Feminism, like other ideologies of hatred, accomplished its goal by getting its targeted class or group to buy into the stereotypes presented by feminists and by pushing men into a reactionary state where they inverted feminist dynamics to their own purposes. Either way, men have looked puerile and whiny. Victim simply isn’t a good look on anyone.
This is not to say that men have not been victims, because they have. We have a nation of men who have bought into the feminist narrative. They are angry, confused, aggressive, lashing out in pathetic attempts to appear strong, and they are increasingly losing the one race that matters: the economic race. Feminists have failed to realize that a major legacy of perpetuating negative stereotypes about any class is that the more successfully the stereotype takes hold, the more likely it is that the class characterized in the stereotype will come to resemble the negative qualities therein. We now have an epidemic of men living with their parents well into their twenties and even later, many of whom have little in the way of prospects for a career or a productive future. Women are outperforming men at virtually every level, because after forty years of emphasizing females to the detriment of males in education, socialization, and professional occupations, feminists have achieved their goal: the subordination and degradation of males. Well, you broke it, and now you get to deal with the legacy: a shiftless son who lives in your home until he's nearly 30. At the same time, men are still responsible for their own lot in life.
The Realities of Bias and Possible Implications for the Future
In some 148 of 150 major cities, women now out-earn men. Our economy has moved from a manufacturing base to a finance and service sector emphasis. History is clear: when economies shift to allow their finance sectors a position of dominance, they gradually fade. No empire has ever survived the transition from manufacturing or agriculture to finance, with its rampant speculation and exotic securitized devices.
In essence, our economy has moved towards emphasizing sectors or areas that are uniquely geared towards women. Our government expenditures have conversely addressed the concerns of women, as noted by John R. Lott and Lawrence W. Kenny in their paper “Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?” The following chart illustrates the reality of women’s suffrage on government spending, with an 11 year jump from $101 per capita to the $208 per capita in state level spending.
Take a look, men: that’s what progress looks like. But there’s more: a recent IMF proposal to cut the tax rate for Irish working women by five percentage points is so blatantly misandrist on its face as to be laughable. The argument put forth for the tax cut is predictable enough: it will close the pay gap between men and women, promoting family-friendly workplaces. However, there’s no acknowledgment that perhaps working fathers who have newly born children, and thus higher expenditures in the form of food and medical care, should receive tax relief in the name of family-friendly workplaces. No, no, no…the relief is confined solely to women.
The Guardian had its say on the matter with the following:
“Lowering income tax by five percentage points would go some way towards closing the gender pay gap of 8% that persists even when equivalent educational qualifications and responsibility are taken into account. Significant enactment of equality legislation has failed to achieve this.”
What no one wants to acknowledge is that men work longer and harder than women in the workplace, and this is a metric that has been measured in various studies. Axel Schaffer and Carsten Stahmer noted as much in their study “Women’s GDP-A Time-Based Input-Output Analysis,” which examined the hours worked by men and women in Germany. They found the following:
“Relating to one person, men’s average annual working time comes up to more than 1,700 hours per employee. In contrast, women’s average annual working time is below 1,200 hours per employee.”
The problem of feminism is not that women don’t make enough for doing the same amount of work; it’s that they don’t get paid as much for doing less work. In point of fact, Schaffer and Stahmer attempted to argue that women were doing unpaid work in the home that was just as beneficial to the GDP as the paid work done by men in the workplace. Truth be told, without men doing the bulk of the work in the workplace, those women who choose to prioritize motherhood over career wouldn’t be in a position of choosing to do unpaid work while maintaining a relatively comfortable standard of living.
What do these points have to contribute to the idea that men are boys? Simply put, the studies quoted above all point to women using government as a mace to bludgeon men into funding their priorities, be it more money for less work, greater government spending on healthcare and education, or a disparate treatment of mothers and fathers when it comes to taxation. Men aren’t as important; therefore, their contributions can be whittled down and understated in the most condescending manner possible.
The men who go along with such nonsense are the enlightened ones, living their lives as groveling men who prattle on and parrot the feminist line so as to demonstrate their obeisance to political correctness. We won’t call these men beta males, because that gives them too much credit. We’ll call them invertebrates.
The men who object usually do so in the worst of ways, by adopting a childish and rebellious posture replete with misogynistic language that reflects worse on the user than the targeted women. They retreat into defensive shells in their lives, confusing a capacity for rhetorical outbursts with strength. Dismantling feminism is easy: the facts do not bear out that ideology. All one has to do is calmly and logically point out the rational inconsistencies between giving returning mothers who make less money for working fewer hours tax relief while keeping tax rates constant for the fathers who work longer hours, make more money, and provide greater financial support for their offspring. Misandry, like other forms of prejudice including misogyny, is utterly counterproductive.
