Robert Crayle asked:
“To ask a question…why would anyone who “genuinely” thinks they’re under attack from the “other”, that they’re persecuting, harming, even murdering the “in-group” also think that something so inane, so puerile as asking them to stop is the most effective strategy? I don’t think employed feminists or traditionalists (of the western variety) actually believe their bull – they just use the hordes of true ideological believers to hide the truth from themselves, as well as build up a sense of contempt towards those true believers. My question is, why would anyone else actually believe this – and so blindly too?”
Their narrative is incoherent, but it is so emotionally satisfying that they can’t stand to have it questioned in any way. That narrative is so central to their self-concept that it feels like an attack to hear it questioned.
This is exactly where tradcon men were in the mid-60s, having their sexual identity examined and denounced by privileged women – and let’s face it, all vanguards and social reformers come from privilege, even the ones whose revolutions turn out to actually benefit society too. These were men who had grown up under the control of women, naturally, so they were used to bowing to this kind of scrutiny. So the tactic worked.
When a man of that era quibbled with this, he was branded a sexist pig, a Neanderthal that just wanated to keep women in the kitchen and a whole barrage of other shaming language. And even now, when the MRM comes along and argues for full gender equality by way of denouncing inequalities in the family law and family law systems, denouncing disparities incarceration and the reluctance of law enforcement to charge women when they attack and injure men, to denounce gender bias in the educational system, to denounce double standards in the way female-on-male rape is handled by law enforcement and in the courts, to denounce rape hysteria, and to denounce male disposability in society in general – what is the response from feminsts? Infamy! MISOGYNY! Aaaaagggghhh!!!!
This call for equality is so painful because it confronts hypoagency, specifically the form of hypoagency in which women are the Designated Victims of society. Anything that questions women’s position as the ultimate victims in every situation throws these people’s gender identity into question. And that hurts deeply.
So whenever any harm to men is brought up, these people have to spin it so that somehow some way women have it worse:
Do men and boys commit suicide at four or five times the rate girls and women do? Well, well….girls and women attempt suicide more than men and boys do.
Are men sent off to die and be maimed in wars for the benefit of society, women included? Well, that’s not as bad as being considered too frail to be sent off to die. (By the way, how is that supposed to work? How does being too frail drive that? Why wouldn’t a society send off the weaklings? There has to be some other reason for not sending them off. But oh no….) Besides, women are the real victims in way anyway.
Are men raped and then laughed at? Well, it’s worse for a woman to be raped (because after all the demasculinatization of being raped is always so much harder on a woman). And besides, is it really rape? How could it be, when she is so much smaller and weaker, and besides he should be grateful anyway that the Wondrous Vagina has been bestowed on him and what’s wrong with him, is he, you know, gay? He didn’t want sex with that woman? He just hates the Vagina! Misogynist!!
Do men have shorter lifespans and worse health outcomes than women? Well, they are just weaker, that’s all! (Never mind that when woman had the shorter lifespans and bad health outcomes, society spent a century turning childbirth from a crapshoot with death into what looks like a perfectly natural and safe process.)
Are men judged solely by what they accomplish, so they put in longer work hours, forego time with their children, to the point that they even commit suicide for the insurance money if that’s the only path they see to make themseleves useful? Well, that’s just the glass ceiling? Don’t you see how that all discriminates against women? Don’t you??!!??
Well now it’s women’s turn to have their gender role held up to the same scrutiny as men’s was. What they see as an inherent right they hold by virtue of being female, the MRM is denouncing as female privilege. Feminsts, it turns out, denounce all the same things as benevolent sexism. If they really thought they were so bad, they would launching their very effective activist resources against all these forms of inequality. That would show they were sincere. But what do they actually do?
They denounce them on the one side and then insist of retaining those privileges on the other and cry “misogyny” if they are questioned.
They decry men white knighting them and then demand to know why men don’t have patrols out so that women can go anywhere they want at any hour in perfect safety, a safety no man enjoys.
They say that gender is merely a construct. But then when people “constructed as feminine” display psychological traits that maladapt them to study and work in tech fields, rather than examining these maladaptive aspects of that particular form of femininity, they call for massive societal efforts to get the tech fields to accomodate that maladaptive form of femininity.
They denounce all this benevolent sexism, this female privilege, on the one side and then insist on retaining those privileges on the other and cry “misogyny” if they are questioned.
And that has been the response from most feminists, a lot of other women, and a lot of men, to this scrutiny of the traditional female role and female privilege. Equality is misogyny.
- The Woman Card - May 2, 2016
- Frat boy bachelorettes and the invasion of gay bars - April 15, 2016
- “Not my kid….” - February 22, 2016
That’s so right on, man. You said it all.
Of course, feminists argue that gender is purely a social construct when it suits them – and then go and pay lip service to the plight of the trans* community right after, with a straight face.
News flash: if gender were purely a social construct, rather than created by hormonal conditions in the womb, like sex, then only poor parenting (or a very niche fetish) would cause a trans* condition. You know who use those arguments? Tradcon fundies.
“Well, well….girls and women attempt suicide more than men and boys do.”
They don’t, though. There’s no evidence of this. It’s an urban legend.
Nicely done! A nice piece on the disconnect between feminist actions and their words. They may claim to be about equality-but their behavior says otherwise.
@The Real Peterman
As far as I know you are correct. I have yet to find or be directed to the original source citation supporting the “women attempt suicide more” claim.
Peterman, I also have never seen any documentation for that claim. i suspect its an exmaple of the Designated Victim.If anything is bad, it has to be worse for women.
>feminists argue that gender is purely a social construct when it suits them – and then go and pay lip service to the plight of the trans* community right after, with a straight face.
It’s worth noting that the ‘transgender’ label does not just cover FtMs and MtFs, but also those who reject the concept of gender, such as genderqueer.
Also “feminists argue” is a bit extreme when talking about an absolute. Some feminists probably instead take a more conservative and realistic stance of gender being partially (rather than wholly) a social construct.
>if gender were purely a social construct, rather than created by hormonal conditions in the womb, like sex, then only poor parenting (or a very niche fetish) would cause a trans* condition
I don’t agree, even if gender identity were purely social in nature (and even if it’s not purely, it could easily be mostly) it would not mean that someone with a MtF or FtM condition was ‘poorly’ parented. It could simply mean they were unusually parented. Raising a boy as a girl or a girl as a boy is not inherently bad parenting. Social construction is also more complicated than parenting and has to do with the processing of media and interaction with peer groups, which could also be a contributor.
I dislike this tendency of people to willfully misinterpret a phrase like “feminists argue…” to mean “all feminists argue…” If I say something like “Cats are more aloof than dogs”, nobody bats an eye. They know I’m generalizing, making no attempt to account for exceptions but certainly not saying they don’t exist. And yet the moment anybody uses the word “feminist” without an explicitly mitigating qualifier like “some”, someone inevitably comes along to say that in fact there are feminists who do not do that. We know; the sentence as formulated does not exclude that possibility. It is not an absolute.
“Actually, I’ve known many housecats that are very friendly…”
“Also “feminists argue” is a bit extreme when talking about an absolute”
I think this is just an ambiguity in English grammar. When you use a plural Englsih does not require you to specify grammatically if you mean all or only some of the group your plural is referring. some languages do require this, one or more of the languages on Fiji, I think; English isn’t one of them.
Speaking of that region, your comment:
“Raising a boy as a girl or a girl as a boy is not inherently bad parenting. ”
puts me in mind of the fa’afafine in Samoan society.