By : Sometimes
critiquing feminist isn’t exactly fair play. It’s just not sporting to
flame the writers on smaller platforms than the one we’re working from
ourselves. This rule of thumb has been harder to adhere to as AVfM has
grown in traffic and influence. Today, the rule is set aside because the
site being addressed, although small, indicates an evolving change in
the prevalent and populist public hatred typically heaped onto male
identity and sexuality.
The article in question is
called,“Sexuality, Gender and Relationships: How to Get Men Involved in
the Discussion.” The unattributed author posted the piece to Reddit,
inviting readers of the mens’s rights sub-reddit to read and respond.
However, that individual also indicated that the target audience is not
men themselves, but those who believe men are the problem, and need to
modify themselves to suit the preferences of others.
“The article is written with a
specific target audience in mind – those that think that the problem is
men, and men need to change.”
With that audience in mind, the
article is probably a project of good intent. However, the author
registered a fail at trying to steer the “conversation” toward reason or
away from bigotry.
With that in mind we want to
volunteer our corrections to the misandric assumptions and offer praise
for the attempt to embrace reality, crippled by denial though it was.
The title of the article implies
that discourse on sexuality, gender, and relationship is incomplete
without the input of men. It also implies that men have not been
speaking up, and struggling to be heard for as long as people have been
having the conversation They talk about this radical new idea as though
it were just accidentally discovered.
The article’s opening:
“We need men to participate in dialog about sexuality, gender, and relationships.”
Uh, we are. And when we do we are
routinely shouted down, censored, vilified and shamed. So we kept
talking, just not to people like you. The conversation is going much
better.
What was that you needed again?
Next we are treated to this little gem:
“Until they do [join the
conversation], we won’t stop sexual violence, and there is a limit to
how far the women’s movement can go.”
Yeah, there is indeed a limit,
and it has been reached. Feminism’s use-by date is starting fade under a
patina, but not the kind that makes it more valuable. Clinging to the
delusion that sexual violence is uniquely masculine is just one of the
many ways feminism has walked itself into a wall, And it is why there is
a quickly growing number of men and women rejecting the toxic
narrative, and saying no thank you to the invitation to the
“conversation.”
The article continues:
“In general, men haven’t arrived at the discussion table (let alone collectively change their behavior).”
Sorry, we skipped the classes on
“changing the collective behavior” of our sex. And we intend to keep on
skipping them. So certain of this are we that we have formed our own
classes. If you are teachable attendance is free.
It may not be THE perfect
conversation, but it beats the hell out of appealing to men to
participate in a discussion that requires them to demonize themselves
and others; a conversation they know will ultimately require them to
shut up if they don’t like it.
If that is what you are trying to
sell strong, informed, intelligent men in 2014, you better get Zig
Ziglar on the case – or change your thinking. Otherwise you will be
stuck with the same boring lackeys that have you out here now hunting
for fresh meat.
The article lists supposed strategies for engaging men in gender discourse.
“Create conversations where
it’s clear that men are going to be honored, rather than made fun of or
spoken about like they’re nothing but dangerous.“
We are not quite sure how this is
going to be accomplished. How do you create a conversation with men
that does not address them like they are nothing but dangerous, when you
have already established that your purpose for the discussion is
ultimately to get everyone to accept that all men are dangerous?
We will save you the suspense. You don’t.
“Men are used to getting
lynched in discussions about sexuality, gender and relationships, and as
a consequence they avoid the topics.”
Duh.
As a consequence of perpetual
cultural lynching of male identity – men, especially those who have a
vested interest in discussing sexual politics, have rejected the
narrative in which they are the designated monsters. Or more simply put,
they are telling the lynch mobs to bugger off.
They are smart enough to see the
clearly implied lynching in the “appeal for inclusion” we are now
addressing. The fact that it is disguised in with such lackluster effort
only makes it more insulting.
Feminists, you are all keen on
cultural awareness. Our culture, a culture of men and women talking
about gender issues without being on a leash, aren’t poised to jump up
and down and yell, “Yippie! They are gonna let us talk! We actually
exist now!”
Nor are we going to be moved by anything like the following:.
The author of the
“genderequality” blog asserts that his/her readers and feminist
colleagues and comrades must “find our compassion and love for men if we
want them to step into the dialog”
Perhaps we should be grateful for
the acknowledgment that they don’t know where their compassion and love
for men is to begin with. Hey, at least there is some insight, even if
limited. Then again, being grateful for crumbs of something that normal
people don’t have to go looking for isn’t in our culture either.