It just feels good. It feels good to blame others for your shortcomings, to refuse to acknowledge that your negative actions have negative consequences, and to reciprocate when faced with the obvious unfairness of prejudice. However, it’s not in your rational self-interest to do so. Anarcho-misogyny as a name is a direct provocation to feminism; it is not an endorsement of hatred towards women.
Illogic dominates any discourse over fairness or unfairness primarily because those who obsess over such concepts have relative definitions of what fairness is. If I were to tell you that the corporate income tax was unfair to workers and consumers, you would likely agree with me in saying that corporations don’t pay enough taxes. However, if I were to qualify my comment by saying that my belief is that corporate income taxes ought to be abolished, then you would likely recoil in righteous indignation. “Why, they need to pay their fair share!”
But if I logically point out to you that corporate income taxes are externalized to workers in the form of lower wages and consumers in the form of higher prices, you’d likely pause to reconsider the fairness of the tax. It’s in your self-interest to do so. Ideology blinds you to your self-interest by offering you a chance to stick it to the man, even if the end result is shooting yourself in the foot. People who live their lives in the flesh abdicate the ability to live life guided by the mind. They have but two core issues to consider: grievances and payback.
If you were to cut taxes for married men and women with children for five percent, as opposed to merely women, mothers and fathers alike would have greater household income and increased means to provide for their children. If you were to do the same for unmarried parents, the effect would be the same. That’s not to say that people will use tax relief to directly benefit their children, because some people are irresponsible and will use tax relief to purchase items they don’t need that won’t serve as a benefit to their children. My in-laws used their $9,500 tax refund to purchase new living room furniture and a bigger television. In the meantime, my mother-in-law was tasked with paying for her grandchildren to have school supplies, clothes, and eyeglasses.
That’s life. You can’t legislate stupidity and irresponsibility out of human beings no matter how hard you try. It’s infuriating, but in a free society, you are faced with these sorts of realities on a daily basis.
We have a nation of boys who live their lives in video games, pornography, and substance abuse, who go into their thirties living with their parents and never moving out of childhood. They’re irresponsible with money, careless with their bodies, and seemingly determined to pick the wrong options over and over again. It’s not that you can’t play video games, or that pornography will turn you into a rapist or a sex offender, or that you can’t use drugs and alcohol responsibly. It’s that you don’t use any of these items in a manner conducive to meeting your obligations and responsibilities as a man.
Anarcho-misogyny assigns to masculinity the task of living independently in a self-sufficient manner. As men, standing on your own, having unique convictions, outlooks, and approaches to life’s problems, and refusing to be drawn into debates framed by emotion and illogic are key requisites to being masculine. This doesn’t make us insensitive, it just means that we are not ruled by our emotions. We recognize that feeling a certain way does not legitimate any inference that arises from that feeling, especially if the inference in question conflicts with the available facts.
Moreover, the great problem of masculinity in America today is the tendency of men to reduce themselves to whining about injustice. Don’t whine. Develop the resolve, determination, and strategy to confront the problems you see in a practical manner. The great problem with dominant paradigms and the constituencies they create is that they breed complacency within those constituencies.
Men didn’t take feminism seriously as a threat. Some doubtless believed that greater self-determination for women was warranted, even just, but what they failed to realize was that feminists were never after mere equality. They were after the abolition of traditional roles, the redefinition of gender, and the reclassification of equality as a means of extracting privilege for protected classes in the name of restoring equality.
Feminism was never about equality for women; rather, it was about destroying anything and everything tinged with masculinity. It was, and still is, an infantile ideology borne out of churlish resentment and gender hatred. For feminists, men were the root cause of every issue that ailed their kind. They were the oppressors, and it was time to foment some strategy or approach that would defeat men as a group. Any man who didn’t convert and “surrender dominance” was an advocate of patriarchy. Ideology polarizes people into extreme constituencies of resentment, and forces them to surrender any capacity for rational thought in order to maintain strict adherence to doctrinal purity.
You cannot disagree with fanatics and not be seen as a traitor or an enemy. The problem with ideological hatred is that fanaticism is contagious; it spreads from the hunters to the hunted, who reciprocate an inverted fanaticism in their response. One could argue quite coherently and logically that black nationalism was an inversion of white nationalism. Masculism in its present form gives rise to the same hysterical outbursts and resentful countercharges of feminism.
