Friday, April 13, 2007

You've been stabbed, son? It's your own fault.

That icon of intellectual and journalistic integrity, Beatrix Campbell, has been at work again. In an article for the Guardian, she blames the recent spate of knife and gun crime in London on – wait for it – masculinity. Oh, so that’s what it is! Personally, I haven’t been involved in it, so I guess that means I’m not very masculine.

"The inexorable rise and rise of knife and gun culture isn't about black communities, or even black boys. It is about boys."

It's got nothing to do with poverty and family breakdown. It's to do with boys themselves.

She directs most of her ire against the Blair government, for apparently asking the black community to take action about knife and gun culture. Dear, oh dear. That is not politically correct; the black community is an Officially Recognized Victim Group (TM). As such, it is simply beyond any kind of criticism or responsibility.

No. Apportioning responsibility for the situation has got nothing to do with the facts; we have to pin the blame on one of our Accepted Ideological Enemies (TM) , regardless of the evidence. It’s all the fault of the male sex. What a surprise.

“But masculinity dares not speak its name in new Labour's language, and blame for menacing behaviour is re-assigned from men to mothers. The problem is children "being brought up in a setting that has no rules, no discipline, no proper framework". That is proxy for no fathers.”

Another shocking heresy! Everyone knows that removing fathers from their children was a social good, resulting in widespread benefits for all. (Cue Soviet propaganda footage of happy smiling children dancing). Besides, fathers weren’t removed – they abandoned their children through their own fecklessness. So there.

As I argued in an earlier posting, there is an overwhelming case for concluding that fatherlessness is a major factor in youth delinquency. All the research shows this, and has done for decades. Feminists have done more to produce fatherless children than any other single force in this country since the Battle of the Somme (and they were even partly responsible for that). Campbell tries to squirt ink into the water by pretending that any discussion of the effects of fatherlessness is an attack on single mothers. It is no such thing. In a real sense those single mothers are just as much victims of the feminazi regime as the absent fathers are. But it is, of course, the children, and ultimately the wider society, who suffer most of all.

Campbell accuses the Blair government of “not addressing the fundamental correlation between masculine cultures and violence across all cultures and classes.”

There is a wealth of material to unpack just in that one sentence. Let’s ignore the two ambiguous occurrences of ‘cultures’.

Firstly, if there is such a strong correlation, then the obvious conclusion is that male violence has a biological basis. But if that is the case, then what does she expect the Blair (or any other) government to do about it?

Secondly, as a Marxist-Feminist of long standing, she is committed to social constructionism, the view that human behavior is socially rather than biologically determined. So what does it mean for her to say that the ‘rise and rise of knife and gun culture…is about boys’. In what sense? If people’s behavior is a product of their social environment, then in what sense can boys be held responsible for their behavior? Surely those who created the social environment for them are the ones responsible. Of course, this will point the finger back to the feminist-engineered fatherlessness and poverty again, and we don’t want that.

Thirdly, she is pretending that there is no connection between violence and social class. This is Campbell at her most disingenuous. Who are these young men who fill our media in London every week? Is it Sebastian and Rupert in Kensington, stabbing and shooting each other over a five pound bag of smack? Is it Giles and Jules, two millionaire city lawyers, glassing each other over an ambiguous clause in the small print? No. It is the poor. The underclass. That is where the knife and gun crime is happening. It is her (erstwhile) beloved working-class who are doing this. And it is mainly, but not entirely, the black poor. It is not the black middle-class either. It is the black urban poor. That is where the gang and weapon culture is. If we want to address this, we had better start being honest about it.

For a social constructionist, how could social class possibly be irrelevant? It is the single most important factor. To pretend otherwise is absurd.

However, she wants to ignore class, because she wants to be able to condemn all men equally. She wants to be able to hate without qualification. Campbell’s outlook on life is essentially a fascist one.

All problems in society are the fault of men.
If we get rid of men we will get rid of the problems in society.

That is exactly what Hitler said about Jews. Let us not forget that the Nazis also regarded themselves as victims of oppression. Fascism, like all religions, brings psychological and emotional advantages to the believer. Men are one of the last groups left that it is still acceptable to hate, and Beatrix Campbell has made an entire career out of hating them. Of course she would never advocate (at least not in public) that men should be exterminated. Instead, feminists like her believe that men should re-make themselves psychologically. We are all victims of our own stupidity.

Her solution is for boys to become less masculine; to become more like girls, more like her. The moral arrogance of feminists is something to behold. ‘Look at me. Am I not a paragon of virtue? Why don’t you take me as your role model? If everyone was like me the world would be a better place’.

It is remarkable how scientifically illiterate people on the Left are. It is a self-imposed ignorance. They will not countenance evolutionary theory because they see it as Patriarchal/Bourgeois propaganda designed to maintain the oppression of Wimmin/Proletariat. However, had Campbell read even some popular science such as Ridley’s Red Queen, she would know that the single biggest factor counting against her plan is heterosexual women. They despise feminized men. They want masculinity. Insofar as masculinity is culturally constructed, more than any other factor women are the ones doing the constructing.

That’s the problem with being a Revolutionary Warrior on a mission to Save the World from Oppression; those pesky oppressed groups just won't do what they’re told.

Females are complicit in the construction of masculine behavior through their sexual choice. Darwinian Sexual Selection – wake up and smell the coffee Beatrix.
Of course lesbian feminists like Campbell don’t believe that any one is really heterosexual. Certainly not women anyway. Like everything else, sexuality is socially constructed, and we are living in a heterosexual dictatorship in which women are brain-washed into believing that they are heterosexual.

It is a world view which can only be sustained by maintaining constant high levels of scientific illiteracy. Where do they think the bunny rabbits come from?

She obviously wants to persuade us that females are in no way complicit in the construction of male violence. Except we all know differently. In the recent fatal stabbing in Hammersmith, “A shop worker told how a pack of teenage girls chanted "kill him, kill him" as a gang of boys chased and then stabbed a 16 year old to death.” Reference

Those girls are in no way responsible for inciting violence are they? No, of course not. The Evil Patriarchy made them do it.

Just like the feminists in World War I who were handing out white feathers to men not in uniform, in order to shame them into joining up, they were deeply complicit in the carnage that followed. Of course after world war I, the feminist movement played its usual trick of denying all involvement. “I’m just a weak and feeble woman. How could I possibly be responsible?” That is what Campbell is doing now for those teenage girls in London. It had nothing to do with them, did it? No. Nothing at all.

By denying the role that females play in the construction of male violence, feminists such as Campbell are simply being dishonest.

Apart from defend blacks and single mothers, the darlings of the Left, and criticise the Blair government for not being feminist enough, Campbell’s article achieved nothing. Her supposed rationale for the recent spate of crime is incoherent in the extreme.

This crime wave has nothing to do with poverty. It has nothing to do with ethnic culture. It has nothing to do with family breakdown. It has nothing to do with women. Apparently, as that boy was lying bleeding to death in the street, it was his own fault. He only had himself to blame for the fact that he was attacked and stabbed by a gang. He shouldn’t have been born a boy. But isn‘t this committing another feminist heresy: blaming the victim? No, not at all. It’s perfectly acceptable to blame the victim as long as the victim is male.

The Hammersmith murder was apparently carried out by a gang called MDP (Murder Dem Pussies). Yes, that was the same murder in which the gang of teenage girls was shouting ‘Kill him!’ In an environment like that, why on earth would a young man want to develop a masculine persona? It’s a complete mystery. Not.

She makes the mistake of thinking that carrying a knife is masculine, and that the only solution to knife crime is to destroy masculinity. Ironically, by saying that boys who commit knife crime are the most masculine, Campbell is encouraging more of it. She is repeating the very same shibboleth that the boys might be telling themselves.

The whole article smells of fear. It is as though Campbell is fighting a desperate rearguard, knowing full-well that these men-hating, Communist-era myths she is peddling are looking increasingly threadbare. She criticizes men for caring too much about their own reputations, and yet she is desperate to protect the feminist movement’s reputation at any cost.

