The Death of Feminism on the Left

I see your incessant need to declare yourself the "victor" hasn't subsided at all, and you seem to think that chest beating because you feel you're "winning" an argument on an obscure internet forum makes you really cool, when it really just makes you retarded. You're so boisterous and confident because you lack the metacognitive ability to realize that, underneath your MRA bullshit, you're actually outlining the Marxist feminist position. I.e., the relations of production created a sexual division of labor, which was oppressive to both men and women (but, as you acknowledge, placed women in a role of passivity, which is what the capitalist system does to all of humanity through the Law of Value), and that the recent developments in the mode of production have rendered this gendered system irrelevant; beyond that, to escape the objectification of humanity, we must embrace communism.

You have, in response, taken up a reactionary movement as the vanguard on these issues. Warren Farrell's analysis does in fact include the proposition that females hold power because they can seduce men, and he holds that men are powerless when faced with attractive women. Which I, as a man, can tell you is nonsense. When you get a boner do you become powerless? And, again, it highlights that women express their power through men, and must work to influence men if they wish to have any expression of themselves in society, which is precisely what feminists are critiquing. And hey, maybe I was poisoning the well, but at least, unlike you, I mentioned an argument he made about and in his book which was being discussed, and not his opinions on incest. If I were your level of dishonest, I would say that he's an evil apologist for incest, and therefore should be disregarded. Afterwards, I would beat my chest about how I CRUSH NON-FEMINIST

Yes, both men and women are objectified in the media. This is one of those issues, much like the wage gap, that isn't all that important to me except insofar as it relates to underlying issues. Capitalism objectifies all of humanity, because its processes aren't rooted in humanity, but in fact exert their control despite humanity's wishes. Its drive to accumulate capital is mostly blind, and it treats humans as interchangeable means to this end. The issue of women as sex objects and men as status objects is an interesting one, since it underscores a central point I've been trying to make, albeit not successfully, I suppose: women have, and still do (to a large extent), gained their status through the status of men. This is the objection that feminists have to gendered relations of production: that it alienates women from any direct control, and they must express themselves through the men in their lives. It's actually funny because you've made the anti-suffragette argument that women influence society through childrearing and their husband, which is to say, instead of exercising control themselves, they influence the way men exercise their control in various domains. This is what I was getting at with the aristocratic women. They may have comparatively more power than a lower class man, because the lower class men are also alienated from their society, but their power was expressed through the men of the same class. The question of whether men or women had a more cumbersome role in society is irrelevant. Despite their luxury, the lives of the bourgeoisie are also cumbersome. (Yes, I'm aware that having more money doesn't make you a member of the bourgeoisie, but the two are correlated, at least.) Does this mean that proletarians are actually the ones with the privilege in society? Maybe, if you hold the view that spending a third of your life watching television is actually "privilege."

I feel like this has sufficiently covered pretty much everything else in your latest post, since it all relates back to this anyway. So I'll end here.


P.S. stop jerking off all over the forum. It's hard to see your point through the cum stains.

Gentlemen, please, keep the level

cogarian888 wrote:I see your incessant need to declare yourself the "victor" hasn't subsided at all, and you seem to think that chest beating because you feel you're "winning" an argument on an obscure internet forum makes you really cool, when it really just makes you retarded. You're so boisterous and confident because you lack the metacognitive ability to realize that, underneath your MRA bullshit, you're actually outlining the Marxist feminist position.

There is no "Marxist feminist" position to speak of. There is a Marxist analysis of gendered labor and its cultural trends, which has long preceded feminist theory. To the extent Marxists have engaged with feminism, the latter was pruned beyond recognition in order to arrive at any rational insight, since the standard theories of patriarchy are idealist and ahistorical, positing men as class enemies of women throughout history and as possibly enduring beyond the capitalist mode of production because of harmful ideas concerning gender. Feminist theory can neither explain the historical discrimination experienced by women, let alone men, nor offer a viable solution.

Marxism supplies a scientific mode of analysis of gender roles and expectations, not an emotional one. What is required is an approach that considers the factors of mutual dependency and obligation between the sexes under historically changing modes of production, not superficial cultural critiques that demonize one sex while failing to criticize the position of the other. Marxism should be neutral with respect to the examination of the gendered division of labor and its superstructural manifestations, not emotionally attached to only one, ill-conceived, form of "oppression."

"Marxist" feminism appears to have been a misguided project by certain women of the New Left to ground the many outrageous claims of feminism in a class oriented, materialist conception of the world, at best, thereby imparting a modicum of legitimacy to the movement and, at worst, allowing noxious elements of feminist theory to influence Marxism (such as the false claim that working class men occasionally conspire with the men of the capitalist class to suppress women). There is simply no sound reason to restrict Marxism to a feminist entryway into the subject of gender. The ideological mistakes of the New Left shall not carry over into this century, and 21st century feminism will find in Marxism not an ally but the burning sword that shall deliver its execution.

In passing, it is nice that you've read a part of the Wikipedia article on metacognition, but that is really beside the point here.

You have, in response, taken up a reactionary movement as the vanguard on these issues.

So, I am "outlining the Marxist feminist position," but it has led me to take up the MRM? Makes sense.

That is completely false, anyway. I do not align myself with the MRM but with scientific socialism, as I've clearly stated. Simply because I view the MRM more positively than feminism, on account of its more rational platform, does not translate to sympathizing with it. We do not need a women's movement, and we do not need a men's movement. We require a working class movement capable of transitioning to a new and radically different society, and I spurn anyone who believes otherwise.

Warren Farrell's analysis does in fact include the proposition that females hold power because they can seduce men, and he holds that men are powerless when faced with attractive women. Which I, as a man, can tell you is nonsense. When you get a boner do you become powerless? And, again, it highlights that women express their power through men, and must work to influence men if they wish to have any expression of themselves in society, which is precisely what feminists are critiquing. And hey, maybe I was poisoning the well, but at least, unlike you, I mentioned an argument he made about and in his book which was being discussed, and not his opinions on incest. If I were your level of dishonest, I would say that he's an evil apologist for incest, and therefore should be disregarded. Afterwards, I would beat my chest about how I CRUSH NON-FEMINIST

The incest charge is another predictable feminist hoax. It is based on a misquote, and the selective quotations in the article you linked are devoid of context and misinterpreted, not that one should expect any more from a blog formerly called "Manboobz," maintained by that inarticulate lummox, David Futrelle. Warren Farrell was reporting the preliminary results of his study on incestuous relationships, which had nothing to do with sanctioning incest. Whether one agrees with his facts and conclusions is another matter. It is remarkable how vehemently feminists slander a man who has promoted equality for both sexes for most of his life. Honestly, I speculate about the credulity of such people in believing anything that supports their narrow Weltanschauung and willingness to disseminate false information without administering the most basic fact checking procedure, which explains the continued circulation of such blatant falsehoods as an increase in domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday (or during the FIFA World Cup) or that the phrase "rule of thumb" originated in a man's alleged right to beat his wife, among more insidious canards.

When I read about incidents such as the reaction Farrell's speaking engagement elicited from the the local feminist scene and its hangers on at the University of Toronto, especially as it was wholly unrelated to the decades old incest interview, I feel revulsion at the hysterical and vile disregard for freedom of speech. It is repugnant, and my inner Stalinist would have such scum rounded up and shipped off to a forced labor camp in the remotest and harshest region of the country, which would hardly pose a problem in Canada.

Nothing about my conduct in this thread has been dishonest, unlike your hollow accusation of misogyny. You have deceptively poisoned the well twice now, referring to a dubious comment that can be interpreted in a number of ways and then to a misrepresentation of Farrell's views. This is akin to using the fact that the Austrian economist Walter Block admits that child sex slavery is in accordance with his normative principles to imply that he not only approves of the practice but that this is sufficient grounds to discredit his life's work. Nice one, you feminist assclown!

