In the past I have talked about non-feminist (i.e. non-leftist) forms of female supremacism. Something that all forms of female supremacism or misandry have is an attempt to have it both ways when it comes to women. Women are “independent” yet are dependent of men either through the state (feminism) or marriage (conservative female supremacism).
I found a conservative female supremacist example of this at the [Non] Thinking Housewife:
I should say that I find the idea of a “men’s movement” not merely quixotic but wrong.
What is needed is a movement which places families at the heart of things
The feminist attack on masculine authority is not, at bottom, about misandry. It is about misanthropy, expressed through a demonic attack on the family. Its source is not really the desire to see men brought low, though that is necessary if Christian civilization is to be annihilated. It is much, much easier to believe otherwise, but I urge all men of a conservative bent to resist this self-flattering lie! Its source is a hatred of the feminine, borne of Satan’s fear of the Blessed Virgin
One of the great pretty lies that conservative female supremacists promote is the idea that feminism is an attack on “families” not men. The hordes of men sitting in jail because of the false rape industry and the hordes of men who lost their job due to the sexual harassment industry and affirmative action and all the boys who had to suffer through female supremacist teachers can explain in detail why this is wrong. You may ask if the conservative female supremacists want to destroy feminism wouldn’t they want to play up how men are being hurt by feminism? They don’t because that would expose themselves as being minimally different than the feminists. Since they can’t do that, they try to have it both ways by saying, “men are getting hurt but not really since they benefit from feminism so the real problem is an attack on ‘families’”.
What does it mean when conservative female supremacists say that feminists are trying to destroy “familes”? They’re trying to claim that the “real victims” are women not men. This is borne out of the fact that what conservative female supremacists are really worried about is the gravy train ending. They’re worried that men are wising up and not going to be on the plantation anymore. From that greedy and craven perspective, women are the victims despite the fact that it’s men who are losing their jobs, getting thrown in jail, etc.
Another commenter there wrote:
In my view, the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) is even worse than the feminist movement. I say this because the mainstream feminist culture does believe in protecting and supporting women to some extent while the MRM is opposed to any support and protection of women. Indeed the MRM promotes equality between men and women to a radical degree, more so than typical feminists do. The MRM is very anti-family and anti-marriage, constantly talking about and promoting “the marriage strike” and producing websites like “Dump Your Wife Now.” They talk of how marriage is a bad deal for men and how men should avoid marriage at all costs. They are against child support as well; they seem to be against any imposition of responsibility upon men.
If there is one thing that Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) hate more than anything else it is chivalry. Chivalry is the great enemy of MRAs because chivalry imposes responsibilities and duties upon men towards women
I am against feminism because feminism doesn’t protect women as well as patriarchy does. MRAs are also opposed to feminism but they are opposed to feminism because it offers too much protection to women in their view.
I have for a long time said that the argument between feminists and most conservative “anti-feminists” is really about how to best extract money and resources from men (i.e. arguing about how to hold the whip over men). Outside of a few minor issues conservative female supremacists like the one I just quoted are in total agreement with feminism. This proves what I have said more than anything else in such stark terms that I never thought I would actually see in writing.
Yes, MRAs (and others) are against the imposition of “responsibilities” on men. That’s because it has a simpler name, slavery. This conservative female supremacist is claiming that each individual man has “responsibilities” to women, not specific women but all women by the fact of his birth. (This is no different than feminists who have created massive transfers of wealth from men to women via the state.) This is slavery because these men did nothing to create these “responsibilities”. They didn’t get married to all women. They didn’t have children with all women. If a man doesn’t get married and doesn’t have children then he has no family “responsibilities” in the manner the person above is describing. This person I quoted should be happy about the marriage strike since men who are a part of the marriage strike are being responsible. However, this isn’t about responsibility. The person I quoted is worried that more and more men are figuring out the scam and avoiding it by not getting married.
If any of these conservative female supremacists really wanted marriage striking men to get married, then they would address these men’s concerns, namely the existence of no-fault divorce and the corrupt “family” court system. This would solve the problem and all of those websites this person would complain about would go away. To you and me that seems like the logical solution. However, since this isn’t about solving real problems, but trying to get men back on to the plantation, we instead get nonsense about “responsibility” from the conservative female supremacists. Plus, the logical solution would expose that women including conservative and religious women are a major part of the problem. Right now people like the person I quoted try to have it both ways by saying divorce is a sin but divorce is all the man’s fault for failing to show “leadership” or “responsibility” which is just a way to avoid placing the responsibility for divorce where it belongs, on women. This is especially true since women file for most divorces.
The person I quoted also claims that women are in need of “protection”. That brings up the question of whether women are really adults or children. If women need “protection” then they’re children and should be treated like children. If women are adults then they don’t need “protection” and should be held responsible for their actions. I’m not going to argue either side of this question except to say that the person above like all female supremacists tries to have it both ways. Either women are adults or children. Instead what this person is promoting a hybrid that enslaves men. That is trying to have it both ways.
{ 3 trackbacks }