You might be surprised to know this, but we anti-feminists are not overly popular or well liked in general within the mainstream of anything anywhere. I had 12 fucks to give before I realized this. I am now down to a dozen fucks. How many fucks did I give in response to this news? Leave your answer in the comments for a chance to win a trip to Idontgiveafuckistan courtesy of Flying Fuck Airways. I find this so funny it makes my pig tails stick out of the sides of my head and twirl with glee like little helicopters and I don’t even have long hair.
Let me tell you why I find this funny. Feminists claim that feminism is about equality yet antifeminists and the MRM do not espouse or advocate anything that undermines the principles of equality, including the ones articulated in the principles of feminism. I will show you how we are similar and then sum this up with an explanation as to why feminists hate us.
Let’s start with one of the larger issues valued by feminists. Reproductive rights. The antifeminist community allows for people to express their conscience and as they see fit but has not articulated a collective attitude or opinion on the matter thus far choosing remain non partisan to either side. Some folks support abortion, others don’t. Regardless of the case, it is fair to say that neither the MRM nor antifeminist communities have presented any obstacles in any way to feminism’s quest to secure more reproductive rights for women. In this regard, there are far larger enemies to feminism out there than anti feminists. We do however generally support reproductive rights for men. Reproductive rights for men does not in any way, shape or form undermine or conflict with this objective for women. If anything, it strengthens it which should make us allies. Sadly, it is feminism that is at odds with us over these points, rather than us with them.
As of this writing I have yet to meet anyone who feels that there are too many women in the workplace, the only issue being that of qualifications in some areas such as fire fighting and military where physical qualities simply cannot be imagined away with affirmative action as they have potentially dire consequences. We as a society forced men to compete for these jobs, equality simply means women should join the competition for them as well and should compete from the same starting line, rather than like the way they do it in golf, and women get an advantage by being able to start closer to the hole. Women have all of the same opportunities as men do in employment opportunity and despite the way the mainstream media misrepresents our views on this matter virtually no one here objects to this. On the contrary, I work with many great women and love the diversity. In addition to that, I am married and not in any way looking to disadvantage my household income.
Equal pay for equal work. There is some evidence out there to suggest that women who remained to work in the factories after the end of World War 2 did end up making less than the cohort of men lucky enough to return from the fields of Europe, many of whom were forced to fight against their will. This however has not been an issue since the 1960’s where most countries have put equal pay legislation into place. Anti feminists and the MRM alike see this as worthy of celebration, except that it is no longer relevant and to try to convince women otherwise is not fair to either gender and is a gross violation of responsible journalism by those who exploit the naive to push this. Few issues out there can be so easily and conclusively disproven as the gender wage gap, yet there it is atop our list of political priorities.
Rape and sexual assault. Antifeminists and the MRM abhor these things more than most feminists do in that it is our desire to see recognition of victimhood extended to all people regardless of gender. As well, we recognize that the crime is serious enough that falsely claiming one has been victimized by it be treated with the level of severity the crime deserves rather than in ad hoc kangaroo courts and that due process prevails in such circumstances. This does not in any way, shape or form undermine the experiences of rape or sexual assault survivors nor does it put feminism at a deficit in dealing with this. Many of us are at a loss to describe why or how feminists, many of whom would present themselves as experts in this area fail to support or accept our views which fully and completely encompasses the feminist position on this matter, minus of course the irrelevant connection to imaginary governments.
Domestic violence. Similar to the above, domestic violence should be recognized as something that affects both genders. To recognize that males can also be victims and that females can be perpetrators will go a vast distance further to reducing the incidence of this than pretending it is the result of a fictitious form of government. Even if I were to pretend or accept that we do live in a patriarchy as described by feminists, the gender of the people in government is completely irrelevant to the matter and it undermines nothing to address the violence perpetrated and experienced by both genders.
More women in government. Again, our community is very divided on this issue but that division is centred largely on the advantage afforded to females for their candidacy in many democratic countries. But even that is largely irrelevant. Whatever the case, feminists argue that because historically speaking, leaders and politicians have been male that they have somehow represented the interests of men alone. This is a very biased statement that depends on willful ignorance. Women enjoy a great deal in our society in terms of freedom and security, many of which men do not have. Men are on the hook to stand behind their democratic voice with their lives through military drafts. Most countries do not expect this of women. The United States which has now allowed the topic female draft registration to enter political discourse in their legislature as of this writing still does not expect or require this of women. Women benefit from greater healthcare funding for female related health issues. Female victimhood is taken far more seriously. Society ensures greater efforts are invested into female well-being. Our post secondary educational institutions have “Women’s Centers” despite women being the majority of students on campus. Society invests heavily into ensuring that we continue to push women make up 50% of male dominated fields yet gives half assed efforts for symbolic purposes to ensure males have opportunity in areas like nursing, teaching and social work where females dominate. Western nations are offering generous maternity leave packages to women after the personal choice of having a child. I could go on, but you get the point. Women are not second-class citizens despite the feminist rhetoric and this is all the direct result of largely male leaders and politicians. Feminists would assert that areas in society where males are at a deficit is the result of patriarchy as if to suggest that this is a process that backfired rather than ended up being successful by design. Feminists have a tendency to misunderstand how politics works. A female who campaigns as conservative is bound by her democratic mandate to reflect conservative positions on matters which may include standing against abortion because believe it or not, there are many women out there who happen to be against it. Feminists seem to think women in parliament (or your respective national legislature) means free stuff regardless of the party and values they represent. Not true and the same goes for men and male representatives. Say for example you voted for a Muslim candidate who ran as a conservative, does that mean Sharia law is coming into effect any time soon simply because of his or her religion? Of course not but this is the logic of feminism. Gender of representative = wonderful things for corresponding gender of electorate. The fact is the political elite will serve the elite classes regardless of gender. Female politicians will not change this. Regardless of how you feel about this issue or if you feel that those in legislatures actually do have the interests of their constituents at heart, there is no opposition to women joining the legislature who are qualified or have something to offer the party or electorate they wish to represent. Feminists should not see any conflict with this.