This does not pertain to you, since you're a witless cretin, but for those who might be interested, Warren Farrell's argument in The Myth of Male Power can be summarized as follows: in order to ensure the survival of the species, the sexes separated into different roles. Men became confined to a utilitarian role that entailed self-sacrifice and disposability, and societies have socialized them to accept this part. He proposes that real power is the ability to control one's life, and taken in this light, men have not been empowered historically. Contra the feminists, Farrell argues that societies are both male dominated and female dominated in different ways. Men are conditioned to adopt self-sacrificial roles, which is borne out by the fact that men risk their lives in war and in defense of their communities, that they always perform the most dangerous and difficult labor in society, that they must earn a "family wage," that they tend to live shorter lives, etc. Farrell goes on to argue, rightly, in my opinion, that this cannot be regarded as patriarchal privilege. When stripped of its idealist shell, it is remarkably similar to the Marxist analysis, and it is interesting to note how his definition of power resembles Marx's notion of Gattungswesen in some respects. Farrell's solution, on the other hand, is to encourage a men's movement as a counterpart to feminism so that the two may eventually merge into a single "gender transition movement," which is not something I can accept.

Yes, both men and women are objectified in the media. This is one of those issues, much like the wage gap, that isn't all that important to me except insofar as it relates to underlying issues. Capitalism objectifies all of humanity, because its processes aren't rooted in humanity, but in fact exert their control despite humanity's wishes. Its drive to accumulate capital is mostly blind, and it treats humans as interchangeable means to this end. The issue of women as sex objects and men as status objects is an interesting one, since it underscores a central point I've been trying to make, albeit not successfully, I suppose: women have, and still do (to a large extent), gained their status through the status of men. This is the objection that feminists have to gendered relations of production: that it alienates women from any direct control, and they must express themselves through the men in their lives. It's actually funny because you've made the anti-suffragette argument that women influence society through childrearing and their husband, which is to say, instead of exercising control themselves, they influence the way men exercise their control in various domains. This is what I was getting at with the aristocratic women. They may have comparatively more power than a lower class man, because the lower class men are also alienated from their society, but their power was expressed through the men of the same class.

Why do you insist upon such a gynocentric position? Are you still resentful of daddy? Perhaps there is some unconscious parental alienation that you should evaluate. The fact of the matter is that both ruling class men and women exercised control in different ways through their roles, and both benefited from class relations. In addition, women have often occupied positions of "male" authority in an active capacity, as I've already demonstrated by pointing to examples of salient female rulers—this was all the more true if we consider the innumerable aristocratic women who were below royalty. Furthermore, you are simply wrong that women "gained their status" through men. In pre-capitalist societies, social class was largely a hereditary affair, with ascribed status being one of the principal criticisms that the world's first political ideology, liberalism, made of monarchy. Women were born into noble families and were imparted all the rights, duties, and privileges of the nobility. Aside from having command over all the men and women lower in station, their own female roles carried significant oversight over other people. If you think otherwise, you have never picked up a history book. In truth, all societies share patriarchal and matriarchal characteristics, if one must use such terms, so it is erroneous to cast them as overly favorable to one sex at best and dishonest at worst. At most, one might describe features of historically specific societies like those based on peasant and artisan production as patriarchal, but as the study I cited earlier makes clear, it is misleading to label them as such—this is a good place to add that another anthropologist by the name of Jill Dubisch came to a similar conclusion from her research of peasant communities in Greece.

You state that aristocratic women "may have comparatively more power than lower class men, because the lower class men are also alienated from society, but their power is expressed through the men of the same class." First of all, I thought you acknowledged that all humans are in some ways alienated by class society. If this is so, what is the meaning of your observation? Ruling class males also experience alienation insofar as the duties and obligations imposed upon them by their role conflict with their fundamental species-being. Alienation isn't something that can be quantified or ordered according to rank, either, so I fail to see how it can be used to determine who belongs where in the social hierarchy. That being said, one could say that some individuals are able to pursue a lifestyle that is more conducive to creativity and self-fulfillment, and in the global north, that privilege is definitely greatest for bourgeois females (then affluent women more broadly), as they are presented with three options denied to the rest of us: one, to indulge in opulence by sponging off the male capitalist(s) in their lives, from personal investments, or inheritance (which is proof that women are conduits of property in their own right), two, to pursue any career and passions they might have, or three, a combination thereof. That there are fewer women engaged in positions of bourgeois authority (though by no means are they nonexistent or barred from access) only means that more of them live extravagantly off the exploitation of labor. If you ask me, not having to participate actively in the production and appropriation of surplus value but having it accrue to you passively is the superior arrangement, and that feminists fail to admit this is testament to their disgraceful bias.

This reminds me of a quote by the English writer Virginia Woolf, in her 1929 essay A Room of One's Own, which was perhaps the first and most famous demand for "women's space," that truly captures the bourgeois origins of feminism:

"Give her a room of her own and five hundred a year, let her speak her mind and leave out half that she now puts in, and she will write a better book one of these days."

The fact that £500 would amount to something like £26,870 or $43,000 USD today was apparently something she found nonchalantly unproblematic given her already entitled lifestyle (and presumably, that of her audience).

Second of all, you continually ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of men exercised no "direct control" over society, which is as true of the present as it is of the past. They possessed no appreciable social power and were often treated as dispensable objects or cogs in the wheel. If feminists are going to bemoan the purported glass ceiling, I will direct their attention to the concrete cellar. Following your logic of aristocratic women "exercising control through their husbands," though a gross simplification, one could argue that women of the subordinate class were less exploited than the men, since they were not generally as directly involved in the production of the surplus product.

If I were anything like a feminist, I would claim that women have been nothing more than parasitical elements on their male hosts, enjoying all of the benefits of social and technical progress while sacrificing appallingly little. I would assert that men have been responsible for carrying society forward on their backs—ruling class men in the intellectual realm and subservient men in all other respects—while denying, ignoring, or diminishing the productive activity of women that made this possible. I would challenge women's audacity to question their historical status of living a sedentary way of life while men sacrificed life and limb to provide a secure existence for them. I would contend that the disadvantages of the female gender role are a consequence of matriarchal privilege, and before women question their social encumbrances, they must criticize their parasitic relationship to men—indeed, I would dismiss female concerns by noting that "masculism" already acknowledges that women are oppressed by matriarchy as well, the solution being to accept my cultural critiques to end the system of male disposability. I would scoff at the comparison of females to slaves by pointing out that men are the invisible beasts of burden in history, untold millions having perished and lost to all knowledge in service to their societies, but we are supposed to be concerned with women tending to their homes? I would demand to know which slave master has ever exerted as much effort to gift his slaves with diamonds and other expensive adornments in the hopes of attracting their affection and love; on the contrary, has it not always been the other way around? If I were a radical "masculist," I would go on to argue that it is biological inferiority, in terms of intelligence, personality, and physical ability, that drives women to use their enormous influence in child rearing and all areas of social life to socialize boys to grow up to serve as an expendable slave class. I would promote a bizarre and pseudoscientific theory that explained, far from "rotting" away, the Y chromosome as the pinnacle of human evolution, responsible for most of the positive developments in our evolutionary history. The X chromosome, by contrast, is an archaic remnant, needlessly clinging to the Y so as to ensure female reproductive success. Fortunately, future reproductive technologies promise the emancipation of males and the redundancy of females, thereby allowing for a completely male society without the exploitative and manipulative influence of females.

Of course, I am nothing of the sort. I realize that human societies are need based and charge men and women with complementary and interdependent duties and obligations that are organized within modes of production. It is worth asking, however, why we instantly recognize the one-sided and self-serving nature of the above, hypothetical "masculist," position but continue to unthinkingly accept similar arguments from feminists? It is because Western capitalism has largely transcended the female gender role, and feminist myth making has facilitated, and still facilitates, this process, having functioned as a legitimation ideology for capital as it displaced the male workforce and weakened the bargaining power of the working class under the guise of bourgeois equality. On the other hand, the male role has been, if anything, intensified. Again, if I subscribed to a backward ideology such as feminism or were a well-intentioned idealist, like Warren Farrell, I would propose some kind of men's movement, but that is not the case, because as I've argued all along, only a working class movement, in which men and women fight side by side, can overcome the injustices of capitalist society.

The question of whether men or women had a more cumbersome role in society is irrelevant.

No, what this actually means is that it is irrelevant when the repressive nature of male roles is considered in anything other than a strictly feminist context. Your latent sexism leads you to play the eternal white knight for women.