We have an abundance of
compassion and love for men right here. So if you don’t find yours in
the sofa cushions or under the bed, we are willing to share.
Those addressed by
genderequality’s author as “we” really need to engage in a wrenching,
agonizing, courageous and brutally honest self-evaluation of their own
lives, then go looking. Not for their compassion and love, but for
redemption.
And we are pretty sure that would pique the interest of a lot of men they now seem keen on reaching.
“We have to admit that those
of us in the progressive movement often have deeply entrenched and
negative views about men and male sexuality, and that this keeps men
from engaging.”
Almost correct again. The deeply
entrenched negative views about male sexuality do not prevent men from
engaging. They keep men from respecting you or taking you seriously,
save of course the sycophants who don’t care much what you think as long
as they get the chance to tell you they agree with it.
This of course begs the question
on what this particular writer is looking for. Is it men to engage in
“discussions” about gender and sexuality? Or is it just seeking males
who conform to and validate their sick ideas?
There is, as we speak, a great
many men (and women) who are more than willing to engage people with
deeply entrenched negative views on men and male sexuality. Indeed, men
have persisted to engage people with these ideas in the face of a
fire-hose of abuse, censorship, yellow journalism, smear campaigns and
fraudulent accusations.
Did we mention all this abuse comes from feminists? Did we have to?
This is indicated in widespread
use of the acronym for men’s rights advocate as an insult. The letters
of MRA creatively mapped to “malevolent rotten a-holes”.
Comedian Joe Rogan remarked in April 2013 on Twitter:
“The weirdest thing I’m being
called is an MRA or “Male Rights Activist” as an INSULT. I mean, why
should men have rights? Are they people?”
Returning to the point made at genderequality that they need to, “Create conversations where it’s clear that men are going to be honored,” we’d like to say something to the author.
After decades of feminists abuse
and lies heaped onto men, by people like you, the men you need to reach
are happy to ask you to shove your offer to magnanimously hear your
lessers, and shove your opinion. When you can see and empathize with why
they feel that way, you will have found your missing compassion and
love.
It will also earn you a seat at the table here.
You actually can find your way
into the discussion that you claim to be seeking. All you have to do is
show up with a convincing demonstration that you have corrected your
mistakes, and that you have matured enough to become an actual part of
the solution.
That kind of accountability and
maturity, or rather how far you really are from having it, is
demonstrated in the next point in the article:
“Teach men the difference between the level of pleasure they’re used to, and the level of pleasure that is possible.”
Let’s address the most fundamental problem in this imperative.
“Teach men.”
Yes, let’s invite men into a
conversation about sexual politics, honoring and loving them while we do
so, from a pulpit built on the arrogance sufficient to assume that
feminists qualify to be the instructors of men in a one-way
relationship.
Perhaps when they are done with males, they can teach black people how to talk white and not get strung out on crack.
Men are fully capable of sorting
out their own experiences of sex. A proposition for instructive feminism
to enhance pleasure for men? It is too comical to rise to the level of
insulting, but it tries.
Indeed, that the first two points
of persuasion listed included the mentions that [1] “Men are used to
getting lynched in discussions about sexuality” and [2] that women
should: teach men “the level of pleasure that is possible” is
considerably more revealing than the author likely intended. These are
the tools of coercion. First the stick, then the carrot. Or in this
case, first the noose, then the vagina.
Moving along to the next item in genderequality’s list:
Put the eradication of
homophobia near the top of our social change agenda; homophobia is not
just about sex, but about a broader fear of male-male intimacy.
We’ll start here by mention of
the language used in this bullet item. The terms: “eradication” and
“social change agenda” stand out.
Noting that the anonymous author
is writing from a feminist and (likely) female perspective, what’s also
increasingly obvious is the authoritarian and totalitarian character of
their discourse.
What’s admitted truthfully is
that “[most] men can’t even sit together in a room and have a meaningful
conversation about their sexuality with one another.”
Unstated is the obvious fact that
men engaged in such discourse are routinely shamed and marginalized.
But by whom? Who is it in such powerful control of public consensus on
matters of sexual identity? Who would even have the power to silence,
isolate and shame men for the offense of being human?