Campbell's article was the usual feminist fare, stale, over-familiar and turgid. Self-serving, incoherent, anti-intellectual garbage. Do they seriously expect us to spend public money on implementing solutions as poorly designed as these? Yes, let's destroy masculinity. That will solve it. Yeah, right Beatrix. We'll get right on to it.


Anonymous said...

Excellent post! It was a pleasure to read, even though the feminist mentality that caused you to write the post is most definitely NOT a pleasant thing. I've long said that radical feminism, when stripped to its essence, boils down to the wonderfully simple idea that the problems of the world would be solved if all males became females with penises. I think you captured that idea in your post as well. You're also right on to say that women don't want feminized men, they want masculinity. You might refine that point by saying that many women actually LIKE feminized men (or those whom they see as feminized) as friends (witness the major cultural trend of straight women having gay male friends) but reject them as sexual/romantic partners. The funny thing is that stereotypes about gay men aside, the large majority of gay men are NOT effeminate and the vast majority of gay men also reject effeminate or feminized men as sexual/romantic partners, or objects of lust. How do I know this? Because I'm gay myself, and I have many years of personal experience to draw on.

I also loved your observation about feminists always griping and moaning about "blaming the victim" but then doing the same thing, with relish, whenever the victim is male. This is especially true if the male victim was hurt or killed at the hands of a female attacker. If a woman kills her husband or boyfriend, it's ALWAYS his fault! She's never to blame--or if she is, she's one of those many pitiful, mentally ill women who just can't help themselves (sniffle sniffle). Enough!

Again, great job and thanks for bringing a smile to my face at work :-)

Jim said...


Your last point is on point - funy how anyone who asserts that women are adults and should be evaluated as such is called a misogynist.

Have you noticed how many gay groups - at elast her ein the US; I don't know how it is in the UK - fall into line behind womens' supremacy groups like good little boys, even at the expense of men's rights? They fail to back fathers' rights initiatives, even though there are many gay fathers. Is it just a carry-over from adolescence, when girls seeme dlike allies?

Finaly, ref your point about gay men being and preferring masculine men; I have noticed so often that other than the fairy princess type of twink, the effeminate, wispy guys always turn out straights guys who have grown inot that persona as a pussy ploy.

BrusselsLout said...

The question that goes through my mind whenever I see standard rubbish like this -- which I see often in the British mass media -- is what sort of progress are we making as a men's movement? There is never anyone interviewed giving a different view. It therefore looks like little progress at the moment.

Campbell really is an odious bitch. I actually used to be a member of the Guardian's talkboard until I got banned. I am now in two minds about rejoining (under a different user-name, as other banned posters often do) just to give that misandric puddle of sludge a piece of my deep voice.

Is she aware that there is a men's movement, one that this making a powerful case against her tired old doctrine? She is either completely oblivious to it, as she is on all other issues relating to men and masculinity, or she is trying to pretend it doesn’t exist. I am under the impression that she might be aware of our discussions -- of masculinity as strength, logic and intelligence -- but she is trying to get in there first with her own “definition” while she can still do it unopposed. (And the cowardly piece of dog’s doo-dah will probably start screaming blue rape at the first sign of any opposition, fact or logic.)

I emailed Angry Harry a while ago about using public talkboards to argue our case. He said it wasn't worthwhile “confronting the opposition directly”, because it doesn't send the message to the right people. He has a point, and with his vast experience, he could be right.

What we need is some sort of measure to give us an indication of progress. At the moment we only have a crude one of how many men’s rights websites there are, or how many emails certain blogs might be receiving.

When the BBC or the Guardian, say, finally interview a leading figure like Warren Farrell, then it would be a powerful indicator that we have made progress. The Americans – who I think have more guts than the British media -- will probably do it first, and the British will eventually copy.

Anonymous said...


this is Anonymous from the 1st comment...

Regarding your first point--precisely. It's funny, pathetic, disgusting, tragic, nonsensical--all at once. It's one of the great hypocritical paradoxes at the heart of contemporary feminism: The idea that women should be treated equally to men but at the same time should be afforded special, more deferential and protective treatment than men receive. Which is it? More importantly, how's that cake taste, ladies?

