"It’s understandable that people thought it was unfair when men could vote and women couldn’t, but this problem arose only because we made the mistake of having voting in the first place. Democracy is a failed system. Neither men nor women should be allowed to vote."
Haha. I have to admit, I didn't see that last line coming. Dream on, my friend. I'm sure the anti-democracy advocacy will catch on any day now.
He's a mental midget who has spent his life on 4Chan and in Call of Duty chat rooms (or whatever they call it).
Men shouldn't be taken seriously. "Feminism" = "Every time a woman rejected me" -- that's how these moids think. It's to be taken with a grain of salt.
Agreed. I am a man, and on many fronts, traditional. This is a total straw man of feminism. Presumably, it is based on social media feminism, which is inherently fringe and extreme by virtue of getting clicks through rage-baiting and/or attracting disaffected women. This guy needs to leave his house more and interact with more women. Perhaps then he’ll realize that feminism isn’t the demonic cult he perceives it to be. I know I haven’t made a “substantive argument” that would meet the demands of this guys’ supporters, and you know what, fair. But I implore you to interact with women in the real world, see them as simply other human beings, and hear them out. I say this with full benevolence— touch grass.
My impression of feminism comes primarily from interacting with women in the real world. "I can write disparaging fan fiction about someone I disagree with" is not an argument.
Fair enough, and you're right--my above comment was *not* a valid argument. I do concede that it was immature of me to unleash a barrage of ad-hominems, rooted in false assumptions about you. But I think this discrepancy in our real-life experiences offers the chance to start *constructing* an argument.
Doesn't the fact that our experiences differ imply that the feminist movement isn't as much of a monolith as your piece makes it out to be? I take issue with the characterization of the movement as ideologically homogeneous. I have met a fair share of contradictory, self-interested feminists who leverage feminism as a tool to legitimize bad behavior. However, perhaps there is, out there, a feminist who isn't hypocritical and has an ideologically coherent set of beliefs? Several of my female acquaintances held feminist beliefs; however, they were not detractors of classical, feminine traits, like motherhood and submission. I am a student at a tier-1 institution in the States. Freshmen here are mandated to take a sex-education course, centered around concepts like consent and respectful relationships. Although the teacher for the class was wholly feminist, she seemed to hold an ideologically coherent worldview that displayed sympathy for men as well. She did not carry the visceral revulsion towards men that modern feminism seems to fete. In essence, she was radically egalitarian in her teachings. She did not appear to promote the social hypocrisy that other feminists do. She also refused to vilify traditionally feminine roles and occupations, such as motherhood. Her worldview was more-so centered around choice. As per her worldview, a woman who chooses to defer motherhood and climb the corporate ranks should not expect all women to tread the same path; likewise, she believed that a woman who chooses motherhood should not be vilified. The issue, according to her, is of people foisting upon others their personal preferences. Traditionally feminine traits, careers, and gender roles are not bad per-se, but it is not fair to expect all women to conform to such ideas. I've always encountered feminism in the context of the above radical egalitarianism and choice. And, subsequently, I have my own criticisms of such an ideology, primarily that it is too idealistic.
I do not disagree that online discourse surrounding feminism is replete with toxicity and histrionics, but largely, I think that your article wrestles with the most fringe elements of feminism.
If any man over 18 refuses to sign up, he's banned from voting.
My own view is, if you're prepared to put your life on the line to protect your country then you should have an extra privilege than someone who won't.
Going a bit contrarian here, but I was involved in a feminist scene for a while (more so out of an interest in women's literature than anything) and I actually agree with a lot of what is written here. I do think feminism was a reaction to some very real issues -- though perhaps not the ones claimed by many feminists. And that some good things were achieved by the movement (e.g. support services for abused women, greater independence allowing women to leave bad marriages). I wish that the branch of "maternal feminism" that once existed had been the one to take off. That it the "girl-boss" version did instead I think is indicative of the toxicity and narcissism that was always inherent in the movement. While I agree the movement now does more harm than good to women and men, I think the biggest victims are children -- to paraphrase Erica Komisar, the whole women's rights thing threw children's rights under the bus.
I have a daughter and a second to be born any day now. When I was pregnant with my first child, many other women asked me if I was going to raise her in a "gender-neutral" way, i.e. push her toward masculine interests. I found this disturbing and said I'd let her like what she naturally likes. (Turns out she likes pretty dresses, the colour pink, singing, dancing, and animals. She really only plays with stuff like trucks etc when she's hanging out with one of her male friends). I also heard stories of women who were devastated that their daughters were feminine, which is tragic for the kids. As you write, there's nothing wrong with (healthy) femininity.
When I found out I was pregnant, one of the first things I said to my husband was that I wanted to be a STAH mom. He has a good job and is a good man and has been extremely supportive (while also being supportive of my writing, continued freelancing, and Substack). I was pushed toward masculine careers like engineering as a kid because I was good at math ... but I was still a girl, and I pursued female-typical interests instead. I sincerely like being barefoot and cooking, tweaking recipes to perfect them. It's insane to me that I was fed propaganda trying to convince me that this life is somehow a waste of my mind (what about my heart?). With a good man, being a housewife is the furthest thing from being "oppressed." In so many ways, it's a privilege and a gift, especially with modern technology making household chores so much easier. The majority of young mothers I know either stay at home, wish to stay at home, or go down to part time work (but many cannot for, as you note, financial reasons). When I say things like "feminism lied to us", far more women agree with me than don't.
I found it interesting that you note that many of the "feminine" traits that ARE treated as socially acceptable / romanticized in Hollywood are actually childish traits ... I recently published an essay which discusses this as well -- the essay argues (among a lot of other things, it's a long read) that hyper-literate feminism is a "left-brained" movement, with a dysfunction right hemisphere (one could also think of it as an "autistic" or "schizophrenic" movement ... I touch on the neuroscience), and that it tilts toward androgyny, misandry, and misogyny -- and seems to romanticize neoteny. The latter point is something I still need to do a lot more research on, admittedly, but I do hope to return to the topic and am keen for feedback. If you're interested, the link is below. Cheers.
She spotted straight away that 2/3 of the women coming to her refuges were at least or more violent than the men they claimed to have run from.
At this point, she tried to start a refuge for men, but it didn't work because she couldn't get the funds
Feminists took over her campaign in a hostile takeover.
If you search any unbiased surveys on DV, you'll see that injuries are practically 50-50.
Further, unbiased surveys on domestic abuse amongst lesbians and their rate of DV are twice as alarming as what straight couples inflict upon each other.
I wonder if there's a selection bias as well, i.e. the women who end up going to shelters are less likely to have support from other people because of their own behaviour? (Always exceptions, of course, and really abusive people isolate others from friends / family).
I was in an abusive relationship for four years. Not physically abusive (unless you count him restraining me when I tried to walk away or leave), but he was extremely manipulative and psychologically abusive and it took me around seven or eight attempts to break up with him because of it. Pretty much everyone who knew us either saw that he was being a dick to me, or weren't surprised, and when I did end up fleeing the situation, I was able to crash with a friend until I was up to returning to confront him (the situation was complicated by the fact that I owned the apartment we lived in before he moved in with me, so I had to kick him out, not just leave myself). He kept refusing to leave my apartment (I broke up with him in February 2020 so he weaponized Covid), but several men offered to come over and help me boot him out. The guy I took up on the offer is now my husband and absolutely wonderful.
Post Me Too, I've actually been frustrated because I feel LESS willing to talk about a guy harassing me, because now there's a real risk he'll be disproportionately punished for something that falls under the creepy-annoying spectrum.
Also, the friend who let me crash? A guy, and he was a perfect gentleman :-p He volunteered as a crisis support worker and was extremely helpful. He let me stay with him for almost two weeks in March 2020.
