Let’s Talk About Manliness: Part 1

If you’ve ever found yourself asking “what does it mean to be a man in 2015?”, congratulations, you’ve lost your man card.  That’s right, as a feminist male who strongly opposes outdated and useless gender-norms, I’m taking away your fucking man card.  Why would I do this?  Simple, it’s because there are two types of men who like to explore this question.  The first category are men with beards and feathered hair and acoustic guitars who like to have workshops exploring masculinity, and these men are perfectly okay with hugging other men that they don’t fucking know.  You know who you are and you can fuck right off with your talk of tantric sex and bullshit rituals that bring you closer to your inner man-beast or whatever.  Eat all the dicks!  Sorry, I just really don’t like being hugged by strangers.  The second and more prominent group are far more idiotic, and that group is the men’s rights activists.  While none of them have ever tried to hug me, I still get their bullshit polluting my Facebook feed every single day.  That space is for depressingly unfunny memes made by conservatives and platitudes about how much people love their children that make me think they’re terrible parents.  But I digress.  The point is, both of these groups are annoying and aren’t fit to call themselves men.  Since I’m not out to insult any other gender identity, I’ll call these people jellyfish.

I think there's a federal law that says this picture must be in any article talking about masculinity.
I think there’s a federal law that says this picture must be in any article talking about masculinity.

Men’s rights activists, or meninists as they now like to be called (not a very creative bunch), or jellyfish as I have just dubbed them, believe that feminism is destroying the modern male, and that they, as men, are helpless against the onslaught of feminist idealism.  For a group that idealizes strong old fashioned manly traits, they’re not off to a good start.  Men, traditionally, are not supposed to be helpless against anything.  These men cower at the thought that someone might call them an asshole.  The ideal manly man will stand his ground if he believes what he’s doing is right.  A friend of mine once said to me “it’s getting to the point where you can’t even be a man anymore.”  I have no idea what this means.  If he means that society is labeling as sexual assault formerly innocent “manly” things like groping the beer tub girl, then yes, he’s right, and that’s a good thing.  I’ve asked him several times and he still hasn’t explained it to me.  Interestingly enough, a few months after he said that to me, the UFC fighter and all around sack of shit Jonathan Koppenhaver, aka War Machine wrote something similar in his suicide note while in jail for aggravated assault against his ex-girlfriend.  From the evidence presented to me, his complaint really seems to be on par with any other dominant group losing power to treat people like shit and get away with it.  Can’t shout obscenities at women on the street, can’t slap my secretary’s ass, can’t tell my girlfriend I hope she gets raped by a pack of niggers (can’t even be racist, is this even America anymore?).

Anyway, as a man, please allow me to give you a quick rundown of the rules of being a masculine man in our first ever listicle.

#1. All men must have a beard, or not, do whatever you want, I’m not your mother.  

Beard culture is getting out of hand.  The appalling label “lumbersexual” makes me want to vomit glitter.  For all their rugged posturing, they seem to spend a great deal of time primping their beards to look just right.  Knock it off, you prancing ninnies!  Grow a beard and then shut the fuck about it.  I don’t want to know about how your beard collects panties.  The only product your beard requires might be some dandruff shampoo, as I found out a few years ago.  The beard trend needs to go away for so many reasons, not the least of which is that it devalues my laziness.  Facial hair exists because we don’t like bothering to shave.  When it comes down to it, I already have to brush my teeth and take a shit, how much of my morning should I have to give up?

No it doesn't. I just covers up your weak chin. You seem like a good candidate for #4.
No it doesn’t. I just covers up your weak chin. You seem like a good candidate for #4.

#2. Men must fuck a lot of women.  Or men — if you’re gay — or transgender people.  Goddamnit!  Men should fuck a lot of whomever they like to fuck, or don’t, whatever.  

Having a hard cock and fucking things with it is the the pinnacle of manhood.  It always sounds like I’m bragging when I mention that I’ve had sex with a lot of women in my life, and I’m really not.  I wouldn’t take it back, but neither is it a point of pride.  It’s just a series of fun and not so fun things that have happened in my life.  Either way, men, the ability to conquer strange has nothing to do with being manly.  It has more to do with being noticed, being in the right place at the right time, and maybe eliciting some good laughs.  You won’t believe how a well-timed fisting joke can lead to coitus.  A friend of mine once asked me how to arouse a woman’s interest.  I have no system so the only thing I could tell him was “just stand around being awesome until someone offers to fuck you.”  If any of you, dear readers, have ever brought someone home from the bar, you know what I’m talking about.  My point is, do whatever makes you happy.  There’s almost no such thing as too many sexual partners provided you’re being safe.  But there is absolutely such a thing as too few.  It won’t make you less of a man, just less able to make an informed decision about a potential life partner.

