Here's the comment:
I know I'm late to the party here, but having just been shown this post I want to make one thing absolutely clear: the fact that many of us are now *against* what mainstream feminism has become absolutely does not mean we're *with* the likes of you.
We're not against feminism because we disagree with its purported goal of true equality of opportunity among the sexes, or our absolute right to self-determination and bodily autonomy, or with dismantling gender roles and the expectations and assumptions they impose on individuals.
We're never going to stand with anyone who believes anything, ever, gives a person the "native right" to use another's body sexually without their ongoing enthusiastic consent. Or dehumanises men by insinuating that they are such slaves to impulse that if they can't rape their wives they'll inevitably cheat on them. Or generalises the nature of individuals' sexuality based on their sex alone. Or does not support an individual's right to end a relationship on their own terms. Or espouses the sexist view that marriage is somehow a pillar of femininity more than one of masculinity. Or implies women (but not men) must choose *either* a career or a family. Or believes that when partners each choose to keep their own names in an equal relationship this is somehow emasculating.
We're "against feminism" because yes, the mainstream feminist movement ignores and derides male issues, because it adopts stances that are fundamentally sexist, because it fails to address intersectionality with issues of race and gender identity, and because it manufactures victimhood and fear, among other things.
But we're still for true equality. Not for tired old sexist bullshit like using women who don't wear what you think they should wear as a simile for being clueless and out of touch.
A woman with three advanced science degrees.
And my response:
I think you characterize our position. Please allow me to rebut.
Let's look at what "the likes of us" have actually been saying here, not what feminism has portrayed us as saying. At no point have I (or most in the Manosphere - I understand that there are some exceptions) endorsed or espoused any denial of equal opportunity or equal treatment under the law. Nor has their been any serious suggestion of impairing any of the rights women currently enjoy under our liberal democratic system of government. I myself am politically a Progressive, meaning my political philosophy stems from Humanism. Most folks in the Manosphere are adherents to this philosophy, which advocates the legal, moral, and ethical equality of all people.
With me so far?
Let me be blunt: the Red Pill does not advocate anyone ever doing anything non-consensual, sexually or otherwise. It never has, and to say so is a gross mis-characterization of the praxeology. What you portray as a "native right" is actually a biologically determined pattern of mating behavior that belies the feminist perspective on sex and sexuality. When idealism collides with the realities of science, idealism usually suffers. Just ask the Marxists in Eastern Europe.
Far from "dehumanizing" men, the Red Pill approach to positive masculinity acknowledges the deep importance of sexuality to the average man's life and attempts to help him realize his goals in that regard. It is the feminist perspective, that all men are aggressive sexual predators, that dehumanizes men. The Red Pill uplifts them to a more profound understanding of their own masculinity. And yes, sex is a valued part of that equation.
But some of your other issues demonstrate a lack of regard for masculine culture and masculine behavior - as men determine to define it, not women. For example, the refusal of a wife to take a husband's name IS emasculating, and indicative of her eventual desire to end the marriage. It's a legitimate warning sign men who fear divorce (and what man doesn't?) need to be aware of before marriage. That's a pragmatic, not idealistic perspective. Nor does the Red Pill demand that women choose between career and family or ask that men do; Mrs. Ironwood, and most other RP women, do have careers of their own. The difference is that they have demonstrably put their family life ahead of their career goals in a way that makes feminists cringe. Most RP men would also say they share that perspective: their careers are a means to support their families, not the other way around.
The fact that marriage does advantage women more than men - and that divorce punishes men more than women - makes it a far more desirable goal for women than men, nor is the burning desire for wedding cake a common discussion in male circles. Men control commitment in our species, however, so marriage and commitment are important issues for us . . . just as they are highly important to a large number of women.
If we generalize sexuality, that's because we look at science, for which generalities - that is, aggregate data - show patterns at work from which useful data can be used. Knowing such "generalizations" can steer men away from dangerous and unproductive relationships. If that means a few innocent girls get dumped along the way, I think greater femininity can take the hit.
But refusing to acknowledge the scientifically-studied biological truths that underlie the patterns of human mating in our society, namely the prevalence of Hypergamy and Polygamy as the primary mating strategies of humans in nearly every human culture, is seeking to place the rosy ideal of equality above the brutally pragmatic reality that most people face every day. Men do cheat. Women do cheat. We explain why, and what to do to avoid it. Post-feminism, marriage is bad for men. We explain why and how to deal with it. Divorce is very bad for men. We explain why and what to do to avoid it.
Marriage used to be the negotiated exchange (yes, by any scientific definition) of sex and security; without the security of consensual sex and real authentic commitment, men are simply better off avoiding commitment altogether. It's not a matter of ideals or ideology, it's a simple, pragmatic fact. Women are more aroused by more dominant men, therefore teaching men how to be dominant gets them more of what they want, sex. There is no oppressive ideology here. There is only a praxeology of how to fulfill a man's vision of his own masculinity.
You see, while you celebrate the ending of gender roles, you fail to appreciate all of what that entails. Not only did it liberate women from the expectations of pursuing family instead of a career, it also liberated men from the social obligation of verbally pandering to an ideology in the hopes of social acceptance. Once you add the sexual element into the equation - and you cannot NOT add it in - and men start pursuing their issues and interests as THEY define them, then all ideology falls by the wayside. One thing we know about the Red Pill is that desire cannot be negotiated. Ignoring what men and women find arousing and/or attracting in favor of pursuing an abstract ideal and allowing that to determine your personal course is the road to folly, misery, and divorce.
We may deride the flood of bitterly-unhappy women who are discovering that their ideology, which promised that there would be a long line of decent dudes waiting around for them when they were done "exploring themselves", but that's because they are a product of their own self-inflicted ideology. We snicker at those women who discover, to their horror, that the intended future involving a good caring man and children (sometime after 35 and, say, 3 degrees) utterly fails to materialize, because she was more inclined to believe feminism's promise than the "patriarchal" system of assortative mating that insists you lock down a dude before you're 25 or get what's left over.
We snicker when we hear feminists and other women talk about "true equality", and then dismiss the fact that Selective Service registration is mandatory for one sex but not the other as "men's fault". We laugh when we hear about our "male privilege" and then read how yet-another friend blew his head off, or ended up on the street, or got assaulted by his girlfriend again but no one will take him seriously because he's a dude. Or a pal who hasn't seen his kids in 8 years because his wife thinks he's a danger to his children - and he's a Quaker. These men will never have "equality". They live in a system that lauds their "privilege" while demanding yet-more sacrifices of them, then subjects them to the emasculating humiliations and shame that feminism dumps on them for the crime of having a penis.
I understand your anger against feminism, and I share it. But you're right, we aren't approaching the matter from the same place. You are determined to fight for a world of equality. I understand, because of the nature of my gender, that we will never truly achieve it. I don't think that women will allow us to achieve it. If you truly understood what social and cultural responsibilities and expectations men are subjected to that women are not, you would not be so eager to press for "equality", for that is a dreadful burden that most women would reluctant to "share".
Feminism has denigrated and derided masculinity and male-ness for so long, no number of perky pop princesses lecturing us about it at the UN are going to change the fact that when our culture and civilization are in peril, it is men, not women, who are expected to give their lives, liberty, and property up for the common good. Men are expendable, and we know it. We're told that from the time we are boys. While feminists fret about "male privilidge", that priviledge includes baggage that most women just choose not to see. Yet it is a burden that must be borne, if by an ever-decreasing number of us.
You can thank feminism for that.
A man with plenty of useless degrees, twenty-five books, three kids, and a wife who understands and supports him because he's a great man, not because of the ideology of "equality".