I'll have to look Pizzey up, but that story makes sense (in a Western context). I also read data which showed biological mothers were more likely to abuse their children than biological fathers (I think this data was from the US, would need to dig up the article). I also can't for the life of me remember where I read this, but I recall seeing something about there being a lot of women on women abuse (maybe it was more verbal?) in the early shelters as well.
I suspect when abuse in romantic relationships (regardless of sex) is one-sided, in a majority of cases the abuse is psychological / manipulative / coercive, not (or rarely) physical.
Re: lesbians, yes, very common, but I think dating women instead of men is often (not always) a symptom of early childhood trauma. Higher rates of mental illness among "bisexual" women than butch lesbians :-/
When it comes to child abuse many feminist organisations reporting it include mothers' boyfriends, stepfathers and one night stands abusing their children as their "father".
There's a link I had about a decade ago showing this.
There's also data showing that children of single parents do better when raised by their bio fathers than bio mothers. I think I'm a decent mom (and certainly not abusive), but theoretically, I can believe that our children would do better solo with my husband than with me :-/ He challenges them more, and I tend a bit to coddling.
Haha, I'm actually more tough-love when it comes to food (because I'm a tad health-obsessed) but my husband is more likely to set boundaries etc. He's a good dad.
As you say equality flattens everyone. Feminism is actually quite bad for high achieving women as it pretends that all of the average and underachieving women are the same as them. When everyone woman is Serena Williams/Erin Brockovich, none of them have to be.
Imagine fighting like crazy for a long time with single determination and passing all the hurdles to get a placement/position/job/accomplishment and being respected for your struggles, then another person comes along as a DEI (Didn't Earn It) hire and everyone thinks you didn't work as hard as the original people who earned their places.
Oh yes, like Joseph Goebbels who liked to sleep around and cheat with plenty of women while his wife was at home with their 6 kids (that he ended up poisoning).
Or Hitler, who never really married (I mean, right before his suicide--it wasn't a significant length of time) and had no children.
Super family men! Nothing but protecting and providing, not being absolute hypocrites saying one thing and doing another.
I mean …reaching to use basically one of the most vile couples in history to make a point about not protecting their children. Her argument for poisoning them was that she couldn’t bear for them to grow up in a shitty world where the fuhrer wasnt omnipotent. It’s silly we’re talking about these people in relation to this subject.
I suppose not a single nazi is allowed to have an affair under your logic? And you think Goebbels should have stuck around to be tortured and murdered along with his family by communists? Repeal the 19th. Tax cat food and meals for one. Ban box wine and SSRIs.
If anyone needs more reasons to be antifeminist, read about Sally Miller Gearhart, the feminist pioneer of women and gender studies programs in American universities. Specifically, her talk "The Future-if there is one-Is Female".
We're not going to back the good ol' days when rational protector-providers could marry 10 year old girls legally, beat their wives legally, and keep women out of jobs and school.
It's just not happening. You know it, and that's why you're mad.
Lol! I appreciate your disdain and candor. Enjoy those long work hours, casual abortions and dog shit. That's really all you have left. Nice doggie, by the way.
That's what you WOULD have if you weren't so ugly, boring, and unfuckable.
Worthless moids do nothing but coon and project, bitter that they couldn't get laid in a prison with a carton of cigarettes, thereby projecting their failures onto women.
That's how the male mind works. That's why they're all so crazy.
I don’t want to sound like a feminist, but there is no purely « natural order » for humans. It is not like you can remove all the modern propaganda and get a new natural culture. In the past women were not just naturally converging on their gender roles, society was also reinforcing it in different ways. I could imagine a simple « reduce government size to be as low as possible » approach to make it so that the culture goes to a better direction.
There is also the problem of creating a new subculture that is also anti-feminist that can sustain itself. I don’t think convincing a decent amount of men to join would be difficult, but seducing women (especially young and single ones…) to join it at a similar rate as men is going to be very hard. It is actually the central question: How can you convince those women? How to not scare or disgust them?
The long term way to convince women to be part of such a subculture is just to raise girls without feminist brainwashing. Excessive TV/movie/pop culture consumption should be seen as a vice just as cigarette smoking or alcoholism are seen as vices.
In the short term, I think there are a lot of women who would be open to an explicit anti-feminist position, but they’ve only heard it from whiny, deliberately off-putting people and Christian fundamentalists. We just need to clearly and frankly make the case for anti-feminism without being obnoxious/smelly or deliberately off-putting.
I don’t think the « brainwashing » can be avoided. You need to give a clear education on why feminist are bad before she encounters it. Basically summarize the ideas given in your article to a kid.
Yeah I don’t know about the number of women that are open to an anti-feminist subculture. I think they would be attracted to it if they can find a relatively attractive man that can make a good amount of money. So it needs to be relatively elitist/demanding towards the men. Idk how sustainable that can be. It would eventually need to have like a religious element in order to change what would be considered « high-status » to avoid having men or women leave the subculture.
Social media is what everyone (especially the young) use for entertainment and information. Not a TV. You're old and out of touch. You have no clue what's going on.
You lost.
If men were such a great option, none of this would have been necessary, and we wouldn't have won.
You aren't. You lost, and there's nothing you can do.
If men are so logical and strong, deal with the truth (hint: you're not).
LOL we're not the ones going on shooting sprees because we can't get laid. Tinder is 76% male (that is what they admit and it's most likely an underestimate).
That's your side, Simon.
You don't know how old I am.
You're talking about TVs.
You know nothing. Don't speak about history as if you have any clue what's going on. Libertarians are the biggest retards in the world. You want to do something about government intrusion on individual rights? Take on anti-BDS laws. I dare you.
You're not going to make wife-beating and child marriage legal again.
You lost. You can die alone, surrounded by your porn and video games, along with the other rational protector-providers lol.
I would say that unless you want to truly isolate (difficult in the age of internet) your hypothetically daughters and sons from the rest of the world, they are going to encounter an instance of brainwashing modern degeneracy. The kids need to have some mental defense against the rethoric of the modern culture. Homeschooling+no tv is fine, but adding a « mental vaccine » against degenerate stuff can’t hurt.
If men were so logical, strong, interesting, and competent, it wouldn't have been necessary.
You guys are none of those things, and in fact, men in general are a bad investment.
There's nothing you can do.
Nobody cares that you can't get laid, or want to beat your wife legally, or would love to marry a 10 year old girl legally.
It's done. We won.
Go cry while you play Grand Theft Auto.
"Anti-feminism" is code for "unfuckable loser males want to have women play punching bag/personal assistant for them while providing nothing in return."
It's not happening. You lost.
If you're rational (you're not), deal with it, and work on yourself. Oh, and stay off Tinder. Nobody wants to fuck you, and it's your fault.
I love the irony of someone claiming no men are rational whilst also claiming the author argued for wife beating (he didn't) and paedophilia (also didn't). There's nothing that says "calm and rational" more than making up false claims about someone in a media where everyone can immediately see you're lying.
Antifeminism is a doomed project. The idea that patriarchy can be reestablished through reciting trite points like these to schoolgirls is absurd. Islamic countries are currently desperately trying to reinstitute old-school patriarchy in places like Iran and Afghanistan through imposition of extreme heavy-handed restrictions on women's movements and speech, and even they haven't been able to halt feminist activism. Women in Korea are open about the fact they would rather see the extinction of their nation rather than continue patriarchal practices. Everywhere around the world we see similar trends.