#2.5. Sometimes women hook up with men that aren’t you and you have to deal with that.

Have you ever been to a cool party bar and looked at all the hot women flirting with meaty asshole dudes and wondered how those men are getting all the attention?  Perhaps you found yourself getting angry.  After all, you’re polite to women, cultured, intelligent, you’re a nice g1243268661054086690uy.  Nice guy is code for boring.  The whole Nice Guy thing has been talked about ad nauseum.  There’s probably thousands of websites about Nice Guys.  You should know by now that it’s not a good description.  Women aren’t attracted to assholes, they’re attracted to men who are fun to be around.  There tends to be some overlap.  Or maybe they’re just looking to hook up with some looker with a six-pack.  Women can be just as shallow as men.  I know Kevin James movies would have you believe otherwise, but no, sometimes ladies just want to bang a hot guy.  Recently, while watching the Republican debate, I thought about how how much I can’t stand Megyn Kelly’s politics, but I still wanted to jerk off all over her face.  If you don’t think there’s a girl version of that impulse (run over there and make him open all my jars?), you need more female friends.  If you were to hear my girlfriend talk about Channing Tatum, you’d faint like a southern belle.  Anyway, the important thing to remember is that none of this has anything to do with you.  Most likely, you’re in the wrong bar, pining after the wrong women.  Consider going to places with chicks that are into the same kind of shit you’re into.  Or if you’re just fucking boring or fat or smelly or whatever, consider working on that.

#3.  Every man needs to drink whisky, goddamnit!  Then again…

Men, stop drinking whiskey.  Just stop it.  You’re ruining it for those of us who really like whiskey.  You’re driving up the price and creating shortages of the stuff.  I know a shot of Knob Creek looks good with your perfectly parted hair, expensively groomed beard, and flannel fucking shirt, but just knock it off.  In five years you’ll go back to drinking vodka sevens, but by then the damage will be done.  So quit it.

#4.  Every man needs to be willing and able to punch a motherfucker in his stupid goddamn face!

This is one rule that I’m going to stand by.  Several years ago, I was drinking with a friend of mine who was going through some problems.  She stepped outside for a smoke and a cry and this guy started fucking with her.  I politely asked him to back off and he said I should “tell [my] cunt to 6a00d8341c630a53ef0120a7af409b970b-800wishut up.”  I punched him in his stupid goddamn face.  Why?  Because that’s my job.  I’m not a violent man.  I hate violence unless it’s in film, literary, or game form.  But he needed his stupid goddamn face punched and I stand by punching him in his stupid goddamn face.  Some people will disagree with me.  They’ll say that a measure of a man isn’t his ability to punch a motherfucker in his stupid goddamn face.  Those people are dead wrong.  Treating some dipshit to a bit of chin music is a solemn duty (hehe, duty).  Sure, you might get your ass kicked.  You might end up with more than one guy kicking the hell out of you.  But everyone needs to get their ass kicked at some point in their lives.  It humbles you.  And the motherfucker you punched in his stupid goddamn face will at least remember it.  That is not to say you should just go around punching faces all willy-nilly.  If you go around looking to punch faces, you run the risk of becoming the guy whose stupid goddamn face needs to be punched.

Above is a video of someone who needed to be punched in his stupid goddamn face.  Sadly, it didn’t seem to have much effect.  If you see this motherfucker, feel free to punch him in his stupid goddamn face.

21 thoughts on “Let’s Talk About Manliness: Part 1

  1. > as a feminist male who strongly opposes outdated and useless gender-norms

    The traditional patriarchal man values and protects the safety, security, comfort and wellbeing of women and children above his own safety, security, comfort and wellbeing – and even his life. (Hence patriarchy’s slogan “women and children first”). A patriarchal man works hard (traditionally in some sort of dangerous back breaking manual labour job) to provide food and money to support his wife and children. He will, as a man, feel it his duty and obligation put out the fires, build and maintain the infrastructure, fight crime, resolve disputes, fight off bandits and go to war so that his wife and children don’t have to get their hands dirty doing these things. When the ship is sinking and there is not enough room on the lifeboat he will give up his place for women and children so that they may live, even though this means he will die.

