Monday, September 22, 2014

Response To A Comment On Anti-Feminism

I got this comment on my "Feminism: This Is What's Wrong With You" post, and my response was too long for the comments, so I decided to post it here.

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. 
Sincerely,  
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.

Sincerely,

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".

35 comments:

  1. You don't really believe she has three advanced degrees, do you? I've had similar comments on my blog, but they never give their names or what those degrees are. I had one tell me she ran through a mile field in Iraq, could squat 300 pounds, and had advanced degrees from Harvard. And that was only half of what she claimed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't dispute her claim. She may well have advanced degrees. I've known a lot of people with a lot of degrees. They failed to impress me awhile back.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Women who think men are impressed by women with "an education" are utterly clueless.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And since it was men that created the sciences that you have your advanced degrees in, along with the civilization that makes it all possible, you're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The red pill is really about reinforcing biological strengths & biological differences

    This is something feminists & anti-feminists cant grasp, as both movements are all about suppressing the criticism of women & maintaining the supremacy & male hatred by women

    If women actually discussed the short-comings & weaknesses of women, instead of covering them up, they wouldnt need dv shelters, womens groups, & ngo's

    All movements designed to coverup the dangers of feral women to society

    Also feminism is a response to monogamous marriage, & women choosing harems instead of monogamous marriage

    As monogamous marriage is wrong & biologically incorrect, which is why most women transition to single motherhood, a harem of alpha's

    It's no surprise red pill, game & pua mimic the sociodynamics of harem, while remaining in a biologically incorrect monogamous marriage,

    ie abundance mentality, preselection, all concepts originating from a alpha harem

    Never underestimate the negating super powers of, popular opinion, commonly held beliefs & religious morons, to negate cause & effect, & blatant basic logic ....

    Pedestalising monogamous marriage & religious retards, not realising women want to be in harems, as its biologically correct

    Is one of the major root causes of feminism, & a major downfall of christians

    ReplyDelete
  6. Far be it from a feminist of any stripe to erect a straw man argument in defense of some shade of feminism. Ugghhh

    ReplyDelete
  7. Any time a woman tells me how she favors 'equality'... My canned response is "that's so refreshing! I don't meet many women who support a mans right to end an unwanted pregnancy". How they respond doesn't tell me everything I need to know, but it's useful as a quick pass/fail.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I didn't notice in her comments anything about a husband, 3 kids and a fulfilling life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's probably because she doesn't have them...and it's likely that she never will.

      Delete
  9. No true feminist... She has a point about parts of red pill thought being horridly uncompassionate. i believe you missed an opportunity to point out that no woman has a right to use another man's wallet without his enthusiastic consent.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Any wonder time magazine website had an article today that 25% of millenials will never marry?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would they marry? 70% of men are useless outside of manual labor in a world that no longer really needs it. We should be castrating most of them so they stop infecting the gene pool. I came here because I kept seeing these really whiny pathetic posts form dudes that refer to the Red Pill. I didn't realize it was a gathering ground for the weak men who are being passed over in the selection process. If you were a real man, you'd puke at the wussy, feminine whine coming form all of you. What a bunch of pussies. I never met a dude I'd hang around with as sensitive as you pukes. Get some balls.

      Delete
    2. Too bad we can't all be as manly as you.

      Then there'd be no need to stop feminism in the first place.

      We'd all deserve it.

      Delete
    3. I just love it when radfems try to sockpuppet.

      Delete
  11. It seems a lot of the commenters here missed the post I responded to; they clearly didn't catch the reference in my signature. I can assure you that I would never otherwise resort to anything so gauche.

    Likewise "native right" was terminology lifted from your piece. Biology impels us to do an awful lot of things, but what distinguishes us from mindless animals is our ability to choose how we act. To imply that a person's choices are biologically determined is to dehumanise them in the most literal way. To say that biological pressures give anyone the *right* to infringe on another's bodily autonomy is simply not how civilised society functions.

    You are of course free to define the scope and importance of your own cultural values, but I personally do not see why the idea of changing one's surname should be inherently more vitiating of one sex than another. "Placing careerism over the desire for a family" has not historically doomed men to childlessness, nor has society had a problem with men seeking "less-driven mates" to raise their children - why should the reverse not be equally acceptable?