Despite their luxury, the lives of the bourgeoisie are also cumbersome. (Yes, I'm aware that having more money doesn't make you a member of the bourgeoisie, but the two are correlated, at least.) Does this mean that proletarians are actually the ones with the privilege in society? Maybe, if you hold the view that spending a third of your life watching television is actually "privilege."

The fact that the the study in the article you googled uses wealth as the independent variable is not insignificant. It sets the base criterion for being considered "rich" as earning a relatively modest $100,000 a year. This would include many members of the coordinator class, such as doctors, lawyers, senior level engineers, and other highly educated professionals, whose number exceeds wealthy capitalists by a wide margin. Nobody could argue that the labor of such workers under capitalism is not psychologically taxing, though the question of whether they truly experience greater stress than the rest of the working class remains open to debate. Further, television hours watched is not, upon closer inspection, a very reliable indicator of stress, because it very well could be that more educated people watch less television due to the abysmal content on offer and instead prefer more stimulating leisure activities. This is not anything new to an educated leftist, as studies attempting to correlate mental health with wealth have existed for some time (in particular, the word "income" warrants scrutiny, since most capitalists worthy of the name derive their "income" exclusively from returns on their investments in this day and age), and they do not threaten Marxists in the least, as we do not rest our case on having our preferred class win a gold medal in all categories of the oppression Olympics. It warrants mention that a study published last year claims to debunk previous studies that have found only a limited relationship between wealth and happiness.

It does not mean that the proletariat is privileged, because labor is in a position of relative vulnerability to capital, since capitalists own the means of production and appropriate surplus value, and which class watches more television is totally irrelevant. Before you respond with something along the lines of how this bolsters the notion of the repressed bourgeois female, note that the relationship between the worker and capitalist is nothing like the one between the male capitalist and his wife and daughters. Learn to absorb what you read, and fuck you for linking to a bourgeois study that insinuates workers are indolent.

P.S. stop jerking off all over the forum. It's hard to see your point through the cum stains.

Yeah, whatever. What is with these childish expressions and mode of argument? It is almost as though this thread has been relocated to RevLeft. If you are going to insult me, at least be witty and creative in the process, you intellectual eunuch. Pretentiousness is not respectable in the slightest.

Henceforth, I shall respond to you if and when I am so inclined, as I have lost my patience with your pathetic posts. I am even more assured of the correctness of my position than I had initially been, so thank you for that, I guess. Perhaps, in time, a feminist will come along who is capable of seriously challenging the arguments I have set forth, but I shan't be holding my breath.

The primary inspiration for this thread was how utterly toxic feminism is to the future of left-wing activism. I present the following "Marxist" feminist specimen from FIST:



It is humiliating to be associated with such creatures. Consider this, comrades: if you were an average working class man (or woman for that matter) with minimal class consciousness, would it not instantly turn you off to Marxism and revolutionary politics? Who could blame you if it did? The tendentiousness, hysteria, irrational victim mentality, self-pity, self-righteousness, ridiculous arguments, stupidity, and outright falsehoods on display during this brilliant example of a feminist cultural critique are breathtaking. Fortunately, bane666au, on his excellent anti-feminist Youtube channel, demolished this "comrade," but it is an indictment of the state of the left that a liberal had to do it. This is supposed to promote unity within the working class? You can imagine the level of quality of the miniscule assortment of men who would actually be attracted to this pathetic garbage. I am ashamed.

Rev Scare wrote:Consider this, comrades: if you were an average working class man (or woman for that matter) with minimal class consciousness, would it not instantly turn you off to Marxism and revolutionary politics? Who could blame you if it did? The tendentiousness, hysteria, irrational victim mentality, self-pity, self-righteousness, ridiculous arguments, stupidity, and outright falsehoods on display during this brilliant example of a feminist cultural critique are breathtaking.

This is where I find the clearest insight in your criticism of this movement; it's only possibly appealing to the middle-class. It is utterly vindictive and hysterical. Can anyone imagine men fighting under the pink flag? What pride can be taken in a leadership which is so prone to emotional meltdown in the face of awkward social interaction.

Otherwise, I agree most everything else that you've said. Though I imagine that you don't find the Men's Rights Movement as detestable as I do; it is a breeding ground for right-wing reaction and my sympathy for is only ever aroused for it when its activists are harassed by feminists (which is not an issue of ideology). Men's Rights Activists have already revealed their true colours in Britain, however. Their electoral outfit is virulently anti-socialist and is pursuing a policy of pressuring the mainstream political right into adopting its platform. The movement is also a darling cause of the right-libertarian ideology.

The only other place I would disagree with you is your dismissal of female homosexuality, which seems typically American, but it wasn't really a key component of your argument.

Scarlet-Left wrote:What pride can be taken in a leadership which is so prone to emotional meltdown in the face of awkward social interaction

BTW, MRA issues can be pretty apolitical and the left can take them away from lolbertarians but there is no organization up for that nor the few leftist MRAs are up to organize.

HomelessArtist wrote:MRA issues can be pretty apolitical and the left can take them away from lolbertarians but there is no organization up for that nor the few leftist MRAs are up to organize.

The issues might well be, not I'm not so sure about the majority of the people involved. I imagine leftists are an anomaly or, at best, an insignificant minority.

Scarlet-Left wrote:I imagine leftists are an anomaly or, at best, an insignificant minority.

Pretty much this and its bourgeois left fault.

Scarlet-Left wrote:
This is where I find the clearest insight in your criticism of this movement; it's only possibly appealing to the middle-class. It is utterly vindictive and hysterical. Can anyone imagine men fighting under the pink flag? What pride can be taken in a leadership which is so prone to emotional meltdown in the face of awkward social interaction.

Otherwise, I agree most everything else that you've said. Though I imagine that you don't find the Men's Rights Movement as detestable as I do; it is a breeding ground for right-wing reaction and my sympathy for is only ever aroused for it when its activists are harassed by feminists (which is not an issue of ideology). Men's Rights Activists have already revealed their true colours in Britain, however. Their electoral outfit is virulently anti-socialist and is pursuing a policy of pressuring the mainstream political right into adopting its platform. The movement is also a darling cause of the right-libertarian ideology.

The only other place I would disagree with you is your dismissal of female homosexuality, which seems typically American, but it wasn't really a key component of your argument.

My opinion in a nutshell aside from my outspoken hatred for gender roles.

The video just demonstrates how much I would prefer to be around the old anarchists, even the feminists like Emma Goldman. Really, these folks are ruining what remains of the left's reputation with right-wingers using the video to mock the left. Seriously, words are being stuffed into our mouths despite their origin being quite foreign, and I can't stand it any longer. In total, feminism is stupid, MRAs are stupid, and I just have this deep longing to witness this damnable "debate" be ended!

Scarlet-Left wrote:This is where I find the clearest insight in your criticism of this movement; it's only possibly appealing to the middle-class. It is utterly vindictive and hysterical. Can anyone imagine men fighting under the pink flag? What pride can be taken in a leadership which is so prone to emotional meltdown in the face of awkward social interaction.

I am honestly beginning to believe that people who participate in victim politics suffer from one or more mental disorders that include exaggerated feelings of persecution, paranoid delusions, misshapen self-image, self-loathing, desperate need for attention, and so forth, possibly related to histrionic personality disorder, borderline personality, narcissism, etc. Nevertheless, sheer stupidity should never be discounted as a possible explanation, and of course, it is easy to see the appeal of the self-righteous indignation that comes along with convincing oneself and others that one is truly oppressed, especially when it has very little basis in reality.

Otherwise, I agree most everything else that you've said. Though I imagine that you don't find the Men's Rights Movement as detestable as I do; it is a breeding ground for right-wing reaction and my sympathy for is only ever aroused for it when its activists are harassed by feminists (which is not an issue of ideology). Men's Rights Activists have already revealed their true colours in Britain, however. Their electoral outfit is virulently anti-socialist and is pursuing a policy of pressuring the mainstream political right into adopting its platform. The movement is also a darling cause of the right-libertarian ideology.

Would you name this political organization and, if possible, provide a link to its website? I would be interested to know which MRA groups have affiliated themselves with a right-wing "electoral outfit" or any political party for that matter.