Bodily autonomy. This may not apply to all brands of antifeminism or the MRM, but generally speaking we wish for the abolishment of circumcision to apply to all genders. Again, some feminists would have us believe that male circumcision is a form of patriarchy because why wouldn’t cutting the end of a baby’s dick off be? If that were the case, then to fight male genital mutilation would be a valid means of fighting patriarchy. For some reason feminists are hell bent on ensuring that the remaining rare cases of female genital mutilation be completely eradicated from the dark corners of the third world before we start to take male genital mutilation in our own backyard more seriously. If you could forgive a graphic example here, a feminist is someone who will almost certainly never so much as meet a woman who has experienced genital mutilation, but stands a very high chance if she is heterosexual and has more than one partner in her lifetime of having a circumcised penis inside of her. Either way, many antifeminists and the MRM fully support an end to all genital mutilation for both genders and our interests in this area do nothing to undermine feminism and in all fairness, there are some feminists out there who also support ending male genital mutilation, though this does little to redeem feminism of its general level of hatred.
I could go on as these are just a few examples of our positions on some of the major issues that feminists and antifeminists either share or have similar interests in. So what is the major sticking point between feminists and antifeminists? I’ll explain.
Acknowledging that males can be virtuous and that females can be anything less undermines the feminist narrative that patriarchy theory was designed to foment. When British domestic violence shelters were directed under equality laws to provide services to male victims they refused and incurred cuts to their funding as promised. This resulted in the famous protest of said cuts on the red carpet at the premiere of the movie the Suffragette back in 2015 where feminists laid down and spread out across the red carpet. Having a penis apparently no longer qualifies you necessarily as male, but it certainly disqualifies your humanity from being recognized in terms of being provided services, safety, security and safe haven from violence.
When the Canadian Centre for Men and Families opened up in Toronto it was met with great criticism from feminist advocacy groups. Even as the only known men’s centre in Canada, it was still open to providing services and assisting women if needed despite the vast magnitude of resources available to females. All of this in contrast to the approach taken by the feminist organizations of Britain which would rather see their funding, which is disproportionately subsidized by men’s tax dollars, cut than to help a male victim suffering from anything.
Similar to the above, rape services are also incredibly limited for men and feminists fail to accept that a woman can be a rapist in most jurisdictions here in 2016 unless of course she penetrates a man which can only be done anally and with a finger. So if a woman coerces, threatens, shames or blackmails you into having sex in the U.S. (and soon to be elsewhere) – as long as she resists what could only be an overwhelming urge to stick a finger in your not so pink stinkhole (pardon the graphic example but I didn’t draft this law), it isn’t rape. See what feminists did there? They virtually eliminated female offenders and male victims and they were incredibly self congratulatory in doing so as feminist media outlets celebrated joyfully when the FBI definition changed back in 2012 to require penetration which pretty much limits rape to those who have the proper appendage to do so.
This basically applies to all areas of feminist advocacy. If it doesn’t overstate a problem that can be proven conclusively not to exist like the gender wage gap, then it excuses females from any agency in their transgressions towards others. Antifeminist organizations by and large have called this out and promote the idea that where these issues do happen to exist they should extend recognition to everyone in accordance with the dictionary definition that feminists repeat over and over like it is some neurological Tourette’s style outburst that can’t be suppressed.
Besides being worth billions of dollars in media sales, the victim narrative is very profitable politically and socially. Antifeminist and Men’s Rights organizations like A Voice For Men and many others have over the last few years began to review feminist research, studies and literature and discovered that many of the founding statistics used to incite fear and support patriarchy theory have in fact been either misleading, misrepresented, biased or completely dishonest (See link to Murray Strauss’s research on how Feminists corrupt DV research below as one example).
This is why feminists hate us. Our views, even if not perfect actually seek to address these issues, rather than see them as manifestations of the type of chromosomes those elected to government happen to have. We are raining on the parade and this risks billions of media dollars and political currency. It was never about domestic violence because it is reciprocal in nature and a non gendered issue. Our method has potential to work, feminism’s does not. It was never about rape as these are rare isolated occurrences rather than a culturally sponsored phenomenon that are also not gendered when you actually look at the research that feminism desperately wants suppressed and white washed from the literature. Canada and the U.S. have feminist leaders and low and behold, they still have rape. It was never about the wage gap as that doesn’t exist and it does nothing to harm women or feminists for that matter to point this out. Feminists hate us because we are the one’s pointing this stuff out from the summaries and conclusions of the very research they love to quote so much.
Did you honestly believe it was because some dude named AssFuck69 in the Youtube comment section said something mean about Anita Sarkeesian, Clementine Ford, Amy Schumer or the new Ghostbusters movie?
Don’t make me laugh, my pigtails can’t take this shit.