Regarding your second point, you're right that gay rights groups have for the most part tended to fall in line with the feminist agenda, but it's a complicated thing that I have ambivalent feelings about. Allow me to attempt to clarify:

1) Some gay men (a small minority) ARE true believers in radical feminism
2) Lesbians (many, but far from all of whom are radical feminists) tend to be disproportionately represented among the gay movement's political activists
3) Straight women have always been (and still are) more sympathetic, more tolerant, and more accepting than straight men of the idea of gay and lesbian equal rights and sexual freedoms--polls have consistently shown this
4) Gays have long thought (with ample justification) that the demographic group most responsible for criminalizing them, denying them equal rights, discriminating against them, showing intolerance and lack of acceptance was straight men--and this is still the case today
5) Some gays have thought that an argument for gay rights was implicit in the radical feminist critique of patriarchy, masculinity, the nuclear family, etc. Again, I'd say that was a small (but vocal and politically active) minority, and that this is becoming less and less true all the time (it was mostly a 70s-80s phenomenon)
6) Much of the men's movement has been seen by many gays (again, with quite some justification) as a bunch of hardcore conservative or even right-wing cranks who want to drag society back to the 1950s and push women back into the June Cleaver role en masse, while maintaining staunch opposition to gay sexual freedom, gay rights, and wishing to preserve a discriminatory society. Sadly, I think that description fits many MRAs--not all, certainly, but many. As the men's movement broadens and diversifies many more gay men will see it as more of a natural home than radical feminism is!
7) More gay men need to seriously examine the arguments of the men's movement (at least the more moderate ones) and join in the fight, but at the same time more in the men's movement need to stop being so harshly dismissive of gay men, and see them as men (most of whom, like I said, are masculine; and many of whom, like you said, are fathers) with whom they share many traits and common goals and issues, rather than as some stigmatized, effeminate and feminized "Other".

I could go on, but I hope that answers your question to some level of adequacy. It's a complicated thing. I think if the men's movement made more of an effort to reach out to gay men for support, show some acceptance of them and more tolerance than it has, MRAs would be stunned at how many gay men would jump on board! I know that just in casual discussions with many of my friends, there's a huge reservoir of ill-will developing among gay men toward radical feminism and its attendant misandry, and unequal treatment in society that advantages women. I've had numerous conversations with gay friends that I could have had with Angry Harry, believe it or not. So the sentiments are there, and growing--gay men just need to be shown that they're welcome in the men's movement, and that MRAs won't stab them in the back. To repeat: The idea that MOST gay men are effeminate or feminized, radical feminist gender warriors, and naturally opposed to men's or fathers' rights is MISTAKEN. Most gay men don't reject masculinity--they WORSHIP masculinity! LOL But as long as the most prominent voices of the men's movement in the US are comprised of right-wing conservatives, they won't feel any urge to join or help out. The MM is sometimes its own worst enemy!

And to clarify my feelings about feminism (and by extension those of many, or most, gay men): I have no problem with the moderate equity feminism that advocates equality before the law, equal rights, equal responsibilities, equal opportunities, equal pay for equal work, equal parenting, etc. and that does not push a misandrist or anti-family agenda. What I have a problem with is the radical gender feminism that is vehemently misandrist, sex-negative, anti-family, matriarchal, separatist, and female supremacist--the rape crisis and abuse cult of victimhood branch of feminism. Years ago I proudly called myself a feminist because I truly valued (still do) an egalitarian society, but now I don't call myself feminist, because the radical gender feminism of the MacDworkinites (to take just one example) sickened and angered me. Many of my gay friends have undergone similar transformations.

Finally, regarding your last point, I agree! Don't get me wrong, there are some effeminate gay men out there--just not the large majority, who are pretty much everyday guys (and there's just as big a hypermasculine, overmuscled minority among gays as there is an effeminate one). But most twinks (and snaps to you for knowing the terminology, haha!) are not effeminate per se, but BOYISH. Think of it as the Peter Pan syndrome. I agree with you that many of the effeminate, wispy, meek, passive, submissive guys out there are self-loathing, pro-feminist straight men who have developed that way to be the "Nice Guys" that will appeal to the "modern woman" or feminists. What's so pitiful about these creatures is that they find out too late that most women, even most feminists, aren't attracted to them precisely because of those qualities! They want assertive (if not aggressive) masculine men, who show strength, and who like being guys. I feel so sorry for the pro-feminist men sometimes--it's got to be a major mindf*ck! LOL ;-)

Heretic said...