If you want to understand the full extent of the problem for men and patriarchy, I recommend reading David Gilmore's excellent anthropological work, Misogyny: The Male Malady. Gilmore is an anti-feminist, but he is an honest anti-feminist, and therefore worth reading. Gilmore dismisses the silly self-pitying delusions many misogynist men labor under, like the idea that we live under a "matriarchy" (women have never had that sort of political power over men as a class.) And he is honest about the ugliness of patriarchy and how much ongoing stress and difficulty it places on men to maintain it, whether those men are tribal patriarchs in New Guinea or intellectuals in the Catholic Church. For example, all male institutions are critical to patriarchy, but those all male institutions (whether they are the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church, or the ancient Greek lyceums) almost always involve some degree of pederasty and sexual abuse of boys and effeminate men. Patriarchy always involves the eroticization of hierarchy and dominance and submission, and in absence of women, men institute those practices on boys. Some patriarchal institutions, like that of the Romans and Greeks, honor and institutionalize those practices, while others (like the Catholic Church) nominally condemn it while condoning it in practice. This is of course just one example of the nastiness and underbelly of patriarchy. I do not think men today really have the stomach for everything patriarchy entails, and therefore they comfort themselves by telling themselves a few simple tricks will reinstitute a fantasy of old school patriarchy and gender harmony that never truly existed.
Given your username, I am going to imagine that your explanation of why the culture is not fine is that due to the omnipresent patriarchy, the world is not an egalitarian utopia. My interpretation would be more that there are natural differences and that the preferable for the majority outcome would involve less government/bureaucracy. I am not going to read your stuff that implies that non-feminist cultures are pedophilia or some shit like that. My point of view is relatively close to the points written from the author of this article, and you are probably not ok with them for some reasons. So I am just going to defend my previous points: I did say that making a sustainable anti-feminist subculture inside our current culture would be very difficult. I would say that it needs to involve « reciting trite points » to kids, because it is more helpful than totally isolating them from the rest of the world. But it needs way more than that to protect them. My point is that I am not purely anti-feminist, but a strong and healthy culture is probably anti-feminist
You mentioned that Afghanistan failed to subdue feminism. But they are still above 2.1 kids per woman. They are immigrating to the western world with their culture. Therefore, they are winning. I don’t want to see a culture that treats women so poorly winning.
Your homework should be to somehow find a way to have a feminist ( or progressive, it is the same thing in 2024) culture without having it fail to reproduce itself. Otherwise, you are by definition going to lose to strongly religious or authoritarian groups. You can’t « kidnap » children from other religions/culture groups forever.
Too much government is not the issue. This problem is that men and women do not have equal rights and we have a culture that pushes feminist brainwashing.
Just a little advice: while the whole trans thing is very stupid, you should not dedicate your life to it and bring it on places where I think it was not the main subject. As you said, you have already won. Just go enjoy life, you won’t meet many trans people anyway. Also calling people ( that technically align with you on your fetish issue too…) incels and saying feminism is pure vengeful female advocacy reflects badly reflects on your TERF friends and you.
The "trans" agenda is the largest threat to women's safety in prisons, sports, bathrooms, etc., and I won't stand by while this agenda is pushed relentlessly in media and academia.
You can't watch any show on Netflix or read any book without seeing this utter dreck. It is a billion-dollar medical scandal as well, so defeating it, not to mention stopping the mutilation and abuse of children, is a worthy way to spend my time.
It is the ultimate, distilled, final boss version of male stupidity, and that is why I will never stop fighting it. It proves everything we've said about men correct. Namely, that they're crazy and erratic, and therefore cannot be trusted with even simple things.
I didn't ask for your advice because you're worthless and have nothing of value to offer.
You can't even name one single right/opportunity men have that women are denied.
Your bigoted movement is being criticised by more and more people.
The feminist factories (colleges) are being undermined by people asking questions and pushing back at the numerous lies and two faced attitude of feminists.
The fact that your second point in your thesis about the weighty topic of the history of feminism is FUCKING MARVEL MOVIES says it all, you weird little loser. Watch real films and grow the fuck up, and the rest of this horrid filth erupting inside you will eventually burn away. Good luck to you.
You supported your argument with reference to juvenile bullshit. It doesn’t deserve a second thought, truly. Grow up my dude. Get a job and do something that helps other people, then you can lecture us about what it means to be “a man”.
Comic books and ALL of their associated paraphenial have ALWAYS been juvenile bullshit, and the people who defend them like it’s their territory are complete fucking losers.
Section 1.2 isn't about the history of feminism, it's specifically about feminism in movies and contemporary pop culture. It says so quite clearly in the section title. The history of feminism is discussed in other parts of the essay.
Perhaps you're unaware of how commercially successful the MCU is. Just one Marvel movie (Avengers Endgame) is the second highest grossing movie of all time. Another MCU movie sits at sixth position, and another Avengers movie is at 11. The MCU is a cinematic juggernaut that has defined pop culture in the 2010s. No, I don't particularly like it either! But it is what it is. If you want to make a comment about the presentation of women in the culture people actually consume, you could not pick a better example than Marvel movies regardless of what someone personally chooses to watch. It is objectively correct to point to it as a defining aspect of modern day culture.
Maybe you're only familiar with the MCU of many years ago? In recent years Marvel went so feminist people started calling it the M-She-U, largely because Kevin Feige won a power struggle against Ike Perlmutter in 2015. It's all well documented. Perlmutter felt people wouldn't care about female superheros. Feige fought to get rid of him and succeeded.
So MCU went full feminist and its fortunes promptly crashed, proving Perlmutter correct. Supposedly, Feige is now saying behind the scenes that they're going to roll back the wokeness (feminism) because they tried that and it didn't work. But it's just rumours. We'll see.
It was shit from day one. All comic books are shit. It’s shit that has been pinkwashed only at the exact moment they ran out of any other ideas- and you think that’s “feminist”?????
That’s corporate, my dude, but as a libertarian I suppose you literally can’t acknowledge the role of corporations in the enshittification of everything.
The reason why that makes things worse is that what you’re calling “feminism” is shallow ass apolitical neoliberal bullshit. Just like EVERYTHING they do is shallow and neoliberal. Cheap pandering produces trash- you just didn’t mind when it was producing trash for you, because you have no fucking taste or soul lol
It's a well written essay but the assertion that democracy itself is incompatible with your position makes it all a total non-starter. You're already asking people to get on board with seriously counter-cultural beliefs and then you casually toss in that, oh yeah, you also need to be a totalitarian? Forget it. That's clearly the weakest part of your philosophy here and the best place to focus additional work.
The actual history of female suffrage is at any rate far more interesting than "some people thought it was unfair". There was a strong female anti-suffragette movement who kept it that way for a long time. As in, women did not want women to have the vote, viewing them as too emotional and unstable to be in charge of things. Feminist orthodoxy has basically erased this from history because the idea of women not being a collectivist solidarity group is heresy to them, but it's how it was.
"More American women organized against their own right to vote than in favor of it, until 1916"
Note the timing! The moment the majority of women decided they wanted the vote, they were granted it immediately. Far from being the result of a long struggle against men, there was basically no delay between women deciding they wanted it and being granted the franchise.
"Most historical evidence shows that ordinary women [in Great Britain] did not have much interest in the right to vote before the first World War and also after suffrage had been granted to women."
The anti-suffrage movement in the UK was founded and led by women, even. THAT is why it took so long. In some countries like Switzerland this view held out even longer, again, not because the men were going around oppressing women due to having evil hearts, but because many women saw how other women behaved and explicitly didn't want to be ruled by that sort of thing.
The same classical anti-suffrage arguments can still be found in circulation today, for instance there's a video on YouTube where a comedian interviews people at the Democratic and Republican party conferences. The view that women aren't temperamentally suited to be in charge is expressed by both men and women in these videos, and at both conferences (one is by a black guy interviewed on the street outside the conference rather than an attendee in it, explaining why he won't vote for Harris). Interestingly, the video at the DNC starts with a woman being asked "unlimited abortion or democracy, if you can only pick one?" and she picks abortion. So apparently she doesn't care that much about her right to vote either.
I don't personally agree with that. After all, Margaret Thatcher was one of the great western leaders of the 20th century and she was most definitely a woman. In Kemi Badenoch the UK has found a capable black female politician who also seems to have a solid approach to politics. My wife has very sensible views on politics. And tying anti-feminism to franchise reform just opens up way too many difficult questions that nobody wants to engage with right now anyway.