    You claim to reject all of this as ‘outdated and useless gender norms’.

    > The second and more prominent group are far more idiotic, and that group is the men’s rights activists.

    In the west men have LESS legal rights than women. There are no legal rights which men have that women don’t also have, but there are many legal rights which women have but men do not yet have (if you want a list, just ask).

    MRA’s campaign for those legal rights that women have, but which they, as men, do not yet have. Therefore MRA’s are – by definition – fighting for gender equality.

    You have labelled men who fight human rights and gender equality ‘idiotic’. As a feminist man you place the safety, security, comfort and wellbeing of women above your own safety, security, comfort and wellbeing. You care about the rights of women, but not the rights of men. That is actually a very traditional, patriarchal stance for a man to take.

    Feminism’s ‘He for She’ is the same sentiment as patriarchy’s ‘Women and Children First’……. minus the concern for children of course.

    As a feminist man, you are the one who is clinging to traditional patriarchal male gender roles. The MRA’s are being progressive and transcending the traditional patriarchal male roles.

    > The point is, both of these groups are annoying and aren’t fit to call themselves men.

    Suppose a woman is trying to raise awareness of female issues, and is promoting female rights. Suppose she has hairy armpits and legs (the equivalent of a man with a full beard). Along comes a man who says “This woman is not fit to call herself a woman”. How would you view this man? Is he being fair? Or is he being an asshole?

    > Men’s rights activists, or meninists as they now like to be called

    Meninism is a parody (satire) of feminism. In simple terms it is about taking all the stuff feminists complain about and flipping the genders to highlight (a) how trivial and absurd most of these viral feminist ‘issues’ are (b) in the case of genuine issues, how little society cares about men when men face the same issues as women – which is often the case (and then some).

    > For a group that idealizes strong old fashioned manly traits, they’re not off to a good start.

    The manly trait they ‘idolise’ is the idea that being a man is not a negative thing. That men are not inherently evil, not rapists, not historical oppressors of women, not the cause of society’s ills and are actually very beneficial – and necessary – for the proper functioning of society, the family, culture, parenting and civilisation as a whole.

    They are – unlike most male feminists – not ashamed of men, and not ashamed to be men. In today’s feminist dominated culture this lack of shame is treated as an affront to women, or even a threat to women. You reinforce this idea throughout your post.

    A feminist man feels superior to women because he feels women can’t afford to disregard women’s issues and women’s rights, but men can. On top of this feeling of superiority, he also feels ashamed to be a man, imagining (after a lifetime of feminist propaganda) that men have somehow oppressed women throughout the ages by insisting that men do all the dirty, dangerous, backbreaking, manual labour, fight all the wars, provide an income for their families, invent and install the technology that empowers women and enables women to earn money in comfortable indoor environments doing non-manual labour jobs where they basically delegate work to working class men via phone and email etc etc etc. In feminist narrative all of this is defined as ‘the oppression of women. And for this crime feminist men believe they owe women penance, in the form of more resources, more protection and a status of having more legal rights than men. Feminist men believe they can AFFORD to pay this penance because feminist men believe they are, as men, superior to women and more privileged – despite having less legal rights and despite having the status of society’s evil doers.

    The self identity (I am powerful, privileged and guilty) and world view (women are weak, vulnerable and good, men are strong, invulnerable and bad) of the male feminist set him up to be the PERFECT utility to women (at least in the short term until society completely collapses)…. dutifully providing resources and special treatment, and sacrificing his own rights and needs along the way – and even attacking men who dare to talk about men’s issues or fight for men’s rights AKA gender equality.

    > Men, traditionally, are not supposed to be helpless against anything.

    Yes, even when faced with situations that render men helpless – such as war, or divorce courts, or the criminal judicial system, or the social expectation that a man’s duty is to sacrifice himself for women, or any number of situations. Men are traditionally NOT supposed to care about their own rights. Men are supposed to always feel superior, invulnerable and privileged no matter what awful and unfair and even life threatening situation they find themselves in.

    MRA’s are eschewing this traditional role for men …. and you are attacking them for doing so.

    > These men cower at the thought that someone might call them an asshole.