I fail to understand what being a member of the MRM (which I am not) has to do with upholding socialism any more than does being a feminist, other than the obvious fact that communism, in its higher and, to a lesser extent, lower phase (socialism), is an inherently egalitarian system. My conclusion from surveying and exploring the MRM, largely as an online presence, is that its membership derives from across the political spectrum. The single largest demographic appears to be disaffected liberals, who often associate feminism with left-wing politics (largely due to the New Left's regrettable decision to go to bed with feminism for all these years) and therefore seem to possess a slight right-wing bias. However, the MRM itself is not an ideology but a civil rights movement, unlike feminism.

Furthermore, the MRM is not reactionary, as it does not seek to revert gender norms to a previous status quo. On the contrary, it intends to liberate men to the ire of both feminists and social conservatives, since both groups depend upon continued adherence by men to masculine expectations. Both feminists and many conservatives alike view women as eternal victims, helpless and in need of a protector, which is why, to provide but one example, one sees support for such backward legislation as the Violence Against Women Act in the U.S. from both camps. The notion that domestic violence is a gender issue and, more broadly, that a culture of violence against women exists in Western countries is utterly ridiculous, with no credible evidence to support it, but it gains some mainstream currency because it relies upon the protectiveness society has of women, and which men are socialized to accept at all costs. In fact, feminism has always upheld capitalism's property based family regime, centered around the demands of the "fairer" sex—some feminists, such as Selma James, have even gone so far as to campaign for "wages for housework," which is an anti-communist slogan. This fundamental compatibility between feminism and many aspects of traditional conservatism is bolstered by the prevalence of the white knight persona that most men irrationally adopt on behalf of women, even when the female(s) in question is not worthy of it, and the feminist movement is not without a sizable share of manginas who display an emotional attachment to the sisterhood's tenets despite lack of sound reason, cogarian888 being an example of the latter.

I have actually encountered a recent video by a self-described MRM supporter that I think does a fairly good job of dispelling some of the misconceptions surrounding the MRM:



Of course, individuals should investigate for themselves whether these are truly misconceptions or reality. In my experience, it is a fairly good reflection of the MRM. This is in stark contrast to feminism, where the nonsense rhetoric about equality that feminists often blather on about when threatened does not square with the reality on the ground at all.

The MRM is not the focal point of this thread, as anti-feminism is not exclusive to MRAs (indeed, some in the men's movement support feminism).

my sympathy is only ever aroused for it when its activists are harassed by feminists (which is not an issue of ideology)

Such as issuing terrorist threats against the upcoming International Conference on Men’s Issues in Detroit.

The only other place I would disagree with you is your dismissal of female homosexuality, which seems typically American,

Actually, it was not a dismissal of female homosexuality but a reasoned and factual proposition regarding its possible (and evolving) nature. Whether or not one disagrees is of no concern to me, nor is the fact that some women who lick other women's snappers form an identity, subculture, and political movement around it. I am not sure what you are driving at by "seems typically American." The United States has a fairly strong history of gay rights activism, so it is difficult to perceive what you are implying. The Stonewall riots were in the U.S., after all. If you are suggesting that we are a more "homophobic" nation than you enlightened Brits, please spare me.

but it wasn't really a key component of your argument.

It was not a component at all. Its excision would have precisely zero effect upon the cumulative argument against feminism I have propounded thus far.

The only gender (women's) studies course you need ever take, comrades. Let Miss Dworkin (Porkin) lecture you.

Rev Scare wrote:Would you name this political organization and, if possible, provide a link to its website? I would be interested to know which MRA groups have affiliated themselves with a right-wing "electoral outfit" or any political party for that matter.

I'm still unable to post links, but you'll probably be able to find it by searching "Justice 4 Boys and Men UK" or something similar.

I fail to understand what being a member of the MRM (which I am not) has to do with upholding socialism any more than does being a feminist, other than the obvious fact that communism, in its higher and, to a lesser extent, lower phase (socialism), is an inherently egalitarian system. My conclusion from surveying and exploring the MRM, largely as an online presence, is that its membership derives from across the political spectrum. The single largest demographic appears to be disaffected liberals, who often associate feminism with left-wing politics (largely due to the New Left's regrettable decision to go to bed with feminism for all these years) and therefore seem to possess a slight right-wing bias. However, the MRM itself is not an ideology but a civil rights movement, unlike feminism.

Perhaps I was being unclear; I don't believe that the Men's Rights Movement is, inherently, anti-socialist but that the plurality of its membership and the majority of its leadership is.

Furthermore, the MRM is not reactionary, as it does not seek to revert gender norms to a previous status quo. On the contrary, it intends to liberate men to the ire of both feminists and social conservatives, since both groups depend upon continued adherence by men to masculine expectations. Both feminists and many conservatives alike view women as eternal victims, helpless and in need of a protector, which is why, to provide but one example, one sees support for such backward legislation as the Violence Against Women Act in the U.S. from both camps. The notion that domestic violence is a gender issue and, more broadly, that a culture of violence against women exists in Western countries is utterly ridiculous, with no credible evidence to support it, but it gains some mainstream currency because it relies upon the protectiveness society has of women, and which men are socialized to accept at all costs. In fact, feminism has always upheld capitalism's property based family regime, centered around the demands of the "fairer" sex—some feminists, such as Selma James, have even gone so far as to campaign for "wages for housework," which is an anti-communist slogan. This fundamental compatibility between feminism and many aspects of traditional conservatism is bolstered by the prevalence of the white knight persona that most men irrationally adopt on behalf of women, even when the female(s) in question is not worthy of it, and the feminist movement is not without a sizable share of manginas who display an emotional attachment to the sisterhood's tenets despite lack of sound reason, cogarian888 being an example of the latter.

Again, you're trying to convince me of something I already know; the actual, concrete, demands of the MRM tend to be, on the whole, far more reasonable than those of feminism. I take issue with the personalities, ideologies and attitudes that tend to be associated with the MRM, however.

I have actually encountered a recent video by a self-described MRM supporter that I think does a fairly good job of dispelling some of the misconceptions surrounding the MRM:

It's worth noting that the first thing my eyes were drawn to was the "I'm Voting UKIP" poster behind the man in the video. UKIP certainly are an anti-socialist organisation.

Of course, individuals should investigate for themselves whether these are truly misconceptions or reality. In my experience, it is a fairly good reflection of the MRM. This is in stark contrast to feminism, where the nonsense rhetoric about equality that feminists often blather on about when threatened does not square with the reality on the ground at all.

The MRM is not the focal point of this thread, as anti-feminism is not exclusive to MRAs (indeed, some in the men's movement support feminism).

In my experience, which I admit may be different to yours, they are more reality than misconception. The man producing the series of videos you linked to on 'Gender Studies' is a good example; he holds a number of reactionary beliefs, such as that women should not serve in the military. It is all anecdotal of course, but one of, if not, the most famous MRA on the internet (Karen Straughan) is a right-libertarian and one of the most famous right-libertarians on the internet (Stefan Molyneux) is an MRA.

Such as issuing terrorist threats against the upcoming International Conference on Men’s Issues in Detroit.

I don't know what you're implying, but the severity of the harassment changes nothing; it has nothing to do with the ideology of feminism (criticism of which I share with you) and everything thing to do with the hysterical nature of some of its followers and, perhaps more, to do with the inability, or unwillingness, of its leadership to enact any kind of discipline.

Actually, it was not a dismissal of female homosexuality but a reasoned and factual proposition regarding its possible (and evolving) nature. Whether or not one disagrees is of no concern to me, nor is the fact that some women who lick other women's snappers form an identity, subculture, and political movement around it. I am not sure what you are driving at by "seems typically American." The United States has a fairly strong history of gay rights activism, so it is difficult to perceive what you are implying. The Stonewall riots were in the U.S., after all. If you are suggesting that we are a more "homophobic" nation than you enlightened Brits, please spare me.

No, it was a dismissal. The very statistics you cited, which you have to admit were of dubious authority, showed that at least seven percent of lesbians have never had sex with men; and the general statistic must be higher because your other set of statistics showed that a lesbian that had ever had an STD (who were those producing that seven percent figure) was more likely to have had sex with men than one who had not. So, at least, ten percent would be reasonable and when you combine that with the fact that a lot of homosexuals have heterosexual encounters early in their life and that female sexuality, in general, is more fluid than male sexuality; you're dismissing an awful lot of women in order to construct your argument.