    But okay, let's talk science. Let's talk about the distinction between aggregate data and individual variation. Because there are expectations here that are thrust upon people based purely on one aspect of their person that may or may not be reflected in their personality. And there's simply no reason to enforce those expectations on an individual who may hail from any part of the bell curve.

    When I interact with a man I'm not interacting with the average distributed attributes of the male population. I'm interacting with a human being whose individual personality traits and desires are far more relevant to our interaction than any statistical trend. This applies to any interaction or relationship with the opposite sex - or indeed with the same sex. We're not plastic dolls in pink and blue boxes; the variation among members of each sex easily trumps the average differences between them.

    That's the radical ideology I support: the idea that we are individual people before we are slaves to biology. That our lives are defined by more than genitalia, and so should our society be.

    The failure of mainstream feminism to support that ideology in practice is why I do not align myself with it. I'll absolutely stand against an unequal draft - and for that matter, against any draft. I agree that rights cannot be divorced from responsibilities, and that there should therefore be a legal mechanism that addresses the rights of men with respect to unwanted pregnancies. I'm more than happy to give up any gender-based privilege I may have and live on equal terms; I would much rather relate to other people as individual human beings than saddled with the baggage of irrelevant and obsolescent cultural assumptions.

    But I'll reiterate that I will never support anyone on the side of gender essentialism.

    I assume you know you I am.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Long time reader, first time commenter...

      Regarding the "native right" language, from reading the initial post and Ian's response here, it seems clear to me that he is referring to the negotiated access to sex in exchange for material support and safety that defines traditional marriage. This does not mean that they suddenly lose the right to consent - but there should be no illusion that it is an exchange, that those are the terms. A movement that rejects the basis of that exchange - in which the woman is guaranteed security and material support, and the man has no expectation of sexual access - leaves little reason for men to sign up for that particular deal.

      Second, as much as we wish to believe that we are masters of our biological impulses, we're not. That's simply the way of things, and while you are correct to argue that perhaps it shouldn't be that way, and fully within your rights to work toward a world where that's not the case, until intellect fully rules emotion that world will not come. At best, you can gain more conscious control over how you respond to biological impulses, and that's about it. Even that is difficult in a modern western society that places minimal value on impulse control.

      Third, you are likely correct that intrasex differences are as large if not larger than intersex differences, that does not in any way counter the idea that men and women are still, from a biological and physical and hormonal and societal standpoint, DIFFERENT. That difference is not going to be erased by wishing it away. You are correct that we are more than genitalia, and should not be solely defined by them, but they are a critical defining part of who we are.

      Fourth, men's view of other men is for men to decide, not women. The reason that placing career ahead of raising a family has not historically doomed men to childlessness is the fact that THAT'S WHAT WE VALUE IN MEN. That is what men expect other men to do, that is historically what women have looked for in men - a provider and protector. As men rarely need that from women, and as men are often judged by their ability to provide and protect, that means men who stay at home and are supported by their partners are seen as less manly. Again, that's for us menfolk to decide, not for women. A number of issues that have come to such a friction point stem from the desire of feminists to dictate to men how men should judge themselves and other men.

      Lastly, as much as we wish we could deal with everyone as unique special snowflakes, the limitations of the human mind mean that we largely depend on heuristics and generalities and snap judgements during the initial encounters. You are certainly correct that an individual can relate to another individual on the basis of who each person truly is rather than as an amalgam of biases and preconceptions. That's not something you can generalize to interactions between groups, or between an individual and a group, or between individuals who have not had sufficient interaction to determine each others true natures.

      Delete
    2. Outstanding rebuttal, cogent and on-point. Saved me the trouble.

      Delete
    3. If an individual wants to negotiate a contractual exchange of sexual access for financial security, that's their prerogative. If an individual has trouble controlling their biological impulses, that's their personal responsibility. If an individual chooses to put their career before raising their children, or to base their self-worth on their ability to provide and protect, those too are their choices to make.

      But the fact remains that intrasex variation *does* far outweigh intersex differences, and therefore foisting social pressure or expectations on all individuals based solely on their sex simply cannot be justified, scientifically or morally.