I came to this movement as a former Left-winger and feminist supporter. What has made me loathe feminism with such vengeance is 20 years of exposure to it! They have made it clear that men are not welcome on the left, except as badly-treated lap-dogs, and I'm afriad that's not for me!

Since coming to the MM I have been dismayed to see the number of GOP gun-freaks, pro-Bushites, and crazy conspiracy theorists in it, but I believe it is diversifying, and I am trying to contribute towards giving it a rational, secular voice.

Personally, I would really like to see more gay men in the movement, but like Jim, I had put them all down as intractable feminist supporters.

I too, like almost everyone, support liberal egalitarian feminism. It is radical lesbian gender feminism I oppose. It is basically a hate movement. I am coming to think that the lesbian community (or sections of it anyway) is a serious threat to civilisation. That is a wierd conclusion because I am not at all homophobic, and lesbianism has never actually been illegal in the UK. I don't care who you have sex with - as long as it is consensual - but I have been dragged towards the conclusion that these women actually want to destroy my life, so I can't ignore that.

The important task of the MM is to develop a political consciousness as MEN, not as black, gay, truck drivers, fathers, or whatever, but as MEN.

As such, all men can contribute to that.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous here again! I too was a left-winger and feminist at one time. I'm still quite liberal, or left-of-center, but not to a radical extreme. Of course, I'm in the US, so being "left-of-center" politically and socially essentially means that one doesn't wear a black shirt or feel an affinity for Attila the Hun! LOL Seriously, though, I empathize with your disillusionment, alienation, and transformation, as I've shared it and followed a similar path.

I also greatly appreciate your effort to bring a more rational, secular voice to the MM. I share your sentiments in that regard. Often, I'll go to read articles or click on links from websites like Angry Harry and I'll cringe and be repelled by much of what I see. Many MM articles make a couple of valid, sensible points and then undermine the message by slathering it with reactionary, even hateful rubbish. It can be very disturbing. As a liberal, gay, gender egalitarian, atheist and secular humanist, I find it troubling and sometimes I wonder if I should even waste my time with the MM. That's one reason I was so delighted to find your blog!

One last thing: Please don't get too hung up on lesbians as being the main cause of the problem. I agree that there are many vile, misandrist radical feminist lesbians out there, but many lesbians are not, nor would they classify themselves as such (trust me, I've known many) and they get just as steamed at the haters as we do. In addition, not all the most vile misandrists in the radical feminist movement are lesbians. Many of them, paradoxically enough, are heterosexual, which must be quite awkward for them! LOL Again, trust me, I've encountered MANY feminists over the years, in many different contexts and situations, both lesbian and straight, some who were/are friends, some who were/are just acquaintances, etc. I can state quite confidently from my own personal experience that some of the most bitter misandrist invective I've ever encountered has come from self-identified STRAIGHT women (almost all of whom, unsurprisingly, were single!) I've known numerous lesbians who not only have no problem with men, but like them a good deal and value their male friends and family members. As a perplexing and humorous aside, I've even known a handful of lesbians who enjoy, in fact are quite addicted to, gay male porn! I kid you not! They find it very hot and erotic and get off to it. That puzzles me, but hey, it takes all kinds, right? LOL

My point is, I urge you to please refrain from generalizing so much about "lesbian feminists". For one thing, it's inaccurate, unfair, and broad, and for another, it will just serve to discredit some of your arguments by making you appear to be an anti-lesbian crank and conspiracy theorist. I don't think you're either of those things, but I encourage you to moderate the rhetoric just a bit :) Take care and keep up the good work!

Heretic said...

