Have you noticed how much hatred feminists direct at MGTOW guys? Is it just because they can’t be bothered to distinguish between PUAs, MRAs, and MGTOW, or is there more to it? I think there is. I think if we look at feminism’s record on gay men, the Ultimate MGTOW, we can see what’s really going on.
A while ago I found out about the Redstockings, a radical feminist group founded in the late 1960s. They had a nasty streak of man-hating gay-bashing and it wasn’t incidental—it flowed from their basic premises. So maybe all their good was really no good at all. And they were not some fringe group and they were not the only feminists of their period to use gay-bashing rhetoric and weave man-hating and gay-bashing principles into their work. It turns out all kinds of very prominent feminists in the late 1960s and early 1970s went in for this kind of bigotry.
John Lauritsen gave a talk in 1976 that lays this all out in great detail. He cites a widespread pattern of vilification of gay men and gay organizations by feminists of that time. Feminists conducted a campaign of disrupting gay events and undermining gay organizations. As they say, read the whole thing. It is a very ugly history. If you have never heard about it in your courses in women’s studies, go back and ask why. Bring back the answers; I bet they will be hilarious.
Here he quotes Carol Hanisch, where she explicitly enunciates the homophobic claim that male homosexuality and male separatism are misogynist. Oh, that’s it! It’s all about the wimminz!
Men’s liberationists always bring up “confronting their own feelings about men” by which they mean homosexuality. Male homosexuality is an extension of the reactionary club (meaning both group and weapon). The growth of gay liberation carries contempt for women to the ultimate: total segregation. The desire of men to “explore their homosexuality” really means encouraging the possibility of homosexuality as a reaction against feminist demands. This is the reason the movement for “gay rights” received much more support only after women’s liberation became a mass movement.
There it is: men ignoring women is contempt. Even when we do nothing, we are guilty of harming women because we owe them attention and it is violence when we “deprive” them of it. Talk about a rape culture—they are entitled to our sexual attention.
So men have a duty to have sex with women and not with men. That is rape culture, and it is feminists demanding it. Oh, and forced heterosexuality for men. Can you see the difference between these people and Sarah Palin or Rick Santorum? Me neither.
Or maybe there’s no intention of there being any sex—men are just supposed to marry and support women—because they “deserve” it, like all the advertising is constantly telling us. Female privilege much?
Lauritsen gives Kate Millett—author of Sexual Politics and, ironically, a lesbian separatist—special attention for her hatred of male relationships. She comes across as both stupid and dishonest. For instance, she equates homosexuality and Nazism, which is an especially obscene piece of stupidity in view of the actual history and a transparent piece of dishonesty in view of how well-known that history is.
He also details these feminists’ hatred of drag queens. That hatred came as no surprise either.
This bigotry is not some little splinter thing in feminism. It is foundational. Millett’s Sexual Politics was seminal to the movement, and Hanisch was a founding member of the radical wing of the movement. She edited the Redstockings Collective’s book Feminist Revolution and coined the phrase “the personal is political.” These were not marginal people or marginal views. It’s no good whining how feminism is not a monolith when every pebble of it shares this theoretical underpinning.
Speaking of the Redstockings, we are going to look at their manifesto in the next post on this subject. Even if you have never read it or even heard of it, none of it will be unfamiliar. You see it in every feminist space on the net and you hear it in every gender studies class.
Lauritsen says it best:
We must recognize our enemies wherever we find them. Nobody’s ideas and nobody’s actions should be exempted from criticism.
Gay men in solidarity with feminists against hetero men? That may be attractive to someone coming out of high school and all that trauma, but alliances with people who despise you are just sick.
- The Woman Card - May 2, 2016
- Frat boy bachelorettes and the invasion of gay bars - April 15, 2016
- “Not my kid….” - February 22, 2016
What this boils down to is the feminist idea that women should control male sexuality.The original idea coming out of first wave feminist circles was that women could not be liberated until they controlled their own sexuality including all aspects of sexual reproduction. This grew into the “right” to abortion as well as no fault divorce. But it also became apparent that women could not take control of their sexuality without taking control of men’s since sexual behavior involves the cooperation of two persons in such a way as that one individual cannot control it. Thus women’s liberation became a quest for control of male sexuality. This was the unspoken central focus of first wave feminism and became the very foundation of second wave feminism. Rape and male homosexual behavior are the two most extreme examples of that lack of control. This is why rape had to be redefined from a sexual act into one of dominance and why masculinity is vilified.
As for the Redstocking Manifesto, I find it strikingly similar to Valerie Solanis’ SCUM Manifesto. I’ll be interested in reading what you have to say about it.
“What this boils down to is the feminist idea that women should control male sexuality.”
Precisely, except it is not only feminist, it’s the traditional female role. Male sexuality is a strategic resource and it “belongs to women.” Controlling male sexuality is how they get men to support the home, especially when they/the culture does everything it can to alienate children from their fathers and raise boys to disengage from child rearing, men’s normal reason to support the home. This same impulse is what drives the shaming of male masturbation.
“Thus women’s liberation became a quest for control of male sexuality.”
‘Cause they’re all revolutionary and transgressive of the traditional gender paradigm like that.
“This was the unspoken central focus of first wave feminism and became the very foundation of second wave feminism.”
1WF moral guardian Church Ladyism became 2WF moral hectoring on Equality became 3WF moral panics on sexual objectification, rape and pornography,
There are some borks in that comment I can’t unfuck.
1. belongs to women > “belongs to women”
2. FWF > 1WF
3. @WF >2WF
4. #WF > 3WF
Cant win…Cant lose cleanly…Cant even quit the twisted feminist game.
Logic is the enemy, and truth a menace….Filed under F for Feminism.
I can remember being very young and getting into fights with my siblings. I would very often want my sister to just shut up and go away (I’m sure most people with siblings can relate), and would often tell her as much. Nothing, however, enraged her more than if I pretended that she had done exactly that – entirely ignored her shrieking, never looked directly at her, pretended I could see through her, even talked to other people as though she had just vanished into thin air. Though it took a little extra self-control to implement, not acknowledging her existence at all was far, FAR more effective at getting her to go away, and far more hurtful to her than overt contempt.
Consider then, that as a homosexual man, I don’t perform any social dance to glorify or gain access to female sexuality; indeed, as far as my personal relationships are concerned femininity, as defined separately from personhood, doesn’t really exist. If overt contempt of someone’s sexuality is bad, then how much worse is it if I don’t care enough to even notice that it’s there? At least a sexual predator still desires elements of female sexuality, even if he just sees it as a meal. Surely that makes me the worst kind of misogynist there could ever be.
It’s precisely this attitude that led me to regretfully answer “I must be” when someone asked me ages ago if I was a misogynist. I’ve since changed my answer to that question, since I still value and respect women as people, but I still understand clearly the thought process that led me there. That was also back when one actually had to put some thought into a word like misogyny, what it meant, and what its connotations were, instead of nowadays when it has become a synonym for “Shut the fuck up”.
I guess it just goes to show how easy it is to think yourself in circles. The trick is thinking yourself out of them.
Where is the post about the Redstockings Manifesto? Was the article completed? I’m a gay man (former feminist) who’s researching homophobia in feminism.
go suck Milo’s littlle dick