I think it's better to say that anti-feminism is not for banning women from positions of power, or from having the vote, or any other extreme position like that. It's simply to argue that both men and women should vote for people or positions on the basis of whether they uphold values of logic and rationality and it's perfectly OK to not to vote for a woman on the basis that you don't trust those values will be always present, just as it's currently socially acceptable to criticize male traits like "I don't want to vote for that man because he lacks compassion and is quick to anger". Nobody would bat an eye if someone gave such a reason for their vote - it's only due to the dominance of feminist ideology that expressing the reversal is not allowed.
All this is ultimately compatible with your main argument that women are in fact basically in charge of things.
Opposing democracy has nothing to do with supporting totalitarianism.
We already have juries instead of democracy to judge criminal trials. We should do more things with juries, private ownership, local unanimous control and sortition rather than democracy.
As a strategic point, you really do have to reject voting on principle if you’re going to completely reject feminism, otherwise you’d have to say that the feminists were right about one of their main issues. But they weren’t right. Democracy is wrong.
I think you need to elaborate this philosophy in much more detail as it's not obvious or intuitive what you mean. I'd say juries are a form of democracy, for instance (or do you think women shouldn't be able to serve on juries?). What does "local unanimous control" mean? And so on.
I think feminists were neither right nor wrong on the topic of voting. Originally the majority of women didn't want the vote, so they didn't have it. When they decided they did want it, mostly as a result of the war rather than feminist activism, they got it. Feminists don't seem to have had much to do with it either way, but neither did the "patriarchy". Therefore, I don't see any incompatibility between democracy and antifeminism.
Democracy means elections. That’s what people are talking about when they say that America was the first modern democracy, that Athens was a democracy, that Trump is a “threat to democracy”, that we would turn Iraq into a democracy, etc.
All versions of special interests must be eliminated for a society to be fair, just, or sustainable. It must value the interests of every individual, not the group(s) they're part of, not even the majority.
OMFG by that measure, the core principles of Nazism and the American civil rights movement are the same. Regrettably i’ve broken my cardinal rule of not arguing with idiots.
Mark my words: you will never ever get the genie that is feminism back in the bottle, and that is because too many women have learnt to value their own humanity, even if the men around them have not.
I'm glad you’ve admitted that by the end the American “Civil Rights movement” had turned into a demographic special interest movement, not a movement for equal rights.
Advent of feminism resulted in fewer compliant women, and men’s masks slipped. Previously, they pretended to value women’s humanity *so long as women did exactly what men said they were supposed to do*. Otherwise.. it was burning time.
Meh not really. Before feminism men took care of women because they wanted to and thought it the right or noble thing to do. With the advent of feminism they were advised that women don’t “need no man” and they can take care of themselves. So men in general care less about taking care of women now. And that plays itself out in many ways, which are negative for said women but careful what you wish for seems to fit in here.
“Before feminism men took care of women because they wanted to and thought it the right or noble thing to do.”
Nope. Tell me you don’t know any older women without telling me. Domestic abuse was every bit as rampant in the “olden days” as it is now (if not more so). Introducing no-fault divorce reduced the number of husbands dying mysterious deaths (poisoning) and the number of wives committing suicide.
Women don’t need men to “take care” of them, *they need men not to actively harm them*.
I know what to wish for, and it doesn’t involve harking back to some time when men were even more misogynistic than they are now.
Libertarian feminism is moral and desirable: all women are entitled to full private-property liberty just as all men are. In many countries women have even less liberty than men do. In woke countries women have privileges that infringe the liberty of men.
i think your argument would quickly untangle itself from its own inner contradictions if you were to have put in the effort to define what constitutes femininity.
It was certainly not illegal for married women to work, although maybe you mean that it was illegal to work in certain professions outside the home. Which country are you from?
My article was focused on the American context. But I also don't believe that it was illegal for married women to work outside the home in the Netherlands until 1956. Do you have any evidence of that?
Nobody should be allowed to vote?? Are you serious? What system do you propose, then? I think you make some reasonable points, but then you come out aganst democracy? What gives?
Who do you think fought for women to be allowed on juries?
Take a wild guess, you utter genius.
If that's so obvious, why did men explicitly ban it for so long?
Simon, you don't know anything about history, you appear to not understand the basic meaning of words, and you don't understand legal history especially.
Be quiet and stop embarrassing yourself.
Go play video games. Stick to what you know because it's excruciating to watch dumb males online say such stupid things.
Feminism to you is your inability to get laid. Nobody cares that you're unfuckable. That's on you.
Dramatic conjectures stated as facts for an entire article. Feminism was so successful that everyone in the west is deeply feminist even if they don’t realize it
"It’s understandable that people thought it was unfair when men could vote and women couldn’t, but this problem arose only because we made the mistake of having voting in the first place. Democracy is a failed system. Neither men nor women should be allowed to vote."
Haha. I have to admit, I didn't see that last line coming. Dream on, my friend. I'm sure the anti-democracy advocacy will catch on any day now.
This was hilarious with the way it layered the extremism and just kept building. I laughed out loud and thought, "wow, this guy needs more friends."
Engage with the content. It's quite ok to disagree, even vehemently! But the personal attacks and snide remarks are unnecessary. Do better!
How's that boxed wine treating you?
even though there is no democracy.
How can democracy have failed if it doesn't exist?
He's a mental midget who has spent his life on 4Chan and in Call of Duty chat rooms (or whatever they call it).
Men shouldn't be taken seriously. "Feminism" = "Every time a woman rejected me" -- that's how these moids think. It's to be taken with a grain of salt.
You have the intellect of a retarded pigeon.
You just repeat all the insults you learnt from the echo chamber you got brainwashed in.
Agreed. I am a man, and on many fronts, traditional. This is a total straw man of feminism. Presumably, it is based on social media feminism, which is inherently fringe and extreme by virtue of getting clicks through rage-baiting and/or attracting disaffected women. This guy needs to leave his house more and interact with more women. Perhaps then he’ll realize that feminism isn’t the demonic cult he perceives it to be. I know I haven’t made a “substantive argument” that would meet the demands of this guys’ supporters, and you know what, fair. But I implore you to interact with women in the real world, see them as simply other human beings, and hear them out. I say this with full benevolence— touch grass.
My impression of feminism comes primarily from interacting with women in the real world. "I can write disparaging fan fiction about someone I disagree with" is not an argument.
Fair enough, and you're right--my above comment was *not* a valid argument. I do concede that it was immature of me to unleash a barrage of ad-hominems, rooted in false assumptions about you. But I think this discrepancy in our real-life experiences offers the chance to start *constructing* an argument.
Doesn't the fact that our experiences differ imply that the feminist movement isn't as much of a monolith as your piece makes it out to be? I take issue with the characterization of the movement as ideologically homogeneous. I have met a fair share of contradictory, self-interested feminists who leverage feminism as a tool to legitimize bad behavior. However, perhaps there is, out there, a feminist who isn't hypocritical and has an ideologically coherent set of beliefs? Several of my female acquaintances held feminist beliefs; however, they were not detractors of classical, feminine traits, like motherhood and submission. I am a student at a tier-1 institution in the States. Freshmen here are mandated to take a sex-education course, centered around concepts like consent and respectful relationships. Although the teacher for the class was wholly feminist, she seemed to hold an ideologically coherent worldview that displayed sympathy for men as well. She did not carry the visceral revulsion towards men that modern feminism seems to fete. In essence, she was radically egalitarian in her teachings. She did not appear to promote the social hypocrisy that other feminists do. She also refused to vilify traditionally feminine roles and occupations, such as motherhood. Her worldview was more-so centered around choice. As per her worldview, a woman who chooses to defer motherhood and climb the corporate ranks should not expect all women to tread the same path; likewise, she believed that a woman who chooses motherhood should not be vilified. The issue, according to her, is of people foisting upon others their personal preferences. Traditionally feminine traits, careers, and gender roles are not bad per-se, but it is not fair to expect all women to conform to such ideas. I've always encountered feminism in the context of the above radical egalitarianism and choice. And, subsequently, I have my own criticisms of such an ideology, primarily that it is too idealistic.