Anon, Thank you for your words, both compassionate and sensible. Of course you are right not to generalise, and I do try to avoid doing that, although I guess it is a natural human tendency. However, having said that, I expect to see some dissent within the community - if most women disagree with radical gender feminism then most women should be publicly disowning it, not letting it happen. The same thing applies in the gay community. These women have put both their gayness and their anti-maleness at the very front of their belief-system. If this is a minority view, as you say, then I expect to see the majority criticise them. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing that. This stuff seems to wield disproportionate influence. I pick up a mainstream newspaper in this country and read that all men are rapists and paedophiles. That is not acceptable, and I do not hear women complaining. As such, they can expect limited indulgence from me. Regards, Heretic

Anonymous said...


Anonymous here again.

Your point is well taken but again I think it's a bit exaggerated and overbroad. Plenty of women (including plenty of lesbians) DO disavow radical feminism. Polls in the US, for example, show that around 75% of women do not call themselves feminists because of the radical ideology they associate with the term, and even that between 20-25% of women would consider being called a feminist an insult! Feminists are well aware of these poll results and find them very distressing and wring their hands over them ad nauseam on many feminist blogs, websites, etc. There are plenty of women who oppose radical feminism and who speak out against it who receive bully pulpits and prominent media exposure in the US--more mainstream media exposure than the radfems do, that's for sure. Of course, it may be a different story in the UK, I can't speak to that, but trust me the radfems don't dominate the media here in the US as much as you might think.

And, to focus more exclusively on lesbians, again here in the US there are plenty of lesbians who speak out in the media--gay and mainstream--who do not push a radical misandrist agenda, and are quite outspoken about their good friendships and family relationships with men. There are sex-positive lesbians, pro-porn lesbians, large and growing groups of lesbians who are so smitten with "maleness" and masculinity that they mimic male performers as "drag kings", etc. Numerous lesbians have come out in recent years to explain that they are really transgendered people or transsexuals who have always felt like men trapped in women's bodies and that they were undergoing hormone therapy and surgeries to transition to male. Of course, such lesbians have caused a stir in the lesbian community, with some lesbians rejecting them (just as plenty of men have a problem with male-to-female transsexuals) but MANY lesbians have come to their defense and provided them with vocal support. The gay/lesbian media is not nearly as biased and anti-male as you seem to think, at least here in the US. For every radfem misandrist dyke who says something disparaging against men, there are other lesbians who will shout her down. Just remember that the outspoken radicals tend to get disproportionate attention, because all media love controversy and sensationalism, so anyone who stirs the pot will get a lot of focus. That doesn't mean they speak for a majority, or enjoy widespread support, by any means.

Also, I think much of the "anti-male" outspokenness of many lesbians isn't really due to any true hatred of men, it's due to the constant questioning of their sexuality, primarily by men, who say that they're not REALLY gay, they've just had bad experiences with men, or they're lesbians due to a conscious radfem political choice, or they haven't found the right man, or they've been rejected too often by men (the tired old femme manquee argument), or that they're REALLY lesbians just to turn men on (like much of the faux "lesbian" porn out there that's really just a bunch of straight women playing with each other and that is marketed to straight men), or what have you. I'm sure hearing things like that over and over and over again gets awfully tiresome and irritating, and would cause plenty of dykes who'd otherwise not hold a grudge against men to lash out a bit. They'd have to be Zen monks not to! LOL

Finally, consider this: arguably the two most outspoken misandrist radfems of the last 40 years in the US, Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, were both STRAIGHT. For MacKinnon, it's very clear. People will argue more about Dworkin, because much of her rhetoric seemed to advocate lesbian separatism (perhaps she did see that as an ideal to strive for) but the evidence is clear that she herself was at least bi, as she lived for many, many years with a long-term male companion. And think about it, it only makes sense from a psychopathological perspective: two women who were so violently and radically opposed to heterosexual sex, so obsessed with rape, so obsessed with porn and how it "victimizes" women, so obsessed with the evil penis and all its symbolic value, who made careers out of dissecting, analyzing, and critiquing heterosexual intercourse--could only be women who had heterosexual intercourse, the male body, the penis, etc. on their minds all the time! These women were projecting and compensating for their own sexual fantasies and obsessions. Lesbians don't tend to think about penises and male bodies and heterosexual intercourse nearly that much--many of them don't think of those things at all.

So, again, your points are valid but please try not to exaggerate or overgeneralize. Take care and keep fighting the good fight :-)

BrusselsLout said...


