How to not appear as stupid as you do. A guide for feminists.
I must preface this guide with a bit of history: I did not begin to self-identify as a men’s rights activist with the intention of attacking our culture’s populist gender ideology. In fact, my writing as an M(H)RA evolved out the maintenance of a now dead political blog I began in 2006 to vent my spleen over the apparent insanity of the public political establishment in North America. What mainstream politicians were saying and doing was then, and remains now, so sharply inconsistent that I began looking for alternative motivations for the apparent insanity. In fact, although I was not any kind of feminist, I regarded feminism as simply an ideology I wasn’t interested in.
However, after I began writing about human rights issues impacting men, I met feminism’s activist face. It was enlightening. In fact, it became obvious to me that before the real work towards human rights for men can really be accomplished, the gender ideologues in direct opposition to human rights would have to be addressed.
Professor Janice Fiamengo, who presented a public lecture on modern feminism at the University of Toronto in March 2013, opened her discussion with the following description:
“Academic feminism, as it is practiced and disseminated in our universities, is overwhelmingly intellectually empty, incoherent, and dishonest.”
I’d call Fiamengo’s comment a good start, but not sufficient. Modern feminism is intellectually empty, incoherent, dishonest, violent, hateful and morally bankrupt. It is a sick, authoritarian cult of hatred and violence, and of sanctified victimhood.
In fact, in almost every instance of men or men’s advocates addressing human rights concerns impacting men and boys, the activist proponents of feminism have shown up to silence and disrupt any such male human rights advocacy. But in effect, rather than effectively silencing views other than their own, activist feminists have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be violent, sadistic, amoral, supremacist, and bigoted totalitarian thugs.
Activist gender ideologues have done such a thorough job of monstering themselves that I am now writing this to prevent further self-harm on their part – or such is my hope.
What follows is a list of often repeated behaviours and expressed positions by gender ideologues, along with commentary and suggested alternative tactics. The goal for feminists following the provided advice in this article will be to appear less stupid, less amoral, less sadistic, less petty, and importantly, to appear more adult than they do at present.
Travelling in a large group, wearing masks, carrying weapons, vandalizing private property, and attempting to physically intimidate anyone not in your gang – does this sound familiar to anyone?
It should, as it’s a standard trope used in crime action drama films in the 1960’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s – the bad guys wear masks, commit vandalism, and harass and threaten anyone not in the gang. It’s how a lazy script writer establishes a group as enemies, criminals and general villains.
Oh yeah, it’s also what academic and activist feminists have demonstrated as their preferred response to anyone speaking publicly on gender issues from a non-feminist perspective. In Vancouver the weapons were box cutters, in Toronto they were bludgeons. And an armed angry mob, screaming through megaphones and physically threatening anyone who tried to speak? Yes, that was the tactic on display, and even the mainstream media got it on video, then broadcast it with the commentary: ”shameful”.
Are feminists trying to model themselves on the criminals of popular cinema? Or are they just too stupid to help themselves?
Western culture has a long-standing and important framework for the evaluation of ideas: public discourse and debate. When faced with a nonconforming viewpoint, isn’t it time for feminists to pick up the mantle and actually field an argument more substantive that thought-stopping clichés or threats and empty accusations? Or maybe they think intelligent debate is just too patriarchal for their tastes?
Rather than continuing to maintain a public image of themselves as sadistic and arguably sociopathic, the laughing and jeering at the rate of male suicide is probably something feminists may want to alter in their public behaviour.
Or, laughing and jeering in the face of the rate of male workplace death, or anti-male bias in the family courts, or homelessness, or male infant sexual mutilation, or education – or any of the other major issues addressed by the men’s human rights movement.
You see, feminists, what I’m about to explain to you (“man-splain”, if you prefer) is something everybody except you already knows. The behaviours of yours I’ve just catalogued in the previous paragraph are those of amoral sociopaths. That you, feminists, have an established pattern of such behavior in public says that you either ARE amoral sociopaths, or that you wish to project that public image. You’ve certainly convinced me, along with at least a major fraction of the men’s rights movement. In fact, if feminists do manage to convince the public that their public behavior – that a violent, amoral sociopathy represents your ideology’s character – then that will be the end of you. Well, unless through sheer brutal force, feminism can colonize the minds and thoughts of every culture and sub-culture on the planet: remake the non-violent into the violent; the loving into the hateful; the will to freedom into your authoritarian impulse.
On the other hand, when faced with the suffering and death of others, mockery is how an individual or a group demonstrates that those being laughed at are not human. That they do not merit the basic compassion of other human beings. This is both a signal to observers that the target group can be brutalized with impunity, and as a reassurance that brutality done to the members of that group by those engaging in the mockery of suffering is acceptable, and not – as would otherwise be the case, monstrous or depraved.
And feminists, you are losing control of the narrative, and the vicious, sadistic and amoral character of your movement is increasingly and glaringly obvious. You might just want to check yourselves in a mirror, dummies.
Unless I’m greatly mistaken, and indeed, feminists want to cement their reputation as sexist bigots, then one item of feminist rhetoric really should be reconsidered, or entirely abandoned. This is use of the word “mansplain” to silence and derail anyone else’s expressed opinion.