I do not disagree that online discourse surrounding feminism is replete with toxicity and histrionics, but largely, I think that your article wrestles with the most fringe elements of feminism.
All men could vote?
Sorry to burst your brainwashed bubble, but men didn't have a vote unless they had property.
Men in the military could vote, but likewise, so could women in the military.
You'll see examples of that in Canada, where military nurses had the vote before Men who weren't in the military.
Sucks to be believing complete bullshit your whole life.
I am not particularly fond of tying political enfranchisement with military service
That's what's in the USA now.
If any man over 18 refuses to sign up, he's banned from voting.
My own view is, if you're prepared to put your life on the line to protect your country then you should have an extra privilege than someone who won't.
I don’t disagree they should given some benefits or privileges. Maybe the government can pay for their house, or universities’ fees.
That's already the case. Serving in the military means cheaper groceries, tax breaks, and retirement pay.
There is the GI bill.
That only applies in the USA.
Maybe there are other places where military get extra privileges
Going a bit contrarian here, but I was involved in a feminist scene for a while (more so out of an interest in women's literature than anything) and I actually agree with a lot of what is written here. I do think feminism was a reaction to some very real issues -- though perhaps not the ones claimed by many feminists. And that some good things were achieved by the movement (e.g. support services for abused women, greater independence allowing women to leave bad marriages). I wish that the branch of "maternal feminism" that once existed had been the one to take off. That it the "girl-boss" version did instead I think is indicative of the toxicity and narcissism that was always inherent in the movement. While I agree the movement now does more harm than good to women and men, I think the biggest victims are children -- to paraphrase Erica Komisar, the whole women's rights thing threw children's rights under the bus.
I have a daughter and a second to be born any day now. When I was pregnant with my first child, many other women asked me if I was going to raise her in a "gender-neutral" way, i.e. push her toward masculine interests. I found this disturbing and said I'd let her like what she naturally likes. (Turns out she likes pretty dresses, the colour pink, singing, dancing, and animals. She really only plays with stuff like trucks etc when she's hanging out with one of her male friends). I also heard stories of women who were devastated that their daughters were feminine, which is tragic for the kids. As you write, there's nothing wrong with (healthy) femininity.
When I found out I was pregnant, one of the first things I said to my husband was that I wanted to be a STAH mom. He has a good job and is a good man and has been extremely supportive (while also being supportive of my writing, continued freelancing, and Substack). I was pushed toward masculine careers like engineering as a kid because I was good at math ... but I was still a girl, and I pursued female-typical interests instead. I sincerely like being barefoot and cooking, tweaking recipes to perfect them. It's insane to me that I was fed propaganda trying to convince me that this life is somehow a waste of my mind (what about my heart?). With a good man, being a housewife is the furthest thing from being "oppressed." In so many ways, it's a privilege and a gift, especially with modern technology making household chores so much easier. The majority of young mothers I know either stay at home, wish to stay at home, or go down to part time work (but many cannot for, as you note, financial reasons). When I say things like "feminism lied to us", far more women agree with me than don't.
I found it interesting that you note that many of the "feminine" traits that ARE treated as socially acceptable / romanticized in Hollywood are actually childish traits ... I recently published an essay which discusses this as well -- the essay argues (among a lot of other things, it's a long read) that hyper-literate feminism is a "left-brained" movement, with a dysfunction right hemisphere (one could also think of it as an "autistic" or "schizophrenic" movement ... I touch on the neuroscience), and that it tilts toward androgyny, misandry, and misogyny -- and seems to romanticize neoteny. The latter point is something I still need to do a lot more research on, admittedly, but I do hope to return to the topic and am keen for feedback. If you're interested, the link is below. Cheers.
https://thecassandracomplex.substack.com/p/the-androgynous-mind
Just a point.
Erin Pizzey started the domestic abuse cause.
She spotted straight away that 2/3 of the women coming to her refuges were at least or more violent than the men they claimed to have run from.
At this point, she tried to start a refuge for men, but it didn't work because she couldn't get the funds
Feminists took over her campaign in a hostile takeover.
If you search any unbiased surveys on DV, you'll see that injuries are practically 50-50.
Further, unbiased surveys on domestic abuse amongst lesbians and their rate of DV are twice as alarming as what straight couples inflict upon each other.
I wonder if there's a selection bias as well, i.e. the women who end up going to shelters are less likely to have support from other people because of their own behaviour? (Always exceptions, of course, and really abusive people isolate others from friends / family).
I was in an abusive relationship for four years. Not physically abusive (unless you count him restraining me when I tried to walk away or leave), but he was extremely manipulative and psychologically abusive and it took me around seven or eight attempts to break up with him because of it. Pretty much everyone who knew us either saw that he was being a dick to me, or weren't surprised, and when I did end up fleeing the situation, I was able to crash with a friend until I was up to returning to confront him (the situation was complicated by the fact that I owned the apartment we lived in before he moved in with me, so I had to kick him out, not just leave myself). He kept refusing to leave my apartment (I broke up with him in February 2020 so he weaponized Covid), but several men offered to come over and help me boot him out. The guy I took up on the offer is now my husband and absolutely wonderful.
Post Me Too, I've actually been frustrated because I feel LESS willing to talk about a guy harassing me, because now there's a real risk he'll be disproportionately punished for something that falls under the creepy-annoying spectrum.
I'm another domestic abuse survivor.
What people forget is that abusers typically learn their ways from their parents.
Monkey see, Monkey do.
The vast majority of "DV" is reciprocal with one person initiating it and the other acting in self defence.
Physical injuries whether from abuse or self defence injuries trump injuries from emotional, psychological, financial, or sexual abuse.
Also, the friend who let me crash? A guy, and he was a perfect gentleman :-p He volunteered as a crisis support worker and was extremely helpful. He let me stay with him for almost two weeks in March 2020.
I'll have to look Pizzey up, but that story makes sense (in a Western context). I also read data which showed biological mothers were more likely to abuse their children than biological fathers (I think this data was from the US, would need to dig up the article). I also can't for the life of me remember where I read this, but I recall seeing something about there being a lot of women on women abuse (maybe it was more verbal?) in the early shelters as well.
I suspect when abuse in romantic relationships (regardless of sex) is one-sided, in a majority of cases the abuse is psychological / manipulative / coercive, not (or rarely) physical.
Re: lesbians, yes, very common, but I think dating women instead of men is often (not always) a symptom of early childhood trauma. Higher rates of mental illness among "bisexual" women than butch lesbians :-/
When it comes to child abuse many feminist organisations reporting it include mothers' boyfriends, stepfathers and one night stands abusing their children as their "father".
There's a link I had about a decade ago showing this.
Seriously? I didn't know that.
There's also data showing that children of single parents do better when raised by their bio fathers than bio mothers. I think I'm a decent mom (and certainly not abusive), but theoretically, I can believe that our children would do better solo with my husband than with me :-/ He challenges them more, and I tend a bit to coddling.
Kids need to be challenged and have boundaries set.
Someone described it as peas and ice-cream difference.
Father's and mother's would say eat your peas and you can have ice-cream.
Kids being Kids will push the issue and try to get away with not eating all the peas.
Mother's (not every last one) would let the kid away with the last few bites.
Whereas fathers (not every last one) insist they finish every last bite.
Men are task orientated (in general) and instill a sense of earning and boundaries into kids.
Kids need both bio-parents for the best upbringing and how to be good adults (in general).
Some fathers go too far and it's up to mother's to get them to ease off.
Adolf Hitler’s father was the son of a single mother.
He used to batter Adolf around most days.
Adolf's mother was the calming influence in his life; she protected him from the worst abuse.