This is not to say that there are
not some men who, on their own, have an irrational and hostile reaction
to homosexuality. Part of that so called “discussion” we might have
with those gender ideologues who so much want to “honor” us might
consider that hypermasculinity is driven by competition for their holy
of holies – because women respond to it. It is the same force that
drives men to sell themselves out to gain approval from gender
ideologues and other women who hate their guts.
In the article’s conclusion the
author admits another superficially obvious reality: ”[B]ecause we –
those of us that advocate gender equality and sexual liberation – almost
completely control the debate. Collectively, we can fairly comfortably
keep men’s issues marginalized, which is what we’ve been doing.”
A couple of obligatory points
here. One, those who advocate gender equality and sexual liberation have
not had control of the public discourse. Feminists have. Those of us
actually practicing what we preach have only just begun to be heard.
Second, those who erroneously
think they have complete control of the dialogue just have not noticed
that their monopoly has ended.
Or perhaps they do.
Perhaps that article was posted
to Reddit, replete with promises of inclusion and honoring their former
victims, is part of the growing body of evidence that feminists are
trying to adjust to a new world that no longer nods like so many
millions of bobble-head dolls whenever they spew factoids and crazy
ideas.
Recalling that in commentary
about the genderequality article, the author stated “The article is
written with a specific target audience in mind – those that think that
the problem is men, and men need to change.”
Of course this person neglected
to notice that the article is saturated with that very idea. It’s only
appeal will be to people already convinced that “men are the problem,”
or willing to be convinced if it gets them some approval.
We have a radical idea. It is
really, really out there on the fringes. It’s an idea so strange it
deserves its own website, YouTube channel and FaceBook page with
literally dozens of followers.
If you want to get men to get
involved in a discussion on “sexuality, gender and relationships,”
include how men actually experience sexuality, gender and relationships.
Not how you want them to tell you they experience those things, not in
the tone that best suits or least offends you.
You claim to have been in
complete control of the discourse? Fine. If that is true, then shutting
up and listing for a while should seem to be a rational and obvious next
step. After that, if you can enter a rational discussion with adults,
then adults have the habit of responding favorably.
In case it s not obvious, men and
women here are already way ahead of you, doing this every day, in ever
increasing numbers. Feminists are welcome to join us in a rational and
reasoned debate on the issues, or even to find common ground, but they
have chosen not to with remarkable consistency for the six years we have
been here. They have, in fact, undermined and even threatened people
who sought to establish such a dialog.
Those comfortably keeping “men’s issues marginalized,” i.e., you, are the problem.
Solutions, solutions, solutions.
The activists and actors of the
evolving men’s rights movement have been hard at work for decades.
However, in a climate of nearly universal censure, vilification and
marginalization – it is only in the past few years that MRAs have begun
to be heard, or have started to influence the discourse. Concurrently,
if feminism were a sound system, we could say it has started blowing
speakers.
After so many decades, that must
be unnerving, considering public knowledge of the malevolent character
of feminism’s public myth making.
It might even rattle feminists
enough to extend pointless (and wholly unbelievable) olive branches to
trust and honor the men they have been crapping on for two generations.
What’s also well known is that
feminism also has an established history of co-opting other movements
and re-purposing them as vehicles of the feminist narrative, to the
detriment of the co-opted group. The modern secular movement and the
occupy movements are just two recent but stark examples.
Now that men have a small, but
growing public voice – the next feminist project will undoubtedly be to
play nice long enough to reclaim their monopoly. Recall that this is the
same feminism which still rests of on the writings Solanas and Dworkin,
and whose current “respectable” legal activists promote the idea that
women should kill men, rather than leave allegedly abusive
relationships.
It is very simple. If you want a
productive discourse with men that honors all participants, that seeks
evidence based understanding and solutions to problems related to
gender, sexuality and relationships, then your solution has a simple but
almost miraculously efficacious first step.
Reject feminism as an ideology of hate and start over.
From there you can maybe get
therapy or other form of counsel to help you live a life where your
compassion and willingness to give fair hearing to the ideas of others;
where your valuing of addressing the problems of all people absolutely
without lines of division, and where problems are measured by behaviors
and not genitals.
In other words, go find your
moral compass and let it, not your ideology, lead you back here. If you
can do that there is a community of like-minded people waiting for you.
And you will have everything you claim to want,
If you can’t, feminists will love you even more for failing.
No comments:
Post a Comment