Opinions, arguments or explanations depend for their validity on being from the right people, right? That is to say, an explanation becomes invalid and void if it is expressed by a member of the wrong demographic: men, for example. Thus, the shorthand for dismissing an opinion or argument, based on the sexual identity of the speaker: mansplain.
If gender ideologues are ever in need of a better, more convincing demonstration of their own sexist bigotry, they will have to work hard to find it. Or, assuming you, the reader, are one such feminist – have I got it all wrong? Does mansplaining have some other reading, besides “your opinion is invalid because of your sex”? Go on, explain to me, and to everybody else, how I got this one wrong.
Oh, silly me, I already covered this earlier. Maybe gender ideologues think intelligent, reasoned dialogue and debate is just too “patriarchal”.
One practice I’d recommend gender ideologues discontinue is that of minimizing, excusing or making light of harm done to male infants in routine ritual genital mutilation.
Hundreds of male infants die every year in the United States from the trauma, blood loss and resulting medical complications following routine, ritual genital mutilation. Apologists for the sexual mutilation of infants have no problem correctly identifying the sexual mutilation of female infants as MUTILATION, but when the victims are male – the much more acceptable, sanitized and politically correct term CIRCUMCISION is used to disguise the mutilation of a newborn infant.
Compounding this monstrosity, the harvested fibroblasts from these mutilated children are used, among other places to produce better, more effective wrinkle cream for post-menopausal members of the leisure caste.
In a feminist culture, mutilating our own infants is only objectionable when those infants are girls, apparently.
But to those feminists still excusing and minimizing this savage brutalization of newborns, for those who can see clearly past the thought-smogging influence of ideology: “circumcision apologists” look exactly like child-mutilating monsters.
In order to alter the now well-established public perception of gender ideologues that they are depraved, willful and hateful bigots, they might want to discontinue their use the word “rape” to refer exclusively to the female victims of that crime.
“men can stop rape”, “teach men to not rape”, and “rape culture” are just a few iterations of the boringly predictable repetition of “rape” as an item of gender ideological rhetoric. However, glaring in almost all such pronouncements is an assumption that rape is a crime in which one sex are perpetrators and the other sex are victims. This is the narrative, and it’s false. Does the “rape” of feminist rhetoric include the sexual abuse of children by their female caretakers and teachers? Does it include the institutional and systematic support of rape in prison? When feminists talk about “rape culture”, are they ever referring to boys being victims? Of course not, because “rape” in the reality of gender ideologues is only vaguely connected to actual criminal victimization. It is mainly a story element in our culture’s feminist driven threat narrative. The victims are female, the perpetrators are male, and the dictionary is used to define men and boys victimized by that crime as winners on a game show. In other words, unless a victim is a member of the correct sexual caste, they are defined out of existence.
If it isn’t obvious by this point, the use of terms like “contemptibly corrupt”, “vile” and “vicious” will probably throw no additional light on the character of feminist ideology.
To appear less like amoral sociopaths, feminists might also reconsider the continued use of rhetoric in apparent opposition to violence, but with a limiting clause, restricting concern to the least-impacted demographic.
“Stop violence against women” is the most prevalent example of this, and it’s a phrase with a few different interpretations. One recent poster campaign in Canada included this phrase, along with the further limit that in particular, men should attend to the imperative. Men who, just as a matter of reality, constitute the majority of the victims of violence in society. But the call isn’t to stop violence against them, or even, to just generally stop violence within society. Nope, only violence against women is of concern. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius: The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.
Again, if the character of this ideology is not already obvious, explicit description likely won’t help.
Avoid the continued practice and reliance on censorship. It is the signature move of fascists. Now, just as a reminder, the items in this list are provided as examples, for feminists, of what not to continue doing, in order to appear less stupid, less amoral, less violent, and less vile than they do at present.
We’re almost done here. Just one more thing for feminists to do a bit less of, in order to not look like amoral cretins: excuse violence done against boys and men, or excuse violence done by girls and women.
Now, before addressing the commonplace ideation of violence in feminist rhetoric, I’ll note that this list contained 17 items before being edited for brevity and simplicity. And, although 17 was too many for a single article, I could easily have listed 40 or 50 common practices of feminists to avoid in order to appear less stupid. But such a list would be too long to wade through for most readers. Certainly, even the 8 items remaining in this list are taxing. Not necessarily to readers, but to me as I compiled the list. Stupidity, hatred, violence and publicly accepted sociopathy tire me.
But returning to violence. The problem with excusing violence done to boys and men, in the same public ethic where violence targeting women is condemned, is that the character of violence in a culture doesn’t change based on whose bodies and minds are brutalized. Which demographic takes a beating certainly matters in very direct terms to the members of that brutalized demographic, but everyone else is also submerged in a culture of violence. If we are to pretend violence against only one group is forbidden, then we are all excusing and indeed, promoting the continuation of violence against everyone.
End violence against women? Jesus fuck, how fucking stupid do we all pretend we are here? And feminists, if you really want to pretend to be anything except a violent cult of hatred and brutality, this item should be on the top of your list of immediate problems to fix within your own sick cult.
Of course, these are just a few examples – provided here, I hope, as a guide for gender ideologues and feminists. By following the advice provided in this short discussion, feminists can work towards appearing less stupid, less amoral, and less sadistic, and presenting as not so violent and sociopathic as they are now perceived. After all, we don’t want anyone to get the wrong impression, do we?
And, of course, I thank you all for your kind attention.