The Flip-Side to Feminism

We all know that the radical feminists are out there and treat men as slime that ought to be subservient to women.  The most extreme talk about the genocide of men once women figure out how to breed without us.  It is absurd to see members of one half of the human species seething with hatred against the other half and I’ve spoken out to some degree against this in the past.  However, that’s really not what this piece is about.

It’s interesting that, in recent months, I’ve started seeing a backlash against not only radical feminism, but general feminism, in that some women are vocally speaking out for men’s rights.  While I will be the first to agree that feminists tend to entirely ignore men’s rights, I will say that I fundamentally disagree with both sides, we should not be concerned about equality for men or equality for women, but equality for all.

This is especially bad when I start seeing signs suggesting that some of these women are approaching what I would call radical masculinism, the view that men are just better than women, men always get screwed over by women, women are slime, etc.  I guess I could better understand it if it was men doing this, but women?  Well, there are men in the radical feminist movement who seem only too happy to whack off their own balls to fit in, I suppose it’s only natural that the reverse be true but I see it as a trend that we really shouldn’t be having.

See, I don’t think there should be feminism, I don’t think there should be masculinism.  I don’t think there should be black pride or brown pride or white pride.  I don’t think people ought to be proud of being gay or proud of being straight.  It seems absolutely ridiculous to be proud of something over which you had no direct control or influence.  It’s about as absurd as claiming blue-eyed pride over  green-eyed pride, or brown-hair pride over blond-hair pride.  People shouldn’t be concerned about the equality of the black man or the brown woman, it shouldn’t matter if you’re white or red or yellow, to use classic terminology often considered racist.  Racism shouldn’t be a part of the human vernacular.

To be honest, in this day and age, it’s a bit absurd to see that it’s mostly the liberals who are racist, sexist, orientist, etc.  Aren’t we supposed to be going for a gender-blind world?  A color-blind world?  A sexual-orientation-blind world?  Yet if you look at the people making the biggest fuss about all of them, it’s the liberals.  Blacks are over-represented in the ghettos, it must be racism!  They don’t stop to consider the demonstrable fact that the ghetto sub-culture is precisely what puts them there and keeps them there.  Women aren’t paid as much as men are, it’s sexism!  Except that, given equal education, equal skills, equal time on the job, etc., men and women perform generally equally.  Even among atheists, who I’d hope were more rational, you see them complaining that there just aren’t a lot of open black atheists, it must be racism, ignoring the very real possibility that blacks tend to be more religious overall and often live in very religious neighborhoods where being an open atheist is detrimental.  They complain that there aren’t enough women at atheist conferences, forgetting the possibility that women don’t tend to be interested in this type of activist activity.  They want enforced equality of outcome, they want quotas whether the people involved want to be involved in those numbers or not.  You don’t see people on the right doing that.  When’s the last time you heard someone religious declare “there just aren’t enough Baptists at this conference”?  It just doesn’t happen.

It’s about time we do away with race and gender and sexual orientation as means of measuring reality and just try supporting human rights and human equality across the board.  Is this human equal to that human?  If not, fix it.  There ought not be women’s rights or men’s rights, gay rights or straight rights, black rights or white rights, there ought only be human rights.  ’nuff said.

8 thoughts on “The Flip-Side to Feminism

  1. I have seen you make this argument before.. and its just an absurd one.
    There will be interim period during which special-purpose groups have to exist to achieve redress in specific areas.
    for e.g why do we have the atheist community's orgs like AA, FFRF fighting to ensure separation of church and state etc? I can make the absurd argument that we shouldnt have "Freedom From Religion" rights organizations, and instead we should have Religious Rights orgs.. or scratch that we should have just Human Rights orgs. How about going and convincing those existing human rights organizations to fight for separation of church and state?

    Another e.g there's inactivists that are fighting to eliminate circumcision of males. "Intact (foreskin)" activism. i.e there is a special issue that needs attention, and hence a group of people focused on achieving that.

    Feminism is very much unlike that.. It was NOT a issues based activism.. it was a 'worldview' activism. So there was never any endpoint defined for it. i.e you never knew when "equality" was achieved, and when they would stop.

    Warren farrell has talked in the 90's about the need for a men's rights movement as an interim measure.. to swing back the pendulum to the middle, in response to the overreach of feminism. And after that is achieved, rest of the work (if any) can be done through a gender-transition movement.

    Mens Rights is an issue-based movement, not a worldview movement. Here's some sample issues.. I dont know about 'radical masculism' or these women leaders you talk about.. maybe some URLs will help. I hope you arent talking about GirlWritesWhat or typhonblue.. they are both MRAs, and they do talk about how women can be slimy too.. in response to the Women are wonderful effect that pervades society and results in favouritism and ultimately injustice.