The reason it's a complex issue we're dealing with is because of the huge discrepancy in the views amongst feminists themselves. Many don't hate men.

It's hard to make a particular charge against them because there will always be a group innocent of it. And they can use this as a tool to rubbish your argument.

As Heretic puts it well in one of his reports, it's the lesbians (and other man-haters) who are calling the shots. These are the most vociferous people within their movement.

Every woman has some gripe against men. But this is no different in nature to the fact that every man has some gripe against women. However, the dominant feminists (the real man-haters) will use their leadership skills to brainwash women with nothing more than the normal level of complaint against men. Even though this is no different or more serious that the complaints that men generally have against women, the problem is, men don't argue back as women have been. It just isn't sexy to do that.

Hence, the problem we have today: men are rapists, paedophiles, stalkers, idiots and below-average soldiers.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous here again. You make good points, and I agree with much of what you have to say. But I will repeat: Not all lesbians are misandrist. Not all misandrists are lesbian. Thus, to read on MRA blogs and sites quite frequently about the "man-hating lesbian feminists" gets on my nerves, to put it mildly. It's inaccurate, unfair, and misleading--it tarnishes all lesbians as man-haters when they're not, and it ignores the large number of man-hating feminists who are NOT lesbian. I don't understand why simply making such a common sense observation always raises so many hackles among so many MRAs, and why so many rush to defend those who make such unfair generalizations. But hey, for a bunch of angry straight men, it's SO EASY to just go after the dykes, I guess--right? Like shooting fish in a barrel...

Heretic said...

Anon, I take your point, but let's not labour it. Let us not forget that the lesbian section of the feminist movement took over NOW in 1971, and from then on, you couldn't be a 'real' feminist unless you were a lesbian. Don't forget that there is what is known as a 'political lesbian', which is a radical separatist who will have no dealings with men. As you say, a lot of these women are heterosexual, and in my experience when they do choose a partner it's usually an unreconstructed football jock. These are women who are of a certain mindset, chronically offended, hyper-sensitive, permanently angry. Sometimes it is little more than middle-class social posturing, politics as fashion accessory. The fact that they appropriate the term 'lesbian' for themselves is surely doing the lesbian community a disservice. Anyway, as long as innocent men are rotting in jail for sexual offences that never happened, I don't feel particularly inclined to watch my Ps and Qs in case someone gets upset. If you're a lesbian and you don't like the negative image that radical feminism is giving you, then do something about it. That's it. I've basically got nothing more to add on this issue.

Jim said...


Honey, I have used the term "twinks" since the seventies, but thanks for the snaps anyway.

The MM will take gays in when we show our usefulness. That simple. And it will be simple, because we:

1) Have a lot of experience in organizing around political iisues - expereince in the AIDS crisis and equality issues, although with much less success. We can thank our "allies" in the Women's Movement for that to an extent.

2) Know how to handle women when they fall back on shaming techniques. A gay may can pull the skin right off a breeder's face in public and leave her too surprised to cry. The straight guys just refuse to learn how. Most gay men are twice the bitch a woman could ever hope to be - more testosterone.

3) Have less engrained misogyny. Just as it is straight women like that phallophobic serial rape victim Andrea Dworkin, who positively hunted men to abuse her, this deep hatred of the other sex comes out of an equally deep fascination and need. That's the source of all the anger. Needing women is one cross we don't have to bear. In fact - personal story - a lot of my interest in the injustices men suffer at the hands of women and worse, their male goon squads, comes from having a straight son. As he entered his teen years and I began to realize the threat of false accusation and imprisonment he faced, I got angrier and angrier.

Final point - studies have shown that women want both the gentle, unthreatening kind of man, and also want the rough bad-ass kind. They simply want them for diffenrent functions, and at different times in their cycles. They want the rough guys for mating, for genetic diversity. Naturally. And then they want the gentle sort for child-rearing. The distinction they make is geenetic, and they make it by smell. One study took a bunch of women and their brothers, tracked this over period of months. The researchers took dirty undershirts from the men and presented them to the women where they were to say which shirts smelled good and which bad. During their fertile time they preferred the shirts of men who were least like them genticaly, and couldn't stand their brothers' (GOOD!). Then during the rest of their cycle they reversed. The explanation offered was that this dated back to a time before pair-bonding evolved in humans. There is plenty of anatomical and physiological evidence for a time when group sex was the human norm - sperm compettion in the form of spermicides in semen, and that wall-scraping flange on the glans to clear that last guy's deposit out of contention; that predates pai-bonding.

