By Gorbachev
There’s a lot of talk in the Manosphere about how evil feminism is and that not one drop of Feminist talk can ever be allowed a positive spin. The manosphere often demonizes women, out of resentment at the hypocrisy of feminist ideology, or the refusal of feminism to acknowledge consequences.
For example, many feminist writers (both men and women) refuse to admit that false rape accusations are far more common than they like to think, and that their effects are utterly devastating on the men affected. The lives of countless men are destroyed every year in what amounts to an irrational Moral Panic being cruelly manipulated by selfish individuals – in these cases, women. Male resentment and anger is the inevitable result.
Does this make feminism evil? Or does it tell us that feminists are in willing denial, and are acting out of pure self-interest? We see it as hypocrisy, self-assured righteous indignation and cognitive dissonance, all grounded in narrow, exclusive self-interest exercised at the expense of others. But this is part of basic human nature. It’s not unique to feminism.
The initial goals of feminism weren’t contrary to fundamentally male interests. It’s possible to be pro-equality without being anti-male, or even anti-family. But in this climate of ideological absolutism, it becomes hard to separate reason from rhetoric, and self-interest from the public good.
Liberals and left-leaning feminists are past masters at demonizing their enemies to the point of dismissing every concern they don’t like; anyone who reads the MSM knows this is true. But anti-feminists and the right are guilty of exactly the same tactics, though at the moment the left is ascendant.
Narcissism is the fundamental source. The “Public Good” is rarely a factor on either side.
Feminism is A Trade Union Movement
Like every union, feminism only serves the narrow (perceived) interests of its members.
Teachers’ unions regularly claim to be interested in the “education of students”, but their actual actions and policy demands belie the mostly private nature of their concerns. They rarely focus on raising education standards and making the system and teachers accountable to their students. It’s telling that the only solution to every single problem they identify is More Money for the System. Whenever benchmarks are introduced, tests floated, evaluations considered, for either students or teachers, the outcry from union ideologues is always fierce and unrelenting.
In exactly the same way, feminism is very defensive about attacks on the effects of its political programs. If there’s something wrong, even if this there is a grave threat to the public good, it’s shunted aside and ignored. Studies that deny the existence of the threat are bought and paid for.
Medical Associations are unions for doctors. Bar Associations are unions for lawyers. Police unions are only incidentally interested in public security; their key interests are the interests and security of their membership.
Expecting feminism to represent the best interests of society is the same as expecting public sector unions to advocate for fiscal responsibility.
Feminist Hypocrisy ?
As for feminism being a monolithic evil, this is also demonstrably not the case. Feminist ideology is often in conflict.
- There’s a sharp division between Lesbian and straight women. The abolitionist/anti-pornography/pro-sex-regulation feminists are almost always straight. The liberals are more reliably lesbian or lesbian-identified.
- Anti-marriage and “men are evil” feminists are usually “political” lesbians, or those with specific axes to grind, or single-issue interests, or ideologically socialist.
- Actual bona-fide lesbians live in a separate world and don’t see any need for men at all, personally or socially. Their writing often doesn’t even concern itself with the key issues that bother heterosexual women. These women inhabit different worlds. Lesbian politics often support obviously anti-male policies because men are irrelevant to them, and they don’t care how men are affected. The truth is that they have little to say to straight women, because straight women are interested in the health of male society. Straight women like men, and interact with men on an intimate level. What both agree on is that women always need more power, regardless of the amount of power they already have.
- Sexual-libertarian feminists want less social/legal control over sexuality, resulting in a free-wheeling, Sex Is Always Good “hook-up” culture, filled with consequence-free sex and the elimination of the concept of “slut”. Eventhe very concept of monogamy comes in for ridicule. In effect, these women are more prototypically “male” in their “variety-is-life” outlook than men ever were.
- Sexual-Moralist feminists take a different approach, seeing this freewheeling sexual liberation as serving male interests. Women, they think, have different interests. Sex for its own sake is not a goal for these women. These feminists don’t see sexually open women as Liberated – they see them as Deluded Sluts, no matter how they sugar-coat the label for feminist solidarity. The fact is that their outlook on sex and relationships bears no relationship to the feminists who advocate for sexual liberation. They have nothing to say to each other. Their views on social policy are in direct opposition.
These groups of feminists may have blurry boundaries, but their distinct interests are the reasons for the apparent hypocrisies. That said, they don’t so much consciously contradict each other, as speak past each other.
Manipulating Moral Panics
Our society regularly goes through phases of Moral Panic.
There have been many.
Miscegenation, incest, racial hygiene,
Moral panics are easily manipulated by those with political agendas. While there were genuine communists in dangerous positions of power in the early 1950’s, many non-communists were threatened and extorted during the McCarthy years into complying with policies or giving up opportunities. The same was true in the Soviet Union, but there, the victims were called “counter-revolutionaries”. Much the same attitudes are now displayed towards “Conservatives” or “Liberals”.
An example of a moral panic manipulated by all sides, while those affected just go about their lives, is Prostitution. Straight and married women are the biggest advocates for eliminating prostitution and sex work. They mask this as a concern for the women involved, but on examination, the truth becomes clear very quickly, as sex-worker activists point out: It’s really about controlling the sexuality of their own men, and it’s not about the health and security of sex workers at all.
