My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.
There are lots of people who claim to be against feminism but really aren’t. One way of figuring out if someone is seriously against feminism is asking if their critiques and solutions of feminism deal with the reality on the ground for men and boys. Instead if they are engaging in an academic discussion mental masturbation that does not offer anything to help to reality that men and boys are dealing with, then they aren’t serious about being against feminism. Most likely they are another form of female supremacist that agrees with 99% of feminism but has some sort of meaningless trivial disagreement with feminism. This is even more true if they claim to be against feminism but spend lots of time attacking MRA’s or the MRM.
Look at this post from the Oz Conservative blog. There’s a lot of talk about “individualism”, “separatism”, and “autonomy”. This is supposedly a criticism of both feminism and the MRM. Notice how those terms aren’t really defined for context they’re used in. They’re supposed to be “bad” because they’re “bad”. There are also a lot of bizarre claims that MRAs want to be “liberated from masculinity”. What “liberated from masculinity” means is not defined either. Nearly all MRAs would have no idea what is being talked about in that post because MRAs are dealing with the reality on the ground. MRAs are dealing with issues that affect (and in many cases destroy) the lives of men and boys such as anti-male divorce courts, fathers having their children taken away from them, men forced to pay for children that aren’t theirs, men in jail because of false rape charges, men losing their jobs due to affirmative action and the mancession, boys trapped in feminized school systems, boys forced to take drugs like ritalin, etc. If a 7 year old boy fights back against a feminized school system he is trapped in (as much as a 7 year old boy reasonably can), are we really supposed to believe that 7 year old boy is wants to be “liberated from masculinity”? (The author of the Oz Conservative blog is a teacher so he may actually believe that.)
Another example of supposed anti-feminism that refuses to deal with the reality on the ground can be found at The (Not) Thinking Housewife (along with another post at that blog). Look at some of the things Josh F. had to say:
And so what is becoming ever more evident is that the “men’s rights movement” is really a white male liberationist movement towards radical autonomy/ de facto homo-ism. It is the consciously persued spiritual, emotional and physical detachment from woman. This white male liberationist movement justifies itself by incorrectly identifying its foe as feminism/woman in order to give cover to its fellow radical autonomist, devout dyke.
The incentive for adopting the roles that Mrs. Wood speaks of is the opportunity TO BE A REAL MAN. One isn’t born a man nor is one able to be a man without continually “acting” manly. The idea that males seeking de facto homo-ism (spiritual, emotional and physical detachment from woman) can be MEN is the fraud of the “men’s rights movement.” Liberal “man…” Radically autonomous “man…” “Man” that rejects woman IS actually anti-man. He is the “soul mate” to the other anti-man, the inappropriately named “feminist,” i.e., devout dyke.
The delusion of the MRM is in the idea that its liberal male collective can defeat the liberal female collective either by utilizing liberal tactics or by withdrawing into a state of de facto homo-ism (radical autonomy)…This is the radical liberal’s subconscious desire to self-annihilate so as to realize final liberation from the burden of being God-fearing American Man. This is the essence of the MRM; a mirrored sham very much in collusion with devout dyke to destroy both man and woman.
To lead males to de facto homo-ism with a rally cry of “no marriage, no kids” is to lead males to a state of radical autonomy. Meaning, you are ensuring that he never sees the light of manhood.
Homosexuality is not JUST two people of the same sex that are attracted to each other.
It is a simple fact that those who believe in sexual autonomy (fluidity) simply reject the idea of an externally imposed sexual order. This means that their sexuality is self-created. Homo-sexuality is the sexual attraction to the self, first, and only then the same when the void is felt. But make no mistake, a self-created sexual “orientation” that is sexually attracted TO ITSELF (the purely physical narcissist) is really a sexual “orientation” that rejects the externally imposed sexual order; this fluid sexual “orientation” rejects man as devout dyke and it rejects woman as radical homosexual. It is very plain to see that a self-sexualizer, even when he fills the void with something of the same, is by nature a self-annihilator.
What Josh F. is saying is difficult to read because many of his concepts are not defined. What is “autonomy” in this context? What is a “real man” supposed to be in this context? What is the “externally imposed sexual order”? It can not be figured out except that it is supposed to be “bad” for some unknown reason. Also, Josh F. tries to redefine terms like homosexual to some other nebulous concept similar to how leftist academics try to murder the English language for destructive purposes. The only idea that Josh F. communicates is that he is trying to expand anti-male shaming language.
What are these “devout dykes” that Josh F. talks about? They sound like aliens on another planet. That is because Josh F. refuses to deal with the reality on the ground of feminism. If the only problem of feminism were a group of aliens on another planet then men would have nothing to worry about. The problems of feminism are all around men on this planet. A woman who forces a man into divorce court and steals his children from him is not a “devout dyke”. It’s a heterosexual woman. An actual lesbian wouldn’t marry a man in the first place. When considering all of the problems caused by feminism, it took a lot more women than some small cadre of lesbians to create these problems. It took the work of average everyday heterosexual women too. To ignore this is to ignore the reality on the ground for men. Josh F. refuses to consider that not getting married and not having kids is a solution that men can actually implement to protect themselves. This is why a lot of men avoid marriage and children. These men have never heard of words like “autonomy” or “self annihilator” in the context they are being used. Even if they have, they don’t care because they are dealing with the reality on the ground. They are trying to avoid things like divorce court and jail. Does a man dealing with the real problems of feminism such as a man who is a victim of false rape charges care about Josh F.’s weird ideology? No, because he is dealing with the reality on the ground, namely avoiding jail.
Look at what Jesse Powell (the same person who said that men should be imprisoned on false rape charges to “protect women”) had to say:
“Duty to others” always exists no matter what the circumstances. Men have the duty to “provide for and protect” women simply because that is a fundamental part of the man’s role in society; it is an inherited duty; it is an intrinsic characteristic of the man.
Why do they positively celebrate the decline in marriage calling it “the marriage strike”? I suspect men’s rights supporters know their condemnation of marriage and their refusal to fulfill their obligations as men is destructive to society and so they embrace and glorify the destruction of society in order to legitimize and glorify their own anti-social behaviors.
What is the “duty to provide for and protect” women? Why does it exist? These questions won’t be answered because there isn’t an answer. Those statements exist to avoid the question, “Why should men get married knowing the reality on the ground?” The reality for men getting married particularly younger men is that there is a greater than 50% chance their wives will force a divorce on them, take half or more of their assets, and take their kids away. Since when is it a man’s duty to go to divorce court or jail? Jesse Powell is telling men to ignore their own good judgement and ability to plan for the future and pretend the reality on the ground doesn’t exist.
All the people in these examples do the same thing, avoid dealing with the reality on the ground men are facing. They provide no practical solutions for men to use who are facing these problems in the face. They refuse to admit these problems even exist and refuse to admit the lives and men and boys are being destroyed by the problems feminism has created. Instead they waste their time on mental masturbation inventing concepts that don’t reflect reality in any way. This is in stark contrast to how the MRM or the greater manosphere acts. Take game, for example. It’s a solution that was created to deal with the reality on the ground men were facing. This is one reason why it’s effective. The only way we men will move forward in dealing with feminism is dealing with real problems and find concrete and usable solutions to them. Anyone who wastes their time on weird ideological debates will not be a part of a solution to the problems of feminism and is not really against feminism.