You wot matriarch? A response to feminist territorial pressuring - HBR Talk 85

 

We hear all the time from feminists that the high rate of suicide among men and boys is a result of their being unable to talk about their problems, a factor that feminists call an aspect of so-called toxic masculinity, which they claim to oppose in the name of gender equality. You know… equal consideration for men as human beings, right? 

So what happens when guys speak up about problems feminists don’t want to address? Can they talk about the profound gender inequality in resources and legal recourse for victims of intimate partner and sexual violence, which excludes male victims - especially those targeted by female perpetrators - from consideration? How about gender bias in family court? The steady decline in boys’ educational outcomes? The civil right of due process?

Oh, hell no. In the victim identity cult, men aren’t allowed to have their own issues and interests. They’re expected to accept being nothing but accessories to women’s interests and experiences, with no autonomy, no compassion, and no consideration… but 100% of the responsibility. Everything is declared female territory, with feminists appointed the arbiters and administrators of all of it, their justification being the female victim identity. And you can’t have a victim identity without a villain class, now can you? Guess who has been elected to play that role! Why, that’d be men, whose only out, according to the victim identity cult, is to play the repentant hero role, victim of toxic masculinity whose redemption is achieved by hating and condemning other men.

The cult hates and fears the men’s rights movement out of an inability to understand how men can address the disadvantages they face without making “victim” their whole identity, with women in the role of “villain.” The moment men begin to speak up for themselves, they’re demonized as hateful, selfish brutes with dastardly motivations, all centered around misogyny. 

For decades, men advocating for their human rights have weathered these bitter attacks and continued to stand up and speak out, as well they should, because they’re right. Just as being female is not a valid reason why anyone should be excluded from human rights considerations, neither is being male, no matter how badly feminists want to reserve those considerations exclusively for women. 

It’s that attitude of exclusivity that drives feminist criticism of the men’s movement. It shows in their reasoning, wherein they label any consideration for men “misogyny,” and use castigation and redirection to female victim narratives to avoid the issues. Rather than address anything that men advocating for their rights actually do or say, they accuse MRAs of everything from attitudes of entitlement to violent impulses and malicious intent, all the while using women as a combination weapon and shield.

In women’s name, these shrieking harpies have shouted men down through an entire century of perversion of law and policy, including outright attacks on family unity, due process rights, workplace environments, and equal access to public education. In women’s name, they’ve disparaged masculinity, spit on chivalry, and shown utter contempt for men’s role in developing, building, and maintaining modern civilization and all of its conveniences. In women’s name, they rain torrents of venom down over the very backs upon which their sense of entitlement stands.  

Of course, they never even asked for women’s consent. They really don’t like admitting there are women who refuse to cooperate. They’ve tried ignoring us, denying that we exist, and accusing us of being “men hiding behind female profiles.” They’ve tried debt-shaming us into compliance, citing their own beliefs about history in their demands for our loyalty to the victim identity cult. Confused by our rejection of that identity, they’ve presumed us victims of our colleagues in the movement, diagnosing us with “internalized misogyny” and Stockholm syndrome, as though the movement had kidnapped and held us hostage. 

When none of that works, their response is to condemn us for the egregious crime of association with disapproved men, using labels like “gender traitor” and “pickme.” Know what a pickme is? It’s a woman who is interested in relationships with men and just hasn’t found one to settle down with yet. In other words, it’s a slur based on treating heterosexual interest in men as something for women to be ashamed of.

They publish propaganda pieces with titles like “the women of the men’s rights movement,” that start out mentioning some women and paying lip service to an issue or two, then quickly descend into condemnation of the movement’s male leadership using the same, tired spin as always… guilt by association with a strawman. That’s right guys… the majority of feminist arguments against female MRAs involve attempts to use us as a tool to further demonize you. 

A few things are made very clear by this pattern. One is that hating and fearing men is far more central to feminist ideology than so-called “nice” feminists are willing to admit. The other is that feminists think their movement owns and is entitled to control women by right of sisterhood and virtue of the victim identity. They fully expect to exercise that control through social coercion, and in particular, threat of being ousted from The Sisterhood, and any women who try to buck their authority, feminists will attempt to smack down, drag down, or draft into their stable of proxy victims to be aimed and fired into the political discourse as needed. They’re completely unwilling to take “no” for an answer… and because of that, there’s something else they really need to hear.

My dear panic-farming feminist ideologues… you simply do not understand the women of the men’s rights movement. 

You’re not going to get control of our interests and attitudes by claiming ownership of an entire sex. That makes you look petty and sophomoric. You look especially stupid trying to use expectations gender loyalty to demand that we side with you against male MRAs in conflict over legislation and policy changes. Our interest in the movement isn’t determined by what does or does not benefit women. It’s about taking gender out of administrative approaches to human rights and adult accountability. Where do you get off expecting us to help you use our sex as a weapon against our fellow human beings? You can shove your divine sisterhood just as far as you can wedge it up into that special place where your shared ideas are stored.

We’re not going to bond with you over your tales of feminine woe and dread. Your prejudices do not make us afraid of men. Tales from the hipster crypt don’t outweigh everything we’ve read, or erase the flaws in the research you’re citing in your arguments. These things cannot eclipse the character of the men we work with, hang out with, live with, and love. I bet there’s some room right in the middle of your spacious idea-repository for that crippling victim identity. If you’re having trouble stashing it, we’ll be happy to give it a kick.

Don’t expect us to fear becoming the targets of your poison pen, either. There isn’t a lie you’re going to tell that’s so uniquely nasty or hateful that we haven’t already heard it. Unless you’re threatening to bore us to death, the prospect of a hit piece is just too old-hat to be intimidating.

Nor will you get control of our advocacy by lying about our male colleagues. That narrative only exposes your low opinion of women, that you think we’d be gullible enough to change our view of the men we work with every day because you publicly slandered their activism. Are you really dumb enough to think we’d fall for that crap? You think we’d forget that we know these guys, that their history is our history? Did you really expect us to be shocked and scandalized because sometimes their objections to adverse conditions affecting men and boys would be passionate, raw, and fiercely, even bitterly worded? You obviously haven’t read anything we’ve written. 

You’re not going to find much sympathy among us when you demand that any expression of indignation over even the most outrageous and cruel conditions affecting men and boys should be censored to appeal to your fragile sensibilities. You’re playing that violin to the wrong crowd, darling.
Put it away. 

And stockholm syndrome? Internalized misogyny? 

Really? You want to try prying us out of the men’s rights movement by labeling us victims of it?

You’re making a mistake in assuming female MRAs got involved to soften or filter the movement, as accessories of it, or by anyone’s choice other than our own. You don’t know us if you think the kind of attention we get is either a goal or a problem for us. We’re here to do what we consider necessary and right, and our conflict with feminism exists because you’re wrong about pretty much everything, in the most damaging way you could have come up with. You can’t poison us with your victim narrative because we’re the antidote to it.

And you nitwits think you can weaponize us against our colleagues and our friends? How can you possibly be so dense and so cheeky at the same time? Maybe you can get back to us for a real conversation when you have grown up a bit. You can start by learning to recognize men as human beings, and go from there. Until then, boundless quantities of fornication upon you, as well as the equine companions upon which you traveled hence, you fetid, oozing pustules on the very gateway to your arsenal of theories! Stop biting at our ankles and go tend to your safe spaces or something, before they blow away on the edge of the next light breeze. 

Does that clarify things a bit for you, milady?

Tier Benefits
Recent Posts