    No, they cower at the reality that society doesn’t value them enough to afford them the same basic human rights that women currently enjoy, and that they are socially ostracised, marginalised, ridiculed and demonised. It is the same fear all oppressed and marginalised groups feel. A fear which you are ridiculing as petty ….. because they happen to be men. Which is another example of you imposing traditional patriarchal standards onto men.

    > A friend of mine once said to me “it’s getting to the point where you can’t even be a man anymore.” I have no idea what this means.

    It means even fighting for basic human rights will attract criticism and even hostility, because they are men.

    The rest of your post is has nothing to do with men’s issues or men’s human rights. It is just a list of absurd stereotypes designed to make men look stupid and primitive. I can’t speak to the motive(s) of you post (and perhaps you aren’t even consciously aware yourself), but the effect is to make men appear as buffoons, savages and idiots and to ridicule the idea that men should seek equal rights to women (AKA gender equality).

    What you have done is the exact same propaganda tactic once used against black people in the past. Black people were often portrayed as bumbling idiots, savages, low IQ, absurd caricatures with big lips and slow moronic speech. The purpose of this caricature was to make black people look inferior to white people and make them look ridiculous, a stereotype which was then used to justify society’s disregard for black issues and black rights at the time.

    So what you have done here is to reinforce the patriarchal male gender role as provider and protector of women. You have ridiculed and berated men who dare to step out of that role and actually strive to achieve gender equality with women. And finally you have caricatured men in the same way that black people were once caricatured – as buffoons, clowns, savages, idiots and morons – who therefore don’t deserve the same rights as the rest of society, almost as if they are too stupid to even know what to do with these rights if they had them.

    The aim of your post – whether you realise it or not – is to eradicate, in the reader, all empathy towards men. The propaganda techniques you use are the same as those used in the past to eradicate all sympathy towards black people, or jews….. Constant belittling, ridiculing, demeaning, caricaturing, stereotyping and mocking WILL over time eradicate society’s empathy towards the target group (men, blacks, jews etc). We’ve seen this happen in the past – and within living memory.

    The final video depicts a man who is anti social and kind of a dick. He kind of deserves to be punched in the head for being such a prick. This is your final attempt to erase any remaining empathy towards men. It would be an interesting social experiment to write the same post, only this time ridiculing the issues and rights of women, or blacks or jews (perhaps imagining it was the 1930’s or 200 years ago) and to mock the idea of their fight for rights, and then caricature the target group in a derogatory way (mocking their appearance etc) and then finally including a video showing one of them engaging in anti social behaviour that made the target group look extremely obnoxious and ‘punchable’.

    Then you could post this online and see how long before you get criticised and even flagged for inciting hate.

    1. I’m sorry, it’s not really my place to respond to dumb comments on someone else’s blog but I find myself being drawn into the black hole of your rant. For as much ‘opinion’ as you’ve written, do you even know what the definition of Patriarchy is? There’s this thing, Google, you should look it up because it doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does.

      1. > …dumb comments…… For as much ‘opinion’ as you’ve written….

        Please feel free to explain WHY my comment was ‘dumb’. Otherwise that is just your opinion and not really worth anything. Do you know what ‘projection’ is?

        > do you even know what the definition of Patriarchy is?

        Yes I do. It has (like ‘chivalry’) several definitions which are context specific. Some definitions relate to historical codes of conduct or legal/ business practices, and like many words they have taken on new meanings more relevant to contemporary culture.

        I was talking about the definition of patriarchy as per feminism’s “Patriarchy Theory”. By this definition a ‘patriarchy’ describes a society run primarily by and for men’s benefit, and at women’s expense.

        Do you have any issues with that definition, the one used by feminists, in the context of a discussion about feminism?

      2. Did you even read your comment before responding to mine? You’re contradicting yourself. Multiple times. And I did point out what WHY it was dumb. My comment was only a few sentences, but I understand that might tax your attention span.

      3. > And I did point out what WHY it was dumb.

        No you said my comment was ‘dumb’. You asked me if I knew what the ‘patriarchy’ is. Then you mentioned Google.

        So far you have not even tried to refute anything I said with a single fact or counter argument.

        All you have done is insult me (and ask me if I know what the ‘patriarchy’ means).

        I don’t mind in the slightest if you take issue with anything specific that I actually said (“you said X and I disagree because Y”). In fact I’d rather that than just read a succession of emotionally charged insults and put downs. What does that achieve?

      4. One might ask you the same thing, for each of those questions, since I haven’t seen anything in your posts to back up your arguments. So, if anything, you should go first.

