Wednesday, February 1, 2012

This Is What An Anti-Feminist Looks Like

[TW: Accidental death, mass casualty, gender policing, misandry, misogyny]

Some MRAs seem to think that it is modern-day feminists who, perhaps through the use of time travel, are single-handedly responsible for the "women and children first" policy on the Titanic.

The voices they completely let off the hook for such sexist (toward both men and women) policies are traditionalists who believe that it is women's One True Authentic Role to be protected and men's One True Authentic Role to protect.

Take a recent column at conservative Christian forum LifeSite news, where Hilary White takes the opportunity to capitalize upon the Costa Concordia disaster for purposes of bashing feminism. (Note: MRAs, meet Hilary White. Hilary white, meet MRAs). She writes:

"What kind of man sneaks away under cover of darkness from his own sinking ship, leaving nearly 4200 passengers and crew to fend for themselves? What kind of men knock aside old ladies, little girls and young mothers to get to lifeboats first? Why, modern men, sexually emancipated men who have been raised on the tenets of feminism and our 'contemporary' mores."

Did you catch that?

Notice what White's view, a very traditional view on gender, asks of men. It asks them to view the lives of "old ladies, little girls, and young mothers" as more valuable, more worthy of being saved, than their own lives. Notice too the implication: It has been feminism that has given men the radical notion that they don't have to sacrifice their own lives, on sole account of their sex, for the lives of women and children.

And then notice that she takes it for granted that prior to feminism, all men were self-sacrificial knights-in-shining-armor who would never harm women.

LOL sure.

She continues:

"What can an expression like 'women and children first' mean to modern men who have been taught all their lives that women are nothing more precious than sexual playthings, and children nothing more than a disposable burden?"

The line about children being "nothing more than a disposable burden" is, of course, a cheap jab at pro-choice beliefs. We are apparently to believe that men are utterly incapable of valuing children as human beings now that women have some abortion rights in some countries.

As you can see, the traditionalist does not think highly of men.

Most amusingly, though, is her implication that first came feminism, then came men's view that women are nothing but "sexual playthings," therefore, feminism teaches men that women are nothing but "sexual playthings."


It's always good, before reading the rest of an anti-feminist's article, to know up-front that they're basically ignorant of much of feminism, and apparently have never heard of radical anti-pornography feminism. Indeed, like many ignorant anti-feminists are wont to do, she mistakes the sexual revolution for a feminist one. For instance, she charmingly calls the sexual revolution feminism's "strumpet daughter," as though feminism's motto is and always has been "Women: We admit it, we really are nothing but sexual playthings for men!".

She continues blathering on about our apparent femi-topia:

"In one video, [some Catholic dude] mentioned the type of men who are approved by the feminist-controlled media: weak, stupid and ineffectual, who need to be ruled over by strong, hip, intelligent women."

I just- what? Are you kidding me? The "feminist-controlled media"? Oh I can't even. I mean, come on Hilary White, you're not even trying here. The Bechdel Test has been a thing on Internet for at least 5 years, which is like 20 years in real world time.


But alas, she continues:

"In the last 50 years, the Catholic institution has followed the world in adopting the feminist model. That ideal, Voris says, has driven strong men out of the Church and out of family life, pushing them to find a channel for their masculinity in unhealthy avenues like criminality and the objectification of women."

I would call the Catholic Church many things. "Too feminist" is for sure not one of them.

The whole piece is really something.

In White's version of reality, feminism is at once all-powerful and yet, mysteriously, totally nonsensical. But, I see three important take-aways from her piece.

First, it's she, not feminists, who is implying that men have no free will and bear no adult responsibility for their development as human beings. Men These Days, according to White, have failed to "grow up" and have failed to value women.

Why? Feminism, natch:

"Instead of insisting that men grow up, marry a woman and protect and care for their children, it has offered men women as toys while offering women the Pill, abortion and family court as the back-up plan."

Here we learn that men need their mommy-wives, who somehow are capable of becoming fully-formed adults, to teach them how to be responsible. And yes, It is a strange incoherence of gender traditionalism that men are, by virtue of their sex, perpetual babies and yet, mysteriously, the sex best suited to Rule The World.

Two, we see how misogyny so often intertwines with misandry within traditionalist gender viewpoints. She writes:

"The effeminate man-child is a plague in Italy; vain, self-important, shallow and self-seeking mamma’s boys who live in their parents’ house into their thirties and forties."

Throughout her piece, she implies that women are more responsible and valuable than men. And yet, the very qualities that apparently make women more responsible and valuable, apparently essential "effeminate" qualities, somehow cause men to remain child-like. This is an incoherence for sure, but it's also a condescending admission about what gender traditionalists really think of women.

Feminists often say that no one wins under traditional gender roles and this is a good illustration of that. Men apparently need women to help them become Real Adult Men, and women, despite having that responsibility, can never actually become full adults because of their essential "effeminacy."

Lastly, it's interesting that White references "feminism's misandry" as though it's such a given that it is doesn't need to be further expounded upon. But let's all remember that it's she, not feminists, who is ordering Real Men to go down on a sinking ship because they are men and that's what men do.

Have fun with that, men.

No comments: