lumigan tramadol tadalafil

PC Feminism: A Traditional Movement in Disguise?

2009-12-10
By

Despite PC “feminism” parading itself as avant garde, progressive, hip, trendy, and enlightened it is interesting to note just how “traditional” of a movement it has become:

1. Crying privileges:

Traditionally, females have more “crying privileges” than males, since males are traditionally (and inhumanely) trained to roll with the punches and “suffer in silence”. Ironically, PC feminism in many ways is a movement that is essentially based on bringing female grievances to the fore. And just like in a little girl’s fairy tales, many males are not hesitant to dawn the “male feminist” coat of arms with trite macho posturing. After all, it gives these insecure men an excuse to “feel” like a hero and save the “damsels in distress”….just like in the traditional days of yore. As a proponent of true equality, this not only sounds dreadfully hypocritical, but the male-hero/female-victim archetypes are hardly as “progressive” as PC feminists want us to believe. Since females have more crying privileges than males, it is small wonder that us males who are socialized to “take it like a man” or that “big boys don’t cry” are hesitant starting a movement of our own (and even more hesitant to call ourselves masculists). After all, there is far less stigma for a female to advertise being a victim, since so many guys are expected to dawn the proverbial “man pants”.

2. Chivalry

Chivalry, in its general sense, simply means “ladies first”. As such, it is small wonder that “masculism” is not even in the dictionary (and is flagged by my computer’s spell-checker at this very moment). Perhaps even more telling, it is interesting that a gender neutral term like “androgynism” couldn’t have been used instead of either masculism or feminism to represent the elimination of a common enemy….restrictive gender roles that can harm us all. It is interesting that some of the most resistance I have encountered in the masculist movement has been from my fellow man. These are the guys that seem to really want to get laid, and they seem to love the phony feeling of being a “hero” or “healer” of women’s problems. Again, white knights are the stuff of fairy tales and highly traditional role expectations…….which is certainly not the stuff of true equality (or even true “progress” for that matter).

3. Patriarchy

The concept of “patriarchy” is also highly traditional when you unmask the meaning behind the word. PC feminists use terms like “patriarchy” or the “duluth model” to sound hip, progressive, and sophisticated, but they are essentially cashing in on traditional gender roles to retain the fruits of chivalry, female victim-hood, and male providing/protecting/giving. Last time I checked, male disposability in love, work, and war is a highly traditional and Victorian mindset.

4. Female sex power

Traditionally speaking, an attractive female has assets that many males can only dream of. As a male, I am not alone in thinking that it is dreadfully unfair that a pretty female can attract love based on appearance alone when us guys are still expected to “buy our love” through unfair dating expectations (buying rings and flowers), war, and work which can lead to stress, disposability, heartbreak, and suicide. Despite feminists claim that housework is so menial, there are precious few females who are willing to marry down….let alone marry a househusband. Small wonder so many more males are homeless. George Orwell was right when he suggested that homeless men not only lose their homes….but also their love (perhaps when they needed love the most). I guess it is hard for some women to love “hard as steel” ATM machines when the slots stop popping out money. It is ironic that ATM is also an acronym for “A True Man” or “All Terrain Male” (I am sure readers of this essay can come up with even more).

5. Maternal gate-keeping

PC feminists also like to retain the idea that mothers are more important than fathers. I have witnessed precious little protest from feminists and females in relation to eliminating alimony/child support….let alone being in favor of allowing males access to these very same privileges. Again, how traditional can you get? This is certainly not the stuff of true equality. If women can be presidents, then men can be parents.

I don’t think males have ever had it so great. And the manipulative proponents of PC feminism seem to want to keep it that way. I also believe that in too many ways feminism reflects highly traditional (and negative) stereotypes of females as materialistic, histrionic, weak, victim-obsessed, and me-centric “gold-diggers”. This message is not healthy for males and females alike. It hurts men, and makes women look bad. I think it is time for true equality. As such, I think females and feminists should complain less, and males and masculists should complain more. If females were the vast majority of the prison population, homeless, suicides, work fatalities, war casualties, false rape allegations, glass CELLAR, spending gap, objects of unfair dating expectations, victims of the longevity gap, prison rape, victims of the pay gap myth, prison sentencing bias, and objects of chivalry bias…………then perhaps PC feminists (and females in general) would wake up to the fact that men are (and perhaps always been) unfairly treated as disposable beasts of burden without feelings. There is privilege in being pampered, protected, and cared for. It is time for a “new chivalry” where we care and protect males, females, and children….after all, we are all only human.

Liberated man: I just love fuzzy navals, tea, and fine chocolates.

Macho man: What a girly wuss. I drink my whiskey straight and my coffee black. And hot-chocolate is worthy only of women and children.

Liberated man: Why? Can’t I drink/eat something that actually tastes sweet, chocolaty, or delicious?
Macho man: You sound like the kind of pansy that owns an umbrella.

Liberated man: If you want to stand in the rain be my guest. I am also waiting for a female to love me for who I am and not what I can do for her.

Macho man: Good luck getting laid pal.

Liberated man: If getting laid means killing myself through the stress of love, work, and war….then maybe I can do without sex. True love (and true equality for that matter) means an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I expect my true love and I to love/respect each other equally.

A good start would be to either replace the term “feminism” with androgynism or add the term “masculism”. Either way, we would have checks and balances in gender politics by making the “rules of debate” objective and equal.

646 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • Masculist

    Hello Mark. I am a member of NCFM and I have spent much time and money over the years as a masculist trying to make life safer and more pleasant for men and boys.