Also, I wasn't trying to imply anything by the "seems typically American" comment; it just genuinely did seem typically American to me.

It was not a component at all. Its excision would have precisely zero effect upon the cumulative argument against feminism I have propounded thus far.

That's fair; but it seemed unnecessary, especially since you admitted that you knew it might distract from your overall argument.

It seems that Scarlet-Left's issue is the fact that most MRAs are pretty liberal.
That is like dismissing all of socialism just because of the labor party or the feminists that today manage most organizations; even after that we still call ourselves socialists and uphold the truth meaning of it.
And we should do the same thing with men's issues, ditch the liberals and care about the issues.

Scarlet-Left wrote:
I'm still unable to post links, but you'll probably be able to find it by searching "Justice 4 Boys and Men UK" or something similar.

All right, I've examined it, and I find nothing remarkable. Their platform seems to uphold legitimate men's concerns that have existed within the men's movement for decades. I don't quite understand what your standard for socialism is, but it is completely absurd to suppose that the MRM would align itself with the radical left as opposed to participating in mainstream electoral politics. Feminists receive support from both the mainstay center-right and left of center-right parties (e.g., Republicans, Democrats, Tories, Labour), which are hardly beacons of socialism or even progressivism.

Perhaps I was being unclear; I don't believe that the Men's Rights Movement is, inherently, anti-socialist but that the plurality of its membership and the majority of its leadership is.

In my experience, this is the result of their false association of socialism with the support feminism has received from bourgeois governments and the left's continued inclusiveness toward feminism, along with the fact that libertarian socialism, for structural and tactical reasons, has failed to captivate enough working class people by convincing them that it represents a superior alternative to right-wing libertarianism (propertarianism).

Again, you're trying to convince me of something I already know; the actual, concrete, demands of the MRM tend to be, on the whole, far more reasonable than those of feminism.

I am glad you think so, because there is no question about it.

It's worth noting that the first thing my eyes were drawn to was the "I'm Voting UKIP" poster behind the man in the video. UKIP certainly are an anti-socialist organisation.

I don't grasp why that is worth noting. Not only is it one hundred percent irrelevant for the purpose I linked the video, but it is hardly surprising. How shocking that a man of his age would find a right-wing populist libertarian party appealing, considering the numerous attractive alternatives and the left's sterling reputation! As I've already mentioned, the primary demographic within the MRM seems to be disaffected liberals, this young man being a prime example. What a misogynistic scumbag!

The man producing the series of videos you linked to on 'Gender Studies' is a good example; he holds a number of reactionary beliefs, such as that women should not serve in the military.

I have watched a number of his videos, and I have not encountered any outright opposition to women in the military, even in those whose subject matter is the military. Giving concrete examples is always helpful. Don't be like feminists by contending with bogeymen.

I have yet to come across a prominent MRA who calls for a total ban on women in active duty in the armed forces. It is true that some in the MRM believe that the presence of females in the army (or police, or firefighting, or even mixed martial arts) undermines the organization, criticizing such policies as gender quotas and lowered performance standards to accommodate women, but the claim that MRAs are plotting to oust women from the military is simply another feminist fear tactic. This is actually a rather passé subject within the MRM. Nobody, except for feminists and imperialists, really cares about women occupying combat roles in imperialist armies anymore, save for that MRAs tend to challenge the overblown feminist cries of sexual assault on servicewomen by their male comrades or superior officers (predictably, never by lesbian members). While the rest of the world has long since moved on to discuss homosexuality in armed services or, more importantly, how unmanned machines will profoundly alter the dimensions of warfare, it's almost as though, like the proverbial broken record, feminists are stuck in the 1960s.

It is all anecdotal of course, but one of, if not, the most famous MRA on the internet (Karen Straughan) is a right-libertarian

As is Naomi Wolf, an outstanding feminist. Simply watch their debate during a conference held by the Free State Project, a highly minarchist, borderline anarcho-capitalist, propertarian movement.

and one of the most famous right-libertarians on the internet (Stefan Molyneux) is an MRA.

And Hillary Clinton, bless her anti-establishment radicalism, is a feminist, and so is Harriet Harman, and also Sheryl Sandberg. A real tour de force of leftism these women represent, what with having burst through the glass ceiling and everything. Unlike Stefan Molyneux, these women are influential beyond the internet.

I don't know what you're implying, but the severity of the harassment changes nothing;

I was not implying anything. I was merely commenting that this is but one more recent example of anti-free speech "activism" on the part of feminists and their allies.

it has nothing to do with the ideology of feminism (criticism of which I share with you) and everything thing to do with the hysterical nature of some of its followers and, perhaps more, to do with the inability, or unwillingness, of its leadership to enact any kind of discipline.

That is a rather droll statement considering your dismissal of the MRM is based upon the composition of its membership.

No, it was a dismissal.

No, a dismissal would entail something along the lines of "I reject the existence of lesbians as a category," and even this might not represent an off-handed dismissal but could be founded upon rational thought and careful scientific inquiry.

The very statistics you cited, which you have to admit were of dubious authority,

No, they are all from very credible sources. You could question my interpretation, as you're doing, but not their authority.

showed that at least seven percent of lesbians have never had sex with men;

About the same is true of heterosexual women. In fact, the research I provided confirms this. Moreover, a small but still appreciable percentage of the lesbian sample has never had sex with women either.

and the general statistic must be higher because your other set of statistics showed that a lesbian that had ever had an STD (who were those producing that seven percent figure) was more likely to have had sex with men than one who had not.

If a number of independent studies find that within their samples of women who have sex with women, as compared to a control group, only a small minority have never had sexual encounters with men, but on the contrary, the majority exhibits more promiscuous sexual behavior with men than the heterosexual control sample, there are only two conclusions that could be drawn: 1) the samples and/or methodologies used to conduct all of that independent research are flawed and the findings therefore inconclusive, which is fair but must be explained, or 2) consistent lesbians represent a tiny fraction of the female population, a veritable minority within a minority of a minority.

As an aside, if anyone is interested in a truly commendable argument as to why society should tolerate homosexuality—which is wholly beside the point of this thread—I recommend the work of philosopher John Corvino.

So, at least, ten percent would be reasonable

Based on what data set and statistical analysis?

and when you combine that with the fact that a lot of homosexuals have heterosexual encounters early in their life

Evidence for this?

and that female sexuality, in general, is more fluid than male sexuality;

No, female homosexuality is simply more socially acceptable. It has nothing to do with females being "more fluid" or some such nonsense.

you're dismissing an awful lot of women in order to construct your argument.

Oh, noes. A big bad internet man has raised (briefly and in passing) some moderate questions regarding the nature of lesbianism—a rather dull subject to begin with. How shall those unwavering pescetarians, err, lesbians, cope? Remember, these are strong, independent women we're talking about here. They don't require my or anyone else's acknowledgement.

Also, I wasn't trying to imply anything by the "seems typically American" comment; it just genuinely did seem typically American to me.

And that genuinely seems pointless to me.

That's fair; but it seemed unnecessary, especially since you admitted that you knew it might distract from your overall argument.

What I find unnecessary is the apparent need of some individuals to react in knee-jerk fashion in defense of lesbians (when it comes from males, I am inclined to view it as another manifestation of white knighting) against even relatively benign propositions—nowhere have I actually expressed intolerance toward female homosexuality as either a personal belief or policy prescription. I assume that you're the type of individual who would tell a religious opponent of homosexuality to mind their own business with regard to how people choose to express their sexual preferences. These same individuals often do not seem to understand that the same logic applies in reverse: if you are not a lesbian yourself, it truly is none of your concern what other people think of lesbians, and even if you are, it is something that you will need to accept as part of becoming an adult. So, for the love of both our limited time on Earth, let us discontinue this boring discussion.

Rev Scare wrote:
All right, I've examined it, and I find nothing remarkable. Their platform seems to uphold legitimate men's concerns that have existed within the men's movement for decades. I don't quite understand what your standard for socialism is, but it is completely absurd to suppose that the MRM would align itself with the radical left as opposed to participating in mainstream electoral politics. Feminists receive support from both the mainstay center-right and left of center-right parties (e.g., Republicans, Democrats, Tories, Labour), which are hardly beacons of socialism or even progressivism.