        BUT, I think you/me/we have muddied up the waters on this post plenty enough already. If you would like to continue this discourse we should do so somewhere else. Maybe your blog? Oh, I don’t see one for you. In that case, why don’t you come to mine and we can go all out? I’m currently traveling but when I get home tomorrow I’d be more than happy to put up a ‘manly’ post and we can have our fun there. 😉

      5. > since I haven’t seen anything in your posts to back up your arguments.

        It might be helpful if you quoted or referenced something I actually said, then explained your problem with it, providing whatever counter argument you have.

        All you’ve done so far is tell me I’m ‘dumb’.

        My original comment related to the original blog post. The main thrust of what I said was that it is unfair (and I would even go as far as to say offensive and immoral) to insult, ridicule and generally undermine men for trying to achieve the same rights as women.

        I also pointed out that no other group in society who lack rights relative to some other group are treated this way. It seems men are the ONLY group seeking equal human rights that it is socially acceptable to ignore, belittle or insult.

        If you have issues with those sentiments, then perhaps you could stop beating around the bush and present your case.

      6. As I said previously, I’m putting up a post on my blog tomorrow when I return from my work trip so we can have a full back and forth there. I’m not willing to essentially spam another blogger by engaging you here, Scott can respond to you or not as he chooses. This is his place. If you’d like to continue with me, please come on by my place tomorrow.

  2. There are legitimate men’s issues that need to be addressed. Child custody comes to mind, rape accusations generally ruin a man’s life before he ever gets near a courtroom, and men being sexually assaulted is hugely ignored. But I don’t hear MRA’s talking about that unless it’s framed in a way that blames women. I hear them talking about feminists ruining their lives. White power groups act exactly the same way. Show me an MRA that doesn’t blame feminists or women in general for his problems, one that is inclusive and addresses the issues men of color face in modern society in addition to his own, and I’ll change my tune. But right now all i ever see is “it’s so hard being a white male, boo hoo, wah.”

    1. > But I don’t hear MRA’s talking about that unless it’s framed in a way that blames women.

      How does one petition for specific legal rights in a way that blames ‘women’? That makes no sense.

      > I hear them talking about feminists ruining their lives.

      Feminists are not ‘women’. Feminists represent only about 20% of women. You accept that men lack certain important rights, and I’m sure you would agree that feminism not only doesn’t campaign for men to have those rights, it actively blocks MRA’s attempts to raise awareness of these issues, debate them and change political policy. So in that very tangible sense feminists are ruining their lives.

      If you want examples of feminists actively blocking MRA’s in their attempt to discuss, debate and advocate for their legal rights as men, I am happy to provide. But be aware, it is not pretty.

      > But right now all i ever see is “it’s so hard being a white male, boo hoo, wah.”

      Men have LESS rights than women in the west (a list of these rights can be provided on request). There are not rights that men have that women do not already have (feel free to name any if you can).

      Achieving ‘gender equality’ in the developed world means stripping women of their extra rights (a tad harsh), or affording men those rights they lack that women already have (which seems like the most sensible solution).

      If men’s lack of legal rights compared to women does not make men a priority case, and if you mock their lack of human rights as ‘male tears’, then what you are doing defining (white) men as sub human.

      Defining men as sub human in this way (ie not deserving equal rights to women, and being crybabies for wanting equal rights to women) rarely causes outrage or moral condemnation, even if the sentiment is expressed openly in the media or in a public space. So we can establish that:

      1. men have less rights than women
      2. nobody really cares and they are typically mocked for wanting equal rights

      This rather of goes against feminism’s narrative of ‘the patriarchy’ and of ‘male privilege’ doesn’t it?

      In a patriarchy (as feminist’s define it) we would expect men to have MORE rights than women, and not LESS rights.

      A good way to stop a group who have LESS rights from complaining about not having equal rights, and from demanding equals rights, is to tell them over and over and over and over and over again how privileged they are – despite having less rights. And to mock them for daring to want equal rights. And to make them feel guilty for even considering themselves worthy of equal rights. And to ostracise, ridicule and belittle those in that group who dare to actively seek equal rights. And perhaps even to define them as a threat.

      We’ve seen this pattern repeated throughout history.

      1. I’m sorry, I just can’t help myself. What are your references? You keep repeating the same things but that doesn’t make them more truthful. Where are you getting your information?

