Friday, May 25, 2007

The Masculinity Racket

One of my favourite feminist rackets is the one about masculinity. Masculinity, so the story goes, is the root of all evil. Beatrix Campbell’s recent execrable piece in the Guardian is as good an example as any. The spate of black knife and gun crime in London, she claims, is caused by masculinity.

Why would anyone believe something so patently absurd?

The mythology of gender feminism runs something like this:

  • In ancient times, the world was a peace-loving society run by women, in which everyone worshipped goddesses. War, illness and suffering were unknown.
  • Several thousand years ago (no-one quite knows when), men - who are essentially violent and bad - seized political control of the world from women - who are essentially peace-loving and good - in some kind of violent political and military coup.
  • Since then, all over the world, men have been running society to suit themselves, and holding women in a state of abject submission.
  • The world they have created has been a disaster, full of misery and suffering.
  • They have even created a mental prison for themselves called ‘masculinity’, an evil ideology which forces them to be violent, callous and destructive. Which they already are anyway.
  • Masculinity is the root and origin of all other forms of political oppression, such as sexism, racism and homophobia (never mind misandry and heterophobia, they don’t count. Even my spell-checker doesn’t recognise them).
  • Its obverse, femininity, was an equally evil ideology designed to oppress women by making them weak.
  • Even though this situation obtained across the entire world for thousands of years, no-one noticed it until Western middle-class feminists first identified it sometime after 1965.
  • We should all be grateful to those clever feminists, because they have shown us that it is possible to end all human suffering once and for all, and to create a paradise on earth.
  • Only feminists can save the world, by saving men from their own evil and stupidity.
  • Men should step aside and give over all political power and authority to feminists, who understand how to use it wisely.
  • Men can attempt to redeem themselves by becoming more like feminists. They will never be as good as feminists, obviously, but by becoming less masculine, they can at least try to raise themselves above the level of the beast.

This is, more or less, the orthodox theology of the Religious Left.
So far, so nonsensical, I hear you say, but why does that constitute a racket?

Firstly, the whole story is specifically designed to sideline men, and to concentrate power and moral authority into the hands of women. “You’re essentially evil, you should step aside and let me do it. I’ve been systematically deprived of opportunity for…er… a very long time, and it’s all your fault, so it’s my turn now. You should give everything to me”. This is a racket.

Secondly, bear in mind that feminists are deeply committed to the policy of social constructionism, aka the standard social science model. Reference. This is the belief that nothing in human behavior is biologically determined; everything is a product of one’s social environment. So, everything is relative, except that women are essentially good and men are essentially bad. This is a racket.

Thirdly, look what happens when someone has the temerity to disagree. They are derided for not being sufficiently masculine, of all things. Look at what happened to Neil Lyndon. He criticised feminism and was accused of not being able to find a girlfriend and of having a small penis. Having urged men to reject masculine values, feminists then deride them for not being sufficiently masculine. This is a racket. However, it's a very old one. Manipulating men by taunting them about their masculine prowess is as old as human nature. It's a useful tool that feminists see no reason to give up. It is - ironically - also sexist. If male journalists told a feminist writer "You only wrote that book because you're frigid and you can't find a boyfriend", they would be accused of sexual harrassment. Again, we see the double standards which are built into the very fabric of feminist theory.

Fourthly, masculinity is perfectly good as long as women are doing it. When women cultivate and display 'masculine' characteristics such as aggression, ruthlessness, ambition, stoicism, feminists celebrate the fact, because it means that these women are strong. Masculinity is also the thing which makes you sexually attractive as a man, whether you are straight or gay. Women find masculinity deeply attractive, and find men who lack it unattractive.

Make no mistake. Feminists regard masculinity as a source of strength, and they are quite right in this. It is your greatest asset; that is why they want to persuade you to relinquish it. When feminists tell you that masculinity is evil, and that you should turn your back on it, you are being manipulated. Wake up to this fact. Cultivate masculinity, and take pleasure in being a man. It is a fool's errand in any case; asking men to relinquish masculinity is like asking a camel to relinquish its humps. Not everything in life is a cultural construct.

Gender feminism is a racket, pure and simple. It does not have to make sense because it relies on the emotional manipulation of the gullible in order to work. The intention is to undermine men by destroying their morale and their credibility, and to persuade them to voluntarily withdraw from the competition for jobs, influence, money, or whatever is on offer. It is naked opportunism from one minute to the next, designed to maximise advantages for feminists, and in order to work it relies on the assumption that we all have the memory-spans of gold-fish, and cannot put two and two together. It is an enormous political con-trick.


Anonymous said...

We have a female like that on our forum Here's one of her comments:

"i can dress, talk about, act, and do what ever i want.


So can he. he just hasnt learnt how to do it yet.

women aren't the problem. the problem is that men have not freed themselves from a ridiculously thin and rigid masculine role.

why should i restrict my freedoms just to accomodate his incompetence?"


Nick S said...

It is undoubtedly true that feminism relies entirely on emotional and psychological manipulation rather than rational argument to achieve its ends. Feminist arguments are so full of logical flaws, incosistencies, outright contradictions and hypocrisy that I sometimes wonder how feminism can even be seriously classed as a single body of thought.