It's seems ideological, however, to be trying to push their ideas onto the Conservative Party specifically. They want an MRA-friendly Tory Party and, thereafter, a Tory victory. I agree that feminists are just as bad, but that's my point.

In my experience, this is the result of their false association of socialism with the support feminism has received from bourgeois governments and the left's continued inclusiveness toward feminism, along with the fact that libertarian socialism, for structural and tactical reasons, has failed to captivate enough working class people by convincing them that it represents a superior alternative to right-wing libertarianism (propertarianism).

So then, why support them?

I don't grasp why that is worth noting. Not only is it one hundred percent irrelevant for the purpose I linked the video, but it is hardly surprising. How shocking that a man of his age would find a right-wing populist libertarian party appealing, considering the numerous attractive alternatives and the left's sterling reputation! As I've already mentioned, the primary demographic within the MRM seems to be disaffected liberals, this young man being a prime example. What a misogynistic scumbag!

Why, again, are you presuming that I'm arguing from a feminist perspective? I'm not.

Anyway, the reason I say it's worth noting is because it is yet another suggestion that the MRM is, for the most part, made up of right-libertarians.

I have watched a number of his videos, and I have not encountered any outright opposition to women in the military, even in those whose subject matter is the military. Giving concrete examples is always helpful. Don't be like feminists by contending with bogeymen.

This has nothing to do with my style of argumentation and everything to do with fact that I can't post links. The full title of the video in question is "Women In Combat - My Testosterone Fuelled Thoughts"; he states that women shouldn't be allowed in, even if they pass the same standards as men.

I have yet to come across a prominent MRA who calls for a total ban on women in active duty in the armed forces. It is true that some in the MRM believe that the presence of females in the army (or police, or firefighting, or even mixed martial arts) undermines the organization, criticizing such policies as gender quotas and lowered performance standards to accommodate women, but the claim that MRAs are plotting to oust women from the military is simply another feminist fear tactic. This is actually a rather passé subject within the MRM. Nobody, except for feminists and imperialists, really cares about women occupying combat roles in imperialist armies anymore, save for that MRAs tend to challenge the overblown feminist cries of sexual assault on servicewomen by their male comrades or superior officers (predictably, never by lesbian members). While the rest of the world has long since moved on to discuss homosexuality in armed services or, more importantly, how unmanned machines will profoundly alter the dimensions of warfare, it's almost as though, like the proverbial broken record, feminists are stuck in the 1960s.

I never suggested that they were plotting to remove women from the military; just that those sort of views have a degree of traction within the MRM.

As is Naomi Wolf, an outstanding feminist. Simply watch their debate during a conference held by the Free State Project, a highly minarchist, borderline anarcho-capitalist, propertarian movement.

Except, I'm not defending feminism here; I'm pointing out that there's little point in supporting either movement.

And Hillary Clinton, bless her anti-establishment radicalism, is a feminist, and so is Harriet Harman, and also Sheryl Sandberg. A real tour de force of leftism these women represent, what with having burst through the glass ceiling and everything. Unlike Stefan Molyneux, these women are influential beyond the internet.

As horrid as those women are, I'm unwilling to support a movement, which I believe to be mostly made-up of right-libertarians, just because they oppose them. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

I was not implying anything. I was merely commenting that this is but one more recent example of anti-free speech "activism" on the part of feminists and their allies.

Which I find despicable, and which I was not defending.

That is a rather droll statement considering your dismissal of the MRM is based upon the composition of its membership.

You, yet again, seem to be implying that an attack on the MRM is automatically translated into a defence of feminism.

Here's the thing; if you can show me that a socialist, of any reasonable description, enjoys any reasonable level of popularity within the MRM, then I might be willing to change my mind on it. Until then, I don't see why there's any point in supporting a group, probably made-up of, and certainly controlled by, right-libertarians.

As for the subject of lesbianism, I'll concede that it needn't be discussed any further; it exists, as a phenomena, but you seem not to be denying that.

Warren Farrell deconstructs the gender wage gap. Yes, this particular speech was hosted by the Cato Institute; no, it does not mean you can dismiss the content. Obviously, he has presented the same topic to diverse audiences over the decades of his activism. This speech at the Cato Institute simply happened to be conveniently recorded and uploaded. Do note that not a single feminist decided to accept the invitation to provide her perspective, which was true to their cowardly character. I suppose we cannot blame them: When there is no real money to be made or pity parties to deliver narcissistic supply, where is the motivation to attend?

This is an apt place to add that the U.S. Department of Labor conducted a study on the pay gap between men and women in which the researchers came to the conclusion that:

"Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."

Unfortunately, the final report of this expensive study did not conform to the anti-working class male ideology that the state embraces, so the government elected not to publish it. However, it does allow me to unequivocally assert that anyone who continues to peddle the notion that the sex-based wage disparity is the product of discrimination, male privilege, and general patriarchal mischief is an opportunist or utter ignoramus, likely both. I am also neglecting here the fact that women, especially in younger age brackets, are now earning more than men across various professional fields—as detailed by feminist Hanna Rosin in her cheerfully titled book, The End of Men: And the Rise of Women.

The Ineluctable Vote

With that out of the way, while we are on the subject of dismantling feminist talking points, let us set the record straight on the sisterhood's most highly trumpeted success story: women's suffrage. According to the standard feminist narrative, women were oppressed by patriarchy and kept in a state of perpetual fear and bondage (presumably, this transpired while hidebound men lounged about with ale in their guts when they were not otherwise preoccupied with rape and wife battery, all of which was perfectly tolerated by society—this remains the case to this day, just less so, I guess), but brave and daring proto-feminists, charmingly referred to as suffragettes, managed to recoil the patriarchy through ferocious struggle, wresting the right to vote for those born with a vagina between their legs. Well, comrades, this just ain't so. The history behind the vote is ever so slightly more complicated, more nuanced.

I have already explained how the historical discrepancy between men's suffrage and women's suffrage was minuscule in my exchange with cogarian888, that both reflected social progress in general (though it is impossible to vote out of capitalism) rather than ideological conflict, but I did not touch upon the actual differences between the male and female vote. Focusing upon the United States, since that is the country I am most familiar with, we begin by considering the instructive Selective Draft Law Cases decision in 1918, in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled the Selective Service Act of 1917 constitutional. This was a response to a series of previous legal challenges, primarily by socialists and anarchists, including Emma Goldman, that conscription was a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. Keep in mind, comrades, that the backdrop of this event was the government's condemnation of millions of young working class men to untold suffering and potential death in a senseless war between rival imperialist powers. The Supreme Court justified its judgment with the following resolution:

"It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it. To do more than state the proposition is absolutely unnecessary in view of the practical illustration afforded by the almost universal legislation to that effect now in force."

In other words, the draft was legitimate because, in return for the rights granted to citizens by their government (which includes suffrage), citizens were obligated to provide services to their government in times of need. I will not bother attacking their reasoning, as that is beside the point. What matters is that this provides us with some insight regarding why men were granted the vote prior to women: men were required, among other things, to sacrifice their lives for their country, which made it exceedingly difficult to deny them the opportunity to, at the very least, influence the political process that would determine their fates. This was no trivial matter, as tens of millions of men, largely youth, perished fighting in the major wars of the 19th and 20th centuries. Thus far, we have not examined the actual composition of American soldiers during WWI. Most of them were working class men between the ages of 18 and 21, but this group was not in possession of voting rights. Indeed, the voting age in the United States was not reduced to 18 until 1971, with the passage of the 26th Amendment. During the 53 year period between the end of the First World War and the 26th Amendment, young American men (and obviously, the situation was similar in other countries) were subjected to the brutalities of WWII, the Korean War, and Vietnam, many of whom died and endured psychological trauma in combat against their working class brothers abroad. These young men were shipped off to die without so much as the semblance of political recognition.

