In his latest post, Dota persuasively argued that only decadent 1st world societies with abundant resources can play host to feminism. One of our blog’s major recurring themes is that without constant upkeep and support from powerful elites, the left’s various cultural pet causes and ideologies would collapse. However, I feel that even without 3rd world conditions, feminism is going to eventually consign itself to irrelevance through their carelessness and overreach.
Since feminism and “girl power” have always been dependent on the largesse of influential men, feminists give lip service to caring about men’s problems. It’s not too uncommon to hear feminists claim that feminism is men’s friend, and that if men would only stop being wicked sexists and help them fight the patriarchy, feminism would make their lives significantly better. In order to maintain some degree of respectability, it makes sense for a movement that purports to embrace “equality” to throw men a bone every now and then.
Of course, we in the alternative right have long known that feminism’s egalitarian posturing is a facade. At its core, feminism has always been by and for women, and one would be very hard-pressed to point to any real benefits accrued by men courtesy of women’s liberation. Whether it’s stagnating wages and PC work environments, rampant divorce, or the feminization of education and pacifying little boys with Ritalin for the heinous crime of being too energetically male, I don’t see how feminists can expect men to enthusiastically embrace their agenda. The problems mentioned above are just the tip of the iceberg.
Occasionally, a feminist here and there will drop the facade and admit that men have little to gain from feminism. One such feminist is Raina Lipsitz, who has had it up to here with the notion that women need male support. What triggered her anger was a poll suggesting that only 48 percent of men support general women’s equality, with only 14 percent strongly supporting women’s equality:
“A recent Ipsos poll found that 48 percent of men in 15 developed countries self-identify as feminists when the term is defined as “someone who advocates and supports equal opportunities for women.” At first glance, this is encouraging. But that figure includes men who only “somewhat” support equal opportunities for women, as well as those who “very much” support such opportunities.
Depending on how flexible you think the word “feminist” is, you could see this as evidence that egalitarian men abound. Or you could note that only 14 percent of men polled were “very much” in favor of equality, while 34 percent were only “somewhat” in favor. This means women who hope to succeed with an egalitarian partner by their side have only a small fraction of that 14 percent to choose from after discounting those who are too young or too old or are uninterested in dating women.”
From this, she concludes that there are only a “few good men,” and that a mere 14 percent have gotten the memo that women are full human beings. First of all, who says that women actually want “egalitarian” partners who embrace feminist practices? Last time I checked, one of the most popular novels among Western women is 50 Shades of Grey, which involves a vulnerable and submissive female protagonist getting spanked and dominated by her alpha male lover. I can’t imagine too many women would be as turned on by Christian Grey’s character if during one of the book’s scenes he held up a sign saying, “I am a feminist because…”
Also, there’s no longer any need for men to strongly support equality for women. In our so-called patriarchy, women can vote, attend college in record numbers, pursue careers, divorce at will, sleep around without getting honor killed or disowned, and live the kinds of lives that would have been unthinkable for women throughout the majority of world history. Our “patriarchy” is as patriarchal as the Southern Poverty Law Center is focused on actual poverty.
After paying the usual lip service to men’s issues, she then has the audacity to compare feminism’s 1st world problems to more serious issues such as wars and lynchings:
“Men face legitimate obstacles of their own, but their oppression, be it economic, political or social, is treated as a universal problem, not as a quibble from a special interest group. How many times have women activists been told that it’s more important to end war than it is to end sexism or more critical to win elections than to defend abortion rights? As the activist and cultural critic Ellen Willis once put it, “It’s hard to convey … how radical, how unpopular and difficult it was just to get up and say, ‘Men oppress women … Men must take responsibility for their actions instead of blaming them on capitalism. And yes, that means you.’”
Women’s rights have never been the central fight for male activists; in many leftist circles, they weren’t on the agenda at all. By contrast, women have been instrumental in every major campaign for social justice, from abolition, anti-lynching crusades and organized labor to anti-war activism, civil rights and gay rights. They have historically devoted their time and lives to causes that didn’t necessarily affect them directly. Contrary to Stokely Carmichael’s infamous remark (“What is the position of women in SNCC [the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee]? The position of women in SNCC is prone”), women of all colors — especially black women — did more for civil rights than sleep with male activists. Black female activists such as Fannie Lou Hamer were regularly jailed and beaten. The Klan murdered Viola Liuzzo, a white activist who, before she was killed, declared that the battle for civil rights was “everybody’s fight.”
How many men think of safeguarding abortion rights or ending female genital mutilation as everybody’s fight? Apparently, only about 14 percent of men have gotten the memo that women are even people at all. This means that women who are waiting for a few good men — or an army of dishwashing husbands — to support them emotionally, financially and logistically as they lean into their magically high-powered careers will be waiting for a long time.”
Talk about “entitlement,” which is a word that feminists always use to chastise men. Whether she wants to admit it or not, issues such as war are indeed universal problems. Various peoples of the world, men and women alike, suffer from wars of imperialistic aggression. However, a bunch of middle and upper middle class 1st world women wanting to become corporate executives is not a “universal” problem. Ditto for women wanting to get abortions. Her attempt to reference 3rd world female genital mutilation in order to bolster the claim that feminism is universal is not fooling anyone. That she could even begin to put feminist causes on the same level as wars, the ending of Jim Crow, and lynchings reeks of major chutzpah.
Finally, after paying yet more shallow lip service to caring about men’s problems, she at last admits that feminism does not ultimately help men:
“But men’s freedom should be a happy byproduct of feminism, not its primary goal. It is disingenuous to pretend that men have as much to gain from feminism as women.
In fact, they have something to lose, which is why we shouldn’t count on them to come to our rescue. Venture into the comments section of any article about feminism published in the last 20 years and you will see how many men are filled with rage, bitterness and terror at the prospect of women’s (largely fictitious) rise to power. Men are reluctant to cede privileges they’ve enjoyed their whole lives, even if or when they recognize that these privileges are unearned.”
Even though she’s already admitted that feminism does nothing for men, she then argues that men should nonetheless support feminism because it’s “inhumane” not to. So basically, even though she admits that men have issues, she insists that feminism should not spend time helping men. Yet according to her, men ought to go out of their way to help women and only women. Again, talk about chutzpah.
Even though I enjoy poking fun at the illogic of this entitled feminist, my real intent behind writing this article lies elsewhere. To paraphrase a quote often attributed to Napoleon, let us not interrupt our feminist enemies while they implode.
Even if the various netizens of the manosphere and elsewhere were to immediately drop the issue of feminism and end all opposition to the movement, feminists would end up digging their own grave. The abrasive and entitled vibe of feminists like Raina Lipsitz, as highlighted above, will do more to alienate the masses from feminism than any article from the manosphere. In today’s stagnant economy and hypercompetitive classrooms where men are increasingly falling behind, fewer and fewer will be inclined to support female “empowerment” just for its own sake. At best, more men will simply tune feminists out and disregard their activism. At worst, the sight of pampered women telling struggling men to “check their privilege” will provoke hostility towards the entire movement.
So while we enjoy writing and reading the occasional edifying article critiquing feminism, let’s not get too hung up in stridently denouncing our favorite gender benders. Feminist arrogance and snarkiness, combined with our society’s declining standard of living, will ultimately doom their enterprise. Feminists will sow the seeds of their own demise.
Sooner or later, feminism will also fail in the 1st world.