      Ian rightly highlights the problematic aspects of the social and cultural responsibilities and expectations men are subjected to. And while many men genuinely prefer to value themselves by their ability to provide financial support - and have every right to feel that way - the surge in male suicide rates post-retirement age is a strong indication that *pressuring* men into conflating self-worth with professional worth causes real harm to real people.

      Am I naive enough to believe that we'll ever live in a world where no individual is subjected to *any* social expectations or pressure based on their sex? Of course not. But culture can and does change. We've come a long way towards understanding that race, for example, is not a reliable indicator of an individual's aptitudes or desires despite correlative trends in aggregate data that exist on that front.

      Again: The reason so many of us are now against what mainstream feminism has become is not because we've changed our minds about the problematic nature of gender-based expectations and social roles. It's because mainstream feminism itself is skewing towards anti-male gender essentialism, which is just the other side of the same old sexist coin.

      And while we may never live in a perfect world, many of us would still rather argue for a better one than try to justify what's wrong with the current one.

      Delete
    4. One thing that really pisses me off about what's now being called feminism is the random grab bag of incongruous and incoherent ideas that get sucked in to justify a set of woman-serving platitudes agreed upon in advance.

      The one that pisses me off the most is the bizarrely incongruous irruption of the demand that men "rise above" their given nature and desires, that they are civilized and have self-control. So far, so fucking obvious. I exercise self-control a thousand times a day when walking by scantily clad girls with their asses and tits hanging out for all to see, and I don't stare—or touch, or more, as of course I would very much like to do. I'm getting a fucking JD and PhD at the same time, how's that for self-control?

      Nowhere in our society or culture do I see any systematic effort to encourage self-control in sexual matters. All I see is license. It has taken me many, many years to get over my confusion, as I am slowly starting to understand that none of this is supposed to apply to men.

      In general our culture has no theory whatsoever to explain the importance or necessity of overcoming our natural desires. Why? Just because you want me to? It's very cute of you to show up, 50 years after the sexual revolution, and say that "men are more civilized than that."

      Men produce 20 times more testosterone than women in a single day. That is the hormone responsible for sex drive and aggression. Women have no comprehension whatsoever of the male sex drive. I used to struggle to understand the mean-spiritedness, the sheer hostility and hatred, that must necessarily be at the bottom of what they claim to think is a good balance of sexual behavior between men and women: that women should do whatever the hell they want, and men should just flog ourselves and punch ourselves in the dicks. Then I finally realized it was not hatred but sheer ignorance. Instead of humbling themselves and seeking understanding, feminists confidently declaim about men and male sexuality, and how it should be, defiantly flaunting their ignorance.

      Yes, we are more than our genitalia. But as a man I have a massive interest in satisfying my sex drive. You stubbornly ignore that interest, deny it, and loudly shout that it doesn't exist. You believe that it should be systematically ignored in gender relations. Therefore you are my enemy. I will not ignore my desire for sex; I will ignore you. And so will every other man with any balls left, on pain of total emasculation. I have no desire to engage further with someone whose views are so stubbornly, necessarily hostile to my own interests. There is no conversation to be had. We will simply ignore you and directly act in the world to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that your will is completely frustrated.

      Thankfully most women lack the self-destructive instinct of the modern feminist; they are born with an understanding of these things, and a few of them make it through their upbringing without having their good sense destroyed.

      Those women will absolutely clean up in the coming decades.

      Delete
  12. to anon TL;DR ... please sweety do try to be concise or at least pithy in thy sayings.

    What I got from your multi-paragrahic response was... Ironwood is right but he didn't say it nicely enough. O-tay then!

    GREAT post Ian it was a tour de force of what we WANT to say to these femi-bots but just can't articulate.