With all of this in mind, we can finally direct our attention to those loveable freedom fighters, or women's rightsers, that feminists appropriate when it suits their epic tales, infused with tragedy and eventual triumph. What, exactly, did they accomplish? In a moment of historical irony worthy of Shakespeare, women were granted the vote in 1920, just two years after the Supreme Court saw fit to legitimize sending working class boys to the meat grinder fronts of WWI on the basis that they were reciprocating the rights they received from the state. Were women expected to register for the draft henceforth? Not at all. In fact, the suffragettes, far from accepting responsibility for women, insisted that their female privileges remain intact. In England, some suffragettes, including leader Christabel Pankhurst, participated in "white feather" campaigns, in which women shamed young men into enlisting for military service by pinning white feathers on "cowards" who failed to comply. Nay, the brunt of their activism consisted of light-hearted rallies and social gatherings in which these (mostly bourgeois) women simply demanded the right to vote. The class character of this movement must not be understated for it impacted their platform. For example, in Britain, the "women suffragists" advocated a bill that would grant the vote to women of property, as this excerpt from a 1908 edition of the Socialist Standard illustrates by making clear the Socialist Party of Great Britain's—when it was moderately respectable—opposition to their demands:

“Men vote at present under the £10 franchise. The suffrage is thus upon a property basis with plural voting for the wealthy. Therefore, according to the proposals of the women Suffragists, only those women having the necessary property qualifications are to be allowed to vote. This excludes not only all those single working women unable to qualify because of their poverty, but it also bars practically the whole of the married women of the working class who have no property qualifications apart from their husbands’. Further, it increases enormously the voting power of the well-to-do, since the head of the wealthy household can always impart the necessary qualifications to all the women of his house, while the working-man, through his poverty, is entirely unable to do so.”

The most vigorous form of activism these downtrodden darlings performed was walking long distances wearing plume hats and frilly, puffy dresses, holding endearing signs, seeking respite from the sweltering heat in the tea rooms and assembly halls of the towns and cities they encountered along the way. They insisted upon the vote without forfeiting female privileges, and they received it... while millions of working class men died at war.

I end this elongated post by embedding another video that criticizes the feminist portrayal of women's suffrage, rounding off what I set forth above.


(I recommend you watch more of this fellow's videos. His sarcasm-laden dissection of feminism and feminists is always most amusing.)

Smash feminism!  

Be skeptical of inflated rape statistics that feminists sling about. They've been debunked time and again, but they rank highly on the list of feminist talking points. There is no compelling evidence whatsoever that the rape victimization rate is uniquely high in comparison to other violent crimes like murder, robbery, and aggravated assault. "Rape culture" is a myth, a concept that even the anti-sexual assault organization RAINN, which is hardly opposed to feminism, has criticized. Anyone who believes that Western countries promote a culture of rape and violence against women is an idiot. Western women are the most affluent and comfortable demographic in history, and by far the safest, which is quite an impressive feat for humanity considering the other female colossi that once roamed this earth, but I don't think paleontological evidence supports the idea that dinosaurs had cankles.

There`s an old saying.Privilege is invisible to those who have it.Patriarchy is still very much a real force in western society.Has it been tamed somewhat by the historical efforts of feminists?Certainly.Have some feminists used reactionary tactics I would not personally approve of?Again the answer is a resounding yes.That said I would be remiss to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' as it were.That`s such an odd saying,isn`t it?Emma Goldman is one of my influences along with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,Joseph deJacque,Benjamin Tucker,Kevin A. Carson,Max Stirner and Henry David Thoreau.

MutualistPhilosophy wrote:There`s an old saying.Privilege is invisible to those who have it.

Spare me the platitudes. Feminists and women in general would do well to recognize how aptly this saying corresponds to themselves.

Patriarchy is still very much a real force in western society.

Do enlighten us as to how today's Western women are in any way oppressed or meaningfully disadvantaged relative to men under this phantasmagorical “patriarchy,” because the absurdity of this claim is self-evident to any reasonable individual. The burden of proof falls upon you to provide evidence for its existence, not upon me to disprove it, though I do believe I have established a powerful case for rejecting the theory in this thread.

Has it been tamed somewhat by the historical efforts of feminists?Certainly.

Tamed “somewhat,” as though enjoying all of the legal rights that men do, including some protections that men do not, and numerous other social benefits is not enough. This only underscores the sheer entitlement mentality of Western women (who, by the way, consume more of the social product than men, even though men perform a much larger share of the dirty, dangerous, and demanding labor in society) and the irrationality of the obsequious male lackeys who take up arms on their behalf.

Also, as I've argued throughout this thread, it was not feminism that was responsible for most of the changes affecting the social position of women in the Western world, but rather the evolving needs of capitalism and the toil of working class men—as well as the political struggle that men engaged in, and to provide you with just one example, it was the agitation of working class men in England and France that pressured the ruling class to introduce the first shortened workday, which was granted to women and children. “Feminism” emerged as a bourgeois phenomenon in the mid to late 19th century, and it has always been nothing more than a project to increase the social power of largely privileged women. The English Marxist and barrister E. Belfort Bax wrote an illuminating pamphlet called The Legal Subjection of Men in 1908, which meticulously details the numerous ways women were legally privileged over men in the English speaking world across the whole 19th century. He was a prominent early critic of feminism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and so it is worth noting that virtually the same arguments that I elaborated in this thread were applicable to "feminism" even in its nascent days. The project is absolutely ridiculous now.

Every contemporary feminist complaint can be shown to be at least one of the following:

1) False or misleading.

2) Adversely affect men to some degree as well, or a negative counterpart for males and comparative advantage for females can be easily found, thereby reducing the argument to one of petty bias.

3) Unrelated to feminism, as such, at least insofar as the First World is concerned.

Its “theoretical” underpinnings, let alone many of its factual claims, are easily dismantled by any honest, reasonably intelligent and informed individual. Once the dogma of “women's oppression” (which is “deeply woven into the fabric of daily life,” as one feminist put it, even in the Western world, where it has been tamed only “somewhat”) is exposed for being the blatant falsehood that it is, and the vague abstraction termed “patriarchy” is discarded for being a farcical, infantile persecution fantasy, feminism loses all legitimacy it could possibly have claimed as a movement and ideology (e.g., “men are oppressed, too, and lots of bad shit happens to them, but they aren't systematically oppressed like women, so get over it,” and sardonic dismissals of the “I bathe in male tears” and “what about teh menz?” kind).

Have some feminists used reactionary tactics I would not personally approve of?Again the answer is a resounding yes.

Feminism is a backward project at its core, expressing the extant gynocentrism in society. Indeed, it is the great gynocentrism of our time. The fact that feminism encompasses such a heterogeneous and contradictory movement is a serious mark against it, because it effectively allows individual feminists to arbitrarily select any side of an issue that they happen to feel furthers the interests of themselves and other women, essentially couching personal grievances in the language of oppression and victimization in order to give those grievances greater legitimacy than they deserve, which only reinforces the notion that feminism is a form of shameless gynocentrism.

That said I would be remiss to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' as it were.

A more apt analogy, in my opinion, would be cancer. Feminism is like a cancerous growth within an organization or community. It is best to excise it completely. Over the last few years alone, feminists and their ilk have infiltrated the atheist community, video game journalism, comic books, metal music, and computer programming with disastrous consequences, eventually provoking an extensive and vociferous backlash from each respective fanbase. The same is true of feminism's decades long poisoning of the radical left. I think it must be pointed out that feminism bears at least some culpability for the revolutionary left's post-WW2 political stagnation in the West. I would go so far as to assert that feminism is counterrevolutionary.

I mean, it has come to the point where Tumblr-style feminism has been seriously heralded as the fourth wave by some journalists. Utterly pathetic.

Your sarcasm towards Hillary notwithstanding and I would not support her myself because of her reactionary response to Walmart workers protesting, I`d personally support Jill Stein instead.Also,you`re being blatantly intellectually dishonest if you`re claiming that "What about teh menz?" is all MRAs claim.Also if you think patriarchy is a victim narrative I could flip that right back on you and say the same of the claim of "male disposability".Also,there have been multiple MRAs and MGTOWs who have called feminists and their supporters "degenerates" and give off an air of smug elitism and moral superiority whilst claiming to be egalitarians and then they say that men not being allowed to beat their wives is oppression.That`s not to say that all MRAs act in this way and believe this way,I`ve talked to several MRAs who are quite rational but to deny the fact that there is a strong undercurrent of misogyny in the highest levels of the MRAs and MGTOWs is to outright lie.Don`t strawman my argument here,I`m not saying men should not have rights,I`m just saying if you`re going to be a consistent egalitarian one-sided "us vs. them" narratives are unproductive.For the record,I don`t think men are all evil and I don`t think all women are evil either.People are individuals,gender does not make someone superior or inferior one way or the other.On that much we can agree,I hope.