      2. > I’m sorry, I just can’t help myself. What are your references?

        References for what? Are you not aware of the rights that men lack that women already have? Why would that be? If feminism really was about gender equality you would know all about them.

        From divorce law to criminal justice, to child custody to domestic abuse to genital integrity men have less (or no) rights compared to women.

        If you want a list I can provide but it’s very long. And it begs the question why haven’t feminists supplied you with this list?

        Can you name any rights that men have that women do not have?

      3. I was criticising (and I hope constructively and politely) the points made in the original blog post above.

        All you have done is tell me I am wrong. That is not an argument (debate).

        I feel I have made my points. I am not looking for an online ‘chat’.

        You called me an anti-feminist. I am critical of feminism’s overall ideology as well as many of the specific claims made by feminists – yes.

        Only about 20% of women support feminist ideology (patriarchy theory et al). Pointing out that I am critical of, and reject, feminist ideology is not an argument, or even an insult.

        By framing my (and other’s) rejection of feminist ideology as automatically ‘wrong’ you have just defined feminism as a cult.

      4. I would suggest you take the time to actually read real feminist writing instead of cherry-picked nonsense shared by other MRA’s. Let’s start with “women and children first”. The reason for that is breeding logistics. More women surviving means more chance to make more people. It’s not really necessary with the huge population we have now. Feminists want to do away with it. Feminists want to do away with bullshit machoism that makes is harder for male rape victims to seek justice, same with male victims of domestic abuse.

        Furthermore, feminists don’t claim that traditional masculine traits are bad, just that they aren’t just for men anymore. Women can shoot guns, handle a crisis, chew tobacco, and scratch their girls balls right along with the rest of us.

      5. > I would suggest you take the time to actually read real feminist writing instead of cherry-picked nonsense shared by other MRA’s.

        What is ‘real’ feminist writing? Are the feminists sections of bookstores stocked by ‘fake’ feminist authors?

        Are all the feminist feature writers, feminist ambassadors, feminist UN advisors, feminist politicians and feminist pundits all impostors?

        Is there a list of the ‘real’ vs ‘fake’ feminists you can direct me to so I can tell the real ones from the fake ones?

        Do you know what the ‘no true Scotsman fallacy’ is?

        > Let’s start with “women and children first”. The reason for that is breeding logistics.

        I agree. Patriarchy (in the sense of traditional gender roles) place women and children at the heart of society in order to protect them from harm.

        One might view this as society restricting women’s freedoms. But when it is done to ensure women’s safety, comfort and wellbeing it is hard to argue AS FEMINISTS DO that this represents the SYSTEMATIC OPPRESSION of women.AKA ‘patriarchy theory’.

        More often than not women in the ‘patriarchy’ were (and to an extent still are) restricted from going to war, working down mines, putting out fires, constructing roads and buildings, policing the streets, trawling the oceans etc etc… Such restrictions can hardly be called ‘oppression’ when the majority of women have no desire to do these things.

        Even today 95% of workplace deaths are men. I don’t see any feminists campaigning for young women to be helped into the kinds of dangerous, dirty and hazardous ‘male dominated’ jobs that cause these statistics, do you?

        > Feminists want to do away with it.

        Feminists have replaced patriarchy’s slogan of “Women and Children First” with the feminist slogan “He for She”. It’s hardly progress is it?

        The only difference is the lack of concern for children – which was the WHOLE POINT of patriarchy.

        3rd wave feminism is little more than a rebranding of patriarchy, for the more financially independent, technologically empowered, self serving, narcissistic, personality disordered woman. Typically the woman who grew up without a father in the home, and with a feminist mother and an education system populated mostly by feminist teachers. She is unlikely to have had much (if any) meaningful contact with adult men until her late teens, by which time she views men as some sort of ‘alien species’… which makes it easy to embrace the feminist narrative that men are a threat.

        > Feminists want to do away with bullshit machoism that makes is harder for male rape victims to seek justice, same with male victims of domestic abuse.

        If feminists cared about male rape victims and male domestic abuse victims they would seek to change the laws to be more fair to men.

        They would get rid of the Duluth model and publicly denounce the vile feminists who drove Erin Pizzey into hiding so they could impose their victim/ threat narrative onto the courts, women’s shelters and police, which defines men as inherently violent (when all the studies show women are equally as violent as men).

        They would stop saying we live in a ‘rape culture’.