Moreover, those of us who oppose feminism very often overcompensate with our machismo in our reactions. Rather than being clinical in our approach and systematically dismantling the irrationality that underlies virtually every single feminist argument, we are drawn into arguments about rape fantasies and exchanges of mangina-based insults. Feminism is an intellectually vapid ideology.
One has only to read of Betty Friedan’s various foibles in her landmark book The Feminine Mystique to be aware of the fact that her sources were wrong, her representation of herself as a middle-class housewife was a lie, and her conclusions about victimization were suspect as a result. Simply put, she lied to make her points.
Furthermore, much of what feminism does is, simply enough, a total deceit that is easily addressed and combatted by anyone with an elementary understanding of rhetoric and debate tactics. These are not particularly clever or smart individuals we’re dealing with here; they’re just pervasive.
Their rationale for anti-male policies is easily addressed, with the following example from the Guardian serving as a prime example:
“The difficulties that undoubtedly exist in persuading productive women back into the workforce after childbirth have contributed to a situation where women account for just one in five management positions in Irish SMEs. The family unfriendly nature of the workplace spills over into the political and public service arenas too. Just 14% of elected representatives in the Irish parliament are women and women account for less than one quarter of Irish senior civil servants.”
The lack of uniformity among men and women in management positions is explained away as hostility to families, because God knows that none of the men in management positions have families of their own that they support and provide for. No, no, no…only women have families! Anything that results in a less than equal standing for women has to be not only misogynist, it has to be anti-family as well!
Feminists don’t want to acknowledge that women make decisions, and those decisions have consequences. If you want to work and have a family, why should your company be required to treat you as though you have been working during your maternity leave? What practical, business-savvy reason could they have for counting maternity leave as on the job experience for the purposes of a promotion? The two are different to the point of being oppositional.
If you decide to work fewer hours, why should you be afforded the ability and the privilege of equal pay with someone who works longer hours? Is it because your company should factor in the hours you spend doing housework as part of your compensation, as Shaffer and Stahmer appear to argue in their research? Surely you jest! You cannot seriously suggest that a company receiving little if anything from the fruits of your work at home be required to factor in your labor outside of their workplace into equitable pay!
When you put it like this, you see that men have no reason to feel anything but emboldened before the demonstrably ludicrous arguments put forth by feminists. You certainly shouldn’t be sitting on the couch in a surly and petulant mood, playing video games and refusing to work towards self-sufficiency and economic self-determination because the ball-busters are at work! Go create your own company, and the lack of expense you put out in the form of corporate funded daycares and generous outlays for equitable concerns will give you greater profitability and the ability to out-compete any feminized business! Stop whining and start doing.
The fact that you buy into the stereotypical view of men put forth by feminists and resemble it of your own volition does not mean that you have been victimized by feminism. It means that you have chosen to play the role of victim. In much the same way, the fact that women have failed to defy the roles put forth in stereotypes authored by others does not mean that they have been pigeonholed. It means that they are suffering the consequences of their own volitional actions.
It is not manly to be belligerent, drunken, crude, delinquent in your responsibilities, or a procrastinator. We have a fundamental problem with masculinity in this country, and the problem is that men have abdicated the definition of masculinity to the misandrists. Well, the time has come for a nation of boys to become a nation of men, to recapture masculinity and define it in terms that respect the accomplishments of men, which are substantial. Hard work by men built modern civilization into what it is today, and if we hadn’t created such a prize in the first place, feminists wouldn’t be in such a rush to seize it.
I am not Betty Friedan, and I will not construct a victim narrative of my own out of thin air in order to appeal to a constituency of victims. I appeal to power, and the potential for power present within every man and woman who seeks equality to define their lives and the responsibility that arrives out of making one’s own choices. I am responsible for the consequences of my own decisions and actions. I may justifiably be unequal to others based on the merit or error of my decisions and actions. If you agree with these statements, then anarcho-misogyny is for you regardless of your gender. But if you wish to be a boy or a girl, sucking at the teats of resentment and victimization, I have no nourishment to offer you. Grow up. I see constituencies of empowerment rather than resentment.