    My idea is not to “appeal to the non-masculine”. The idea is to create a wider array of lifestyle options for all men and boys who have been hindered by restrictive shaming messages like “big boys don’t cry”, “take it like a man”, “suck it up”, etc. And I am not alone. Many of the best known figures in the masculist movement believe the traditional male gender role sucked long before feminism came along (just read Warren Farrell, Herb Goldberg, Esther Vilar, David Thomas, Roy Schenk, Jack Kammer, etc). In fact, Warren Farrell’s book “myth of male power” discusses at length the idea of a stage 2 society.

    I am NOT anti-masculine. However, I am also NOT against the idea of a WOMAN being masculine either. What I am against is telling men that masculinity is the only option available to them. I want men and boys to have access to the fruits of female privileges (of which there are many). Returning to the 50′s traditional gender roles is not masculism. It is social conservatism. And the point of my article was revealing the hypocrisy of the PC feminist movement. I believe that modern feminism is mainly a social conservative movement bent on retaining the female privileges of chivalry, pampering, materialism, misandry, dating expectations, safety, protection, sexual power, etc. In other words, I don’t believe PC feminists are nearly as socially liberal, progressive, or as concerned with equality as they think they are.

    For me, masculism involves the following goals (which mesh with the definition of “masculism” currently in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy):

    * To ensure checks and balances alongside feminism.

    * To ensure equality in relation to life, liberty, AND the pursuit of happiness (including the elimination of male disposability)

    * To eliminate traditional chivalry and replace it with a regard for all people….man, woman, and child.

    * To ensure legal equality (such as prison disparity) and the efforts to equalize the gender ration in prisons.

    * To eliminate shaming messages like “take it like a man”, “suck it up”, “big boys don’t cry”, “pussy”, “wimp”, etc.

  • http://ozconservative.blogspot.com Mark Richardson

    I think you’re going to lose most men with this approach to politics.

    Why would the average man support a movement that is anti-masculine?

    Are you really going to pitch the men’s movement to the small percentage of men who are non-masculine?

  • B. Rafino

    “Replace the term “feminism” with androgynism.” GREAT observation, thought. The whole female-role-and-privilege in society thing seems to toggle situationally according to what momentarily benefits women. She wants to be equal in the board room, but you have to be nice to the girl, even when she behaves badly, in other venues (and even in the board room.)

    Men and women have unique challenges and obligations that are very much gender based- THAT is what women don’t accept. Society tells a man he can’t use fist or his penis as a weapon (and there are criminal penalties, rightfully so, for their misuse.) A woman’s weapon of choice is her mouth, yet NOWHERE is there any controlling authority or even the voice of wise influence encouraging moderation of what they say.

    OH, I forgot… that sticks and stones thing.

    I’d rather be physically beaten than endure some of the horrific things that women have said/shrieked/screamed in their attempts to crush men. And NOWHERE is there a higher-order of influential women to put this down. (Every woman reading this comment thinks I’m an overly sensitive wuss and thinking “you big baby!” Wrong. I’m coupled with a wonderful woman who fully appreciates the power of her words, and she uses them to an edifying art, which is why I love her.)

    Frankly speaking, there are some women who are on the receiving end of a man’s physical wrath, a man’s weapon, because these women brutally and cruelly deployed- with malice aforethought- their their weapon du choix, their mouths.

    Now, here’s the UN-PC truth: some women OUGHT to get backhanded for the things they say, though few men would openly admit this.

  • Jay R

    FEMinism is about gender equality?

    I think I’ll start a racial equality movement and call it “Whitism.” When I do, I’ll castigate blacks who don’t want to join as a bunch of racists and haters!

  • http://remasculation.blogspot.com/ Snark

    “Good luck getting laid pal” is where feminists and the big, scary macho types they purport to hate align. Feminists require there to be restraints on our behaviour to keep us ‘in line’ – i.e. in service to them. The most effective of these is the shaming tactic. But like any trickery, once you know how it’s done, it fails to impress, let alone have an effect.

    Feminism is chivalry taken to its extreme. I’ve written about this, though not as eloquently as yourself. Every characteristic of chivalry is multiplied tenfold by feminism. Their approach to ‘the patriarchy’ (i.e. existing social order) was not to smash it and rebuild, but to attack it piecemeal, chipping away at traditional male privileges while entrenching traditional female privileges.

    It was about equality for perhaps a day.

    It’s important that we don’t also delegitimatise those characteristics which are typically ‘male’. Example: I take my coffee black and whiskey straight, not because I’m trying to prove anything, but because that’s how I like them. Still, I appreciate the diversity of choices that other men will make (and obviously, coffee and whiskey are metaphors here). I don’t think you intended to imply that liberated man follows the feminist/metrosexual rulebook for masculinity by only doing traditionally ‘unmasculine’ things; but it could be taken that way. I think what you intended to imply was that other choices do not detract from a man’s maleness or masculinity, which is correct. Masculinity – in fact masculinities – are a thing to be celebrated, and that is our masculinities, not those which fit the feminist agenda.

  • http://counterfeminism.info/ Porky Domesticus

    A lot of feminism is indeed traditional claptrap dressed up in a hip new mini skirt – what else can one expect from a movement headed by rich white women?

  • Ray

    Another fine article showing us how feminist can’t even see the hypocrisy in their own actions. Word definitions mean nothing in the mouth of a feminist, because their behaviors are constantly in conflict with what they’re saying.

    The “double speak” methodology described in George Orwell’s “1984″ is also a part of gender feminist language.

    Perhaps a counterpart to your article could explore the way gender feminists manipulate word definitions to tailor propaganda messages that promote their agenda. People subjected to lying gender feminist propaganda may then be more able to sift through the deceptions, hypocrisy, and tortured meanings in the gibberish they spew.







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search