[This guest post, originally posted in comments, was written by ISP, and is well worth reposting as an article for discussion]
Feminist false consciousness: Restricting male identity to what suits the female collective (and individual). Defining the boundaries of acceptable “maleness”. Gender colonization (female colonization of males). An absolutely essential component of the women’s movement/feminism.
Women (through feminism) have been complaining for years that men, supposedly, consciously set out to disempower women and restrict/limit/re-mould women’s identity to types that suit men only. This system would of course be systematized. Well, turns out once again that this “men oppressing women” sentiment is yet more projection on the part of women.
Feminism need merely activate the feminist inside every woman’s psyche/being – however men must be remoulded. Women in general don’t need to be taught/brainwashed into a feminist mindset (a bogus narrative that some MRAs use), it comes naturally. For men however, indoctrination is needed [at this stage at least, after multiple generations of reinforced feminist/gynocentrist culture this might not be the case].
The solution to NOMAS etc. are organizations that support/promote/defend/endorse masculinist male archetypes.
Feminist “men’s studies” “re-moulding men”-type discourse and organizations must to be countered with masculinist-type discourse and organizations. It’s not enough merely to point out that women (surprise surprise) are oppressing men when they are given the opportunity to do so. A masculinist alternative must be offered. The core ideas of this “masculinist alternative” can be (perhaps only) developed by raising male consciousness.
Men must talk/operate outside of feminist/female-centred/gynocentric paradigms/narratives. They must not accept feminist boundaries of discourse, which are designed specifically to prevent the communication of male concerns, and thus, oppress men. Men must operate outside of the dominant paradigm (i.e. feminism). They must be willing to accept all possibilities, explore all ideas; it is only by doing this that a true picture will emerge. If you don’t think outside the box, by default you revert to feminist pro-women mythology.
Just as [radical] feminists advocate[d] female-only environments for women to speak, to raise female consciousness and develop ideas – arguing they could not do so otherwise – we masculinists should advocate male-only environments to raise consciousness. This is not a case of “being as bad as the feminists” as disingenuous/useful-idiot feministic MRAs like to say. This is simply a case of working out a mechanism that will work to advocate/defend male collective interests against female/feminist aggression. This is simply a case of effective strategy. We must do what works.
Other approaches may sound nicer – e.g. politely asking feminism/the female collective to back off on the misandry. But if they do not work, they are useless; useless to us as masculinists, thus they should not be approached.
These approaches are inherently useless by the inherently radical anti-male nature of feminism — i.e. it exists to eliminate all male power thus preventing the possibility of patriarchy.
It is no surprise, given that, that attempts at the “ask kindly” approach have been absolute, unequivocal failures. The female collective does not acknowledge male interests, let alone does it discuss them. Our arguments aren’t engaged in; instead psychobabble double-speak – e.g. “sexist”, “gender gap” – are trotted out.
This has been the to-date experience of the “ask kindly” approach, it will be the future experience, because of the inherently radical anti-male nature of [all] feminism which cannot accept the existence of any form of male power. If feminism cannot tolerate male power in general, obviously it cannot stand defense of male power in a general or specific sense. It must delegitimize such efforts; the long-term goal being elimination of pro-male memes from the discourse/culture. (Delegitimization of meme = path to elimination of meme.)
The only time feminists will say “hey, those guys have some legitimate gripes” is when they are dealing with fake feministic MRAs who will frame the argument around male discomfort being caused by “patriarchy” and “[patriarchal] gender roles”. Femininsts can of course agree with this, they are back in controlled-discourse territory.
Feministic MRA groups will be pretty much exactly the same as older, 1970s-style “Men’s Studies” groups. Except they will be more subtle, they’ll hand pick some masculinist ideas and subvert them. They’ll take a few masculinist premises and build a feminist framework around them. It will be 95% pure bullshit, the 5% designed simply as a lightning rod to attract male supporters/visitors. It will take special care to not blame feminism unequivocally, as should rightly/logically be done. Rather, blame will be redirected/misdirected to “patriarchy” and “[patriarchal] gender roles” [which will be called singularly oppressive].
The leaders of these movements will actually be devoted anti-male feminists – doctrinaire feminists – whether they refer to themselves as feminists or not. It is strategically bad to identify directly as feminist, largely because of the efforts of masculinists who have rightly enhanced feminism’s anti-male connotations. The goal is to feed bullshit “information” to the target audience – masculinist/anti-feminist inclined males – turning them into useful idiots who believe/endorse/repeat bogus arguments. If calling a group “feminist” or endorsing “feminism” is bad in the minds of the target audience – remove associations with feminism. Equivocal/fence-sitting statements on feminism are the order of the day. E.g.:
“Feminism is good/necessary/just but…”
“Original feminists had pure non-anti-male intentions but radicals hijacked the movement…”
“There are many forms of feminism and some of them, e.g. radical feminism[tm] can be bad for men…”
“Equality feminists[tm] are our allies in the fight for gender equality[tm]…”
“While the changes caused by feminism, which were justified, cannot and should not be undone…”
The ends justify the means. The ends being, subverting the hunches of masculinist men, turning these would-be allies of ours, whose instincts are good, into useful idiots parroting consciously engineered bogus, self-defeating propaganda lines. If you need to downplay the real links between the feministic MRA narrative and feminism, do it.