        They would rain fire upon the evil women who make false rape accusations, instead of CHAMPIONING them and SUPPORTING them even after they are exposed as liars. The last three high profile rape accusations against men that feminists seized upon as ‘proof’ of their rape culture turned out to be false rape accusations.

        They would condemn feminists like professor Adele Mercier for defining underage rape victims as NOT victims of rape because they were boys (who can consent to sex apparently).

        They would demand more shelters and other services for male victims.

        They would stop trying to get college campuses to do away with due process when female students accuse male students of rape – a trend which will soon put an end to ‘innocent until proven guilty’… but only for men.

        The list goes on.

        Feminists are doing none of these things. Instead they are (as you say) just demonising male sexuality, male identity and the macho male traits that for centuries WOMEN have demanded men take on, so men can be of more utility to women (manual labourers, soldiers etc).

        The reason why men are traditionally emotionally repressed is because men have for centuries been expected to work down the mines, out at sea, go to war etc which are all roles that require men to suppress their emotions, otherwise they would have emotional breakdowns and be unable to function. Men’s traditional emotional callousness is caused by the same thing that causes men’s calloused hands…… abrasion, knocks, hard living! To find a woman as emotionally aloof, callous and suppressed as your traditional ‘patriarchal man’ you have to look among homeless women. That says a lot about just how ‘privileged’ the average working man really is.

        > Furthermore, feminists don’t claim that traditional masculine traits are bad,

        Feminism claims men have systematically oppressed women for centuries. That defines men as sociopaths.

        Feminist tell boys and young men they must learn to not rape…. defining male sexuality as the urge to rape.

        > just that they aren’t just for men anymore.

        In general, male traits and male roles in society have only ever been embraced by women AFTER modern technology has made those roles and traits a safe, comfortable and even recreational activity.

        Only AFTER new technology meant thousands of years of mostly manual labour jobs could give way to centrally heated office type jobs, did women ditch their petticoats, put on some pants, rolled up their sleeves and demand to work alongside the men………. in those nice comfortable offices – doing jobs which mostly entailed delegating manual labour to working class men.

        There is nothing ‘wrong’ with women’s protected role in society – however it is more than insulting to men (and belittling to women) for feminists to define men’s traditional role – as protector and provider and general ‘workhorse’ – as ‘male privilege’ or even ‘the historical oppression of women’.

        Only a woman who views men as beneath dogs can fail to appreciate men’s sacrifices for women and children over the centuries.

        > Women can shoot guns, handle a crisis, chew tobacco, and scratch their girls balls right along with the rest of us.

        Women can, but feminists generally don’t.

        Feminists these days demand ‘safe spaces’ and ‘trigger warnings’. Even classic literature now has to have trigger warnings.

        Modern feminists are the LEAST progressive demographic in society and amongst women (feminists only represent about 20% of women). Feminism today is patriarchy, chivalry and gynocentricism taken to the extreme and mutated into something quite deranged.

      6. Isn’t it sometimes misused, this no true scotsman? If I mentioned what Paul Elam says to disqualify Mra’s points what would they say? Either defend him or disassociate from him. I’d personally accept that “not a real Mra” as argument, anything making Mra’s less antifeminist or denialist of past women oppression in their (our) quest for equality.
        NTS is often a Tu Quoque, meaning both sides tend to accuse the other of such, as well as “where you were when”, etc and othe whataboutism., that kills dialogue. I think it’s invoked too often to shut any argument against guilt by association, though, so instead of going “no real feminist” when one “nutpicks” feminism, go “and if that makes feminism bad, what does make Paul Elam Mra’s look?”.

  3. I thought I made it perfectly clear what I meant. Spend five minutes on any MRA message board, and you’ll find endless links to some crazy thing that some lunatic claiming to be a feminist said. I recently read an article by a young woman claiming that, yes, hetero sex is indeed rape. That’s what we call fringe elements. Whereas, I’ve never seen a single MRA that didn’t spend way more time bashing feminism for this idea or that than he did talking about real men’s rights issues.

    And I don’t give a shit about safe spaces and trigger warnings. They’re small issues that will work themselves out. The backlash is already coming from their fellow liberals.

    Again, read anything a by a white supremacist and you’ll find that they don’t talk about how to make white people better, they talk about other races trying to take everything away from them. They’re taking their jobs, their white women, their culture, etc.

    Your concept of traditional roles, like most things involving tradition, is outdated and unnecessary.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s