Haha, I'm actually more tough-love when it comes to food (because I'm a tad health-obsessed) but my husband is more likely to set boundaries etc. He's a good dad.
As you say equality flattens everyone. Feminism is actually quite bad for high achieving women as it pretends that all of the average and underachieving women are the same as them. When everyone woman is Serena Williams/Erin Brockovich, none of them have to be.
Imagine fighting like crazy for a long time with single determination and passing all the hurdles to get a placement/position/job/accomplishment and being respected for your struggles, then another person comes along as a DEI (Didn't Earn It) hire and everyone thinks you didn't work as hard as the original people who earned their places.
The Nazis were against feminism because feminism is a part of communism.
LOL
The Nazis--those fine family men who just loved to protect and provide.
Men shouldn't be allowed to vote.
They were family men. Some of the best men in fact. Read a book.
Oh yes, like Joseph Goebbels who liked to sleep around and cheat with plenty of women while his wife was at home with their 6 kids (that he ended up poisoning).
Or Hitler, who never really married (I mean, right before his suicide--it wasn't a significant length of time) and had no children.
Super family men! Nothing but protecting and providing, not being absolute hypocrites saying one thing and doing another.
Idiot.
Actually it was the wife that poisoned the 6 children.
Nobody knows 100% for sure.
As head of the household, he should have been in charge and he should have been their "protector." He wasn't. That's my point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goebbels_children
I mean …reaching to use basically one of the most vile couples in history to make a point about not protecting their children. Her argument for poisoning them was that she couldn’t bear for them to grow up in a shitty world where the fuhrer wasnt omnipotent. It’s silly we’re talking about these people in relation to this subject.
I suppose not a single nazi is allowed to have an affair under your logic? And you think Goebbels should have stuck around to be tortured and murdered along with his family by communists? Repeal the 19th. Tax cat food and meals for one. Ban box wine and SSRIs.
I repeat, men shouldn't be allowed to vote.
You should watch this.
Feminism has lots in common with Hitler’s Furies.
https://youtu.be/i5uckJZxAmA
If anyone needs more reasons to be antifeminist, read about Sally Miller Gearhart, the feminist pioneer of women and gender studies programs in American universities. Specifically, her talk "The Future-if there is one-Is Female".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Miller_Gearhart#Writing
You guys lost already.
There's nothing you can do about it.
We're not going to back the good ol' days when rational protector-providers could marry 10 year old girls legally, beat their wives legally, and keep women out of jobs and school.
It's just not happening. You know it, and that's why you're mad.
Stick to your porn and video games, and then die.
That's all you've got left.
Lol! I appreciate your disdain and candor. Enjoy those long work hours, casual abortions and dog shit. That's really all you have left. Nice doggie, by the way.
And a high body count.
That's what you WOULD have if you weren't so ugly, boring, and unfuckable.
Worthless moids do nothing but coon and project, bitter that they couldn't get laid in a prison with a carton of cigarettes, thereby projecting their failures onto women.
That's how the male mind works. That's why they're all so crazy.
I bet your mom is proud.
My mother is proud of me.
My marriage has lasted almost 30 years.
Your shaming tactics don't work with me.
I'll bet you have the 1,000 cock stare.
Just like shoes, you don't pay the same for shoes worn by hundreds of others as you would a brand new pair.
One you could only dream of, baby.
Nah, she's right. Only no-pussy getting losers talk like 90% of guys in this thread talk.
Wtf are you even talking about?
What doggie?
Are men all this stupid and insane?
Your videos and porn literally destroyed your brain cell. Nothing you say even makes sense.
We both know you find meaning in picking up dog shit. We also both know you should lay off the boxed wine.
Thankfully, not all when are as brainwashed, bitter and hatefilled as you are.
Waking up hating 50% of the population must be exhausting.
You must eat like a horse to keep your size.
I'll bet all weighing scales hides when you walk into a room.
Good article.
I don’t want to sound like a feminist, but there is no purely « natural order » for humans. It is not like you can remove all the modern propaganda and get a new natural culture. In the past women were not just naturally converging on their gender roles, society was also reinforcing it in different ways. I could imagine a simple « reduce government size to be as low as possible » approach to make it so that the culture goes to a better direction.
There is also the problem of creating a new subculture that is also anti-feminist that can sustain itself. I don’t think convincing a decent amount of men to join would be difficult, but seducing women (especially young and single ones…) to join it at a similar rate as men is going to be very hard. It is actually the central question: How can you convince those women? How to not scare or disgust them?
The long term way to convince women to be part of such a subculture is just to raise girls without feminist brainwashing. Excessive TV/movie/pop culture consumption should be seen as a vice just as cigarette smoking or alcoholism are seen as vices.
In the short term, I think there are a lot of women who would be open to an explicit anti-feminist position, but they’ve only heard it from whiny, deliberately off-putting people and Christian fundamentalists. We just need to clearly and frankly make the case for anti-feminism without being obnoxious/smelly or deliberately off-putting.
I don’t think the « brainwashing » can be avoided. You need to give a clear education on why feminist are bad before she encounters it. Basically summarize the ideas given in your article to a kid.
Yeah I don’t know about the number of women that are open to an anti-feminist subculture. I think they would be attracted to it if they can find a relatively attractive man that can make a good amount of money. So it needs to be relatively elitist/demanding towards the men. Idk how sustainable that can be. It would eventually need to have like a religious element in order to change what would be considered « high-status » to avoid having men or women leave the subculture.
It’s pretty easy to avoid the brainwashing.
Don’t have a TV in your home
Homeschool
Limit social media usage
A lot of churches already are sort of opposed to feminism and they have a "religious element."
Churches are dying.
Social media is what everyone (especially the young) use for entertainment and information. Not a TV. You're old and out of touch. You have no clue what's going on.
You lost.
If men were such a great option, none of this would have been necessary, and we wouldn't have won.
You aren't. You lost, and there's nothing you can do.
If men are so logical and strong, deal with the truth (hint: you're not).
Go play video games and shut up.
I am younger than you. The tide of history is against you. You're losing and that's why you're so angry.
LOL we're not the ones going on shooting sprees because we can't get laid. Tinder is 76% male (that is what they admit and it's most likely an underestimate).
That's your side, Simon.
You don't know how old I am.
You're talking about TVs.
You know nothing. Don't speak about history as if you have any clue what's going on. Libertarians are the biggest retards in the world. You want to do something about government intrusion on individual rights? Take on anti-BDS laws. I dare you.
You're not going to make wife-beating and child marriage legal again.
You lost. You can die alone, surrounded by your porn and video games, along with the other rational protector-providers lol.
End of story.
I would say that unless you want to truly isolate (difficult in the age of internet) your hypothetically daughters and sons from the rest of the world, they are going to encounter an instance of brainwashing modern degeneracy. The kids need to have some mental defense against the rethoric of the modern culture. Homeschooling+no tv is fine, but adding a « mental vaccine » against degenerate stuff can’t hurt.
Encountering it occasionally is categorically different from being steeped in it several hours per day, from birth.
Feminists won because we're right.
If men were so logical, strong, interesting, and competent, it wouldn't have been necessary.
You guys are none of those things, and in fact, men in general are a bad investment.
There's nothing you can do.
Nobody cares that you can't get laid, or want to beat your wife legally, or would love to marry a 10 year old girl legally.
It's done. We won.
Go cry while you play Grand Theft Auto.
"Anti-feminism" is code for "unfuckable loser males want to have women play punching bag/personal assistant for them while providing nothing in return."
It's not happening. You lost.
If you're rational (you're not), deal with it, and work on yourself. Oh, and stay off Tinder. Nobody wants to fuck you, and it's your fault.