  2. It’s about time we do away with race and gender and sexual orientation as means of measuring reality and just try supporting human rights and human equality across the board. Is this human equal to that human? If not, fix it. There ought not be women’s rights or men’s rights, gay rights or straight rights, black rights or white rights, there ought only be human rights.

    Funnily.. all the special interest groups are trying to do exactly that. Fix what they perceive to be inequities impacting certain groups. Once an endpoint is defined and achieved, said group should dissipate. Is this all a matter of labelling then?

    1. The problem is, none of them are. You cannot create equal rights for all by worrying only about the rights of one group or another. As you point out, they try to fix what they perceive are inequalities in one group but they usually ignore inequalities affecting other groups. Where their own pet group falls behind, they demand equality, where they are ahead of another group, they don't demand the other group come up to their level, they want to keep their own superiority.

      1. So you are basically saying that FFRF, American Atheists are useless..NOT because of their track record.. but
        1) because of the idea that they are focused on the discrimination against atheists (in law, and in social norms), but not on discrimination against the religious as well.
        2) it is impossible for the leaders there to discern whether they are overreaching… and all of us members would be dumb and not complain? for e.g when PZ said "fuck religious gelato guy to the ground", all of us atheists kept quiet?
        3) Even if they overreach, the rest of the population/law makers will blindly accede to their demands?

        Cmon Cephus.. I dont think I am misunderstanding you, and you are fucking too good to be saying that.
        The devil is always in the details.. and we got to look at each movement separately, and at the people that drive the movement. The reason "minority" rights movements ended up becoming ADDITIONAL rights (such as hate crimes legislation) and REVERSE DISCRIMINATION in social norms (i.e political correctness).. is because the Left is dominant in Govt, academia, media… and forced it on us. The reason feminism overreached.. is because men largely dont say No to women (pussy power). Free Contraception? You got it. Affirmative Action? You got it. Patriarchy Theory? You got it.
        Tammy Bruce talks about this well in her 'New Thought Police' http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/NewTho

        Mens Rights is by and large a reaction to the excesses of feminism .. and Lord knows there have been many.. its neither supported by the Left nor the Right (coz it calls for an end to chivalry).. you yourself said that 'some women rape easy'.. and nobody gives a fuck for the accused man. . The dangers of it ending up as ADDITIONAL RIGHTS is pretty much non-existent.
        I embedded links in my earlier post.. but due to the style here, the links dont highlight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57EWApOypIQ

        1. 1. Actually, the FFRF in particular isn't fighting to end religion, it is fighting for equality for all people including atheists. The only way to actually achieve religious equality for all religions is to have no religions having power. Religion, like it or not, imposes it's will on others. We see this time and time throughout history. It doesn't matter what religion is in power, be it Christianity or Islam or Judiasm or Buddhism, all of them will take their spiritual beliefs and push them on people who have no interest in them. Therefore, since none can be trusted with power, we must remove all of their power equally so they cannot impose their beliefs on other religious groups, or on those who have no religion at all. Nobody in the FFRF that I've ever seen has suggested putting atheists in power.

          2. There are a lot of "leaders" that really haven't earned the right to lead by actually demonstrating they have any ability to do so. PZ Myers happens to be an excellent example of power going to one's head. That's why I've written quite extensively about avoiding the various cults of personality that exist within atheism, plus rejecting people who want power without taking responsibility for that power.

          3. Atheism+ is a perfect example of what happen people mindlessly embrace a position for which they have no reason. Take the Matt Dillahunty debacle for example. He agreed with the basic premise of Atheism+, their five bullet points, and therefore, he embraced the movement even though the movement did a piss poor job of actually demonstrating those bullet points. It wasn't until he actually got kicked in the face several times by the movement that I think he started to realize that one was not the epitome of the other. You end up with a movement that lots of people supposedly support because they don't really understand the movement and the second people really do get involved and see that the movement isn't really doing what it purports to do, you get people abandoning the forums in droves.

          You're trying to excuse the misbehavior of these groups because people allow them to get away with murder. I don't allow that. It doesn't matter to me if everyone else is handing them power on a silver platter, it is their own lack of responsibility that allows them to keep up the power-grab. After a while, the expect all the extras and whine loudly when they don't get them. Sorry, I call bullshit on it all.

  3. I don't think it's for you to say that men are better than, or worse than, or equal to women. Men are better than women in some ways, and worse in others.

    1. I've said nothing of the sort, in fact, I've only said that men and women ought to be exactly and precisely equal, with the few exceptions as dictated by their biology.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)