Laura Augustin is a highly engaging writer who catalogues this rank female hypocrisy extensively.
Many feminist activists use the force of Moral Panicsl. Irrational Anti-Date-Rape Crusaders use twisted and exaggerated claims and false statistics as a rule of thumb. Anti-Pornography activists have more in common with the prohibitionists of the 1920’s than they do with other feminists.
Then there’s Socialism and Collectivist ideology, as well as Anti-Capitalism. These movements don’t fundamentally care about feminism; feminism or anti-racism, or any other isms. These are just tools for the Revolution. Left-wing activists use movements like feminism to help advocate for their own revolutionary ideas. Cuba, China, and the Soviet Union all betrayed the related movements that helped foist “moral dictatorships” on the people.
Reality makes the Rules: Finance and Feminism
When it comes to the public sector, harsh budget realities will ultimately decide issues for unions. Facing national bankruptcy, and the inability to collect more taxes, it’s no longer tenable to maintain an artificially bloated public sector. Had we had honest debate before, and had the unions not been so exclusively self-interested, we might not have reached this precipice. . Reality has a way of imposing discipline on ideology.
Our financial bankruptcy is equally the fault of the public and our leaders for enabling union demands. We should have had the courage to force through reform, despite public-sector opposition, before we reached this tipping point. Now, we all face the consequences. This “correction” will claim many victims.
Biology doesn’t play ideological games. Biology is what it is. It doesn’t care about “fair”. Its mechanisms don’t conform to the Human-Ideology-Of-The-Moment. The screaming, the rage, the railing, the Marches, the Protests, the angry bloggers or the activist legislation; at the end of the day it can’t change human nature. Even when we deny that there is a human nature. Human nature still exists, and we still need to do the things we need to do.
A natural consequence of feminism is the declining number of babies. Having and raising children is a difficult and onerous task. It requires social support and certain social structures to make it bearable and attractive. Take these away, and there’s no incentive to have children.
The predictable result of feminism is that fewer and fewer women end up having babies. We therefore have a left-wing that advocated for mass, open immigration of unfamiliar cultures. The irony is that these immigrants have beliefs that are diametrically opposed to the goals of feminism. Feminism, by semi-unintentionally denying the critical imperative to reproduce, has doomed western societies, something no-one predicted or wanted. It wasn’t deliberate. But for feminists to admit this now, or to admit that this has far-reaching and profound implications for Western societies, would be to admit that there are consequences to their movement that can’t be controlled. But the “correction” will come – whether we like it or not.
Just as budget shortfalls sound the death-knell of massive public bureaucracies, demographics will have damning effects on feminist movements. All of this was predictable, but it wasn’t necessarily deliberate.
Union! We need A Men’s movement
There is one correction we can engage ourselves.
“Men” are the only obviously identifiable collective in American society that does not have its own movement. In effect, while other interests have advocates – anti-racism activism, women, children’s rights, Teachers, white racists, black separatists, Christian fundamentalists, Muslims – men have none.
When issues affect us, we can’t muster collective responses. We need a clearing-house, an umbrella under which we can debate the issues that matter to us.
Feminists argue that a men’s movement is unnecessary. My question is: Why do we care what feminists think? Men told women then a feminist movement was unnecessary in the 1880′s, as well. They created one anyway.
Nobody gives you rights. Nobody gives you the right to make collective demands. Nobody grants you permission to want something.
Other interests will oppose us. “Strikebreakers” will intimidate us, and the Powers that Be may send out their goons, but the fundamental issues remain in place and unless we’re prepared to act collectively, unless we’re prepared to respect our issues enough to protect ourselves, and advocate for change, we can’t expect to be respected by anyone else. Do we want father’s rights? Do we want fair family courts? Do we want equal opportunity in the workplace? Do we want freedom from harassment claims? Do we want to live in fear of false rape accusations? Do we want power over our own lives?
Women are able to manipulate moral panics to their advantage. There’s one moral panic we can immediately use to our advantage, before feminism neuters it. Even women are now calling for men to take a greater role in their families and yet it’s women who have largely pushed men out of the family unit. Radical feminism had a core goal of destroying the Husband-Wife family unit, and it has almost achieved this in some segments of our population. But we can turn the tables. If women can manipulate a moral manic for their own advantage, we can certainly manipulate this new moral panic it for the advantage of our families and ourselves.
There are other moral panics that can work in our favor. We must exploit them.
Don’t Worry About Disagreement
We should expect a lot of division within our own ranks. Feminists have to deal with severe factionalism themselves, and internal feminist debates often become bitter and acrimonious. We can’t shy away from the same discussions. And we can’t expect to agree.
I can already sense where factions will likely emerge. That said, just like feminists, we can all probably agree on general goals, even when we demand different policy decisions.
Ultimately, the only way to be free is to free ourselves. If we believe we have rights, rights to raise our children, rights to fair divorce settlements, rights to sexual freedom, rights to workplace opportunity fairness – then we need to take those rights. Nobody is going to give them to us.
And there is power in numbers.