I love the irony of someone claiming no men are rational whilst also claiming the author argued for wife beating (he didn't) and paedophilia (also didn't). There's nothing that says "calm and rational" more than making up false claims about someone in a media where everyone can immediately see you're lying.
https://open.substack.com/pub/muhfashybookshelf/p/the-modern-woman?r=331zlq&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Antifeminism is a doomed project. The idea that patriarchy can be reestablished through reciting trite points like these to schoolgirls is absurd. Islamic countries are currently desperately trying to reinstitute old-school patriarchy in places like Iran and Afghanistan through imposition of extreme heavy-handed restrictions on women's movements and speech, and even they haven't been able to halt feminist activism. Women in Korea are open about the fact they would rather see the extinction of their nation rather than continue patriarchal practices. Everywhere around the world we see similar trends.
If you want to understand the full extent of the problem for men and patriarchy, I recommend reading David Gilmore's excellent anthropological work, Misogyny: The Male Malady. Gilmore is an anti-feminist, but he is an honest anti-feminist, and therefore worth reading. Gilmore dismisses the silly self-pitying delusions many misogynist men labor under, like the idea that we live under a "matriarchy" (women have never had that sort of political power over men as a class.) And he is honest about the ugliness of patriarchy and how much ongoing stress and difficulty it places on men to maintain it, whether those men are tribal patriarchs in New Guinea or intellectuals in the Catholic Church. For example, all male institutions are critical to patriarchy, but those all male institutions (whether they are the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church, or the ancient Greek lyceums) almost always involve some degree of pederasty and sexual abuse of boys and effeminate men. Patriarchy always involves the eroticization of hierarchy and dominance and submission, and in absence of women, men institute those practices on boys. Some patriarchal institutions, like that of the Romans and Greeks, honor and institutionalize those practices, while others (like the Catholic Church) nominally condemn it while condoning it in practice. This is of course just one example of the nastiness and underbelly of patriarchy. I do not think men today really have the stomach for everything patriarchy entails, and therefore they comfort themselves by telling themselves a few simple tricks will reinstitute a fantasy of old school patriarchy and gender harmony that never truly existed.
Given your username, I am going to imagine that your explanation of why the culture is not fine is that due to the omnipresent patriarchy, the world is not an egalitarian utopia. My interpretation would be more that there are natural differences and that the preferable for the majority outcome would involve less government/bureaucracy. I am not going to read your stuff that implies that non-feminist cultures are pedophilia or some shit like that. My point of view is relatively close to the points written from the author of this article, and you are probably not ok with them for some reasons. So I am just going to defend my previous points: I did say that making a sustainable anti-feminist subculture inside our current culture would be very difficult. I would say that it needs to involve « reciting trite points » to kids, because it is more helpful than totally isolating them from the rest of the world. But it needs way more than that to protect them. My point is that I am not purely anti-feminist, but a strong and healthy culture is probably anti-feminist
You mentioned that Afghanistan failed to subdue feminism. But they are still above 2.1 kids per woman. They are immigrating to the western world with their culture. Therefore, they are winning. I don’t want to see a culture that treats women so poorly winning.
Your homework should be to somehow find a way to have a feminist ( or progressive, it is the same thing in 2024) culture without having it fail to reproduce itself. Otherwise, you are by definition going to lose to strongly religious or authoritarian groups. You can’t « kidnap » children from other religions/culture groups forever.
Too much government is not the issue. This problem is that men and women do not have equal rights and we have a culture that pushes feminist brainwashing.
Men have too many rights. And we're here to take more away.
Men have the right to put on a skirt, declare themselves to be women, and then get put in a women's jail where they can continue raping.
Feminism is for females, and it's a form of karma.
You guys deserve it.
Go cry all you want. There's nothing you can do.
Keep swiping on Tinder, Simon (that's 76% male, btw--wonder why?).
Ayaaaa, I get it. A TERF hahaha.
Just a little advice: while the whole trans thing is very stupid, you should not dedicate your life to it and bring it on places where I think it was not the main subject. As you said, you have already won. Just go enjoy life, you won’t meet many trans people anyway. Also calling people ( that technically align with you on your fetish issue too…) incels and saying feminism is pure vengeful female advocacy reflects badly reflects on your TERF friends and you.
The "trans" agenda is the largest threat to women's safety in prisons, sports, bathrooms, etc., and I won't stand by while this agenda is pushed relentlessly in media and academia.
You can't watch any show on Netflix or read any book without seeing this utter dreck. It is a billion-dollar medical scandal as well, so defeating it, not to mention stopping the mutilation and abuse of children, is a worthy way to spend my time.
It is the ultimate, distilled, final boss version of male stupidity, and that is why I will never stop fighting it. It proves everything we've said about men correct. Namely, that they're crazy and erratic, and therefore cannot be trusted with even simple things.
I didn't ask for your advice because you're worthless and have nothing of value to offer.
Shut up and go play video games.
You can't even name one single right/opportunity men have that women are denied.
Your bigoted movement is being criticised by more and more people.
The feminist factories (colleges) are being undermined by people asking questions and pushing back at the numerous lies and two faced attitude of feminists.
The fact that your second point in your thesis about the weighty topic of the history of feminism is FUCKING MARVEL MOVIES says it all, you weird little loser. Watch real films and grow the fuck up, and the rest of this horrid filth erupting inside you will eventually burn away. Good luck to you.
Actually the second point was about how equality is the opposite of individuality.
My dude you gave yourself away, I’m sorry, it’s so clear where you evolved your ideas and it’s a swamp.
Well that's still not a counterargument.
You supported your argument with reference to juvenile bullshit. It doesn’t deserve a second thought, truly. Grow up my dude. Get a job and do something that helps other people, then you can lecture us about what it means to be “a man”.
The fact that feminists produce juvenile bullshit is the point.
Comic books and ALL of their associated paraphenial have ALWAYS been juvenile bullshit, and the people who defend them like it’s their territory are complete fucking losers.
No offense.
Section 1.2 isn't about the history of feminism, it's specifically about feminism in movies and contemporary pop culture. It says so quite clearly in the section title. The history of feminism is discussed in other parts of the essay.
Perhaps you're unaware of how commercially successful the MCU is. Just one Marvel movie (Avengers Endgame) is the second highest grossing movie of all time. Another MCU movie sits at sixth position, and another Avengers movie is at 11. The MCU is a cinematic juggernaut that has defined pop culture in the 2010s. No, I don't particularly like it either! But it is what it is. If you want to make a comment about the presentation of women in the culture people actually consume, you could not pick a better example than Marvel movies regardless of what someone personally chooses to watch. It is objectively correct to point to it as a defining aspect of modern day culture.
But defining it as feminist is fucking absurd.
Maybe you're only familiar with the MCU of many years ago? In recent years Marvel went so feminist people started calling it the M-She-U, largely because Kevin Feige won a power struggle against Ike Perlmutter in 2015. It's all well documented. Perlmutter felt people wouldn't care about female superheros. Feige fought to get rid of him and succeeded.
https://collider.com/how-kevin-feige-fought-to-make-captain-marvel-female-superhero-movies-mark-ruffalo
So MCU went full feminist and its fortunes promptly crashed, proving Perlmutter correct. Supposedly, Feige is now saying behind the scenes that they're going to roll back the wokeness (feminism) because they tried that and it didn't work. But it's just rumours. We'll see.
It was shit from day one. All comic books are shit. It’s shit that has been pinkwashed only at the exact moment they ran out of any other ideas- and you think that’s “feminist”?????
That’s corporate, my dude, but as a libertarian I suppose you literally can’t acknowledge the role of corporations in the enshittification of everything.
Of course corporations make things worse. And one of the ways they make things worse is by shoving in feminist content.
The reason why that makes things worse is that what you’re calling “feminism” is shallow ass apolitical neoliberal bullshit. Just like EVERYTHING they do is shallow and neoliberal. Cheap pandering produces trash- you just didn’t mind when it was producing trash for you, because you have no fucking taste or soul lol
These guys are baffled why women don't want them in any way.
They're truly befuddled.