Heretic said...

Jim, I like you already.

Jim said...

"These are women who are of a certain mindset, chronically offended, hyper-sensitive, permanently angry. "

They learned in girlhood that this stuff works. They are simply bullies and the same skills work of bullies of either gender. The diffenrence is that men in power tend to acceptcomplaints from this kind of woman and to empower them. So here are these big, strong women saying basically "Wait till daddy gets home."

kyle said...

When I was still in school a few years ago (in the UK), couples weren't allowed to make out anywhere on school property, which is probably how it should be and is a common rule at most schools since nobody really wants to watch it no matter who is involved (except maybe straight guys watching hot lesbian girls). However gays could do it and get away with it because, I believe, that the teachers were too scared of being accused of homophobia.

If two guys were making out in the common room, people nearby (both male and female) would make passing comments about straight people being discriminated against. I believe situations like this are where some of the anti-gay sentiment in the men's movement stems from, since people view the gay couple themselves as the discriminators, not the school.

Anonymous is the gay guy and has the first hand experience, but he says that straight women tend to be more accepting of gay and lesbian rights. While I'm sure that 90% of the anti-gay insults come from straight men and that they're more likely to be physically disgusted by the idea of gay sex, the absolute worst and insipid stuff seems to me to come from women. Do gay guys ever hear the type of reasons that many women give for wanting a gay friend? They have a very limited, very stereotypical view of gay men and it seems like gay men are like pets to them. They hardly seem like the standard bearers of equality, tolerance and understanding to me.

I'm a straight guy in the UK, so humour me with this next bit. I think a problem in the US is the portrayal by the media of every gay as a flaming drama queen. Here in the UK, for every Graham Norton we have a Stephen Fry, a notorious gay party animal Royal of days past and a well known Conservative MP. But in the US, unless you know some gays, I think the media would lead you to believe that they're all the irritating effeminate type that would have no interest in the men's movement. (I don't think the pursuit for gay marriage in the US helps much either, why don't they just go for civil partnerships like here in the UK?)

Despite this, I think that the men's movement in the US will be the first to get gay men involved. In the UK it seems like everything in the gay community goes through Stonewall, which has done a really good job, but it'll be much harder to turn Stonewall in another direction until a critical mass is achieved amongst its members. Whereas in the US the gay community seems to be made up of a collection of smaller groups, which haven't been as successful as Stonewall, but will be much quicker to respond to new issues.

Of course, Stonewall won't stop individual gay men joining the movement, but as individuals they are just average soldiers like the rest of us. If an experienced gay group joins, then for the reasons that Jim listed and more, they will be like an SAS unit. Their political experience will score big hits and their boldness will spur everyone on.

I really doubt that we'll ever get rid of the homophobic people in the men's movement. I visit political blogs (centre-right/libertarian) totally unrelated to the men's movement and there's always someone from Little Green Footballs or wherever who comes over and lives up to every American stereotype and shouts things like "you stupid commie Euros are screwed, USA rules!" These idiots come to blogs talking about how to solve issues and tell us to just give up. It doesn't help us, it doesn't help the US and it's so short sighted it doesn't even help the idiot commenter. While at first these idiots can drive people away, you realise that the general response is to just ignore or ban them and that they have no influence, which is how the men's movement should deal with them too.

Jim, about the pheromones thing, apparently the pill reverses it! So to a woman on the pill, her brother will smell good when he shouldn't. Apparently it can have a serious effect (reduces the chances of conception by something like two thirds) when a woman wants to have a child, comes off the pill, and finds out that her husband is too genetically related to her and his sperm is destroyed by the acids in her vagina. Not that I want to ban the pill or anything ridiculous, but how much money is this costing taxpayers when the woman has to turn to professional help?