At the end of the day, it’s the same old “Patriarchy Hurts Men Too(TM)” propagandistic double-speak bullshit, redux. It’s the reiteration of a bogus, false consciousness discourse that the women’s movement has been pushing since the 1970s.
Masculinist discourse and ideas must not engage in this self-defeating, fence-sitting sophistry. We name feminism, unequivocally, as the enemy. We name the female collective as the enemy. We define and defend welfare and the interests of the male collective [and individual]. We legitimize the righteousness of male welfare, male interests and male power as ends in themselves.
Consideration of female welfare does not enter the equation, an inversion of the feminist position. The question of us “being against women’s rights etc. [as insanely defined as they are nowadays]” is moot. Our raison d’etre is male welfare: the lens through which matters are viewed, the operative paradigm. ”Is it good for men?” is the question being asked at all times.
Female “rights” can be cut back to the full extent needed to preserve male welfare. We recognize “equality”, rightly, as a fallacy incompatible with reality (Battle Of The Sexes/Sexual Conflict). We recognize it, also, as a propagandistic tool of the enemy. It is a form of language-as-a-form-of-oppression (controlling the thoughtspace of the Out-Group [i.e. men]). [Equality defined as "oppression of men/infinite empowerment of women" - that's the basic definition that the public internalize. No, they don't care about the contradiction: they just internalize the definition promoted without critical analysis.]
Again, in an inversion of feminism, where conflict arises between male welfare and [evolutionary] interests, and female welfare and [evolutionary] interests, we will defend those of males.
Masculinist consciousness raising, occurring in male-only environments [needed to enable debate] is the context in which the concerns above will be developed. The critical ideas, and the critical mass of both ideas and supporters will be reached through consciousness raising. Masculinists should use wedge-issues against both feminism and the female collective (picking a single, easily-accessible topic to popularize the idea of oppression of men by women/feminists.)
The use of masculinist wedge-issues will have two effects [both intended], among others:
1. Delegitimizing the enemy [i.e. feminism/women as a group]. Pre-empting and delegitimizing their rebuttals. (If feminism and the female collective are guilty of oppression they cannot legitimately defend themselves.) The enemy will be described on our terms and put on the defensive.
2. Igniting/awakening interest among the targeted audience / targeted supporters – i.e. men. These men will seek further information. We can lead these men in the right direction through the ideas developed in consciousness raising. We can provide coherent, developed, integrated explanations which take a systems-level view of feminism’s oppression of men.
These men will in turn do their own efforts at consciousness raising at their local level, further improving the energy of masculinist theory/discourse. (Compound effect, self-amplifying cycle.)
A problem masculinists have with wedge-issues is that the Capitalist Media and the Feminist State will not propagate them, as they enthusiastically did/do with feminist wedge-issues. Capitalism and feminism go hand in hand; corporations know that feminism = more $profit, which is why they are and have been amongst the heaviest supporters of feminism. (Capitalism is an enemy of men; tool of feminism/matriarchy/oppression of men.). In spite of men’s lack of support among the establishment (i.e. Government + Media), masculinist wedge-issues are nonetheless a sound strategy in themselves.
The solution is not at all “individualism” or “MGTOW” strategies. These at best solve problems for the individual, and even then, the individual still lives in a feminist state and culture. Why should men have to do that?
Libertarian/neo-con/political-conservative treatises against “Big Government” are of no use to masculinists either. They work basically on the principle that more “individual liberty” (less state control) will solve everyone’s problems [evangelists for libertarianism simply stress the "men" part of "everyone" in this explanation of the world].
Clearly the battle is a collectivist one however; one with strong collectivist features which the “individualist” false paradigm cannot solve. While we go the individualist road of “do what you want”, feminist women are defining and moulding our roles in ways that suit them. They are altering the male archetypes of the culture to suit them. They have the power of the government, the media and cultural hegemony [zero opposition in the mainstream] to achieve all of this.
In not taking a collectivist stance, standing up for male collective interests and establishing/supporting masculinist male archetypes, two things happen:
1. Gender colonization. The lack of organization in defending male collective [and individual] interests, leads feminists to taking ever more power and influence away from men [to the nth degree, as per [radical] feminist doctrine – basis of all feminism]. In absence of defense for men as a group, women as a group become ever more aggressive against men.
2. When men give up the area of culture, archetypes in favor of “men going their own way” as isolated individuals [they say these things don't matter, only the individual really matters], they leave it to women and feminists to remould male identity on the basis of what suits them.
{ 1 trackback }