me despise feminism. What hope can there be for our nation’s future if feminists achieve their goal of destroying the family, the very fabric of society? Who would want to live in a lunatic nation run by Crazy Cat Ladies? And what kind of men would support this destructive madness? Certainly not good men.

Don’t be a male feminist. Nobody likes male feminists.





 

 


Category: Sex Trouble

Comments

35 Responses to “‘Male Feminist’? Don’t Waste Your Time”

  1. TheOtherAndrewB
    May 12th, 2016 @ 11:27 am

    Being a male feminist strikes me as only slightly less foolish than being a cow who is a spokesman for the Atkins Diet.

  2. Quartermaster
    May 12th, 2016 @ 11:33 am

    That would work. The cow would simply argue that Chicken and Fish are much better sources of protein than any bovine species out there. Far, far better. Chik-Fil-A would appreciate it to.

  3. Steve Skubinna
    May 12th, 2016 @ 11:34 am

    At least you are honest enough to admit that you’re really bad at this patriarchy thing.

    You want some pointers, though, just look at the Arab Muslim world. Now there’s a patriarchy, an honest to God rape culture, where women are not only oppressed but they aren’t fully human. Which is why the feminists openly recognize Islam as not merely anti-woman, but anti-human.

    Heh heh. I crack myself up sometimes.

  4. Steve Skubinna
    May 12th, 2016 @ 11:35 am

    First thing I thought of was those Chik-Fil-A ads with the cows carrying “Eat mor chikn” signs.

  5. Steve Skubinna
    May 12th, 2016 @ 11:38 am

    If cows have the same moral compass as some humans, I can see one saying “Sure you need to eat meat, but not me, I’m all tough and stringy and besides, I think I have an infection. But I know where some tender and tasty cows are, let me show you! In fact, let me go round some up, I can convince them to come right into your corral.”

  6. robertstacymccain
    May 12th, 2016 @ 11:41 am

    Christianity — the Golden Rule, “turn the other cheek,” etc. — has been deliberately maligned the past century or so, and for a reason.

    Marxists saw Christianity as the enemy and, during the Cold War, the Soviets (and their treacherous agents and enablers) understood that Christianity was the core strength of American civilization. Because the United States was the primary obstacle to global Communist domination, all enemies of America were also enemies of Christianity. Thus, the American Left has engaged in a propaganda campaign of vituperative slander against Christianity for many decades.

    Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, of course, the Left is now arguing on behalf of a philosophy (socialism) that is a proven failure, and their hatred of America is simply destructive nihilism.

  7. Bill Befort
    May 12th, 2016 @ 11:42 am

    As a general admirer of your work on feminism, let me just ask: why keep calling it an enemy of Western civilization, when it’s just as much an enemy of Eastern civilization? If there are Northern and Southern civilizations they’d better look out too.

  8. Steve Skubinna
    May 12th, 2016 @ 12:34 pm

    I think there are two reasons why proggies hate Christianity. One is that, as you state, it is one of the bedrocks of Western civilization (I expect even atheists have to admit that).

    Another is, I think, more prosaic. Rules. It has rules and is judgmental, and proggies are all about imposing rules and judgement on others but hate any suggestion that it works both ways. They are self evidently good people and even suggesting that they be held to the same standards as everyone else is HATE!!!!! and OPPRESSION!!!

    There may be a third reason, come to think of it – it’s a safe target. Catholics and Lutherans are not hacking people’s heads off, blowing things up, and abducting children as sex slaves. You want an outlet for your own self loathing and rage, you gonna pick the “turn the other cheek” people or the “cartoonists must die!” ones?

  9. Quartermaster
    May 12th, 2016 @ 1:32 pm

    Some of the signs have Fish saying the same thing. I don’t know if the Fish know the Cows are stabbing them in the back,….er…. Dorsal Fin.

  10. M. Thompson
    May 12th, 2016 @ 1:33 pm

    Because we are in Western Civilization.

  11. Fail Burton
    May 12th, 2016 @ 2:24 pm

    “…the end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally. (A reversion to an unobstructed pansexuality… would probably supersede hetero/homo/bi-sexuality.) The tyranny of the biological family would be broken.”

    “If he (the child) should happen to pick his own genetic mother, there would be no a priori reasons for her to reject his sexual advances, because the incest taboo would have lost its function… Thus, without the incest taboo, adults might return within a few generations to a more natural polymorphous sexuality… Relations with children would include as much genital sex as the child was capable of – probably considerably more than we now believe… Adult/child and homosexual sex taboos would disappear, as well as non-sexual friendships.” – Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex, 1970

  12. CrustyB
    May 12th, 2016 @ 2:52 pm

    Male feminists weren’t raised with enough “Conan” book covers in their youth.

  13. Adobe_Walls
    May 12th, 2016 @ 3:39 pm

    Being a cow spokescritter for the Atkins Diet is noble.

  14. Adobe_Walls
    May 12th, 2016 @ 3:44 pm

    Socialism is just another word for fail.

  15. Adobe_Walls
    May 12th, 2016 @ 3:46 pm

    And ours is or was far superior.

  16. Adobe_Walls
    May 12th, 2016 @ 3:50 pm

    Here’s the problem.

  17. Joe Joe
    May 12th, 2016 @ 3:59 pm

    RSM:

    This is your single most important paragraph:

    “In 1971, a group of feminists approached Ford president McGeorge Bundy with a request to involve itself in the feminist movement the way it had in the Civil Rights movement, essentially, creating it out of whole cloth.”