RevScare,I`m all for taking a critical look at feminism.However,the word "critical" has largely been distorted within the blogosphere to mean tearing something down root and branch and not acknowledging that something could have any good qualities whatsoever.I acknowledge the good qualities of the MRAs and MGTOWs even though I oppose their generally reactionary class character and absolutist dogmas.Some MRAs and MGTOWs are quite reasonable,far too many however are every bit as dogmatic and hysterical as radfems,only from the opposite gender`s perspective.I also find it quite ironic that you are a Marxist syndicalist and yet when it comes to the topic of feminism you end up sounding like a total McCarthyist.Here is what I am referring to.Are some feminists misandrists?Yes.Are all of them misandrists?No.It`s these kinds of hasty generalizations and attempting to vilify an entire group of people with the actions of its loudest,most obnoxious members as if feminists are some kind of monolithic entity that agrees on every single issue rather than a highly diverse group of individuals who come together based on common beliefs, that lead to the kind of witch hunts and hysteria you preach against when they are against men and yet seem to support against women.

MutualistPhilosophy wrote:Also,you`re being blatantly intellectually dishonest if you`re claiming that "What about teh menz?" is all MRAs claim.

That isn't what MRAs claim. "What about teh menz?" is an ironic meme that feminists employ whenever a man brings up legitimate men's issues to them, just like "I bathe in male tears," which is supposed to trivialize and dismiss the problems men face.

Also if you think patriarchy is a victim narrative I could flip that right back on you and say the same of the claim of "male disposability".

Patriarchy theory posits that social institutions, customs, and gender roles, historically and up to the present, are organized in such a way as to establish and perpetuate male dominance over females. It views women as a universally and historically oppressed class. This is false. Male disposability is the view that men have historically and through to the present occupied positions that demanded greater sacrifice of life and limb relative to women, which is a fact. It is not a class theory.

In the first place, you are drawing a false analogy between patriarchy theory and male disposability theory. They are not analogous. Second, I hope you realize that even if you could somehow completely discredit the idea of male disposability, you would not be vindicating any aspect of feminist ideology as a result. That would be a non sequitur.

If I were to argue that patriarchy theory is false whereas matriarchy theory is correct, then perhaps you would have some basis for such a criticism, but this is not what I have argued. Like Warren Farrell, I believe that all societies throughout history possessed both matriarchal and patriarchal characteristics that, in the aggregate, did not confer a net advantage unto one sex at the expense of the other, with the possibility that men were encumbered with a slightly greater share of the social burden.

Also,there have been multiple MRAs and MGTOWs who have called feminists and their supporters "degenerates" and give off an air of smug elitism and moral superiority whilst claiming to be egalitarians

I happen to agree that many feminists, especially those regularly encountered on Tumblr, Jezebel, Twitter (#killallmen), and other social media, are degenerates. Slut walks, topless protests, descecrating religious objects for shock value, defecating and menstruating in public to make a political statement, menstrual blood and vagina "art," protesting rational speech, fabricating rape threats, and claiming to have developed PTSD from Twitter while threatening the jobs of skeptical soldiers are all examples of degenerate acts. Feminists get away with such disgusting behavior because women are held to a lower standard of accountability than men—women receive substantially lower sentences for the same crimes.

In any case, calling feminists degenerates is not incompatible with egalitarianism. Invective criticism of feminism does not necessarily translate into an opposition to social equality between the sexes.

and then they say that men not being allowed to beat their wives is oppression.

Which notable MRAs or MGTOWs have claimed this? You are probably just grossly simplifying and distorting MRA arguments against the feminist portrayal of domestic violence as one where women are always victims and men always aggressors, with feminist inspired "primary aggressor" laws discriminating against men in such situations.

That`s not to say that all MRAs act in this way and believe this way,I`ve talked to several MRAs who are quite rational but to deny the fact that there is a strong undercurrent of misogyny in the highest levels of the MRAs and MGTOWs is to outright lie.

That first of all depends upon what you mean by "misogyny." The word really has become meaningless due to prolific abuse by feminists and their allies. Virtually any criticism of women (or certain types of women) and feminist theory can be and has been branded as misogyny by one feminist or another. For example, disagreeing with a feminist on an issue such as rape by suggesting that not all sexual assault is equal, that women can minimize their risk of being sexually assaulted, and that false rape allegations exist and are more frequent than we might think is often enough to earn yourself the label of "victim blaming misogynist." The term "misogyny" has truly come to mean anything a woman finds offensive.

I don't truly care to debate the real or imagined misogyny of these groups—the entire manosphere is typically decried as a bastion of misogyny simply because feminist bullshit isn't taken seriously there. It's ironic that MRAs are often called misogynists by feminist ignoramuses, because some of the most popular MRAs on the internet are women, but of course, these women are obviously incapable of thinking critically and are simply suffering from "internalized misogyny," so unlike feminists.

I am sympathetic to MGTOW philosophy, but that is neither here nor there. I will acknowledge, however, that there is a degree of undue acrimony toward women in those circles, but MRAs have sharply denounced some of these more extreme tendencies of MGTOW, and over the course of the last few months, from what I have gathered, there has been a schism between the leaders of the most popular MRA site A Voice for Men and MGTOW notables. In other words, internal debate within the manosphere is frequent, whereas "moderate" feminists rarely repudiate the maniacs. MGTOW bitterness is also not nearly so much about actual misogyny as it is about anger in the face of injustice, which is something feminists should understand, since they often use similar reasoning to excuse their childish outrages. That is quite enough about that. I will leave it to a major MGTOW personality to explain this issue.

Don`t strawman my argument here,I`m not saying men should not have rights,I`m just saying if you`re going to be a consistent egalitarian one-sided "us vs. them" narratives are unproductive.

Tell that to feminists and their sycophantic followers.

I also fundamentally disagree that rejecting feminism entails abandoning egalitarian principles. Feminism is not about social equality; it is about social power.

gender does not make someone superior or inferior one way or the other.

Tell that to feminists and their sycophantic followers.

On that much we can agree,I hope.

This thread is not about rights and sexual superiority or inferiority. This is about criticizing a pernicious, hysterical, and vile victim ideology.

MutualistPhilosophy wrote:RevScare,I`m all for taking a critical look at feminism.However,the word "critical" has largely been distorted within the blogosphere to mean tearing something down root and branch and not acknowledging that something could have any good qualities whatsoever.I acknowledge the good qualities of the MRAs and MGTOWs even though I oppose their generally reactionary class character and absolutist dogmas.Some MRAs and MGTOWs are quite reasonable,far too many however are every bit as dogmatic and hysterical as radfems,only from the opposite gender`s perspective.I also find it quite ironic that you are a Marxist syndicalist and yet when it comes to the topic of feminism you end up sounding like a total McCarthyist.Here is what I am referring to.Are some feminists misandrists?Yes.Are all of them misandrists?No.It`s these kinds of hasty generalizations and attempting to vilify an entire group of people with the actions of its loudest,most obnoxious members as if feminists are some kind of monolithic entity that agrees on every single issue rather than a highly diverse group of individuals who come together based on common beliefs, that lead to the kind of witch hunts and hysteria you preach against when they are against men and yet seem to support against women.

What is your point with all of this? How many times must I repeat that this thread is not about the MRM or any other group within the manosphere? The title of the thread is not "The Death of Feminism on the Left, and the Rise of MRAs." This thread is about deconstructing feminism. You are presenting a slew of irrelevant emotional arguments, and I have neither the time nor the interest to respond to them.

This is not a witch hunt. I am presenting a rational and factual case.

Would Enver Hoxha be considered a feminist?
http://ciml.250x.com/archive/5classics/english/hoxha_women/womens_emancipation.html