    It's the Uncomfortable Truth of our time that 20-25 IS the time to start mating and having babies (if you are a woman). It's also uncomfortable that many Women in the 30+ age are discovering this fact AFTER they turn 30. I know that miss 3 degrees is over 30 and at least pushing 40 if not past it... Because all the 20 somethings are actually flirting and bangin' dudes not posting here. :)

    I literally run into these gals ALL THE TIME. They confront and argue with me about how bad I am to be interested in women 19-25... I tell them that if I wanted to DEBATE male-female relations with a 3 degree woman sure I might like a 30+ gal. But the truth is I want to MATE with a young gal who can dedicate 10-15 years birthing my kids. A 30 year old can't do that... AND 3 degrees does nothing for the fertility of a woman's womb. Harsh I know but I am merely stating the TRUTH... and it hurts sometimes. Perhaps a few 3 degree types will educate the 20 somethings about harsh reality and that Real Men could care less about 3 degrees and more about hotness and fertility.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't forget the fact that younger women through their mid-20s also have a much better chance to have first births that are easier with virtually no hazards or dangers to them or the baby, as well as having children who are healthier and lack the dangers of chromosome abnormalities and mental afflictions that are prevalent now, such as Down's syndrome, Aspberger's, ADD/ADHD, etc.
      I think that it is more than simple coincidence that these were unknown before feminism became prevalent, and women were delaying marriage and childbearing into their late twenties and early thirties.

      Delete
  13. Ah...for women judging women, so often the only degree that counts is the Mrs. Degree. *

    (Actually had a very smart, well performing student tell me "No, I'm not really interested in [subject I teach]. I'm just here for the Mrs. degree.")

    ReplyDelete
  14. People who insist on interacting with other humans based on a deeply flawed ideology, instead of observable objective behaviours, are going to get substandard outcomes.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Nothing scares a beta male more than an alpha female. This woman claims to have three advanced science degrees? That means nothing. Your job reviewing porn is far more intellectual and far-reaching than this education fetishist prioritizing her career over a family. It is she who should be impressed. Never let anyone undermine your intellectual prowess, Ian. You are truly the Socrates of our time.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The OP declares herself in favor of intersectionality, gender fluidity, and dismantling gender roles.

    I'm getting a strong sense the OP is a staunch feminist, and not opposed to feminism in any meaningful way. Nothing in what she said suggests she grasps that feminism is at its core a vehicle for Marxism, and concerned solely with securing coercive, totalitarian power and the fruits thereof. She comes off like those communists who lament only that Stalin did it wrong, and would love the chance to do a little housecleaning, a little furniture re-arranging inside the Big Red Tent.

    No wonder she dislikes this site.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OP here: Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to explain. The vast majority of #womenagainstfeminism are still pro-equality, pro-intersectionality, anti-gender essentialism. Sorry to disappoint, but we're not against feminism because our views on that front have changed. We're against feminism because mainstream feminism has become more about suppressing and excluding male voices and concerns than with pursuing true equality.

      Delete
    2. You want to include male voices -- inside feminist ideological space, 'natch -- because the next wave of feminist hegemony depends on men not disengaging from institutions and structures designed to intimidate, indoctrinate, control, and exploit them.

      The young women of #WomenAgainstFeminism recognize that disenfranchising and exploiting men is part of how feminists seize control and crush opposition, and that this ruthless ethos cannot be disentangled from feminism or feminists. Further, these young women are attractive, and the Left understands well that society listens when attractive young women speak. That's a primary reason why feminists are scrambling to figure out how to suppress and coopt #WomenAgainstFeminism ("So let's just try to nip this in the bud" as feminist Charlotte Alterone urged her Time magazine readers).

      The women of WomenAgainstFeminism are obviously a disappointment to you. Spin all you want, but YOU are part of what they are rejecting.

      Delete
    3. In other words, your beef with "feminism" is purely cosmetic—it has to do with the fact that the current strategy is profoundly alienating to men. Well, it's inherently anti-man, as it denigrates the very idea of masculinity ("anti-gender essentialism"). A mere change in public relations strategy will not change that. Your secret is out.

      Delete
  17. "I think you characterize our position. "

    Don't you mean 'mischaracterize' ? Or "caricaturize".

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dubai Escorts with Indian and Pakistani Girls in Dubai.
    Dubai Escorts
    Dubai Escort
    LovelyEscorts Dubai
    Fresh Escort Dubai
    Hot Dubai Escorts
    Whatsapp/Call at: +971 564 314 254

    ReplyDelete