    The Ford Foundation became a conduit for CIA money in the post WWII period. It’s on record as such and there are academic papers on the subject.

    Now look at the paragraph again: the Civil Rights Movement and Feminism were both “creat[ed] out of whole cloth” by the Ford Foundation–which was a conduit for CIA money.

    Add that to Gloria Steinem working for the CIA:

    It is not far-fetched to describe most of post WW-II “social justice” history as a black-op.

  18. kilo6
    May 12th, 2016 @ 4:01 pm

    Case in point from a recent photo essay by Zombie at PJMedia on an anti-Trump rally.

    https://pajamasmed.hs.llnwd.net/e1/user-content/1/files/2016/05/IMG_3353.jpg

    Zombie captioned this pic with “Most Transparent Attempt to Get Laid” … and quite appropriately IMHO

  19. RS
    May 12th, 2016 @ 4:11 pm

    The entire concept of “The Nefarious Patriarchy,” which is shorthand for “Female Indentured Servitude” proceeds from the false premise that human interactions are zero-sum. That is, the false idea that when one person benefits, another must necessarily be harmed. Of course, such an assumption is ludicrous on its face. For example, why is marriage only slavery as to the female partner? Why not the male who has also presumably given up his freedom and sacrificed his wants and desires in order to support a family? To put it in economic terms, feminists fail to see the hidden costs of marriage to both parties, not to mention failing to see the obvious benefits, as well.

  20. Robert What?
    May 12th, 2016 @ 4:23 pm

    Men become “male feminists” for one primary reason, even if they don’t admit it to themselves: they think it can get them laid. It must work sometimes, otherwise they wouldn’t keep doing it.

  21. Steve Skubinna
    May 12th, 2016 @ 4:26 pm

    Most men think getting laid enhances their status and self respect. Abasing yourself to feminists for a piece does the reverse.

  22. Steve Skubinna
    May 12th, 2016 @ 4:28 pm

    Or Molly Hatchet albums.

  23. Steve Skubinna
    May 12th, 2016 @ 4:33 pm

    Proggies believe that everything is zero sum. I used to think one of their biggest problems was a refusal to understand economics, and their foolish insistence that all economic activity is described in zero sum terms.

    Eventually I realized that they believe the entire universe operates on zero sum principles. Bad enough that Marxists insist on shoehorning every interaction in the Class Struggle narrative, but proggies in general take it further so that all activity works as though life is a box of Legos. If I grab all the window pieces everybody else can only build bunkers. Try explaining that you can construct openings without the specialized pieces and suddenly you are a h8y h8r showering them with aggression. And h8.

  24. Quartermaster
    May 12th, 2016 @ 6:10 pm

    I preferred the Moody Blues.

  25. Quartermaster
    May 12th, 2016 @ 6:11 pm

    I doubt even the fattie behind him was impressed.

  26. Robert What?
    May 12th, 2016 @ 6:47 pm

    You are thinking like a real man. Male feminists don’t think the same way.

  27. Adam
    May 12th, 2016 @ 8:20 pm

    “… Feminists are women who hate men, and men who support feminism do so
    because either (a) they don’t realize feminists hate them, (b) they hate
    themselves, or (c) they think they can be an exception to this hatred …”

    (c) is key here but they use this as the justification for their true motive which is to get laid. They are pure white knights riding to the rescue of their threatened maiden. These femi-men are attempting to get laid under false pretenses because they don’t have the courage to ask a woman out. As far as I’m concerned they deserve each other.

  28. Finrod Felagund
    May 12th, 2016 @ 8:27 pm

    I’m more a Meat Loaf fan than either of those.

  29. JT
    May 12th, 2016 @ 11:10 pm

    RSM, your photo made me very happy. Maybe since I was a young’un when the mullet was rockin’ in it’s heyday.

    I’m curious when and where you met your wife. I don’t know if you’ve told the story before, and I understand if you don’t want to. Not everything needs to be on the Internet.

  30. DeadMessenger
    May 13th, 2016 @ 8:45 am

    “the socialization of women to feel that male sexual ‘drive’ amounts to a right.”

    Now, imagine if these feminists, many, if not most, of whom are lesbians, encountered a situation where someone tried to infringe upon their desire to do – whatever it is they do to each other – then oh man, they’d be screaming about their “civil ‘rights'”.

    As with all other things, it’s perfectly fine, and even mandatory, when they want to do it, but if someone else wants to, it’s inappropriate “socialization”. Nice.

  31. DeadMessenger
    May 13th, 2016 @ 9:43 am

    “…Women’s Studies programs that enroll some 90,000 students annually…”

    Not sure the market can handle that many new baristas and “sandwich artists” a year.

  32. The Sanity Inspector
    May 13th, 2016 @ 10:28 am

    I suspect that many feminists consider marriage to be slavery because they honestly can’t perceive the difference between a nest and a cage.

  33. DeadMessenger
    May 13th, 2016 @ 11:43 am

    That’s sickeningly messed up. Then again, we’re looking at the words of an inarguably mentally ill person. That those words are taught to children as if they have some sort of factual basis is what is really messed up.

  34. DeadMessenger
    May 13th, 2016 @ 11:45 am

    Or rainbow op.

  35. ubik
    May 16th, 2016 @ 10:32 pm

    I am a male heteronormative. I believe in passing my genes on to the next generation. My side will win. Pass your genes on and make the world yours.
    Lesbo feminists?
    Not seeing that go on for long.

    PS White, too, so, yeah, totally wanting NEuro genes to rule the world. Worked so far, yo!