A lot of feminist policies have had the effect of simply increasing the traditional burden on men as providers (such as tougher enforcement of child support, divorce settlements favouring women, more state redistribution of income to women), while simultaneously making it harder to fulfill that role (through affirmative action, more educational opportunities for women or girls etc.). For feminists to then claim that they have been trying to liberate men from the limitations of traditional masculinity is a cynical sleight-of-hand.

Most emotional rackets carry the implicit promise that you will be alright so long as you go along with the racket and that you will suffer a worse fate if you defy the racket. The key to busting rackets is for people to realise that generally this is not true, and that in the longer term you are likely to suffer more by going along with the racket than defying it.

The other point about emotional rackets is that they often end up backfiring on the racketeers. It is likely that as more evidence mounts of the damage done by feminism and injustices committed against men, that men will turn the tables by then using this to shame women.

Davout said...

"Not everything in life is a cultural construct."

I have yet to see anyone show that culture exists independently of nature. Based on evolutionary biology, I would argue that culture is universally a subset of nature and therefore, what appear to be cultural constructs are really adaptations within biological constructs.

This is why there never was a single matriarchal society, nor will there ever be one.

Anonymous said...

I definitely agree that men should reject the feminist (and increasingly mainstream) idea that somehow all the good things about men come from a society biased in favor of them while all the bad things about them come from their biology. And I think if you reject that and look at the world clearly than theres a lot to be proud of a about being a man. I definitely like men more than women.

But, at the same, time men do need to change. They probably don't need to learn to cry or anything, but they definitely need to stop putting women above themselves, they need to put more emphasis on education, put more of an emphasis on their health, etc.

Looking at that list there are certain things that an individual man has no control over (i.e that a school is biased in favor of girls, or that there are simply more medical treatments available for women owing to unfair funding of research) but there is a lot of room for a man to improve himself without changing society. And I think the men's movement has to recognize that.

Anonymous said...

I have said it ones and i will say it again,"I don't mind living in a world filled with men but hell, I would jump off the cliff in a world filled with women. Not only will I jump, but I will shackle 2 ton metal balls around my feet to make sure the drop is fast and destructive."

I personally love men and I am a man, it doesn't mean I am going to hump one, but I love men for everything they have, from their beautiful body and mind and everything they have done. "PENIS POWER BABY! IN YOUR FACE FEMINIST!"

However, men's most worst enemy and weakness are women. If they liberate themselves from them, if they break themselves from them, if they concentrate only in helping themselves, helping poor boys that have no male role model against a wave of anti-male air, etc then you will find feminist will become powerless and you will find WOMEN WILL BECOME the ultimate redundant.

Nick S said...

An excellent article debunking feminism was written some time back (I think around 2001) by Canadian mens rights writer David Shackleton, entitled Feminism Exposed: Our Blindness to Feminine Evil. I would strongly recommend anyone here find a copy of this and read it, as it gives a good overview of why feminism has risen during the past few decades and how it relies on psychological manipulation and abuse of female power.

Shackleton makes a number of good points. He points out the eery similarities between the tactics that mothers typically use to exercise control within families and the tactics feminists use to get their way in matters of public policy.

Shackleton also makes the excellent point that the defining features of all totalitarian evil movements (like fascism, Nazism, Stalinism) is that they all seek unearned wealth and privilege, they all show contempt for human life and freedom, and they all do this from a manufactured basis of moral superiority and entitlement. He points out that feminism has all these defining features. It seeks unearned wealth and power through various legal and political means, it shows contempt for human life (by favouring unrestricted abortion, excusing female killers etc.).

Nick S said...

Clear proof that feminism is a racket is in the way they apply incosistent principles to different situations. If women are less successful than men in some areas of society (being underrepresented in higher paying jobs, politics, boardroom positions etc.), the feminist position is that the state must intervene to guarantee equal outcomes between men and women.

Yet if women are better off in other areas of society (like life expectancy, access to health care, suicide, homelessness, workplace deaths, education, criminal sentencing, divorce and other legal settlements, inherited wealth, reproductive rights versus responsibilities etc.) feminists never accept that there should be affirmative action for men or measures to help generate equality of outcome. In many cases feminists support measures to make these inequalities even greater.

The feminist position is that there must be state-enforced equality-of-outcome, but only insofar as this benefits women but never if it means women giving up any advantages. The feminist slogan might as well be 'all property (or private gain) is theft, except if it's women's property'. This is an obvious racket.

Heretic said...

Nick S, I found a copy of the essay you refer to at I have to say it's not really my thing. Nevertheless, as you say: "He points out the eery similarities between the tactics that mothers typically use to exercise control within families and the tactics feminists use to get their way in matters of public policy." Quite right.
As Thomas Ellis says in 'The Rantings of a single male' (, women expect their relationship privileges to be carried over into the workplace. Women do operate on this social/emotional level, and they, for some reason, just don't expect to be contradicted. It's a vast subject. As you say, inequality which benefits women is perfectly acceptable. As long as this remains so, feminism has no intellectual or moral case whatsoever.