It's a well written essay but the assertion that democracy itself is incompatible with your position makes it all a total non-starter. You're already asking people to get on board with seriously counter-cultural beliefs and then you casually toss in that, oh yeah, you also need to be a totalitarian? Forget it. That's clearly the weakest part of your philosophy here and the best place to focus additional work.
The actual history of female suffrage is at any rate far more interesting than "some people thought it was unfair". There was a strong female anti-suffragette movement who kept it that way for a long time. As in, women did not want women to have the vote, viewing them as too emotional and unstable to be in charge of things. Feminist orthodoxy has basically erased this from history because the idea of women not being a collectivist solidarity group is heresy to them, but it's how it was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-suffragism
"More American women organized against their own right to vote than in favor of it, until 1916"
Note the timing! The moment the majority of women decided they wanted the vote, they were granted it immediately. Far from being the result of a long struggle against men, there was basically no delay between women deciding they wanted it and being granted the franchise.
"Most historical evidence shows that ordinary women [in Great Britain] did not have much interest in the right to vote before the first World War and also after suffrage had been granted to women."
The anti-suffrage movement in the UK was founded and led by women, even. THAT is why it took so long. In some countries like Switzerland this view held out even longer, again, not because the men were going around oppressing women due to having evil hearts, but because many women saw how other women behaved and explicitly didn't want to be ruled by that sort of thing.
The same classical anti-suffrage arguments can still be found in circulation today, for instance there's a video on YouTube where a comedian interviews people at the Democratic and Republican party conferences. The view that women aren't temperamentally suited to be in charge is expressed by both men and women in these videos, and at both conferences (one is by a black guy interviewed on the street outside the conference rather than an attendee in it, explaining why he won't vote for Harris). Interestingly, the video at the DNC starts with a woman being asked "unlimited abortion or democracy, if you can only pick one?" and she picks abortion. So apparently she doesn't care that much about her right to vote either.
I don't personally agree with that. After all, Margaret Thatcher was one of the great western leaders of the 20th century and she was most definitely a woman. In Kemi Badenoch the UK has found a capable black female politician who also seems to have a solid approach to politics. My wife has very sensible views on politics. And tying anti-feminism to franchise reform just opens up way too many difficult questions that nobody wants to engage with right now anyway.
I think it's better to say that anti-feminism is not for banning women from positions of power, or from having the vote, or any other extreme position like that. It's simply to argue that both men and women should vote for people or positions on the basis of whether they uphold values of logic and rationality and it's perfectly OK to not to vote for a woman on the basis that you don't trust those values will be always present, just as it's currently socially acceptable to criticize male traits like "I don't want to vote for that man because he lacks compassion and is quick to anger". Nobody would bat an eye if someone gave such a reason for their vote - it's only due to the dominance of feminist ideology that expressing the reversal is not allowed.
All this is ultimately compatible with your main argument that women are in fact basically in charge of things.
Opposing democracy has nothing to do with supporting totalitarianism.
We already have juries instead of democracy to judge criminal trials. We should do more things with juries, private ownership, local unanimous control and sortition rather than democracy.
As a strategic point, you really do have to reject voting on principle if you’re going to completely reject feminism, otherwise you’d have to say that the feminists were right about one of their main issues. But they weren’t right. Democracy is wrong.
I think you need to elaborate this philosophy in much more detail as it's not obvious or intuitive what you mean. I'd say juries are a form of democracy, for instance (or do you think women shouldn't be able to serve on juries?). What does "local unanimous control" mean? And so on.
I think feminists were neither right nor wrong on the topic of voting. Originally the majority of women didn't want the vote, so they didn't have it. When they decided they did want it, mostly as a result of the war rather than feminist activism, they got it. Feminists don't seem to have had much to do with it either way, but neither did the "patriarchy". Therefore, I don't see any incompatibility between democracy and antifeminism.
Democracy means elections. That’s what people are talking about when they say that America was the first modern democracy, that Athens was a democracy, that Trump is a “threat to democracy”, that we would turn Iraq into a democracy, etc.
Feminists didn't have much to do with it?
Why is there a need to completely reject feminism?
Most movements have at least one or two points - the problems come when they go to far.
Anyway you already fail to completely reject it when you agree with them that women should be on juries…
All versions of special interests must be eliminated for a society to be fair, just, or sustainable. It must value the interests of every individual, not the group(s) they're part of, not even the majority.
“You might not think that feminism has done as much damage as Nazism, but the core principle is the same.”
No, the core principles are *not* the same you absolute fruit loop. Read a book FFS.
Both are demographic special interest movements.
OMFG by that measure, the core principles of Nazism and the American civil rights movement are the same. Regrettably i’ve broken my cardinal rule of not arguing with idiots.
Mark my words: you will never ever get the genie that is feminism back in the bottle, and that is because too many women have learnt to value their own humanity, even if the men around them have not.
I'm glad you’ve admitted that by the end the American “Civil Rights movement” had turned into a demographic special interest movement, not a movement for equal rights.
Can easily argue that men value “women’s humanity” less since the advent of feminism. Not sure it’s that clear cut that it helped with that.
Advent of feminism resulted in fewer compliant women, and men’s masks slipped. Previously, they pretended to value women’s humanity *so long as women did exactly what men said they were supposed to do*. Otherwise.. it was burning time.
Meh not really. Before feminism men took care of women because they wanted to and thought it the right or noble thing to do. With the advent of feminism they were advised that women don’t “need no man” and they can take care of themselves. So men in general care less about taking care of women now. And that plays itself out in many ways, which are negative for said women but careful what you wish for seems to fit in here.
“Before feminism men took care of women because they wanted to and thought it the right or noble thing to do.”
Nope. Tell me you don’t know any older women without telling me. Domestic abuse was every bit as rampant in the “olden days” as it is now (if not more so). Introducing no-fault divorce reduced the number of husbands dying mysterious deaths (poisoning) and the number of wives committing suicide.
Women don’t need men to “take care” of them, *they need men not to actively harm them*.
I know what to wish for, and it doesn’t involve harking back to some time when men were even more misogynistic than they are now.
Libertarian feminism is moral and desirable: all women are entitled to full private-property liberty just as all men are. In many countries women have even less liberty than men do. In woke countries women have privileges that infringe the liberty of men.
i think your argument would quickly untangle itself from its own inner contradictions if you were to have put in the effort to define what constitutes femininity.
You're a retard. Did your mummy beat you up? Not hard enough. Hope that helps xxxx
Suffragets being bad does not disprove even slightly the notion that women where oppressed.
Up to 1956 it was illegal for married women in my country to work or to open a bank account.
It was certainly not illegal for married women to work, although maybe you mean that it was illegal to work in certain professions outside the home. Which country are you from?
the Netherlands
My article was focused on the American context. But I also don't believe that it was illegal for married women to work outside the home in the Netherlands until 1956. Do you have any evidence of that?
Nobody should be allowed to vote?? Are you serious? What system do you propose, then? I think you make some reasonable points, but then you come out aganst democracy? What gives?
You probably already oppose democracy for criminal trials. Most people support juries.
I think we should use juries for more things. Sortition, local unanimous control and private organizations are other good options.
OK then, should women be allowed on those?
Yes
Who do you think fought for women to be allowed on juries?
Take a wild guess, you utter genius.
If that's so obvious, why did men explicitly ban it for so long?
Simon, you don't know anything about history, you appear to not understand the basic meaning of words, and you don't understand legal history especially.
Be quiet and stop embarrassing yourself.
Go play video games. Stick to what you know because it's excruciating to watch dumb males online say such stupid things.
Feminism to you is your inability to get laid. Nobody cares that you're unfuckable. That's on you.
Dramatic conjectures stated as facts for an entire article. Feminism was so successful that everyone in the west is deeply feminist even if they don’t realize it
Well it sounds like we agree that practically everyone in the West has internalized feminist ideology to some degree.