(This is the Evergreen Forest…)
This is the first I’ve heard of “not all men are like that” being a cliched – even flawed -argument. I assumed it was just considered an obvious truth, written into the margins of moderate feminist thought. Well, it used to be. It became the few good men, it got whittled down to the one good man, and this is it being pushed out altogether. All men are totally like that. You can say it now.
But of course, we know what it really is. It’s a reflection that deliberately follows “Not All Feminists Are Like That” – an expression so common it’s an acronym. NAFALT.
An ideologue’s first line of defense is to contort and erase their memory. But there has to come a time – even for the most fragmented, Jefferson-Bibled of memory banks – to STFU with NAFALT. The fact that this many people know immediately what the phrase “STFU with NAFALT” means, should tell you how comprehensively washed out this argument now is.
What do they do when the erase/rewind tactic finally fails? The second line of defense of course. Projection. Usually of the very thing they just erased.
Eventually the response to the comprehensive refutation of NAFALT (and maybe I’m getting the chronology screwy here, but time is meaningless in a Jeffersoned Memory anyway) … is to create an equivalent cliche out of little more than thin air. I say equivalent, but to sarcastically debunk the claim “not all men are like that” is many crucial steps more insane and bigoted than sarcastically debunking the claim “not all feminists are like that.” The latter is intellectually chosen, the former is very much not. So unless we’re talking nuts and bolts, we’re only talking ideology. And there’s only one of those here.
To be fair, NAWALT seems on its way to achieving acronym cliche status within the Manosphere. But I’ve seldom heard an attempt to fully debunk the claim, sarcastically or otherwise. The point of rebutting NAWALT – when we strip it – is there are many things all women are *legally permitted* to be like, whether they wish to be or not. Good luck finding anything that only men are legally allowed to choose to be like. North and west of the Mediterranean, please.
The feminism game so often seems to go… “Everything you say about feminists, we’ll say about men.” They do this all the time, at every magnification of discourse. On the micro scale it happens. If you make a wry observation or a good point in an argument, they just play the “NO U” card.
“It’s not right to hit women.”
‘…Then who IS it right to hit?’
“…Wh…. it… [Pause, crankity-crank.] It’s not right to hit anyone! Why would you say that?”
(You’ve probably all experienced your version of that by now.)
“Chinese girls are killed just for being girls”
‘Men and boys throughout history have been subject to genocide just for being male.’
“And who was it killing them? Men.”
‘Many of those Chinese girls are killed by their mothers. So screw them, right? Internal conflict, why should we help?’
“Wh… [Pause. Deep crimson fog sets in, to hide the crankity-crank.) Well they’re doing it because men like you tell them to! Misogynist!”
(I’d recommend catching the facial expression if you ever get this one in live.)
This all works in their heads because they’re thinking “An intelligent point? Well that must be something that only works for my side. Gimme that!” Even though it totally doesn’t work for their side, they just jam a circle into a square, and say “Behold my circle!”
It happened on a larger, twistier scale recently. It started in Sweden last year. (As is the story of so many feminist skullduggeries.) Women decided men were taking up too much space on the train. Especially those slouchy men, those oafs who think they can just fall asleep on the train because they’re so… what, exhausted or something?
So they began internet campaigns (tumblrs, facebook groups, the lot) calling for people to take pictures of men on the train *without their permission* and catalog them on the internet to… well, to arbitrarily shame their gender. You know the score. It spreads unchallenged like deep crimson fog as these things do, and makes it to London…
Men, (in this case the London Protomen, as I like to call us, whoever you are and wherever you are out there) feeling the need to conjure some response to this mass, unchallenged shaming (and having a sense of humor about these things) held up a reasoned, non-violent mirror to it all, and did this:
The same sort of format took off, but with pictures of women eating on the train. Taken by men trying to make a point. I don’t even know if it’s true that women eat on the train more often than men, that’s not the point. Nothing is. It’s arbitrary. That’s the point.
Do you suppose the social justice warriors got the point? Well. What do you suppose makes it into the news?
Yup. Women are pushing back against sexism by eating on the train and celebrating it.
Point amply made and then thrown off the cliff of collective thought.
The misandric bullshit that started this all becomes nothing but a defenestrated memory at the bottom of a cliff with a cactus in its ass. And now the story is: “Misogyny out of the blue! P-P-P-PATRIARCHY!”
You must understand. I’m a comedian. And this is a comedian’s worst nightmare: A heckler who not only doesn’t get the comeback, but the comeback soars over their head, bounces off the sound board like a racketball and cracks them in the back of the head, and when they awaken from the coma they think they’re Jesus and they get everyone to throw chairs at you.
And then the larger scale occurred to me. Not only do feminists usurp and flip every smart idea MRAs come up with (and every observation they make about feminists)…. it might very well be the only thing they do.
Or have ever done.
Maybe, just maybe… (completely in tin foil hat land now, but why not eh) feminism only came to exist because some people came up with the MRM (or something like it) to try and explain what’s going on, but some early incarnation of feminists stole it and flipped it against men, to try and…. well, to get free shit I suppose. Standpoint theory, for example. Could easily be some kind of flipped hypothesis. Men have to provide for themselves AND the women, thus living the experience of both, and so on. Feminists went “We’ll take that, thank you very much! And a tweak here and snip there, and it’s “Women are helplessly oppressed by men, thus living the experience of both and so on.”
(No, I haven’t read up on it much. Tin foil hat land, doesn’t matter.)
Maybe the MRM has been there, for the best part of a century, coming up with all these ideas in an attempt to succinctly and immersively reveal the truth, while feminists have been watching from the sidelines, stealing every idea, flipping it over and then claiming (nay, convincing themselves) that they came up with it. Indeed, most of the time all they had to do was make grand, bigoted, misandric gestures and then wait for someone to think of an intelligent response. Then steal the valor, flip the narrative, erase the memory.
And it worked. Over and over again. Because of this shtoopid wiring we’ve got, we just trust women more. Everything the MRM did, every theory, every explanation, could only get fast-tracked through the feminist bog of eternal stench quicker than it could possibly get through to the men (and indeed women) who need to hear it in its original form. The MRM had two choices – Either keep fueling the fire, or give up.
That was, until……
(Which is to say, “Life would be simple in the forest except for….”)
…The Honey Badgers.
(Sort of… imagine it’s them saying it. The actual them. Right up against the microphone, bit of distortion, some reverb. Picture the sound. Vwhoohm.)