If you’re a man failing to act responsibly and meet his obligations, you don’t belong among the anarcho-misogynist ranks. If you’re a man that blames a substance, or a stereotype, or an ideology for your lot in life, as opposed to accepting the role of your own willful abdication to external forces or ideas in producing undesired results, you have only yourself to blame. Victimization and power are mutually exclusive. Your life’s path and destination are determined by your refusal to be a stereotype or a statistic. You can acknowledge and protest the injustices of the world; indeed, you possess a moral and ethical obligation to do so no matter who is affected, be it a man, woman, child, or person of color. Privilege within the law based on race, religion, orientation, gender, creed, or any other classification is wrong.
For the law to have any binding efficacy in our society, and our culture, for the common ideals we share to hold us together in an ordered community, we must have equality before the law. Otherwise, the law is an agent of tyranny that promotes a few while denigrating others. Anarcho-misogyny recognizes differences, but it rejects the idea that those differences can legitimately form a legal or rational basis for privilege for one class over others.
I look at the way men act, and I am reminded of the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey:
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”
Substitute ideology for State, and you will have the gist of what I mean. We exist in a prison of ideology that defines the way we think about meaning, difference, and our own existence. Many men do not realize that their existences are largely a reaction to feminism that only serves to perpetuate the very worst stereotypes about our kind. We aren’t defined according to our own individual concept of existence, because our concept is little more than an indignant reaction to an ideology we see as unfair. In our rebellion we come to fulfill and confirm many of the core assertions feminists make about men.
It isn’t really who we are. There’s nothing innately male or masculine about playing video games and acting like an ass in our day-to-day interactions with our peers. I had a discussion with one of my friends about denominationalism in religion, and he put for the idea that religious schism was even more pronounced; because he believed that each individual attending a Catholic Church had their own unique belief system within and without the dogmas of the Catholic Church. We pick and we choose, we define for ourselves, and so long as we are getting to a closer understanding of what we truly believe and why we believe it, it’s fine to act within existing ideological constructs.
However, when we attribute our demonstrably boorish, ignorant, and irresponsible behavior to those constructs, we aren’t engaging in liberty. We aren’t free. We’re simply sidestepping accountability for the choices we’ve made by insisting that we really didn’t have a choice because of society, or culture, or religion, or our upbringing. Freedom involves the freedom to make choices and the responsibility of dealing with the aftermath of those choices, good or bad.
Develop your own peculiar way of looking at the world and understanding how things work, and measure that method by the results it produces in your life. If it works, continue onward. If it produces less than desirable results, change it accordingly. Adapt. Free markets for economics and behavior entail a certain amount of personal responsibility and risk. The payoff for freedom is that you reap the reward if you make the right decisions, and you reap the consequences if you don’t. Liberty doesn’t guarantee you happiness; it merely enables you to evolve your own personal path towards happiness.
This nation of boys that has sat surly and sulking for decades now must rise and begin to define its own path towards happiness. It must throw off the chain of victimology and belief of helplessness before the idiotic tenets of feminism. Courage and war are the only answers in the face of such inanity, and until you rise up as an individual man to face the stereotypes and stand as a living contradiction to the feminist narrative, things are not going to change.
We can link feminist or progressive ideals about welfare and government spending to the rise of women’s suffrage, but we can also say unequivocally that the more pronounced matriarchy is within a society, the more likely its males are to be stunted in their development. See the nations of Europe, which are coming to grips with the reality that men aren’t leaving the nest. In Italy, experts are starting to link the trend to a declining birth rate.
To combat this, feminism is going to have to be defeated entirely. The nanny state is growing for a reason, and that reason is this: feminists have no compunction about forcing their view of what it ideal onto the rest of us through the State. While anarcho-misogyny rejects feminism entirely as an ideology, it recognizes that without the State, feminists have no means whatsoever to implement their ideas. Simply put, by mobilizing politically with the idea of rolling back the State’s scope and reach, men can do a lot to defeat feminism and prevent further damage to their interests.
However, for that to happen, men are going to have to start being men. It’s time to get out of your parent’s basement and claim responsibility for the course and direction of our lives. It’s time for men who have status and power to look upon their role as their brother’s keeper. Shame is a powerful tool that can be used to compel men to do the right thing. There’s nothing like ridicule from your peers; moreover, there’s also nothing like support from your peers once you start to move in a productive direction to keep you on track. We have a duty to uplift our brothers in their efforts to become self-sufficient, accountable men.
It is time to do what we can to restore men to an equal footing, and to force the issue with those men who refuse to stand on their own by either withdrawing our friendship and the benefits thereof until they come around, or by confronting them directly with the brutal truth. Either way, it’s time for men to reject the idea that destructive, stupid, or counterproductive behavior is somehow innately male.